Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 26-04-2005, 04:11 AM
Sprang
 
Posts: n/a
Default Interesting site answers meat-eater questions

I wish I had known about this site when I first went vegan!

http://www.lessmeat.com/

Enjoy!

  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 26-04-2005, 04:23 AM
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Sprang" wrote in message
...
I wish I had known about this site when I first went vegan!

http://www.lessmeat.com/

Enjoy!

=================
Why? Your diet can and does kill many more animals than some
diets that include meat. So what's the point of a simple rule
for simple minds?



  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 26-04-2005, 04:31 AM
Sprang
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article k.net,
"rick" wrote:

Why? Your diet can and does kill many more animals than some
diets that include meat. So what's the point of a simple rule
for simple minds?


What's the point of trolling a vegetarian newsgroup if you're not a
vegetarian? Do you visit a different group every day or something?

And who said anything about a simple rule/ I said it was a website. And the
fact that the website is called LessMeat.com implies that it is about
eating less meat, not applying some simple rule you posit.

I suppose a complex rule would suit you better?

Do you eat a low-death, all-meat diet? If so, why?
  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 26-04-2005, 07:26 AM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Sprang" wrote
"rick" wrote:


Why? Your diet can and does kill many more animals than some
diets that include meat. So what's the point of a simple rule
for simple minds?


What's the point of trolling a vegetarian newsgroup if you're not a
vegetarian? Do you visit a different group every day or something?


He's posting from an ethics forum. Do you always call people names when they
challenge your position?

And who said anything about a simple rule/ I said it was a website. And
the
fact that the website is called LessMeat.com implies that it is about
eating less meat, not applying some simple rule you posit.


That site clearly presents the fallacy that "less meat" = "less animal
death",
among others. The site is essentially a series of strawmen.

I suppose a complex rule would suit you better?


Life *is* complex, so a complex response makes sense.

Do you eat a low-death, all-meat diet? If so, why?


He said that, contrary to what that site implies, "less meat" does not
necessarily mean less death, I thought he made that very clear. Why don't
you respond directly to his point?


  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 26-04-2005, 11:30 AM
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Sprang" wrote in message
...
In article
k.net,
"rick" wrote:

Why? Your diet can and does kill many more animals than some
diets that include meat. So what's the point of a simple rule
for simple minds?


What's the point of trolling

=====================
Like most veg*ns here, you have no idea of the meaning of the
word, do you? I asked perectly reasonable questions. Ones
that, like your response, never seem to get answered.



a vegetarian newsgroup if you're not a
vegetarian? Do you visit a different group every day or
something?

==================
Actually this is about ethics. Obviously something that veg*ns
are sorely lacking, eh killer?



And who said anything about a simple rule/ I said it was a
website.

===========================
And the site relies on 'meat bad', 'veggies good' without any
indication of the massive amount of animal death and
environmental destruction that occurs for monoculture crop
production. Very valid points when veg*ns begin making their
delusional claims about meat.


And the
fact that the website is called LessMeat.com implies that it is
about
eating less meat, not applying some simple rule you posit.

======================
No, try reading it. It's about 'not' eating meat ultimately.



I suppose a complex rule would suit you better?

=======================




Do you eat a low-death, all-meat diet? If so, why?

=================
LOL Unlike what veg*ns like to pretend, we are not carnivours.
I eat meat. Unlike your propaganda website, meat is necessary
for people. There are no plant sources for b12.




  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 26-04-2005, 10:40 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default

tell us more about your "grass fed beef" that you claim you buy
(including the udder) direct from the farmer.

  #7 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 26-04-2005, 10:43 PM
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote in message
ups.com...
tell us more about your "grass fed beef" that you claim you buy
(including the udder) direct from the farmer.
=====================

Tell us why you are a dishonest twit that can't retain posts you
reply too, killer.





  #8 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 26-04-2005, 11:34 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 23:26:28 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


"Sprang" wrote
"rick" wrote:


Why? Your diet can and does kill many more animals than some
diets that include meat. So what's the point of a simple rule
for simple minds?


What's the point of trolling a vegetarian newsgroup if you're not a
vegetarian? Do you visit a different group every day or something?


He's posting from an ethics forum. Do you always call people names when they
challenge your position?

And who said anything about a simple rule/ I said it was a website. And
the
fact that the website is called LessMeat.com implies that it is about
eating less meat, not applying some simple rule you posit.


That site clearly presents the fallacy that "less meat" = "less animal
death",
among others. The site is essentially a series of strawmen.


Do you have exact statistic about how many animals die from
one acre's worth of,say, brown rice?

First, we would need to know how many pounds of brown rice per acre,
then figure out how many animal deaths per pound of brown rice.
Then we would need to figure out how many animal deaths there
are per pound of meat, depending on which kind of animal it is.
What I mean is, what is the average amout of beef, pork, chicken
that meat eaters eat. Obvioulsy, chicken eaters cause more
animal deaths than beef eaters, but most people eat a combination.

without those numbers, it's all fluff.


tracy


  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 26-04-2005, 11:50 PM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 23:26:28 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


"Sprang" wrote
"rick" wrote:


Why? Your diet can and does kill many more animals than some
diets that include meat. So what's the point of a simple rule
for simple minds?

What's the point of trolling a vegetarian newsgroup if you're not a
vegetarian? Do you visit a different group every day or something?


He's posting from an ethics forum. Do you always call people names when
they
challenge your position?

And who said anything about a simple rule/ I said it was a website. And
the
fact that the website is called LessMeat.com implies that it is about
eating less meat, not applying some simple rule you posit.


That site clearly presents the fallacy that "less meat" = "less animal
death",
among others. The site is essentially a series of strawmen.


Do you have exact statistic about how many animals die from
one acre's worth of,say, brown rice?


A demand for exact statistics is an attempt at disinformation.

First, we would need to know how many pounds of brown rice per acre,
then figure out how many animal deaths per pound of brown rice.


No you don't, it is sufficient to know if such deaths occur at all, and
if they occur in small or large numbers. This is not a counting game.
Here are a couple of links where the topic is discussed.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...ba873733af8008

http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm

Then we would need to figure out how many animal deaths there
are per pound of meat, depending on which kind of animal it is.


Again estimates are adequate to form a rational conclusion. What is
irrational, and disingenuous, is to refuse to consider collateral deaths
based on an absence of exact numbers.

What I mean is, what is the average amout of beef, pork, chicken
that meat eaters eat.


Ethics is never based on averages, it's based on individual actions.
A person who substitutes X amount of fresh salmon in place of
Y amount of commercially produced rice or soya-based substitute is
probably enhancing their health and causing fewer animal deaths.

Obvioulsy, chicken eaters cause more
animal deaths than beef eaters, but most people eat a combination.


It's equally obvious to me that regular consumers of free-range or hunted
meat, or freshly caught fish cause fewer animal deaths than most urban
vegans.

without those numbers, it's all fluff.


The idea of collateral deaths in agriculture is not fluff, it's a
dagger in the heart of radical veganism.


  #10 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-04-2005, 12:26 AM
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote in message
...
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 23:26:28 -0700, "Dutch"
wrote:


"Sprang" wrote
"rick" wrote:


Why? Your diet can and does kill many more animals than
some
diets that include meat. So what's the point of a simple
rule
for simple minds?

What's the point of trolling a vegetarian newsgroup if you're
not a
vegetarian? Do you visit a different group every day or
something?


He's posting from an ethics forum. Do you always call people
names when they
challenge your position?

And who said anything about a simple rule/ I said it was a
website. And
the
fact that the website is called LessMeat.com implies that it
is about
eating less meat, not applying some simple rule you posit.


That site clearly presents the fallacy that "less meat" = "less
animal
death",
among others. The site is essentially a series of strawmen.


Do you have exact statistic about how many animals die from
one acre's worth of,say, brown rice?

First, we would need to know how many pounds of brown rice per
acre,
then figure out how many animal deaths per pound of brown rice.
Then we would need to figure out how many animal deaths there
are per pound of meat, depending on which kind of animal it is.
What I mean is, what is the average amout of beef, pork,
chicken
that meat eaters eat. Obvioulsy, chicken eaters cause more
animal deaths than beef eaters, but most people eat a
combination.

without those numbers, it's all fluff.

=====================
LOL Exactly. It makes vegan claims bogus, since they don't
"know" that their diet is better, doesn't it?




tracy






  #11 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-04-2005, 01:58 AM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 23:26:28 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


"Sprang" wrote
"rick" wrote:


Why? Your diet can and does kill many more animals than some
diets that include meat. So what's the point of a simple rule
for simple minds?

What's the point of trolling a vegetarian newsgroup if you're not

a
vegetarian? Do you visit a different group every day or something?


He's posting from an ethics forum. Do you always call people names

when they
challenge your position?

And who said anything about a simple rule/ I said it was a

website. And
the
fact that the website is called LessMeat.com implies that it is

about
eating less meat, not applying some simple rule you posit.


That site clearly presents the fallacy that "less meat" = "less

animal
death",
among others. The site is essentially a series of strawmen.


Do you have exact statistic about how many animals die from
one acre's worth of,say, brown rice?


No. It's known to be non-zero, however.


First, we would need to know how many pounds of brown rice per acre,
then figure out how many animal deaths per pound of brown rice.
Then we would need to figure out how many animal deaths there
are per pound of meat, depending on which kind of animal it is.
What I mean is, what is the average amout of beef, pork, chicken
that meat eaters eat. Obvioulsy, chicken eaters cause more
animal deaths than beef eaters, but most people eat a combination.

without those numbers, it's all fluff.


Wrong. This is NOT a counting game.

If you believe, as "vegans" all believe, that it is wrong to kill
animals except in self defense (your so-called "need" for food to
survive does not count as self defense), then if the production of your
food causes *any* animal death, you are living in violation of your
claimed beliefs.

"vegans" may NOT legitimately claim to be "more moral" than meat eaters
even if they DO cause less animal death, for two basic reasons:

1. Your claimed belief that it is wrong to kill animals
means that you must cause NO animal deaths, or at least
buy only from producers who take the same strenuous and
costly measures to try to prevent them as are taken to
try to prevent human death in industry. But we know
you don't come anywhere close to that standard.

2. Morality is NEVER established by comparison to others.
You either adhere to certain moral standards, or you
don't.

This latter point is illustrated by the following: suppose your diet
causes 50 animal deaths per week, and some meat eater against whom you
are smugly contrasting your count causes 100. So, you conclude that
you are "more moral" than she because you cause 1/2 the deaths. Now,
suppose the technologies behind both your diets change for the worse
(in terms of animal death), such that his diet now causes 300 animal
deaths per week, while yours causes 100. You now cause only 1/3 as
many deaths now as your counterpart, whereas before you caused 1/2.
Looks good, eh? But, is this an improvement, given that the number you
cause has DOUBLED compared to what you used to cause?

Or how about this old favorite? Suppose your brother sodomizes the
little boy next door with a broomstick a dozen times a week, while you
only do it to the boy two or three times a week? Are you "more moral"
than your brother for doing somewhat less, but still a non-zero amount,
of a horrific crime?

Judging one's own actions to be moral based on a comparison with what
others do is not considered valid and sound ethics in any philosophical
system.

  #12 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-04-2005, 02:52 AM
Sprang
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , "Dutch"
wrote:

It's equally obvious to me that regular consumers of free-range or hunted
meat, or freshly caught fish cause fewer animal deaths than most urban
vegans.


So that's the point of that post? Well, that is simply a straw man.
Vegetarianism is generally a secondary ethical choice, not a primary one.
Comparing a urban vegan to a rancher is not realistic.

If one's sole moral priority were to kill fewer things, one would
immediately commit suicide. Barring that, one would eat a vegetarian diet
of carefully harvested plant materials. But one certainly wouldn't kill
some animals to prevent killing others; not if one could just pick one's
own fruit and vegetables and such.

Who says people have to be completely absolutist about every thing they
think might do some good? Many pacifists agree with American involvement in
WWII. The name of the site, lessmeat.com, kinda indicates that it is not
about absolutism, no?

Vegetarianism is simply a non-action, not a basic ethical principle of life.

And on another note, if everyone were to stop eating meat, fewer animals
would die (including all the animals killed feeding those meat animals). If
all six billion of us were to eat free-range or hunted meat, there would be
no wild game, all the ranges would be irreversibly compromised, and all
life on Earth would probably be in trouble. Which of those is a better
lifestyle to advocate to others?
  #13 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-04-2005, 02:54 AM
Sprang
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Oh, and thanks for changing the title of my post. Very mature.
  #14 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-04-2005, 03:04 AM
Sprang
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article .net,
"rick" wrote:

What's the point of trolling

=====================
Like most veg*ns here, you have no idea of the meaning of the
word, do you?


I used the right word.

Your post was not responsive but rather an attempt at provocation. That was
my first post in these newsgroups, and your reply appears to be one that
you could have posted to, well, just about ANY post in either of the
newsgroups this thread is in. So what is that?

Do you reply to every single vegetarian-sounding post in every newsgroup,
repeating the same thing? Why not join some women's forums, rick, and
lecture on the benefits of tampons over pads?

I just don't get what could motivate such action. Particularly when you
make such extreme assumptions about people.

Troll.
  #15 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-04-2005, 03:13 AM
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Sprang" wrote in message
...
In article , "Dutch"

wrote:

It's equally obvious to me that regular consumers of
free-range or hunted
meat, or freshly caught fish cause fewer animal deaths than
most urban
vegans.


So that's the point of that post? Well, that is simply a straw
man.
Vegetarianism is generally a secondary ethical choice, not a
primary one.
Comparing a urban vegan to a rancher is not realistic.

==================
Veganism is precisely an ethical choice. Veganism is NOT a diet.
As promoted here by usenet vegans it is only about following a
simple rule for simple minds, eat no meat. Their delusions are
that only by not eating meat that they cause no, fewer, less
deaths of animals.



If one's sole moral priority were to kill fewer things, one
would
immediately commit suicide. Barring that, one would eat a
vegetarian diet
of carefully harvested plant materials. But one certainly
wouldn't kill
some animals to prevent killing others; not if one could just
pick one's
own fruit and vegetables and such.

========================
Hardlt practical though, is it? If one wanted to contribute to
less death, and still remain the consumer oriented person they
are now, then the real choice is to choose meats that cause less
death and suffering. Growing any significant amounts o your own
food would seriously cut into your consumerism.



Who says people have to be completely absolutist about every
thing they
think might do some good? Many pacifists agree with American
involvement in
WWII. The name of the site, lessmeat.com, kinda indicates that
it is not
about absolutism, no?

Vegetarianism is simply a non-action, not a basic ethical
principle of life.

=================
But veganism is. Notice the words Dutch used, vegans... That
is ALL about an ethical way of life. Diet being no more, and no
less important than any othe aspect of you life.



And on another note, if everyone were to stop eating meat,
fewer animals
would die (including all the animals killed feeding those meat
animals).

================
You have proof of that of course...


If
all six billion of us were to eat free-range or hunted meat,
there would be
no wild game, all the ranges would be irreversibly compromised,
and all
life on Earth would probably be in trouble.

======================
LOL As opposed to the environmental damage from mono-culture
crop production?


Which of those is a better
lifestyle to advocate to others?

=====================
Eating the proper meats. You realize that all beef cows in the
US are already pasture fed for most of their lives, and even then
not all of them go to feedlots don't you? Besides that, plants
do not provide the b12 that you need.





Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
(2007-07-11) Survey on the RFC site: Are you a Picky Eater? Chatty Cathy General Cooking 13 12-07-2007 05:10 PM
After the Deletion of Google Answers U Got Questions Fills the Gap Answering and Asking the Tough Questions Linux Flash Drives General Cooking 0 07-05-2007 06:38 PM
rec.food.sourdough FAQ Questions and Answers Darrell Greenwood Sourdough 0 16-10-2004 05:28 AM
rec.food.sourdough FAQ Questions and Answers Darrell Greenwood Sourdough 0 28-09-2004 05:17 AM
Questions and answers C. James Strutz Vegan 84 23-02-2004 11:09 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:06 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017