Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
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 | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
|||
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > nk.net... > >>Scented Nectar wrote: >> >> >>>"Dutch" > wrote in message ... >>> >>> >>>>"Scented Nectar" > wrote >>>> >>>> >>>>><dh@.> wrote >>>> >>>>>There are feral pigs, chickens, >>>>>turkeys, etc. I don't know about >>>>>sheep and goats. >>>> >>>>There are plenty of them. >>> >>> >>>Then no need to intervene to >>>prevent extinction. >>> >>> >>> >>>>>As for their >>>>>relatives made captive by us, >>>>>there is no need for us to >>>>>continue to do that. >>>> >>>>There is a desire to continue, that's what matters, >>>>need is not the issue. We don't "need" to cultivate >>>>rice either, but we have the desire to so, and it's >>>>quite lethal to many animals. Raising animals for >>>>food, provided decent care is provided, is not more >>>>or less deadly, or unethical, than any other form of >>>>agriculture. The notion that it is so is a "vegan" myth. >>> >>> >>>As shown in this newsgroup >>>before, the numbers will still >>>favour the vegan. >> >>The relative numbers are irrelevant, because it isn't a >>counting game. You do not establish your virtue by >>doing less of some bad thing than someone else. You >>must do NONE of it. Sodomizing the child next door >>only 1/3 as often as your sister does not make you >>virtuous. > > > Whoa. There you go again It's a good example. It makes very clear that morality is NEVER based on a comparison with other. If you are sodomizing the child less, even much less, than your criminal sister, you're still sodomizing the child. You cannot claim to be virtuous. >>As long as the "vegan's" CD numbers are positive, she >>is a lying hypocrite. > > > If the number of cds are lower than > it would have been on her previous > meat eating diet, than she can feel > good about the harm reduction. No, because she has NO valid basis for stopping at some still-positive number. > By the way, don't snip the paragraphs > that you respond to in this. I am not > in the mood to converse that way and > I'll probably just ignore you. You always ignore logic. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Scented Nectar" > wrote > "Dutch" > wrote >> > As shown in this newsgroup >> > before, the numbers will still >> > favour the vegan. >> >> Which vegan vs which non-vegan? >> Your statement is a fallacy of >> generalization. > > Do you want their names and > menus? No, just a general description of diets, the foods contained in those diets, and their sources. Simply categorizing diets by the absence of or presence of *any amount* of meat does not do anything. The very idea is absurd. As has been repeated here many times, that is a simplistic idea that tends to appeal to simple-minded people. > Statistics are averages > not generalizations. The impact of vegan diets varies wildly as do the impact of non-vegan diets, so to say that "the numbers will favour the vegan" is a generalization. In other words it's only true "generally", given a specific set of assumptions, not categorically, as you state it. In order to understand this objection simply imagine two vegans, A) has a diet heavily dependent on imported and mass-produced foods, B) grows some of his own, buys from a local co-op, and trades with neighbours. Clearly B) has a much, much better diet than A) with respect to harm to animals. Now B) decides to catch and eat one salmon a month. According to your categorical statement, the diet of A) is now superior to B) who is now non-vegan, even though, B) probably improved his diet wrt cds, and health, by substituting that monthly catch for some of the cultivated product. The sad thing is, there is no rational reason to hang on to this fallacy, even intelligent vegans don't do so, although they are few and far between. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Dutch" > wrote in message
... > > "Scented Nectar" > wrote > > "Dutch" > wrote > > >> > As shown in this newsgroup > >> > before, the numbers will still > >> > favour the vegan. > >> > >> Which vegan vs which non-vegan? > >> Your statement is a fallacy of > >> generalization. > > > > Do you want their names and > > menus? > > No, just a general description of diets, the > foods contained in those diets, and their > sources. Simply categorizing diets by the > absence of or presence of *any amount* > of meat does not do anything. The very > idea is absurd. As has been repeated here > many times, that is a simplistic idea that > tends to appeal to simple-minded people. You know that the overall numbers favour the vegan. > > Statistics are averages > > not generalizations. > > The impact of vegan diets varies wildly as do > the impact of non-vegan diets, so to say that > "the numbers will favour the vegan" is a > generalization. In other words it's only true > "generally", given a specific set of assumptions, > not categorically, as you state it. > > In order to understand this objection simply > imagine two vegans, A) has a diet heavily > dependent on imported and mass-produced > foods, B) grows some of his own, buys from > a local co-op, and trades with neighbours. > Clearly B) has a much, much better diet than No, clearly B does not. Growing his own does not ensure less harm, nor do trading and co-ops unless specifically altered to that purpose. > A) with respect to harm to animals. Now > B) decides to catch and eat one salmon a month. > According to your categorical statement, the > diet of A) is now superior to B) who is now > non-vegan, even though, B) probably improved > his diet wrt cds, and health, by substituting that > monthly catch for some of the cultivated product. Well if you believe the above, go ahead and eat all the dead body flesh you want. I will not. > The sad thing is, there is no rational reason to > hang on to this fallacy, even intelligent vegans > don't do so, although they are few and far between. What's with the insult? Intelligent vegans are few? You are just here to argue. You have no interest in food or nutrition or cds. You're just here to be a shit disturber by pushing meat. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|||
|
|||
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message > ... > >>"Scented Nectar" > wrote >> >>>"Dutch" > wrote >> >>>>>As shown in this newsgroup >>>>>before, the numbers will still >>>>>favour the vegan. >>>> >>>>Which vegan vs which non-vegan? >>>>Your statement is a fallacy of >>>>generalization. >>> >>>Do you want their names and >>>menus? >> >>No, just a general description of diets, the >>foods contained in those diets, and their >>sources. Simply categorizing diets by the >>absence of or presence of *any amount* >>of meat does not do anything. The very >>idea is absurd. As has been repeated here >>many times, that is a simplistic idea that >>tends to appeal to simple-minded people. > > > You know that the overall numbers > favour the vegan. The "overall numbers" are meaningless, because virtue is not a counting game. You are not virtuous for doing less of something you believe to be wrong than what someone else is doing. You must not do the wrong thing, period. >>>Statistics are averages >>>not generalizations. >> >>The impact of vegan diets varies wildly as do >>the impact of non-vegan diets, so to say that >>"the numbers will favour the vegan" is a >>generalization. In other words it's only true >>"generally", given a specific set of assumptions, >>not categorically, as you state it. >> >>In order to understand this objection simply >>imagine two vegans, A) has a diet heavily >>dependent on imported and mass-produced >>foods, B) grows some of his own, buys from >>a local co-op, and trades with neighbours. >>Clearly B) has a much, much better diet than > > > No, clearly B does not. Growing > his own does not ensure less > harm, nor do trading and co-ops > unless specifically altered to that > purpose. Yes, IF having a smaller (but not zero) ecological footprint is the measure of virtue, then B CLEARLY is doing better than A. But this only applies for things like pollution and other ecological measures. These are things that are not intrinsically wrong, but are undesirable. That means that doing less of them IS a measure of virtue. For example, it isn't morally wrong to put waste in a landfill; we recognize that humans generate waste, and we have to do something with it. It is bad, in utilitarian terms, to fill up landfills "too" fast. Therefore, someone who consciously tries to reduce the amount of trash he generates is doing good, even if he doesn't reduce it to zero. >>A) with respect to harm to animals. Now >>B) decides to catch and eat one salmon a month. >>According to your categorical statement, the >>diet of A) is now superior to B) who is now >>non-vegan, even though, B) probably improved >>his diet wrt cds, and health, by substituting that >>monthly catch for some of the cultivated product. > > > Well if you believe the above, > go ahead and eat all the dead > body flesh you want. I will not. You won't, but it isn't for either health or morality reasons. It is because of aesthetics, your stuck-in-teen-years aesthetics. At age 16 you decided meat was icky - a big "eeewwwwwwww!" factor - and you decided to stop eating it, because it was "gross". Your aesthetics hasn't evolved beyond that. It was and is immature. >>The sad thing is, there is no rational reason to >>hang on to this fallacy, even intelligent vegans >>don't do so, although they are few and far between. > > > What's with the insult? Intelligent > vegans are few? Yes. As "veganism" is predicated on illogic and faulty ethics, anyone who sticks with it even after the flaws are elaborated must be unintelligent: unable to learn. |
|
|||
|
|||
On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 13:37:12 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > wrote:
><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 00:41:49 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: >> >> ><dh@.> wrote in message .. . >> >> >> The for-food animals would be extinct. >> > >> >No. There are feral versions of >> >every food animal I can think of. >> >> It doesn't matter if there are, since they are not for-food >> animals which is what I was referring to. > >There are feral pigs, chickens, >turkeys, etc. I don't know about >sheep and goats. As for their >relatives made captive by us, >there is no need for us to >continue to do that. Then unlike what you pretend, you really are in favor of the extinction of for-food animals, but are quite amusingly not confident enough with the idea to admit it. >We don't >owe it to any future unborn >animals. > >> >> · The meat industry includes habitats in which a small >> >> variety of animals are raised. The animals in those >> >> habitats, as those in any other, are completely dependant >> >> on them to not only sustain their lives, but they also >> >> depend on them to provide the pairing of sperm and egg >> >> that begin their particular existence. Those animals will >> >> only live if people continue to raise them for food. >> > >> >As long as there is no threat of >> >endangerment or extiction, the >> >future unborn don't matter. >> >> The extinction you keep going on about doesn't have >> anything to do with whether or not what we're doing is >> cruel to the animals, and that's what we're supposed to >> be discussing. The extinction thing you have doesn't matter >> any more than what your favorite color is, so let's just quit >> with that. It doesn't matter if animals are prevented unless >> someone would rather see them provided with decent lives >> instead. If they do live, that's what matters. > >The extinction factor is important. >If there were no wild ones, and >captive ones only, then I would say >keep them (but in good conditions >of course) so they don't go extinct. Letting them go extinct is in no way cruel to them, and therefore of no consideration imo. >Otherwise, there's no need to >keep raising them. > >> >If it >> >did, then every period I've had >> >is a death of a future person, and >> >every egg is a death of a future >> >chick. >> > >> >> Animals that are born to other groups--such as wild >> >> animals, pets, performing animals, etc.--are completely >> >> different groups of animals. Regardless of how many or few >> >> animals are born to these other groups, the billions of animals >> >> which are raised for food will always be dependant on consumers >> >> for their existence. · >> > >> >The numbers of unborn don't matter. >> >> The ones that are born do matter. Not to you. Not to Goo. >> But they matter to the animals, and that's what I consider. > >But you want that cycle to perpetuate, >regardless of the conditions. That's a lie. I'm really surpised that you resorted to that. Oh well, you sure did. Now, as always, I'm left to wonder why... [...] dh wrote: >> it still always comes down >> to the same thing for wildlife as well as domestic animals, and >> you, and me...quality of life is what determines whether it has >> a positive or negative value. To me decent lives have a >> positive value. To you I guess that's not always true, and >> maybe it's not, but I still feel that it does. So I feel just as good >> about seeing livestock and wildlife in grazing areas as I do >> about seeing fields of crops, and often I feel better about it. >> I feel just as good thinking about a bunch of dairy cows in a >> warm barn as I do about deer starving and freezing to death >> someplace...etc...etc...etc... |
|
|||
|
|||
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
. net... > Scented Nectar wrote: > > > "Dutch" > wrote in message > > ... > > > >>"Scented Nectar" > wrote > >> > >>>"Dutch" > wrote > >> > >>>>>As shown in this newsgroup > >>>>>before, the numbers will still > >>>>>favour the vegan. > >>>> > >>>>Which vegan vs which non-vegan? > >>>>Your statement is a fallacy of > >>>>generalization. > >>> > >>>Do you want their names and > >>>menus? > >> > >>No, just a general description of diets, the > >>foods contained in those diets, and their > >>sources. Simply categorizing diets by the > >>absence of or presence of *any amount* > >>of meat does not do anything. The very > >>idea is absurd. As has been repeated here > >>many times, that is a simplistic idea that > >>tends to appeal to simple-minded people. > > > > > > You know that the overall numbers > > favour the vegan. > > The "overall numbers" are meaningless, because virtue > is not a counting game. You are not virtuous for doing > less of something you believe to be wrong than what > someone else is doing. You must not do the wrong > thing, period. If it's not possible to completely eliminate the bad thing, then the lesser bad thing is better morally than more of the bad thing. > >>>Statistics are averages > >>>not generalizations. > >> > >>The impact of vegan diets varies wildly as do > >>the impact of non-vegan diets, so to say that > >>"the numbers will favour the vegan" is a > >>generalization. In other words it's only true > >>"generally", given a specific set of assumptions, > >>not categorically, as you state it. > >> > >>In order to understand this objection simply > >>imagine two vegans, A) has a diet heavily > >>dependent on imported and mass-produced > >>foods, B) grows some of his own, buys from > >>a local co-op, and trades with neighbours. > >>Clearly B) has a much, much better diet than > > > > > > No, clearly B does not. Growing > > his own does not ensure less > > harm, nor do trading and co-ops > > unless specifically altered to that > > purpose. > > Yes, IF having a smaller (but not zero) ecological > footprint is the measure of virtue, then B CLEARLY is > doing better than A. You've not proven that B has the better footprint. > But this only applies for things like pollution and > other ecological measures. These are things that are > not intrinsically wrong, but are undesirable. That > means that doing less of them IS a measure of virtue. > For example, it isn't morally wrong to put waste in a > landfill; we recognize that humans generate waste, and > we have to do something with it. It is bad, in > utilitarian terms, to fill up landfills "too" fast. > Therefore, someone who consciously tries to reduce the > amount of trash he generates is doing good, even if he > doesn't reduce it to zero. Then why can't you see other 'bad' things the same way? Why is it ok and even good to pollute less (but not zero), but it's not ok to eat foods with less cds (but not zero)? > >>A) with respect to harm to animals. Now > >>B) decides to catch and eat one salmon a month. > >>According to your categorical statement, the > >>diet of A) is now superior to B) who is now > >>non-vegan, even though, B) probably improved > >>his diet wrt cds, and health, by substituting that > >>monthly catch for some of the cultivated product. > > > > > > Well if you believe the above, > > go ahead and eat all the dead > > body flesh you want. I will not. > > You won't, but it isn't for either health or morality > reasons. It is because of aesthetics, your > stuck-in-teen-years aesthetics. At age 16 you decided > meat was icky - a big "eeewwwwwwww!" factor - and you > decided to stop eating it, because it was "gross". > Your aesthetics hasn't evolved beyond that. It was and > is immature. You got my age wrong. Also you know full well, or should anyway, that for me, it's a mix of health, aesthetics, and morality for me. > >>The sad thing is, there is no rational reason to > >>hang on to this fallacy, even intelligent vegans > >>don't do so, although they are few and far between. > > > > > > What's with the insult? Intelligent > > vegans are few? > > Yes. As "veganism" is predicated on illogic and faulty > ethics, anyone who sticks with it even after the flaws > are elaborated must be unintelligent: unable to learn. There's no illogic or faulty ethics. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|||
|
|||
<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sat, 16 Jul 2005 13:37:12 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > wrote: > > ><dh@.> wrote in message ... > >> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 00:41:49 -0400, "Scented Nectar" > > wrote: > >> > >> ><dh@.> wrote in message > .. . > >> > >> >> The for-food animals would be extinct. > >> > > >> >No. There are feral versions of > >> >every food animal I can think of. > >> > >> It doesn't matter if there are, since they are not for-food > >> animals which is what I was referring to. > > > >There are feral pigs, chickens, > >turkeys, etc. I don't know about > >sheep and goats. As for their > >relatives made captive by us, > >there is no need for us to > >continue to do that. > > Then unlike what you pretend, you really are in favor of > the extinction of for-food animals, but are quite amusingly > not confident enough with the idea to admit it. I want any currently born into captivity animal to live out a happy, well cared for life, but I've never denied wanting to prevent more from being born. Ideally I would like to see all for food animals prevented and their wild counterparts be the ones that carry on the populations. Realistically though, as long as people eat meat, it's better if they get it from farms that are less cruel than others, but this is still not ideal to me. > >We don't > >owe it to any future unborn > >animals. > > > >> >> · The meat industry includes habitats in which a small > >> >> variety of animals are raised. The animals in those > >> >> habitats, as those in any other, are completely dependant > >> >> on them to not only sustain their lives, but they also > >> >> depend on them to provide the pairing of sperm and egg > >> >> that begin their particular existence. Those animals will > >> >> only live if people continue to raise them for food. > >> > > >> >As long as there is no threat of > >> >endangerment or extiction, the > >> >future unborn don't matter. > >> > >> The extinction you keep going on about doesn't have > >> anything to do with whether or not what we're doing is > >> cruel to the animals, and that's what we're supposed to > >> be discussing. The extinction thing you have doesn't matter > >> any more than what your favorite color is, so let's just quit > >> with that. It doesn't matter if animals are prevented unless > >> someone would rather see them provided with decent lives > >> instead. If they do live, that's what matters. > > > >The extinction factor is important. > >If there were no wild ones, and > >captive ones only, then I would say > >keep them (but in good conditions > >of course) so they don't go extinct. > > Letting them go extinct is in no way cruel to them, and > therefore of no consideration imo. That seems to conflict with your belief that eliminating factory farms will prevent billions of lives. > >Otherwise, there's no need to > >keep raising them. > > > >> >If it > >> >did, then every period I've had > >> >is a death of a future person, and > >> >every egg is a death of a future > >> >chick. > >> > > >> >> Animals that are born to other groups--such as wild > >> >> animals, pets, performing animals, etc.--are completely > >> >> different groups of animals. Regardless of how many or few > >> >> animals are born to these other groups, the billions of animals > >> >> which are raised for food will always be dependant on consumers > >> >> for their existence. · > >> > > >> >The numbers of unborn don't matter. > >> > >> The ones that are born do matter. Not to you. Not to Goo. > >> But they matter to the animals, and that's what I consider. > > > >But you want that cycle to perpetuate, > >regardless of the conditions. > > That's a lie. I'm really surpised that you resorted to that. > Oh well, you sure did. Now, as always, I'm left to wonder why... Maybe a more accurate wording would be that you want the cycle to perpetuate even under conditions *I* feel are no good. I think we both have certain good intentions towards animals but very different view on what constitutes good conditions. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. > [...] > dh wrote: > > >> it still always comes down > >> to the same thing for wildlife as well as domestic animals, and > >> you, and me...quality of life is what determines whether it has > >> a positive or negative value. To me decent lives have a > >> positive value. To you I guess that's not always true, and > >> maybe it's not, but I still feel that it does. So I feel just as good > >> about seeing livestock and wildlife in grazing areas as I do > >> about seeing fields of crops, and often I feel better about it. > >> I feel just as good thinking about a bunch of dairy cows in a > >> warm barn as I do about deer starving and freezing to death > >> someplace...etc...etc...etc... > |
|
|||
|
|||
"Scented Nectar" > wrote > "Dutch" > wrote >> >> "Scented Nectar" > wrote >> > "Dutch" > wrote >> >> >> > As shown in this newsgroup >> >> > before, the numbers will still >> >> > favour the vegan. >> >> >> >> Which vegan vs which non-vegan? >> >> Your statement is a fallacy of >> >> generalization. >> > >> > Do you want their names and >> > menus? >> >> No, just a general description of diets, the >> foods contained in those diets, and their >> sources. Simply categorizing diets by the >> absence of or presence of *any amount* >> of meat does not do anything. The very >> idea is absurd. As has been repeated here >> many times, that is a simplistic idea that >> tends to appeal to simple-minded people. > > You know that the overall numbers > favour the vegan. "The vegan"? Is there only one? What is his name? If you mean vegans *as a group* then yes, compared to most typical western diets, then probably so, but membership in a group is not a valid moral or ethical argument. >> > Statistics are averages >> > not generalizations. >> >> The impact of vegan diets varies wildly as do >> the impact of non-vegan diets, so to say that >> "the numbers will favour the vegan" is a >> generalization. In other words it's only true >> "generally", given a specific set of assumptions, >> not categorically, as you state it. >> >> In order to understand this objection simply >> imagine two vegans, A) has a diet heavily >> dependent on imported and mass-produced >> foods, B) grows some of his own, buys from >> a local co-op, and trades with neighbours. >> Clearly B) has a much, much better diet than > > No, clearly B does not. Growing > his own does not ensure less > harm, nor do trading and co-ops > unless specifically altered to that > purpose. The example makes the point, vegan diets can and do vary greatly wrt animal harm and other impacts, just as non-vegan diets do. That means that any categorical statement which says that "vegan diets are better" is a disingenuous falsehood. >> A) with respect to harm to animals. Now >> B) decides to catch and eat one salmon a month. >> According to your categorical statement, the >> diet of A) is now superior to B) who is now >> non-vegan, even though, B) probably improved >> his diet wrt cds, and health, by substituting that >> monthly catch for some of the cultivated product. > > Well if you believe the above, > go ahead and eat all the dead > body flesh you want. I will not. I'm not interested in convincing you to alter your diet, I am simply illustrating how your thinking is flawed. >> The sad thing is, there is no rational reason to >> hang on to this fallacy, even intelligent vegans >> don't do so, although they are few and far between. > > What's with the insult? What's with the thin skin? You aren't even a vegan. > Intelligent > vegans are few? Based on my experience in this forum, yes! > You are just here > to argue. Not just to argue for it's own sake, that does not interest me. I am here to present a point of view which I believe has value. You won't accept that because my point of view challenges your simplistic view of the world, that's not my problem. > You have no interest in > food or nutrition or cds. You're just > here to be a shit disturber by pushing > meat. I'm not pushing meat, I am pushing common sense and reason. You are pushing a childish, naive, divisive and dishonest point of view. Vegan and vegetarian dishes, food, and diets are wonderful, but this addictive cult of superiority that vegetarians fall into serves no-one. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ... > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > . net... >> Scented Nectar wrote: >> >> > "Dutch" > wrote in message >> > ... >> > >> >>"Scented Nectar" > wrote >> >> >> >>>"Dutch" > wrote >> >> >> >>>>>As shown in this newsgroup >> >>>>>before, the numbers will still >> >>>>>favour the vegan. >> >>>> >> >>>>Which vegan vs which non-vegan? >> >>>>Your statement is a fallacy of >> >>>>generalization. >> >>> >> >>>Do you want their names and >> >>>menus? >> >> >> >>No, just a general description of diets, the >> >>foods contained in those diets, and their >> >>sources. Simply categorizing diets by the >> >>absence of or presence of *any amount* >> >>of meat does not do anything. The very >> >>idea is absurd. As has been repeated here >> >>many times, that is a simplistic idea that >> >>tends to appeal to simple-minded people. >> > >> > >> > You know that the overall numbers >> > favour the vegan. >> >> The "overall numbers" are meaningless, because virtue >> is not a counting game. You are not virtuous for doing >> less of something you believe to be wrong than what >> someone else is doing. You must not do the wrong >> thing, period. > > If it's not possible to completely > eliminate the bad thing, then the > lesser bad thing is better morally > than more of the bad thing. Yet you refuse to acknowledge a person who consumes some meat but is responsible for fewer overall deaths than some vegans. If we are going to play this game of moral relativity then you can't just change the rules whenever it suits you. > >> >>>Statistics are averages >> >>>not generalizations. >> >> >> >>The impact of vegan diets varies wildly as do >> >>the impact of non-vegan diets, so to say that >> >>"the numbers will favour the vegan" is a >> >>generalization. In other words it's only true >> >>"generally", given a specific set of assumptions, >> >>not categorically, as you state it. >> >> >> >>In order to understand this objection simply >> >>imagine two vegans, A) has a diet heavily >> >>dependent on imported and mass-produced >> >>foods, B) grows some of his own, buys from >> >>a local co-op, and trades with neighbours. >> >>Clearly B) has a much, much better diet than >> > >> > >> > No, clearly B does not. Growing >> > his own does not ensure less >> > harm, nor do trading and co-ops >> > unless specifically altered to that >> > purpose. >> >> Yes, IF having a smaller (but not zero) ecological >> footprint is the measure of virtue, then B CLEARLY is >> doing better than A. > > You've not proven that B has the > better footprint. You have not proven anything either, all of this discussion is based on a reasoned guessing. You reject a reaonable supposition whenever it doesn't lead to the conclusions you like. >> But this only applies for things like pollution and >> other ecological measures. These are things that are >> not intrinsically wrong, but are undesirable. That >> means that doing less of them IS a measure of virtue. >> For example, it isn't morally wrong to put waste in a >> landfill; we recognize that humans generate waste, and >> we have to do something with it. It is bad, in >> utilitarian terms, to fill up landfills "too" fast. >> Therefore, someone who consciously tries to reduce the >> amount of trash he generates is doing good, even if he >> doesn't reduce it to zero. > > Then why can't you see other > 'bad' things the same way? Why > is it ok and even good to pollute > less (but not zero), but it's not ok > to eat foods with less cds (but not > zero)? Why is not better to kill fewer animals and eat *some* meat than to kill more and eat *no* meat? >> >>A) with respect to harm to animals. Now >> >>B) decides to catch and eat one salmon a month. >> >>According to your categorical statement, the >> >>diet of A) is now superior to B) who is now >> >>non-vegan, even though, B) probably improved >> >>his diet wrt cds, and health, by substituting that >> >>monthly catch for some of the cultivated product. >> > >> > >> > Well if you believe the above, >> > go ahead and eat all the dead >> > body flesh you want. I will not. >> >> You won't, but it isn't for either health or morality >> reasons. It is because of aesthetics, your >> stuck-in-teen-years aesthetics. At age 16 you decided >> meat was icky - a big "eeewwwwwwww!" factor - and you >> decided to stop eating it, because it was "gross". >> Your aesthetics hasn't evolved beyond that. It was and >> is immature. > > You got my age wrong. Also you > know full well, or should anyway, > that for me, it's a mix of health, > aesthetics, and morality for me. It's a tap-dance. > >> >>The sad thing is, there is no rational reason to >> >>hang on to this fallacy, even intelligent vegans >> >>don't do so, although they are few and far between. >> > >> > >> > What's with the insult? Intelligent >> > vegans are few? >> >> Yes. As "veganism" is predicated on illogic and faulty >> ethics, anyone who sticks with it even after the flaws >> are elaborated must be unintelligent: unable to learn. > > There's no illogic or faulty ethics. Yes there is. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Dutch" > wrote in message
... > > "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message > ... > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > > . net... > >> Scented Nectar wrote: > >> > >> > "Dutch" > wrote in message > >> > ... > >> > > >> >>"Scented Nectar" > wrote > >> >> > >> >>>"Dutch" > wrote > >> >> > >> >>>>>As shown in this newsgroup > >> >>>>>before, the numbers will still > >> >>>>>favour the vegan. > >> >>>> > >> >>>>Which vegan vs which non-vegan? > >> >>>>Your statement is a fallacy of > >> >>>>generalization. > >> >>> > >> >>>Do you want their names and > >> >>>menus? > >> >> > >> >>No, just a general description of diets, the > >> >>foods contained in those diets, and their > >> >>sources. Simply categorizing diets by the > >> >>absence of or presence of *any amount* > >> >>of meat does not do anything. The very > >> >>idea is absurd. As has been repeated here > >> >>many times, that is a simplistic idea that > >> >>tends to appeal to simple-minded people. > >> > > >> > > >> > You know that the overall numbers > >> > favour the vegan. > >> > >> The "overall numbers" are meaningless, because virtue > >> is not a counting game. You are not virtuous for doing > >> less of something you believe to be wrong than what > >> someone else is doing. You must not do the wrong > >> thing, period. > > > > If it's not possible to completely > > eliminate the bad thing, then the > > lesser bad thing is better morally > > than more of the bad thing. > > Yet you refuse to acknowledge a person > who consumes some meat but is responsible > for fewer overall deaths than some vegans. > If we are going to play this game of moral > relativity then you can't just change the rules > whenever it suits you. I refuse to play your game of comparing the 'worst' of the vegans to the 'best' of the meat eaters. Compare instead both the worsts with each other, and the bests with each other. It's more logical and correct that way. > > > >> >>>Statistics are averages > >> >>>not generalizations. > >> >> > >> >>The impact of vegan diets varies wildly as do > >> >>the impact of non-vegan diets, so to say that > >> >>"the numbers will favour the vegan" is a > >> >>generalization. In other words it's only true > >> >>"generally", given a specific set of assumptions, > >> >>not categorically, as you state it. > >> >> > >> >>In order to understand this objection simply > >> >>imagine two vegans, A) has a diet heavily > >> >>dependent on imported and mass-produced > >> >>foods, B) grows some of his own, buys from > >> >>a local co-op, and trades with neighbours. > >> >>Clearly B) has a much, much better diet than > >> > > >> > > >> > No, clearly B does not. Growing > >> > his own does not ensure less > >> > harm, nor do trading and co-ops > >> > unless specifically altered to that > >> > purpose. > >> > >> Yes, IF having a smaller (but not zero) ecological > >> footprint is the measure of virtue, then B CLEARLY is > >> doing better than A. > > > > You've not proven that B has the > > better footprint. > > You have not proven anything either, all of > this discussion is based on a reasoned guessing. > You reject a reaonable supposition whenever > it doesn't lead to the conclusions you like. Your guesses don't convince me. > >> But this only applies for things like pollution and > >> other ecological measures. These are things that are > >> not intrinsically wrong, but are undesirable. That > >> means that doing less of them IS a measure of virtue. > >> For example, it isn't morally wrong to put waste in a > >> landfill; we recognize that humans generate waste, and > >> we have to do something with it. It is bad, in > >> utilitarian terms, to fill up landfills "too" fast. > >> Therefore, someone who consciously tries to reduce the > >> amount of trash he generates is doing good, even if he > >> doesn't reduce it to zero. > > > > Then why can't you see other > > 'bad' things the same way? Why > > is it ok and even good to pollute > > less (but not zero), but it's not ok > > to eat foods with less cds (but not > > zero)? > > Why is not better to kill fewer animals and eat *some* > meat than to kill more and eat *no* meat? Health for one thing. For another it's the wrong comparison again. For another, the salmon have a good chance at becoming endangered in the future. For another, you're assuming that the vegan diet is causing more cds than the non-vegan one. The fact that one of those people also happens to eat a salmon once a month doesn't mean that that person doesn't also eat more in general and STILL has the bigger footprint. They might be an athlete and need more overall calories. > >> >>A) with respect to harm to animals. Now > >> >>B) decides to catch and eat one salmon a month. > >> >>According to your categorical statement, the > >> >>diet of A) is now superior to B) who is now > >> >>non-vegan, even though, B) probably improved > >> >>his diet wrt cds, and health, by substituting that > >> >>monthly catch for some of the cultivated product. > >> > > >> > > >> > Well if you believe the above, > >> > go ahead and eat all the dead > >> > body flesh you want. I will not. > >> > >> You won't, but it isn't for either health or morality > >> reasons. It is because of aesthetics, your > >> stuck-in-teen-years aesthetics. At age 16 you decided > >> meat was icky - a big "eeewwwwwwww!" factor - and you > >> decided to stop eating it, because it was "gross". > >> Your aesthetics hasn't evolved beyond that. It was and > >> is immature. > > > > You got my age wrong. Also you > > know full well, or should anyway, > > that for me, it's a mix of health, > > aesthetics, and morality for me. > > It's a tap-dance. > > > > >> >>The sad thing is, there is no rational reason to > >> >>hang on to this fallacy, even intelligent vegans > >> >>don't do so, although they are few and far between. > >> > > >> > > >> > What's with the insult? Intelligent > >> > vegans are few? > >> > >> Yes. As "veganism" is predicated on illogic and faulty > >> ethics, anyone who sticks with it even after the flaws > >> are elaborated must be unintelligent: unable to learn. > > > > There's no illogic or faulty ethics. > > Yes there is. No there's not. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Dutch" > wrote in message
... > > "Scented Nectar" > wrote > > "Dutch" > wrote > >> > >> "Scented Nectar" > wrote > >> > "Dutch" > wrote > >> > >> >> > As shown in this newsgroup > >> >> > before, the numbers will still > >> >> > favour the vegan. > >> >> > >> >> Which vegan vs which non-vegan? > >> >> Your statement is a fallacy of > >> >> generalization. > >> > > >> > Do you want their names and > >> > menus? > >> > >> No, just a general description of diets, the > >> foods contained in those diets, and their > >> sources. Simply categorizing diets by the > >> absence of or presence of *any amount* > >> of meat does not do anything. The very > >> idea is absurd. As has been repeated here > >> many times, that is a simplistic idea that > >> tends to appeal to simple-minded people. > > > > You know that the overall numbers > > favour the vegan. > > "The vegan"? Is there only one? What is his name? That's top secret. I can't tell you. > If you mean vegans *as a group* then yes, > compared to most typical western diets, then > probably so, but membership in a group is > not a valid moral or ethical argument. So you are really here looking for teacher to put a star on your forehead for not being like the typical western eater, and you want to be compared to vegans. > >> > Statistics are averages > >> > not generalizations. > >> > >> The impact of vegan diets varies wildly as do > >> the impact of non-vegan diets, so to say that > >> "the numbers will favour the vegan" is a > >> generalization. In other words it's only true > >> "generally", given a specific set of assumptions, > >> not categorically, as you state it. > >> > >> In order to understand this objection simply > >> imagine two vegans, A) has a diet heavily > >> dependent on imported and mass-produced > >> foods, B) grows some of his own, buys from > >> a local co-op, and trades with neighbours. > >> Clearly B) has a much, much better diet than > > > > No, clearly B does not. Growing > > his own does not ensure less > > harm, nor do trading and co-ops > > unless specifically altered to that > > purpose. > > The example makes the point, vegan diets > can and do vary greatly wrt animal harm > and other impacts, just as non-vegan diets > do. That means that any categorical statement > which says that "vegan diets are better" is > a disingenuous falsehood. No. Just a statistical averaging out. > >> A) with respect to harm to animals. Now > >> B) decides to catch and eat one salmon a month. > >> According to your categorical statement, the > >> diet of A) is now superior to B) who is now > >> non-vegan, even though, B) probably improved > >> his diet wrt cds, and health, by substituting that > >> monthly catch for some of the cultivated product. > > > > Well if you believe the above, > > go ahead and eat all the dead > > body flesh you want. I will not. > > I'm not interested in convincing you to > alter your diet, I am simply illustrating > how your thinking is flawed. But I think that your's is flawed. > >> The sad thing is, there is no rational reason to > >> hang on to this fallacy, even intelligent vegans > >> don't do so, although they are few and far between. > > > > What's with the insult? > > What's with the thin skin? You aren't even a vegan. I'll ask again. What's with the insult? I'm trying to help you here. Everyone knows that insults weaken your arguments. > > Intelligent > > vegans are few? > > Based on my experience in this forum, yes! Nah, you're just looking to insult again. > > You are just here > > to argue. > > Not just to argue for it's own sake, that > does not interest me. I am here to present > a point of view which I believe has value. > You won't accept that because my point > of view challenges your simplistic view of > the world, that's not my problem. Any view that disagrees with your's is simplistic, eh? > > You have no interest in > > food or nutrition or cds. You're just > > here to be a shit disturber by pushing > > meat. > > I'm not pushing meat, I am pushing > common sense and reason. You are > pushing a childish, naive, divisive and > dishonest point of view. Vegan and > vegetarian dishes, food, and diets are > wonderful, but this addictive cult of > superiority that vegetarians fall into > serves no-one. You sound like a conspiracy nut. Read what you wrote. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Scented Nectar" > wrote > "Dutch" > wrote [..] >> >> >>>>>As shown in this newsgroup >> >> >>>>>before, the numbers will still >> >> >>>>>favour the vegan. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>>Which vegan vs which non-vegan? >> >> >>>>Your statement is a fallacy of >> >> >>>>generalization. >> >> >>> >> >> >>>Do you want their names and >> >> >>>menus? >> >> >> >> >> >>No, just a general description of diets, the >> >> >>foods contained in those diets, and their >> >> >>sources. Simply categorizing diets by the >> >> >>absence of or presence of *any amount* >> >> >>of meat does not do anything. The very >> >> >>idea is absurd. As has been repeated here >> >> >>many times, that is a simplistic idea that >> >> >>tends to appeal to simple-minded people. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > You know that the overall numbers >> >> > favour the vegan. >> >> >> >> The "overall numbers" are meaningless, because virtue >> >> is not a counting game. You are not virtuous for doing >> >> less of something you believe to be wrong than what >> >> someone else is doing. You must not do the wrong >> >> thing, period. >> > >> > If it's not possible to completely >> > eliminate the bad thing, then the >> > lesser bad thing is better morally >> > than more of the bad thing. >> >> Yet you refuse to acknowledge a person >> who consumes some meat but is responsible >> for fewer overall deaths than some vegans. >> If we are going to play this game of moral >> relativity then you can't just change the rules >> whenever it suits you. > > I refuse to play your game of > comparing the 'worst' of the > vegans to the 'best' of the meat > eaters. It's not a game, it's a comparison of real foods, real diets available in the real world to people. You refuse to consider any comparison that fails to come to the result you want. > Compare instead both > the worsts with each other, That's a valid comparison also, all comparisons are valid, *if* one is searching for the truth, you are not. > and > the bests with each other. It's > more logical and correct that > way. It's completely illogical and ridiculous. We are not limited to consuming the best or the worst of one type of diet or the other, all options are there and there is no reason to avoid comparing them, unless one is attempting to defend an agenda that cannot withstand scrutiny. One may be consuming the worst vegan diet, and be considering the best non-vegan diet instead. Why would it be illogical or incorrect for that person to try to determine which is better? How else would they know? You are preaching willful ignorance. Why are you doing it? >> >> >>>Statistics are averages >> >> >>>not generalizations. >> >> >> >> >> >>The impact of vegan diets varies wildly as do >> >> >>the impact of non-vegan diets, so to say that >> >> >>"the numbers will favour the vegan" is a >> >> >>generalization. In other words it's only true >> >> >>"generally", given a specific set of assumptions, >> >> >>not categorically, as you state it. >> >> >> >> >> >>In order to understand this objection simply >> >> >>imagine two vegans, A) has a diet heavily >> >> >>dependent on imported and mass-produced >> >> >>foods, B) grows some of his own, buys from >> >> >>a local co-op, and trades with neighbours. >> >> >>Clearly B) has a much, much better diet than >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > No, clearly B does not. Growing >> >> > his own does not ensure less >> >> > harm, nor do trading and co-ops >> >> > unless specifically altered to that >> >> > purpose. >> >> >> >> Yes, IF having a smaller (but not zero) ecological >> >> footprint is the measure of virtue, then B CLEARLY is >> >> doing better than A. >> > >> > You've not proven that B has the >> > better footprint. >> >> You have not proven anything either, all of >> this discussion is based on a reasoned guessing. >> You reject a reaonable supposition whenever >> it doesn't lead to the conclusions you like. > > Your guesses don't convince me. Nothing will convince a person whose mind is closed. Your mind is closed tight. >> >> But this only applies for things like pollution and >> >> other ecological measures. These are things that are >> >> not intrinsically wrong, but are undesirable. That >> >> means that doing less of them IS a measure of virtue. >> >> For example, it isn't morally wrong to put waste in a >> >> landfill; we recognize that humans generate waste, and >> >> we have to do something with it. It is bad, in >> >> utilitarian terms, to fill up landfills "too" fast. >> >> Therefore, someone who consciously tries to reduce the >> >> amount of trash he generates is doing good, even if he >> >> doesn't reduce it to zero. >> > >> > Then why can't you see other >> > 'bad' things the same way? Why >> > is it ok and even good to pollute >> > less (but not zero), but it's not ok >> > to eat foods with less cds (but not >> > zero)? >> >> Why is not better to kill fewer animals and eat *some* >> meat than to kill more and eat *no* meat? > > Health for one thing. You're deliberately trying to muddy the waters. The point you made relates to the morality of doing less of a bad thing, not benefitting oneself by eating or not eating certain foods. > For another > it's the wrong comparison again. Why? If obtaining food is going to harm animals no matter what, then why is not better to choose foods that harm fewer? That would seem to be your whole point. > For another, the salmon have a > good chance at becoming > endangered in the future. Land has a good chance of becoming devoid of all nutrients and poisoned due to farming, does that mean we should not do it? > For > another, you're assuming that > the vegan diet is causing more > cds than the non-vegan one. No I did not assume that, the diet I called B) was *already* a lower impact diet before some of the plant foods was replaced by a small amount of salmon. Even if that salmon increased the impact of the diet slightly, it still is a lower impact diet than A), the vegan diet, which relies completely on factory farmed, imported and processed foods. > The fact that one of those people > also happens to eat a salmon > once a month doesn't mean that > that person doesn't also eat more > in general and STILL has the > bigger footprint. They might be > an athlete and need more overall > calories. The vegan may be the one who is a glutton, you can't assume that the person who eats some salmon automatically consumes more calories, in fact there is a good probability that their diet is more satisfying overall. >> >> >>A) with respect to harm to animals. Now >> >> >>B) decides to catch and eat one salmon a month. >> >> >>According to your categorical statement, the >> >> >>diet of A) is now superior to B) who is now >> >> >>non-vegan, even though, B) probably improved >> >> >>his diet wrt cds, and health, by substituting that >> >> >>monthly catch for some of the cultivated product. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Well if you believe the above, >> >> > go ahead and eat all the dead >> >> > body flesh you want. I will not. >> >> >> >> You won't, but it isn't for either health or morality >> >> reasons. It is because of aesthetics, your >> >> stuck-in-teen-years aesthetics. At age 16 you decided >> >> meat was icky - a big "eeewwwwwwww!" factor - and you >> >> decided to stop eating it, because it was "gross". >> >> Your aesthetics hasn't evolved beyond that. It was and >> >> is immature. >> > >> > You got my age wrong. Also you >> > know full well, or should anyway, >> > that for me, it's a mix of health, >> > aesthetics, and morality for me. >> >> It's a tap-dance. >> >> > >> >> >>The sad thing is, there is no rational reason to >> >> >>hang on to this fallacy, even intelligent vegans >> >> >>don't do so, although they are few and far between. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > What's with the insult? Intelligent >> >> > vegans are few? >> >> >> >> Yes. As "veganism" is predicated on illogic and faulty >> >> ethics, anyone who sticks with it even after the flaws >> >> are elaborated must be unintelligent: unable to learn. >> > >> > There's no illogic or faulty ethics. >> >> Yes there is. > > No there's not. Head-in-sand syndrome. I have clearly made my case and you just evade and issue flat denials. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Scented Nectar" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote [..] >> >> >> > As shown in this newsgroup >> >> >> > before, the numbers will still >> >> >> > favour the vegan. >> >> >> >> >> >> Which vegan vs which non-vegan? >> >> >> Your statement is a fallacy of >> >> >> generalization. >> >> > >> >> > Do you want their names and >> >> > menus? >> >> >> >> No, just a general description of diets, the >> >> foods contained in those diets, and their >> >> sources. Simply categorizing diets by the >> >> absence of or presence of *any amount* >> >> of meat does not do anything. The very >> >> idea is absurd. As has been repeated here >> >> many times, that is a simplistic idea that >> >> tends to appeal to simple-minded people. >> > >> > You know that the overall numbers >> > favour the vegan. >> >> "The vegan"? Is there only one? What is his name? > > That's top secret. I can't tell you. You aren't funny, you lack a sense of humor, like most veg*ns. >> If you mean vegans *as a group* then yes, >> compared to most typical western diets, then >> probably so, but membership in a group is >> not a valid moral or ethical argument. > > So you are really here looking for > teacher to put a star on your > forehead for not being like the > typical western eater, and you > want to be compared to vegans. What I am looking for is for you understand that your idea that you can claim a moral credit for membership in some dietary category is absurd. I do not obtain a moral credit due to the fact that some rural non-vegan has a very low impact diet, my moral standing is based on what *I* do, nobody else. >> >> > Statistics are averages >> >> > not generalizations. >> >> >> >> The impact of vegan diets varies wildly as do >> >> the impact of non-vegan diets, so to say that >> >> "the numbers will favour the vegan" is a >> >> generalization. In other words it's only true >> >> "generally", given a specific set of assumptions, >> >> not categorically, as you state it. >> >> >> >> In order to understand this objection simply >> >> imagine two vegans, A) has a diet heavily >> >> dependent on imported and mass-produced >> >> foods, B) grows some of his own, buys from >> >> a local co-op, and trades with neighbours. >> >> Clearly B) has a much, much better diet than >> > >> > No, clearly B does not. Growing >> > his own does not ensure less >> > harm, nor do trading and co-ops >> > unless specifically altered to that >> > purpose. >> >> The example makes the point, vegan diets >> can and do vary greatly wrt animal harm >> and other impacts, just as non-vegan diets >> do. That means that any categorical statement >> which says that "vegan diets are better" is >> a disingenuous falsehood. > > No. Just a statistical averaging > out. You can't average out ethics or morals. Your moral standing is based on *your* life, nothing else. For example, if white people contribute a greater portion of their earnings to charitable causes than blacks (I don't know if that's the case), can I claim to be a better person because of the colour of my skin? No, my own life is what determines it, whether or not *I* contribute. You are trying to do something very immoral by this "averaging" game. >> >> A) with respect to harm to animals. Now >> >> B) decides to catch and eat one salmon a month. >> >> According to your categorical statement, the >> >> diet of A) is now superior to B) who is now >> >> non-vegan, even though, B) probably improved >> >> his diet wrt cds, and health, by substituting that >> >> monthly catch for some of the cultivated product. >> > >> > Well if you believe the above, >> > go ahead and eat all the dead >> > body flesh you want. I will not. >> >> I'm not interested in convincing you to >> alter your diet, I am simply illustrating >> how your thinking is flawed. > > But I think that your's is flawed. No, you don't think. I have not seen you do anything but dance around the subject and make smart-ass or irrelevant remarks. >> >> The sad thing is, there is no rational reason to >> >> hang on to this fallacy, even intelligent vegans >> >> don't do so, although they are few and far between. >> > >> > What's with the insult? >> >> What's with the thin skin? You aren't even a vegan. > > I'll ask again. What's with the > insult? There was no insult, it was a statement of fact. > I'm trying to help you > here. Everyone knows that > insults weaken your arguments. You're dancing around again. >> > Intelligent >> > vegans are few? >> >> Based on my experience in this forum, yes! > > Nah, you're just looking to > insult again. Nah, the vast majority of veg*ns I have encountered on this newsgroup demonstrate a lack of intelligence. >> > You are just here >> > to argue. >> >> Not just to argue for it's own sake, that >> does not interest me. I am here to present >> a point of view which I believe has value. >> You won't accept that because my point >> of view challenges your simplistic view of >> the world, that's not my problem. > > Any view that disagrees with > your's is simplistic, eh? Not at all, but yours is. >> > You have no interest in >> > food or nutrition or cds. You're just >> > here to be a shit disturber by pushing >> > meat. >> >> I'm not pushing meat, I am pushing >> common sense and reason. You are >> pushing a childish, naive, divisive and >> dishonest point of view. Vegan and >> vegetarian dishes, food, and diets are >> wonderful, but this addictive cult of >> superiority that vegetarians fall into >> serves no-one. > > You sound like a conspiracy nut. There *is* a conspiracy, and you are a willing party to it. > Read what you wrote. Yes, it's dead-on. You can't see what you're caught up in, you don't want to see. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Dutch" > wrote in message
... > > "Scented Nectar" > wrote > > "Dutch" > wrote > [..] > >> >> >>>>>As shown in this newsgroup > >> >> >>>>>before, the numbers will still > >> >> >>>>>favour the vegan. > >> >> >>>> > >> >> >>>>Which vegan vs which non-vegan? > >> >> >>>>Your statement is a fallacy of > >> >> >>>>generalization. > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>>Do you want their names and > >> >> >>>menus? > >> >> >> > >> >> >>No, just a general description of diets, the > >> >> >>foods contained in those diets, and their > >> >> >>sources. Simply categorizing diets by the > >> >> >>absence of or presence of *any amount* > >> >> >>of meat does not do anything. The very > >> >> >>idea is absurd. As has been repeated here > >> >> >>many times, that is a simplistic idea that > >> >> >>tends to appeal to simple-minded people. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > You know that the overall numbers > >> >> > favour the vegan. > >> >> > >> >> The "overall numbers" are meaningless, because virtue > >> >> is not a counting game. You are not virtuous for doing > >> >> less of something you believe to be wrong than what > >> >> someone else is doing. You must not do the wrong > >> >> thing, period. > >> > > >> > If it's not possible to completely > >> > eliminate the bad thing, then the > >> > lesser bad thing is better morally > >> > than more of the bad thing. > >> > >> Yet you refuse to acknowledge a person > >> who consumes some meat but is responsible > >> for fewer overall deaths than some vegans. > >> If we are going to play this game of moral > >> relativity then you can't just change the rules > >> whenever it suits you. > > > > I refuse to play your game of > > comparing the 'worst' of the > > vegans to the 'best' of the meat > > eaters. > > It's not a game, it's a comparison of real foods, > real diets available in the real world to people. > You refuse to consider any comparison that > fails to come to the result you want. You want to compare apples with oranges. > > Compare instead both > > the worsts with each other, > > That's a valid comparison also, all comparisons > are valid, *if* one is searching for the truth, > you are not. NOT all comparisons are valid. Searching for the truth, you would see that. > > and > > the bests with each other. It's > > more logical and correct that > > way. > > It's completely illogical and ridiculous. > We are not limited to consuming the > best or the worst of one type of diet or > the other, all options are there and there > is no reason to avoid comparing them, > unless one is attempting to defend an > agenda that cannot withstand scrutiny. > > One may be consuming the worst > vegan diet, and be considering the > best non-vegan diet instead. Why > would it be illogical or incorrect for > that person to try to determine which > is better? How else would they know? > You are preaching willful ignorance. > Why are you doing it? Huh? Now you're just making things up. > >> >> >>>Statistics are averages > >> >> >>>not generalizations. > >> >> >> > >> >> >>The impact of vegan diets varies wildly as do > >> >> >>the impact of non-vegan diets, so to say that > >> >> >>"the numbers will favour the vegan" is a > >> >> >>generalization. In other words it's only true > >> >> >>"generally", given a specific set of assumptions, > >> >> >>not categorically, as you state it. > >> >> >> > >> >> >>In order to understand this objection simply > >> >> >>imagine two vegans, A) has a diet heavily > >> >> >>dependent on imported and mass-produced > >> >> >>foods, B) grows some of his own, buys from > >> >> >>a local co-op, and trades with neighbours. > >> >> >>Clearly B) has a much, much better diet than > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > No, clearly B does not. Growing > >> >> > his own does not ensure less > >> >> > harm, nor do trading and co-ops > >> >> > unless specifically altered to that > >> >> > purpose. > >> >> > >> >> Yes, IF having a smaller (but not zero) ecological > >> >> footprint is the measure of virtue, then B CLEARLY is > >> >> doing better than A. > >> > > >> > You've not proven that B has the > >> > better footprint. > >> > >> You have not proven anything either, all of > >> this discussion is based on a reasoned guessing. > >> You reject a reaonable supposition whenever > >> it doesn't lead to the conclusions you like. > > > > Your guesses don't convince me. > > Nothing will convince a person whose mind is closed. > Your mind is closed tight. Your guesses are just guesses. > >> >> But this only applies for things like pollution and > >> >> other ecological measures. These are things that are > >> >> not intrinsically wrong, but are undesirable. That > >> >> means that doing less of them IS a measure of virtue. > >> >> For example, it isn't morally wrong to put waste in a > >> >> landfill; we recognize that humans generate waste, and > >> >> we have to do something with it. It is bad, in > >> >> utilitarian terms, to fill up landfills "too" fast. > >> >> Therefore, someone who consciously tries to reduce the > >> >> amount of trash he generates is doing good, even if he > >> >> doesn't reduce it to zero. > >> > > >> > Then why can't you see other > >> > 'bad' things the same way? Why > >> > is it ok and even good to pollute > >> > less (but not zero), but it's not ok > >> > to eat foods with less cds (but not > >> > zero)? > >> > >> Why is not better to kill fewer animals and eat *some* > >> meat than to kill more and eat *no* meat? > > > > Health for one thing. > > You're deliberately trying to muddy the waters. > The point you made relates to the morality of > doing less of a bad thing, not benefitting oneself > by eating or not eating certain foods. Health has a lot to do with it. Wolves are meant to be meat eaters and cannot be blamed for doing so. Cows are not meant to be eating meat products and the humans who force them to are doing something morally wrong. > > For another > > it's the wrong comparison again. > > Why? If obtaining food is going to harm animals > no matter what, then why is not better to choose > foods that harm fewer? That would seem to be > your whole point. Provided that health is accounted for first, meaning to me a variety of foods both local and imported, then choosing between a veganic potato and a regular one can be compared. > > For another, the salmon have a > > good chance at becoming > > endangered in the future. > > Land has a good chance of becoming devoid > of all nutrients and poisoned due to farming, > does that mean we should not do it? That's right. At least not the way we (you) do it now. Enriching the soil rather than just stealing from it would be a good start. > > For > > another, you're assuming that > > the vegan diet is causing more > > cds than the non-vegan one. > > No I did not assume that, the diet I called B) > was *already* a lower impact diet before > some of the plant foods was replaced by a > small amount of salmon. Even if that salmon > increased the impact of the diet slightly, it still > is a lower impact diet than A), the vegan diet, > which relies completely on factory farmed, > imported and processed foods. Still sounds like you want kudos for being a marginal, minority of meat eaters. You want to be recognised for being better than most meat eaters, I think. If you just come out and say it, I would probably agree funny enough. > > The fact that one of those people > > also happens to eat a salmon > > once a month doesn't mean that > > that person doesn't also eat more > > in general and STILL has the > > bigger footprint. They might be > > an athlete and need more overall > > calories. > > The vegan may be the one who is a glutton, > you can't assume that the person who eats > some salmon automatically consumes more > calories, in fact there is a good probability > that their diet is more satisfying overall. Now you are claiming that there is 'good probability'?? On what basis? > >> >> >>A) with respect to harm to animals. Now > >> >> >>B) decides to catch and eat one salmon a month. > >> >> >>According to your categorical statement, the > >> >> >>diet of A) is now superior to B) who is now > >> >> >>non-vegan, even though, B) probably improved > >> >> >>his diet wrt cds, and health, by substituting that > >> >> >>monthly catch for some of the cultivated product. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > Well if you believe the above, > >> >> > go ahead and eat all the dead > >> >> > body flesh you want. I will not. > >> >> > >> >> You won't, but it isn't for either health or morality > >> >> reasons. It is because of aesthetics, your > >> >> stuck-in-teen-years aesthetics. At age 16 you decided > >> >> meat was icky - a big "eeewwwwwwww!" factor - and you > >> >> decided to stop eating it, because it was "gross". > >> >> Your aesthetics hasn't evolved beyond that. It was and > >> >> is immature. > >> > > >> > You got my age wrong. Also you > >> > know full well, or should anyway, > >> > that for me, it's a mix of health, > >> > aesthetics, and morality for me. > >> > >> It's a tap-dance. > >> > >> > > >> >> >>The sad thing is, there is no rational reason to > >> >> >>hang on to this fallacy, even intelligent vegans > >> >> >>don't do so, although they are few and far between. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > What's with the insult? Intelligent > >> >> > vegans are few? > >> >> > >> >> Yes. As "veganism" is predicated on illogic and faulty > >> >> ethics, anyone who sticks with it even after the flaws > >> >> are elaborated must be unintelligent: unable to learn. > >> > > >> > There's no illogic or faulty ethics. > >> > >> Yes there is. > > > > No there's not. > > Head-in-sand syndrome. I have clearly made > my case and you just evade and issue flat > denials. You've not made any case. As for denials, what was "Yes there is"? -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ... > "Dutch" > wrote in message > ... >> >> "Scented Nectar" > wrote >> > "Dutch" > wrote >> [..] >> >> >> >>>>>As shown in this newsgroup >> >> >> >>>>>before, the numbers will still >> >> >> >>>>>favour the vegan. >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >>>>Which vegan vs which non-vegan? >> >> >> >>>>Your statement is a fallacy of >> >> >> >>>>generalization. >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>>Do you want their names and >> >> >> >>>menus? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>No, just a general description of diets, the >> >> >> >>foods contained in those diets, and their >> >> >> >>sources. Simply categorizing diets by the >> >> >> >>absence of or presence of *any amount* >> >> >> >>of meat does not do anything. The very >> >> >> >>idea is absurd. As has been repeated here >> >> >> >>many times, that is a simplistic idea that >> >> >> >>tends to appeal to simple-minded people. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > You know that the overall numbers >> >> >> > favour the vegan. >> >> >> >> >> >> The "overall numbers" are meaningless, because virtue >> >> >> is not a counting game. You are not virtuous for doing >> >> >> less of something you believe to be wrong than what >> >> >> someone else is doing. You must not do the wrong >> >> >> thing, period. >> >> > >> >> > If it's not possible to completely >> >> > eliminate the bad thing, then the >> >> > lesser bad thing is better morally >> >> > than more of the bad thing. >> >> >> >> Yet you refuse to acknowledge a person >> >> who consumes some meat but is responsible >> >> for fewer overall deaths than some vegans. >> >> If we are going to play this game of moral >> >> relativity then you can't just change the rules >> >> whenever it suits you. >> > >> > I refuse to play your game of >> > comparing the 'worst' of the >> > vegans to the 'best' of the meat >> > eaters. >> >> It's not a game, it's a comparison of real foods, >> real diets available in the real world to people. >> You refuse to consider any comparison that >> fails to come to the result you want. > > You want to compare apples with > oranges. Yes, because I would like to know the relative merits of apples vs oranges. Why don't you? > >> > Compare instead both >> > the worsts with each other, >> >> That's a valid comparison also, all comparisons >> are valid, *if* one is searching for the truth, >> you are not. > > NOT all comparisons are valid. > Searching for the truth, you would > see that. There is no reason to *avoid* comparing ANY food with ANY OTHER food, unless you are attempting to deceive. >> > and >> > the bests with each other. It's >> > more logical and correct that >> > way. >> >> It's completely illogical and ridiculous. >> We are not limited to consuming the >> best or the worst of one type of diet or >> the other, all options are there and there >> is no reason to avoid comparing them, >> unless one is attempting to defend an >> agenda that cannot withstand scrutiny. >> >> One may be consuming the worst >> vegan diet, and be considering the >> best non-vegan diet instead. Why >> would it be illogical or incorrect for >> that person to try to determine which >> is better? How else would they know? >> You are preaching willful ignorance. >> Why are you doing it? > > Huh? Now you're just making > things up. That's a weak response to a pertinent query. If I am trying to choose between all available foods based on impact, then I must compare all foods, there is no other way. It's absurdly self-defeating to create two arbitrary categories then only compare foods in limited ways based on those two categories. You cannot find out how foods rank unless you attempt to rate them all according to consistent criteria. The only reason I can think of why you would want to do this is that you are promoting ignorance. >> >> >> >>>Statistics are averages >> >> >> >>>not generalizations. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>The impact of vegan diets varies wildly as do >> >> >> >>the impact of non-vegan diets, so to say that >> >> >> >>"the numbers will favour the vegan" is a >> >> >> >>generalization. In other words it's only true >> >> >> >>"generally", given a specific set of assumptions, >> >> >> >>not categorically, as you state it. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>In order to understand this objection simply >> >> >> >>imagine two vegans, A) has a diet heavily >> >> >> >>dependent on imported and mass-produced >> >> >> >>foods, B) grows some of his own, buys from >> >> >> >>a local co-op, and trades with neighbours. >> >> >> >>Clearly B) has a much, much better diet than >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > No, clearly B does not. Growing >> >> >> > his own does not ensure less >> >> >> > harm, nor do trading and co-ops >> >> >> > unless specifically altered to that >> >> >> > purpose. >> >> >> >> >> >> Yes, IF having a smaller (but not zero) ecological >> >> >> footprint is the measure of virtue, then B CLEARLY is >> >> >> doing better than A. >> >> > >> >> > You've not proven that B has the >> >> > better footprint. >> >> >> >> You have not proven anything either, all of >> >> this discussion is based on a reasoned guessing. >> >> You reject a reasonable supposition whenever >> >> it doesn't lead to the conclusions you like. >> > >> > Your guesses don't convince me. >> >> Nothing will convince a person whose mind is closed. >> Your mind is closed tight. > > Your guesses are just guesses. Your evasions are just evasions. >> >> >> But this only applies for things like pollution and >> >> >> other ecological measures. These are things that are >> >> >> not intrinsically wrong, but are undesirable. That >> >> >> means that doing less of them IS a measure of virtue. >> >> >> For example, it isn't morally wrong to put waste in a >> >> >> landfill; we recognize that humans generate waste, and >> >> >> we have to do something with it. It is bad, in >> >> >> utilitarian terms, to fill up landfills "too" fast. >> >> >> Therefore, someone who consciously tries to reduce the >> >> >> amount of trash he generates is doing good, even if he >> >> >> doesn't reduce it to zero. >> >> > >> >> > Then why can't you see other >> >> > 'bad' things the same way? Why >> >> > is it ok and even good to pollute >> >> > less (but not zero), but it's not ok >> >> > to eat foods with less cds (but not >> >> > zero)? >> >> >> >> Why is not better to kill fewer animals and eat *some* >> >> meat than to kill more and eat *no* meat? >> > >> > Health for one thing. >> >> You're deliberately trying to muddy the waters. >> The point you made relates to the morality of >> doing less of a bad thing, not benefitting oneself >> by eating or not eating certain foods. > > Health has a lot to do with it. It was nothing to do with it. > Wolves are meant to be meat > eaters and cannot be blamed > for doing so. Wolves are not morally culpable for anything, so saying that they can't be "blamed" does not need to be said. > Cows are not > meant to be eating meat products > and the humans who force them > to are doing something morally > wrong. I don't advocate feeding meat products to cows. You're tap-dancing again. >> > For another >> > it's the wrong comparison again. >> >> Why? If obtaining food is going to harm animals >> no matter what, then why is not better to choose >> foods that harm fewer? That would seem to be >> your whole point. > > Provided that health is accounted > for first, meaning to me a variety > of foods both local and imported, > then choosing between a veganic > potato and a regular one can be > compared. Health is an important issue, but in this context it's just another diversion. If something is immoral, then you must not do it, even if it would benefit you to do so. Health is a personal benefit. >> > For another, the salmon have a >> > good chance at becoming >> > endangered in the future. >> >> Land has a good chance of becoming devoid >> of all nutrients and poisoned due to farming, >> does that mean we should not do it? > > That's right. At least not the way > we (you) do it now. Enriching the > soil rather than just stealing from > it would be a good start. Good, I don't advocate farming *or* fishing in non-sustainable ways. >> > For >> > another, you're assuming that >> > the vegan diet is causing more >> > cds than the non-vegan one. >> >> No I did not assume that, the diet I called B) >> was *already* a lower impact diet before >> some of the plant foods was replaced by a >> small amount of salmon. Even if that salmon >> increased the impact of the diet slightly, it still >> is a lower impact diet than A), the vegan diet, >> which relies completely on factory farmed, >> imported and processed foods. > > Still sounds like you want kudos > for being a marginal, minority of > meat eaters. You are completely missing the point. I am NOT one of those marginal minority of meat eaters, so I can't be asking for approval. I am looking for you recognize that they exist and the value of that. > You want to be > recognised for being better than > most meat eaters, I think. Wrong, and you don't think, ever, except for ways to dance around the subject. > If you > just come out and say it, I would > probably agree funny enough. The point is, that some meat-eaters, *obviously* have diets and lifestyles that reflect less impact than the typical urban vegan. That's all I am saying. I am not one of them, but they exist, of that there is no doubt. That lone fact reveals the underlying lie of veganism. >> > The fact that one of those people >> > also happens to eat a salmon >> > once a month doesn't mean that >> > that person doesn't also eat more >> > in general and STILL has the >> > bigger footprint. They might be >> > an athlete and need more overall >> > calories. >> >> The vegan may be the one who is a glutton, >> you can't assume that the person who eats >> some salmon automatically consumes more >> calories, in fact there is a good probability >> that their diet is more satisfying overall. > > Now you are claiming that > there is 'good probability'?? > On what basis? On the basis that I have followed both vegan and non-vegan diets over long periods of time during my adult life, and non-vegan diets are more satisfying. >> >> >> >>A) with respect to harm to animals. Now >> >> >> >>B) decides to catch and eat one salmon a month. >> >> >> >>According to your categorical statement, the >> >> >> >>diet of A) is now superior to B) who is now >> >> >> >>non-vegan, even though, B) probably improved >> >> >> >>his diet wrt cds, and health, by substituting that >> >> >> >>monthly catch for some of the cultivated product. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Well if you believe the above, >> >> >> > go ahead and eat all the dead >> >> >> > body flesh you want. I will not. >> >> >> >> >> >> You won't, but it isn't for either health or morality >> >> >> reasons. It is because of aesthetics, your >> >> >> stuck-in-teen-years aesthetics. At age 16 you decided >> >> >> meat was icky - a big "eeewwwwwwww!" factor - and you >> >> >> decided to stop eating it, because it was "gross". >> >> >> Your aesthetics hasn't evolved beyond that. It was and >> >> >> is immature. >> >> > >> >> > You got my age wrong. Also you >> >> > know full well, or should anyway, >> >> > that for me, it's a mix of health, >> >> > aesthetics, and morality for me. >> >> >> >> It's a tap-dance. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >>The sad thing is, there is no rational reason to >> >> >> >>hang on to this fallacy, even intelligent vegans >> >> >> >>don't do so, although they are few and far between. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > What's with the insult? Intelligent >> >> >> > vegans are few? >> >> >> >> >> >> Yes. As "veganism" is predicated on illogic and faulty >> >> >> ethics, anyone who sticks with it even after the flaws >> >> >> are elaborated must be unintelligent: unable to learn. >> >> > >> >> > There's no illogic or faulty ethics. >> >> >> >> Yes there is. >> > >> > No there's not. >> >> Head-in-sand syndrome. I have clearly made >> my case and you just evade and issue flat >> denials. > > You've not made any case. Yes I have, you are too blinded by your dogma to comprehend it. As for > denials, what was "Yes there is"? It's a conclusion of many arguments which you have evaded and failed to respond to. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Dutch" > wrote in message
... > "Scented Nectar" > wrote > > "Dutch" > wrote > > [..] > > >> >> >> > As shown in this newsgroup > >> >> >> > before, the numbers will still > >> >> >> > favour the vegan. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Which vegan vs which non-vegan? > >> >> >> Your statement is a fallacy of > >> >> >> generalization. > >> >> > > >> >> > Do you want their names and > >> >> > menus? > >> >> > >> >> No, just a general description of diets, the > >> >> foods contained in those diets, and their > >> >> sources. Simply categorizing diets by the > >> >> absence of or presence of *any amount* > >> >> of meat does not do anything. The very > >> >> idea is absurd. As has been repeated here > >> >> many times, that is a simplistic idea that > >> >> tends to appeal to simple-minded people. > >> > > >> > You know that the overall numbers > >> > favour the vegan. > >> > >> "The vegan"? Is there only one? What is his name? > > > > That's top secret. I can't tell you. > > You aren't funny, you lack a sense of humor, like > most veg*ns. You are lacking an appreciation of humour. > >> If you mean vegans *as a group* then yes, > >> compared to most typical western diets, then > >> probably so, but membership in a group is > >> not a valid moral or ethical argument. > > > > So you are really here looking for > > teacher to put a star on your > > forehead for not being like the > > typical western eater, and you > > want to be compared to vegans. > > What I am looking for is for you understand > that your idea that you can claim a moral > credit for membership in some dietary category > is absurd. I do not obtain a moral credit due > to the fact that some rural non-vegan has a > very low impact diet, my moral standing is > based on what *I* do, nobody else. Then why do want to join into the comparing that people who feel otherwise do? > >> >> > Statistics are averages > >> >> > not generalizations. > >> >> > >> >> The impact of vegan diets varies wildly as do > >> >> the impact of non-vegan diets, so to say that > >> >> "the numbers will favour the vegan" is a > >> >> generalization. In other words it's only true > >> >> "generally", given a specific set of assumptions, > >> >> not categorically, as you state it. > >> >> > >> >> In order to understand this objection simply > >> >> imagine two vegans, A) has a diet heavily > >> >> dependent on imported and mass-produced > >> >> foods, B) grows some of his own, buys from > >> >> a local co-op, and trades with neighbours. > >> >> Clearly B) has a much, much better diet than > >> > > >> > No, clearly B does not. Growing > >> > his own does not ensure less > >> > harm, nor do trading and co-ops > >> > unless specifically altered to that > >> > purpose. > >> > >> The example makes the point, vegan diets > >> can and do vary greatly wrt animal harm > >> and other impacts, just as non-vegan diets > >> do. That means that any categorical statement > >> which says that "vegan diets are better" is > >> a disingenuous falsehood. > > > > No. Just a statistical averaging > > out. > > You can't average out ethics or morals. Your moral > standing is based on *your* life, nothing else. > > For example, if white people contribute a greater portion > of their earnings to charitable causes than blacks (I don't > know if that's the case), can I claim to be a better person > because of the colour of my skin? No, my own life is what > determines it, whether or not *I* contribute. You are trying > to do something very immoral by this "averaging" game. Ah, using race in order to prevent me from answering the way you don't want. If it were indeed the case that there were more whites contributing than blacks, then you (knowing what your personal contribution was) can feel anywhere from good to bad about it. Either you didn't live up to par, or you know that you are one of these givers of plenty (equal to or greater than par). > >> >> A) with respect to harm to animals. Now > >> >> B) decides to catch and eat one salmon a month. > >> >> According to your categorical statement, the > >> >> diet of A) is now superior to B) who is now > >> >> non-vegan, even though, B) probably improved > >> >> his diet wrt cds, and health, by substituting that > >> >> monthly catch for some of the cultivated product. > >> > > >> > Well if you believe the above, > >> > go ahead and eat all the dead > >> > body flesh you want. I will not. > >> > >> I'm not interested in convincing you to > >> alter your diet, I am simply illustrating > >> how your thinking is flawed. > > > > But I think that your's is flawed. > > No, you don't think. I have not seen you > do anything but dance around the subject > and make smart-ass or irrelevant remarks. Don't try and tell me what I am or am not thinking. I do indeed think your thinking is flawed. > >> >> The sad thing is, there is no rational reason to > >> >> hang on to this fallacy, even intelligent vegans > >> >> don't do so, although they are few and far between. > >> > > >> > What's with the insult? > >> > >> What's with the thin skin? You aren't even a vegan. > > > > I'll ask again. What's with the > > insult? > > There was no insult, it was a statement of fact. Let's see some research that shows stupidity connected to vegan diets. > > I'm trying to help you > > here. Everyone knows that > > insults weaken your arguments. > > You're dancing around again. You are. That's what your insults do. > >> > Intelligent > >> > vegans are few? > >> > >> Based on my experience in this forum, yes! > > > > Nah, you're just looking to > > insult again. > > Nah, the vast majority of veg*ns I have encountered > on this newsgroup demonstrate a lack of intelligence. What you really mean is that they disagree with you, so you say it's a lack of intelligence. > >> > You are just here > >> > to argue. > >> > >> Not just to argue for it's own sake, that > >> does not interest me. I am here to present > >> a point of view which I believe has value. > >> You won't accept that because my point > >> of view challenges your simplistic view of > >> the world, that's not my problem. > > > > Any view that disagrees with > > your's is simplistic, eh? > > Not at all, but yours is. Nope. I've got a lot of depth to my views. > >> > You have no interest in > >> > food or nutrition or cds. You're just > >> > here to be a shit disturber by pushing > >> > meat. > >> > >> I'm not pushing meat, I am pushing > >> common sense and reason. You are > >> pushing a childish, naive, divisive and > >> dishonest point of view. Vegan and > >> vegetarian dishes, food, and diets are > >> wonderful, but this addictive cult of > >> superiority that vegetarians fall into > >> serves no-one. > > > > You sound like a conspiracy nut. > > There *is* a conspiracy, and you are a willing > party to it. Oh no, a conspiracy!!! > > Read what you wrote. > > Yes, it's dead-on. You can't see what you're caught up > in, you don't want to see. I must be entangled in an evil web of shameful whole grain gluttony and world take-over. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Dutch" > wrote in message
... > > "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message > ... > > "Dutch" > wrote in message > > ... > >> > >> "Scented Nectar" > wrote > >> > "Dutch" > wrote > >> [..] > >> >> >> >>>>>As shown in this newsgroup > >> >> >> >>>>>before, the numbers will still > >> >> >> >>>>>favour the vegan. > >> >> >> >>>> > >> >> >> >>>>Which vegan vs which non-vegan? > >> >> >> >>>>Your statement is a fallacy of > >> >> >> >>>>generalization. > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>>Do you want their names and > >> >> >> >>>menus? > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >>No, just a general description of diets, the > >> >> >> >>foods contained in those diets, and their > >> >> >> >>sources. Simply categorizing diets by the > >> >> >> >>absence of or presence of *any amount* > >> >> >> >>of meat does not do anything. The very > >> >> >> >>idea is absurd. As has been repeated here > >> >> >> >>many times, that is a simplistic idea that > >> >> >> >>tends to appeal to simple-minded people. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > You know that the overall numbers > >> >> >> > favour the vegan. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> The "overall numbers" are meaningless, because virtue > >> >> >> is not a counting game. You are not virtuous for doing > >> >> >> less of something you believe to be wrong than what > >> >> >> someone else is doing. You must not do the wrong > >> >> >> thing, period. > >> >> > > >> >> > If it's not possible to completely > >> >> > eliminate the bad thing, then the > >> >> > lesser bad thing is better morally > >> >> > than more of the bad thing. > >> >> > >> >> Yet you refuse to acknowledge a person > >> >> who consumes some meat but is responsible > >> >> for fewer overall deaths than some vegans. > >> >> If we are going to play this game of moral > >> >> relativity then you can't just change the rules > >> >> whenever it suits you. > >> > > >> > I refuse to play your game of > >> > comparing the 'worst' of the > >> > vegans to the 'best' of the meat > >> > eaters. > >> > >> It's not a game, it's a comparison of real foods, > >> real diets available in the real world to people. > >> You refuse to consider any comparison that > >> fails to come to the result you want. > > > > You want to compare apples with > > oranges. > > Yes, because I would like to know the relative > merits of apples vs oranges. Why don't you? I don't think you're quite getting the meaning of that phrase. > >> > Compare instead both > >> > the worsts with each other, > >> > >> That's a valid comparison also, all comparisons > >> are valid, *if* one is searching for the truth, > >> you are not. > > > > NOT all comparisons are valid. > > Searching for the truth, you would > > see that. > > There is no reason to *avoid* comparing ANY food > with ANY OTHER food, unless you are attempting > to deceive. Oh I'm hearing that distant cry of "oh pat me on the back for being a marginal, organic meat eater". Once ok, twice maybe, but really, a million times now? Stop it already. > >> > and > >> > the bests with each other. It's > >> > more logical and correct that > >> > way. > >> > >> It's completely illogical and ridiculous. > >> We are not limited to consuming the > >> best or the worst of one type of diet or > >> the other, all options are there and there > >> is no reason to avoid comparing them, > >> unless one is attempting to defend an > >> agenda that cannot withstand scrutiny. > >> > >> One may be consuming the worst > >> vegan diet, and be considering the > >> best non-vegan diet instead. Why > >> would it be illogical or incorrect for > >> that person to try to determine which > >> is better? How else would they know? > >> You are preaching willful ignorance. > >> Why are you doing it? > > > > Huh? Now you're just making > > things up. > > That's a weak response to a pertinent > query. If I am trying to choose between > all available foods based on impact, then > I must compare all foods, there is no other > way. It's absurdly self-defeating to create > two arbitrary categories then only compare > foods in limited ways based on those two > categories. You cannot find out how foods > rank unless you attempt to rate them all > according to consistent criteria. The only > reason I can think of why you would want > to do this is that you are promoting ignorance. In these considerations, should be sustainability (if others were to demand it too) of wild animals and animal welfare if farmed. These alone knock it down below veganism do to existing flaws in the systems. I know you want to push meat, but are you obsessed? > >> >> >> >>>Statistics are averages > >> >> >> >>>not generalizations. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >>The impact of vegan diets varies wildly as do > >> >> >> >>the impact of non-vegan diets, so to say that > >> >> >> >>"the numbers will favour the vegan" is a > >> >> >> >>generalization. In other words it's only true > >> >> >> >>"generally", given a specific set of assumptions, > >> >> >> >>not categorically, as you state it. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >>In order to understand this objection simply > >> >> >> >>imagine two vegans, A) has a diet heavily > >> >> >> >>dependent on imported and mass-produced > >> >> >> >>foods, B) grows some of his own, buys from > >> >> >> >>a local co-op, and trades with neighbours. > >> >> >> >>Clearly B) has a much, much better diet than > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > No, clearly B does not. Growing > >> >> >> > his own does not ensure less > >> >> >> > harm, nor do trading and co-ops > >> >> >> > unless specifically altered to that > >> >> >> > purpose. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Yes, IF having a smaller (but not zero) ecological > >> >> >> footprint is the measure of virtue, then B CLEARLY is > >> >> >> doing better than A. > >> >> > > >> >> > You've not proven that B has the > >> >> > better footprint. > >> >> > >> >> You have not proven anything either, all of > >> >> this discussion is based on a reasoned guessing. > >> >> You reject a reasonable supposition whenever > >> >> it doesn't lead to the conclusions you like. > >> > > >> > Your guesses don't convince me. > >> > >> Nothing will convince a person whose mind is closed. > >> Your mind is closed tight. > > > > Your guesses are just guesses. > > Your evasions are just evasions. > > >> >> >> But this only applies for things like pollution and > >> >> >> other ecological measures. These are things that are > >> >> >> not intrinsically wrong, but are undesirable. That > >> >> >> means that doing less of them IS a measure of virtue. > >> >> >> For example, it isn't morally wrong to put waste in a > >> >> >> landfill; we recognize that humans generate waste, and > >> >> >> we have to do something with it. It is bad, in > >> >> >> utilitarian terms, to fill up landfills "too" fast. > >> >> >> Therefore, someone who consciously tries to reduce the > >> >> >> amount of trash he generates is doing good, even if he > >> >> >> doesn't reduce it to zero. > >> >> > > >> >> > Then why can't you see other > >> >> > 'bad' things the same way? Why > >> >> > is it ok and even good to pollute > >> >> > less (but not zero), but it's not ok > >> >> > to eat foods with less cds (but not > >> >> > zero)? > >> >> > >> >> Why is not better to kill fewer animals and eat *some* > >> >> meat than to kill more and eat *no* meat? > >> > > >> > Health for one thing. > >> > >> You're deliberately trying to muddy the waters. > >> The point you made relates to the morality of > >> doing less of a bad thing, not benefitting oneself > >> by eating or not eating certain foods. > > > > Health has a lot to do with it. > > It was nothing to do with it. Yes it does. It connects with what place we have in nature and whether we should be eating animals. > > Wolves are meant to be meat > > eaters and cannot be blamed > > for doing so. > > Wolves are not morally culpable for > anything, so saying that they can't be > "blamed" does not need to be said. > > > Cows are not > > meant to be eating meat products > > and the humans who force them > > to are doing something morally > > wrong. > > I don't advocate feeding meat products > to cows. You're tap-dancing again. > > >> > For another > >> > it's the wrong comparison again. > >> > >> Why? If obtaining food is going to harm animals > >> no matter what, then why is not better to choose > >> foods that harm fewer? That would seem to be > >> your whole point. > > > > Provided that health is accounted > > for first, meaning to me a variety > > of foods both local and imported, > > then choosing between a veganic > > potato and a regular one can be > > compared. > > Health is an important issue, but in this > context it's just another diversion. If > something is immoral, then you must > not do it, even if it would benefit you > to do so. Health is a personal benefit. So anything less than total martydom is not enough? > >> > For another, the salmon have a > >> > good chance at becoming > >> > endangered in the future. > >> > >> Land has a good chance of becoming devoid > >> of all nutrients and poisoned due to farming, > >> does that mean we should not do it? > > > > That's right. At least not the way > > we (you) do it now. Enriching the > > soil rather than just stealing from > > it would be a good start. > > Good, I don't advocate farming *or* fishing in > non-sustainable ways. Then according to your views on morality, you must not contribute to it, even if it would benefit you. > >> > For > >> > another, you're assuming that > >> > the vegan diet is causing more > >> > cds than the non-vegan one. > >> > >> No I did not assume that, the diet I called B) > >> was *already* a lower impact diet before > >> some of the plant foods was replaced by a > >> small amount of salmon. Even if that salmon > >> increased the impact of the diet slightly, it still > >> is a lower impact diet than A), the vegan diet, > >> which relies completely on factory farmed, > >> imported and processed foods. > > > > Still sounds like you want kudos > > for being a marginal, minority of > > meat eaters. > > You are completely missing the point. I > am NOT one of those marginal minority > of meat eaters, so I can't be asking for > approval. I am looking for you recognize > that they exist and the value of that. How many more times are you hoping that I'll give it recognition? And what value are you expecting to be placed on it? > > You want to be > > recognised for being better than > > most meat eaters, I think. > > Wrong, and you don't think, ever, except > for ways to dance around the subject. Make up your mind. I don't care who is the recipient of the recognition, you or someone else. > > If you > > just come out and say it, I would > > probably agree funny enough. > > The point is, that some meat-eaters, *obviously* > have diets and lifestyles that reflect less impact > than the typical urban vegan. That's all I am saying. > I am not one of them, but they exist, of that > there is no doubt. That lone fact reveals the > underlying lie of veganism. For every less bad meat eater out there, there's probably also a less bad vegan, growing their own food, etc. I think it still all balances out in the vegan's favour. > >> > The fact that one of those people > >> > also happens to eat a salmon > >> > once a month doesn't mean that > >> > that person doesn't also eat more > >> > in general and STILL has the > >> > bigger footprint. They might be > >> > an athlete and need more overall > >> > calories. > >> > >> The vegan may be the one who is a glutton, > >> you can't assume that the person who eats > >> some salmon automatically consumes more > >> calories, in fact there is a good probability > >> that their diet is more satisfying overall. > > > > Now you are claiming that > > there is 'good probability'?? > > On what basis? > > On the basis that I have followed both vegan and non-vegan > diets over long periods of time during my adult life, and > non-vegan diets are more satisfying. Well now, I guess that makes you an expert. > >> >> >> >>A) with respect to harm to animals. Now > >> >> >> >>B) decides to catch and eat one salmon a month. > >> >> >> >>According to your categorical statement, the > >> >> >> >>diet of A) is now superior to B) who is now > >> >> >> >>non-vegan, even though, B) probably improved > >> >> >> >>his diet wrt cds, and health, by substituting that > >> >> >> >>monthly catch for some of the cultivated product. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Well if you believe the above, > >> >> >> > go ahead and eat all the dead > >> >> >> > body flesh you want. I will not. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> You won't, but it isn't for either health or morality > >> >> >> reasons. It is because of aesthetics, your > >> >> >> stuck-in-teen-years aesthetics. At age 16 you decided > >> >> >> meat was icky - a big "eeewwwwwwww!" factor - and you > >> >> >> decided to stop eating it, because it was "gross". > >> >> >> Your aesthetics hasn't evolved beyond that. It was and > >> >> >> is immature. > >> >> > > >> >> > You got my age wrong. Also you > >> >> > know full well, or should anyway, > >> >> > that for me, it's a mix of health, > >> >> > aesthetics, and morality for me. > >> >> > >> >> It's a tap-dance. > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >> >>The sad thing is, there is no rational reason to > >> >> >> >>hang on to this fallacy, even intelligent vegans > >> >> >> >>don't do so, although they are few and far between. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > What's with the insult? Intelligent > >> >> >> > vegans are few? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Yes. As "veganism" is predicated on illogic and faulty > >> >> >> ethics, anyone who sticks with it even after the flaws > >> >> >> are elaborated must be unintelligent: unable to learn. > >> >> > > >> >> > There's no illogic or faulty ethics. > >> >> > >> >> Yes there is. > >> > > >> > No there's not. > >> > >> Head-in-sand syndrome. I have clearly made > >> my case and you just evade and issue flat > >> denials. > > > > You've not made any case. > > Yes I have, you are too blinded by your > dogma to comprehend it. > > As for > > denials, what was "Yes there is"? > > It's a conclusion of many arguments which you > have evaded and failed to respond to. You want me to agree with your conclusions. To do so, I would have to lie, because I disagree with your conclusions. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Scented Nectar" > wrote > "Dutch" > wrote >> "Scented Nectar" > wrote >> > "Dutch" > wrote >> >> [..] >> >> >> >> >> > As shown in this newsgroup >> >> >> >> > before, the numbers will still >> >> >> >> > favour the vegan. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Which vegan vs which non-vegan? >> >> >> >> Your statement is a fallacy of >> >> >> >> generalization. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Do you want their names and >> >> >> > menus? >> >> >> >> >> >> No, just a general description of diets, the >> >> >> foods contained in those diets, and their >> >> >> sources. Simply categorizing diets by the >> >> >> absence of or presence of *any amount* >> >> >> of meat does not do anything. The very >> >> >> idea is absurd. As has been repeated here >> >> >> many times, that is a simplistic idea that >> >> >> tends to appeal to simple-minded people. >> >> > >> >> > You know that the overall numbers >> >> > favour the vegan. >> >> >> >> "The vegan"? Is there only one? What is his name? >> > >> > That's top secret. I can't tell you. >> >> You aren't funny, you lack a sense of humor, like >> most veg*ns. > > You are lacking an appreciation > of humour. I appreciate humour, you aren't funny. >> >> If you mean vegans *as a group* then yes, >> >> compared to most typical western diets, then >> >> probably so, but membership in a group is >> >> not a valid moral or ethical argument. >> > >> > So you are really here looking for >> > teacher to put a star on your >> > forehead for not being like the >> > typical western eater, and you >> > want to be compared to vegans. >> >> What I am looking for is for you understand >> that your idea that you can claim a moral >> credit for membership in some dietary category >> is absurd. I do not obtain a moral credit due >> to the fact that some rural non-vegan has a >> very low impact diet, my moral standing is >> based on what *I* do, nobody else. > > Then why do want to join into > the comparing that people who > feel otherwise do? What does that mean? YOU are comparing yourself with others in a narrow-minded, self-serving and dishonest way. >> >> >> > Statistics are averages >> >> >> > not generalizations. >> >> >> >> >> >> The impact of vegan diets varies wildly as do >> >> >> the impact of non-vegan diets, so to say that >> >> >> "the numbers will favour the vegan" is a >> >> >> generalization. In other words it's only true >> >> >> "generally", given a specific set of assumptions, >> >> >> not categorically, as you state it. >> >> >> >> >> >> In order to understand this objection simply >> >> >> imagine two vegans, A) has a diet heavily >> >> >> dependent on imported and mass-produced >> >> >> foods, B) grows some of his own, buys from >> >> >> a local co-op, and trades with neighbours. >> >> >> Clearly B) has a much, much better diet than >> >> > >> >> > No, clearly B does not. Growing >> >> > his own does not ensure less >> >> > harm, nor do trading and co-ops >> >> > unless specifically altered to that >> >> > purpose. >> >> >> >> The example makes the point, vegan diets >> >> can and do vary greatly wrt animal harm >> >> and other impacts, just as non-vegan diets >> >> do. That means that any categorical statement >> >> which says that "vegan diets are better" is >> >> a disingenuous falsehood. >> > >> > No. Just a statistical averaging >> > out. >> >> You can't average out ethics or morals. Your moral >> standing is based on *your* life, nothing else. >> >> For example, if white people contribute a greater portion >> of their earnings to charitable causes than blacks (I don't >> know if that's the case), can I claim to be a better person >> because of the colour of my skin? No, my own life is what >> determines it, whether or not *I* contribute. You are trying >> to do something very immoral by this "averaging" game. > > Ah, using race in order to prevent > me from answering the way you > don't want. I am using the analogy to get you to understand that this "averaging" game does not work the way you are trying to do it. > If it were indeed the > case that there were more whites > contributing than blacks, then you > (knowing what your personal > contribution was) can feel anywhere > from good to bad about it. It would have no impact whatsoever on how proud I am entitled to feel about myself as a person. I am not allowed feel pride that I am a member of a group who "on average" do well, I am only entitled to feel pride in my own accomplishments. > Either > you didn't live up to par, or you > know that you are one of these > givers of plenty (equal to or > greater than par). That's right, the group I belong to or how well that group does "on average" has nothing to do with it. Similarly, you are not entitled to take any pride in how well vegetarians do "on average", only how well you do as an individual. As an indivdual you do quite well, probably, but there are unquestionably meat-eaters who do much better. The presence or absence of meat in one's diet is not the overwhelming factor that you want to believe it is. >> >> >> A) with respect to harm to animals. Now >> >> >> B) decides to catch and eat one salmon a month. >> >> >> According to your categorical statement, the >> >> >> diet of A) is now superior to B) who is now >> >> >> non-vegan, even though, B) probably improved >> >> >> his diet wrt cds, and health, by substituting that >> >> >> monthly catch for some of the cultivated product. >> >> > >> >> > Well if you believe the above, >> >> > go ahead and eat all the dead >> >> > body flesh you want. I will not. >> >> >> >> I'm not interested in convincing you to >> >> alter your diet, I am simply illustrating >> >> how your thinking is flawed. >> > >> > But I think that your's is flawed. >> >> No, you don't think. I have not seen you >> do anything but dance around the subject >> and make smart-ass or irrelevant remarks. > > Don't try and tell me what I am > or am not thinking. I'm telling you that you are NOT thinking. > I do indeed > think your thinking is flawed. OK, explain how it's flawed. I've explained in detail how yours is, but I may as well have been talking to my cat. >> >> >> The sad thing is, there is no rational reason to >> >> >> hang on to this fallacy, even intelligent vegans >> >> >> don't do so, although they are few and far between. >> >> > >> >> > What's with the insult? >> >> >> >> What's with the thin skin? You aren't even a vegan. >> > >> > I'll ask again. What's with the >> > insult? >> >> There was no insult, it was a statement of fact. > > Let's see some research that shows > stupidity connected to vegan diets. You are a prime example. >> > I'm trying to help you >> > here. Everyone knows that >> > insults weaken your arguments. >> >> You're dancing around again. > > You are. That's what your insults > do. No you are, NYAH NYAH NA NA NYAH! I can see I'm wasting my time with you. >> >> > Intelligent >> >> > vegans are few? >> >> >> >> Based on my experience in this forum, yes! >> > >> > Nah, you're just looking to >> > insult again. >> >> Nah, the vast majority of veg*ns I have encountered >> on this newsgroup demonstrate a lack of intelligence. > > What you really mean is that > they disagree with you, so you > say it's a lack of intelligence. No, what I mean is that they avoid real debate and refuse to discuss the issues rationally. I would love it if they came up with coherent arguments. > >> >> > You are just here >> >> > to argue. >> >> >> >> Not just to argue for it's own sake, that >> >> does not interest me. I am here to present >> >> a point of view which I believe has value. >> >> You won't accept that because my point >> >> of view challenges your simplistic view of >> >> the world, that's not my problem. >> > >> > Any view that disagrees with >> > your's is simplistic, eh? >> >> Not at all, but yours is. > > Nope. I've got a lot of depth > to my views. You are a two-dimensional figure. >> >> > You have no interest in >> >> > food or nutrition or cds. You're just >> >> > here to be a shit disturber by pushing >> >> > meat. >> >> >> >> I'm not pushing meat, I am pushing >> >> common sense and reason. You are >> >> pushing a childish, naive, divisive and >> >> dishonest point of view. Vegan and >> >> vegetarian dishes, food, and diets are >> >> wonderful, but this addictive cult of >> >> superiority that vegetarians fall into >> >> serves no-one. >> > >> > You sound like a conspiracy nut. >> >> There *is* a conspiracy, and you are a willing >> party to it. > > Oh no, a conspiracy!!! Oh yes. >> > Read what you wrote. >> >> Yes, it's dead-on. You can't see what you're caught up >> in, you don't want to see. > > I must be entangled in an evil > web of shameful whole grain > gluttony and world take-over. That's not a bad description. I would say a web of deceit designed to extract feelings of smugness by projecting guilt onto others. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ... > "Dutch" > wrote in message > ... >> >> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message >> ... >> > "Dutch" > wrote in message >> > ... >> >> >> >> "Scented Nectar" > wrote >> >> > "Dutch" > wrote >> >> [..] >> >> >> >> >>>>>As shown in this newsgroup >> >> >> >> >>>>>before, the numbers will still >> >> >> >> >>>>>favour the vegan. >> >> >> >> >>>> >> >> >> >> >>>>Which vegan vs which non-vegan? >> >> >> >> >>>>Your statement is a fallacy of >> >> >> >> >>>>generalization. >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>>Do you want their names and >> >> >> >> >>>menus? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>No, just a general description of diets, the >> >> >> >> >>foods contained in those diets, and their >> >> >> >> >>sources. Simply categorizing diets by the >> >> >> >> >>absence of or presence of *any amount* >> >> >> >> >>of meat does not do anything. The very >> >> >> >> >>idea is absurd. As has been repeated here >> >> >> >> >>many times, that is a simplistic idea that >> >> >> >> >>tends to appeal to simple-minded people. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > You know that the overall numbers >> >> >> >> > favour the vegan. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The "overall numbers" are meaningless, because virtue >> >> >> >> is not a counting game. You are not virtuous for doing >> >> >> >> less of something you believe to be wrong than what >> >> >> >> someone else is doing. You must not do the wrong >> >> >> >> thing, period. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > If it's not possible to completely >> >> >> > eliminate the bad thing, then the >> >> >> > lesser bad thing is better morally >> >> >> > than more of the bad thing. >> >> >> >> >> >> Yet you refuse to acknowledge a person >> >> >> who consumes some meat but is responsible >> >> >> for fewer overall deaths than some vegans. >> >> >> If we are going to play this game of moral >> >> >> relativity then you can't just change the rules >> >> >> whenever it suits you. >> >> > >> >> > I refuse to play your game of >> >> > comparing the 'worst' of the >> >> > vegans to the 'best' of the meat >> >> > eaters. >> >> >> >> It's not a game, it's a comparison of real foods, >> >> real diets available in the real world to people. >> >> You refuse to consider any comparison that >> >> fails to come to the result you want. >> > >> > You want to compare apples with >> > oranges. >> >> Yes, because I would like to know the relative >> merits of apples vs oranges. Why don't you? > > I don't think you're quite getting > the meaning of that phrase. I am getting the exact meaning. It was a very appropriate phrase, since we are talking about different types of food, and your refusal to compare them. >> >> > Compare instead both >> >> > the worsts with each other, >> >> >> >> That's a valid comparison also, all comparisons >> >> are valid, *if* one is searching for the truth, >> >> you are not. >> > >> > NOT all comparisons are valid. >> > Searching for the truth, you would >> > see that. >> >> There is no reason to *avoid* comparing ANY food >> with ANY OTHER food, unless you are attempting >> to deceive. > > Oh I'm hearing that distant cry > of "oh pat me on the back for > being a marginal, organic meat > eater". Once ok, twice maybe, > but really, a million times now? > Stop it already. I am NOT a "marginal organic meat eater", nor do I want or need your approval for my choice of food. You are living in lala land. The issue is your refusal to compare foods, period. > >> >> > and >> >> > the bests with each other. It's >> >> > more logical and correct that >> >> > way. >> >> >> >> It's completely illogical and ridiculous. >> >> We are not limited to consuming the >> >> best or the worst of one type of diet or >> >> the other, all options are there and there >> >> is no reason to avoid comparing them, >> >> unless one is attempting to defend an >> >> agenda that cannot withstand scrutiny. >> >> >> >> One may be consuming the worst >> >> vegan diet, and be considering the >> >> best non-vegan diet instead. Why >> >> would it be illogical or incorrect for >> >> that person to try to determine which >> >> is better? How else would they know? >> >> You are preaching willful ignorance. >> >> Why are you doing it? >> > >> > Huh? Now you're just making >> > things up. >> >> That's a weak response to a pertinent >> query. If I am trying to choose between >> all available foods based on impact, then >> I must compare all foods, there is no other >> way. It's absurdly self-defeating to create >> two arbitrary categories then only compare >> foods in limited ways based on those two >> categories. You cannot find out how foods >> rank unless you attempt to rate them all >> according to consistent criteria. The only >> reason I can think of why you would want >> to do this is that you are promoting ignorance. > > In these considerations, should > be sustainability (if others were > to demand it too) of wild animals > and animal welfare if farmed. > These alone knock it down below > veganism do to existing flaws in > the systems. That was completely non-responsive. > I know you want to > push meat, but are you obsessed? I'm not pushing meat, I couldn't care less if nobody eats meat. I am pushing rationality and honesty. >> >> >> >> >>>Statistics are averages >> >> >> >> >>>not generalizations. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>The impact of vegan diets varies wildly as do >> >> >> >> >>the impact of non-vegan diets, so to say that >> >> >> >> >>"the numbers will favour the vegan" is a >> >> >> >> >>generalization. In other words it's only true >> >> >> >> >>"generally", given a specific set of assumptions, >> >> >> >> >>not categorically, as you state it. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>In order to understand this objection simply >> >> >> >> >>imagine two vegans, A) has a diet heavily >> >> >> >> >>dependent on imported and mass-produced >> >> >> >> >>foods, B) grows some of his own, buys from >> >> >> >> >>a local co-op, and trades with neighbours. >> >> >> >> >>Clearly B) has a much, much better diet than >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > No, clearly B does not. Growing >> >> >> >> > his own does not ensure less >> >> >> >> > harm, nor do trading and co-ops >> >> >> >> > unless specifically altered to that >> >> >> >> > purpose. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Yes, IF having a smaller (but not zero) ecological >> >> >> >> footprint is the measure of virtue, then B CLEARLY is >> >> >> >> doing better than A. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > You've not proven that B has the >> >> >> > better footprint. >> >> >> >> >> >> You have not proven anything either, all of >> >> >> this discussion is based on a reasoned guessing. >> >> >> You reject a reasonable supposition whenever >> >> >> it doesn't lead to the conclusions you like. >> >> > >> >> > Your guesses don't convince me. >> >> >> >> Nothing will convince a person whose mind is closed. >> >> Your mind is closed tight. >> > >> > Your guesses are just guesses. >> >> Your evasions are just evasions. >> >> >> >> >> But this only applies for things like pollution and >> >> >> >> other ecological measures. These are things that are >> >> >> >> not intrinsically wrong, but are undesirable. That >> >> >> >> means that doing less of them IS a measure of virtue. >> >> >> >> For example, it isn't morally wrong to put waste in a >> >> >> >> landfill; we recognize that humans generate waste, and >> >> >> >> we have to do something with it. It is bad, in >> >> >> >> utilitarian terms, to fill up landfills "too" fast. >> >> >> >> Therefore, someone who consciously tries to reduce the >> >> >> >> amount of trash he generates is doing good, even if he >> >> >> >> doesn't reduce it to zero. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Then why can't you see other >> >> >> > 'bad' things the same way? Why >> >> >> > is it ok and even good to pollute >> >> >> > less (but not zero), but it's not ok >> >> >> > to eat foods with less cds (but not >> >> >> > zero)? >> >> >> >> >> >> Why is not better to kill fewer animals and eat *some* >> >> >> meat than to kill more and eat *no* meat? >> >> > >> >> > Health for one thing. >> >> >> >> You're deliberately trying to muddy the waters. >> >> The point you made relates to the morality of >> >> doing less of a bad thing, not benefitting oneself >> >> by eating or not eating certain foods. >> > >> > Health has a lot to do with it. >> >> It was nothing to do with it. > > Yes it does. It connects with what > place we have in nature and > whether we should be eating > animals. It's a diversion, health and ethics are two different topics. >> > Wolves are meant to be meat >> > eaters and cannot be blamed >> > for doing so. >> >> Wolves are not morally culpable for >> anything, so saying that they can't be >> "blamed" does not need to be said. >> >> > Cows are not >> > meant to be eating meat products >> > and the humans who force them >> > to are doing something morally >> > wrong. >> >> I don't advocate feeding meat products >> to cows. You're tap-dancing again. >> >> >> > For another >> >> > it's the wrong comparison again. >> >> >> >> Why? If obtaining food is going to harm animals >> >> no matter what, then why is not better to choose >> >> foods that harm fewer? That would seem to be >> >> your whole point. >> > >> > Provided that health is accounted >> > for first, meaning to me a variety >> > of foods both local and imported, >> > then choosing between a veganic >> > potato and a regular one can be >> > compared. >> >> Health is an important issue, but in this >> context it's just another diversion. If >> something is immoral, then you must >> not do it, even if it would benefit you >> to do so. Health is a personal benefit. > > So anything less than total > martydom is not enough? Not at all, you can and should act in your own self-interest, just quit trying to pretend otherwise. All this blathering about animals is just a way of making yourself feel good. >> >> > For another, the salmon have a >> >> > good chance at becoming >> >> > endangered in the future. >> >> >> >> Land has a good chance of becoming devoid >> >> of all nutrients and poisoned due to farming, >> >> does that mean we should not do it? >> > >> > That's right. At least not the way >> > we (you) do it now. Enriching the >> > soil rather than just stealing from >> > it would be a good start. >> >> Good, I don't advocate farming *or* fishing in >> non-sustainable ways. > > Then according to your views > on morality, you must not > contribute to it, even if it would > benefit you. Correct. >> >> > For >> >> > another, you're assuming that >> >> > the vegan diet is causing more >> >> > cds than the non-vegan one. >> >> >> >> No I did not assume that, the diet I called B) >> >> was *already* a lower impact diet before >> >> some of the plant foods was replaced by a >> >> small amount of salmon. Even if that salmon >> >> increased the impact of the diet slightly, it still >> >> is a lower impact diet than A), the vegan diet, >> >> which relies completely on factory farmed, >> >> imported and processed foods. >> > >> > Still sounds like you want kudos >> > for being a marginal, minority of >> > meat eaters. >> >> You are completely missing the point. I >> am NOT one of those marginal minority >> of meat eaters, so I can't be asking for >> approval. I am looking for you recognize >> that they exist and the value of that. > > How many more times are you > hoping that I'll give it recognition? How should I know? I don't have a crystal ball. > And what value are you expecting > to be placed on it? You have claimed that you place a high value on defending and protecting the lives of animals. >> > You want to be >> > recognised for being better than >> > most meat eaters, I think. >> >> Wrong, and you don't think, ever, except >> for ways to dance around the subject. > > Make up your mind. I don't care > who is the recipient of the > recognition, you or someone > else. Then be more specific. If harming fewer animals is the currency of goodness that you are proposing then you have no business withholding your admiration from people who eat meat when they harm fewer animals than the vegans you worship. > >> > If you >> > just come out and say it, I would >> > probably agree funny enough. >> >> The point is, that some meat-eaters, *obviously* >> have diets and lifestyles that reflect less impact >> than the typical urban vegan. That's all I am saying. >> I am not one of them, but they exist, of that >> there is no doubt. That lone fact reveals the >> underlying lie of veganism. > > For every less bad meat eater > out there, there's probably also > a less bad vegan, growing their > own food, etc. I think it still all > balances out in the vegan's > favour. Morals don't "balance out", get that idea out of your head, they are indivdual. >> >> > The fact that one of those people >> >> > also happens to eat a salmon >> >> > once a month doesn't mean that >> >> > that person doesn't also eat more >> >> > in general and STILL has the >> >> > bigger footprint. They might be >> >> > an athlete and need more overall >> >> > calories. >> >> >> >> The vegan may be the one who is a glutton, >> >> you can't assume that the person who eats >> >> some salmon automatically consumes more >> >> calories, in fact there is a good probability >> >> that their diet is more satisfying overall. >> > >> > Now you are claiming that >> > there is 'good probability'?? >> > On what basis? >> >> On the basis that I have followed both vegan and non-vegan >> diets over long periods of time during my adult life, and >> non-vegan diets are more satisfying. > > Well now, I guess that makes > you an expert. It validates my opinion. >> >> >> >> >>A) with respect to harm to animals. Now >> >> >> >> >>B) decides to catch and eat one salmon a month. >> >> >> >> >>According to your categorical statement, the >> >> >> >> >>diet of A) is now superior to B) who is now >> >> >> >> >>non-vegan, even though, B) probably improved >> >> >> >> >>his diet wrt cds, and health, by substituting that >> >> >> >> >>monthly catch for some of the cultivated product. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Well if you believe the above, >> >> >> >> > go ahead and eat all the dead >> >> >> >> > body flesh you want. I will not. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> You won't, but it isn't for either health or morality >> >> >> >> reasons. It is because of aesthetics, your >> >> >> >> stuck-in-teen-years aesthetics. At age 16 you decided >> >> >> >> meat was icky - a big "eeewwwwwwww!" factor - and you >> >> >> >> decided to stop eating it, because it was "gross". >> >> >> >> Your aesthetics hasn't evolved beyond that. It was and >> >> >> >> is immature. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > You got my age wrong. Also you >> >> >> > know full well, or should anyway, >> >> >> > that for me, it's a mix of health, >> >> >> > aesthetics, and morality for me. >> >> >> >> >> >> It's a tap-dance. >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >>The sad thing is, there is no rational reason to >> >> >> >> >>hang on to this fallacy, even intelligent vegans >> >> >> >> >>don't do so, although they are few and far between. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > What's with the insult? Intelligent >> >> >> >> > vegans are few? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Yes. As "veganism" is predicated on illogic and faulty >> >> >> >> ethics, anyone who sticks with it even after the flaws >> >> >> >> are elaborated must be unintelligent: unable to learn. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > There's no illogic or faulty ethics. >> >> >> >> >> >> Yes there is. >> >> > >> >> > No there's not. >> >> >> >> Head-in-sand syndrome. I have clearly made >> >> my case and you just evade and issue flat >> >> denials. >> > >> > You've not made any case. >> >> Yes I have, you are too blinded by your >> dogma to comprehend it. >> >> As for >> > denials, what was "Yes there is"? >> >> It's a conclusion of many arguments which you >> have evaded and failed to respond to. > > You want me to agree with your > conclusions. No I don't, I want you to respond rationally to rational arguments. To do so, I would > have to lie, because I disagree > with your conclusions. The problem is that you made up your mind long ago and now you're just defending that position in knee-jerk fashion. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Dutch" > wrote in message
... > > "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message > ... > > "Dutch" > wrote in message > > ... > >> > >> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message > >> ... > >> > "Dutch" > wrote in message > >> > ... > >> >> > >> >> "Scented Nectar" > wrote > >> >> > "Dutch" > wrote [--snip--] > >> >> > I refuse to play your game of > >> >> > comparing the 'worst' of the > >> >> > vegans to the 'best' of the meat > >> >> > eaters. > >> >> > >> >> It's not a game, it's a comparison of real foods, > >> >> real diets available in the real world to people. > >> >> You refuse to consider any comparison that > >> >> fails to come to the result you want. > >> > > >> > You want to compare apples with > >> > oranges. > >> > >> Yes, because I would like to know the relative > >> merits of apples vs oranges. Why don't you? > > > > I don't think you're quite getting > > the meaning of that phrase. > > I am getting the exact meaning. It was a very > appropriate phrase, since we are talking about > different types of food, and your refusal to > compare them. I'm refusing to compare your 'best' of the meats to the 'worst' of the vegan foods because it is a setup. It's using a nonsensical comparison to come up with the only way to make meat look good. [--snip--] > > Oh I'm hearing that distant cry > > of "oh pat me on the back for > > being a marginal, organic meat > > eater". Once ok, twice maybe, > > but really, a million times now? > > Stop it already. > > I am NOT a "marginal organic meat eater", > nor do I want or need your approval for > my choice of food. You are living in lala > land. The issue is your refusal to compare > foods, period. I will only compare them appropriately. [--snip--] > >> That's a weak response to a pertinent > >> query. If I am trying to choose between > >> all available foods based on impact, then > >> I must compare all foods, there is no other > >> way. It's absurdly self-defeating to create > >> two arbitrary categories then only compare > >> foods in limited ways based on those two > >> categories. You cannot find out how foods > >> rank unless you attempt to rate them all > >> according to consistent criteria. The only > >> reason I can think of why you would want > >> to do this is that you are promoting ignorance. > > > > In these considerations, should > > be sustainability (if others were > > to demand it too) of wild animals > > and animal welfare if farmed. > > These alone knock it down below > > veganism do to existing flaws in > > the systems. > > That was completely non-responsive. Let me dumb it down for you then. Wild animal eating is not sustainable if it ever became popular. The proven bad welfare of farmed animals is well documented. These two points knock it down below veganism, comparison-wise. [--snip--] > >> > Health has a lot to do with it. > >> > >> It was nothing to do with it. > > > > Yes it does. It connects with what > > place we have in nature and > > whether we should be eating > > animals. > > It's a diversion, health and ethics are > two different topics. If our bodies were those of meat eaters, then it would not be unethical to eat meat. > >> Health is an important issue, but in this > >> context it's just another diversion. If > >> something is immoral, then you must > >> not do it, even if it would benefit you > >> to do so. Health is a personal benefit. > > > > So anything less than total > > martydom is not enough? > > Not at all, you can and should act in your > own self-interest, just quit trying to pretend > otherwise. All this blathering about animals > is just a way of making yourself feel good. You are wanting people to not think of the killing of animals to be immoral? > >> >> > For another, the salmon have a > >> >> > good chance at becoming > >> >> > endangered in the future. > >> >> > >> >> Land has a good chance of becoming devoid > >> >> of all nutrients and poisoned due to farming, > >> >> does that mean we should not do it? > >> > > >> > That's right. At least not the way > >> > we (you) do it now. Enriching the > >> > soil rather than just stealing from > >> > it would be a good start. > >> > >> Good, I don't advocate farming *or* fishing in > >> non-sustainable ways. > > > > Then according to your views > > on morality, you must not > > contribute to it, even if it would > > benefit you. > > Correct. Then do you only buy organic, as that feeds the soil? Do you avoid ALL foods not grown or caught in sustainable manners? [--snip--] > >> You are completely missing the point. I > >> am NOT one of those marginal minority > >> of meat eaters, so I can't be asking for > >> approval. I am looking for you recognize > >> that they exist and the value of that. > > > > How many more times are you > > hoping that I'll give it recognition? > > How should I know? I don't have a > crystal ball. Well now, this should be fun. > > And what value are you expecting > > to be placed on it? > > You have claimed that you place a > high value on defending and protecting > the lives of animals. Ask someone else to pat the backs this time. > >> > You want to be > >> > recognised for being better than > >> > most meat eaters, I think. > >> > >> Wrong, and you don't think, ever, except > >> for ways to dance around the subject. > > > > Make up your mind. I don't care > > who is the recipient of the > > recognition, you or someone > > else. > > Then be more specific. If harming fewer > animals is the currency of goodness that > you are proposing then you have no business > withholding your admiration from people > who eat meat when they harm fewer animals > than the vegans you worship. You're assuming that these marginal, minority of meat eaters are deserving of a pat on the back. The decision to eat a dead body kind of puts an end to that plan, don't you think? You want me to praise a semi-mythical harm-lessened meateater over an animal rights intended vegan. Nope. Your show and tell meat eater doesn't care about animal welfare or deaths necessarily. [--snip--] > > For every less bad meat eater > > out there, there's probably also > > a less bad vegan, growing their > > own food, etc. I think it still all > > balances out in the vegan's > > favour. > > Morals don't "balance out", get that idea > out of your head, they are indivdual. Other times you have said that they are never individual and they are determined by society etc. > >> >> > The fact that one of those people > >> >> > also happens to eat a salmon > >> >> > once a month doesn't mean that > >> >> > that person doesn't also eat more > >> >> > in general and STILL has the > >> >> > bigger footprint. They might be > >> >> > an athlete and need more overall > >> >> > calories. > >> >> > >> >> The vegan may be the one who is a glutton, > >> >> you can't assume that the person who eats > >> >> some salmon automatically consumes more > >> >> calories, in fact there is a good probability > >> >> that their diet is more satisfying overall. > >> > > >> > Now you are claiming that > >> > there is 'good probability'?? > >> > On what basis? > >> > >> On the basis that I have followed both vegan and non-vegan > >> diets over long periods of time during my adult life, and > >> non-vegan diets are more satisfying. > > > > Well now, I guess that makes > > you an expert. > > It validates my opinion. No, you just felt like eating meat again and so you did. It means nothing. [--snip--] > The problem is that you made up your mind > long ago and now you're just defending that > position in knee-jerk fashion. No, I'm just not taking on your opinions as my own. Get used to it. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|||
|
|||
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message > ... > >>"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ... >> >>>"Dutch" > wrote in message ... >>> >>>>"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ... >>>> >>>>>"Dutch" > wrote in message ... >>>>> >>>>>>"Scented Nectar" > wrote >>>>>> >>>>>>>"Dutch" > wrote > > > [--snip--] > > >>>>>>>I refuse to play your game of >>>>>>>comparing the 'worst' of the >>>>>>>vegans to the 'best' of the meat >>>>>>>eaters. >>>>>> >>>>>>It's not a game, it's a comparison of real foods, >>>>>>real diets available in the real world to people. >>>>>>You refuse to consider any comparison that >>>>>>fails to come to the result you want. >>>>> >>>>>You want to compare apples with >>>>>oranges. >>>> >>>>Yes, because I would like to know the relative >>>>merits of apples vs oranges. Why don't you? >>> >>>I don't think you're quite getting >>>the meaning of that phrase. >> >>I am getting the exact meaning. It was a very >>appropriate phrase, since we are talking about >>different types of food, and your refusal to >>compare them. > > > I'm refusing to compare your > 'best' of the meats to the 'worst' > of the vegan foods because it > is a setup. It's using a nonsensical > comparison to come up with the > only way to make meat look good. It is not a "setup", and it's not an accurate description of what he's doing. You are stupidly claiming there is something *intrinsically* better about a vegetarian diet. He is legitimately showing you that, according to the measurement standards YOU are setting, it is easily possible to find a meat-including diet that "beats" your vegetarian one. You are IMPERMISSIBLY trying to cover yourself in glory by a bogus use of averages. You cannot say ANYTHING about YOUR diet by appealing to some (inaccurate) beliefs about "average" vegetarian diets. You might well follow the absolute WORST vegetarian diet of all, meaning that your death toll is much worse even than the average meat-including diet. Averages are meaningless in this kind of discussion. >>>Oh I'm hearing that distant cry >>>of "oh pat me on the back for >>>being a marginal, organic meat >>>eater". Once ok, twice maybe, >>>but really, a million times now? >>>Stop it already. >> >>I am NOT a "marginal organic meat eater", >>nor do I want or need your approval for >>my choice of food. You are living in lala >>land. The issue is your refusal to compare >>foods, period. > > > I will only compare them > appropriately. That's a lie. You compare them only INappropriately. >>>>That's a weak response to a pertinent >>>>query. If I am trying to choose between >>>>all available foods based on impact, then >>>>I must compare all foods, there is no other >>>>way. It's absurdly self-defeating to create >>>>two arbitrary categories then only compare >>>>foods in limited ways based on those two >>>>categories. You cannot find out how foods >>>>rank unless you attempt to rate them all >>>>according to consistent criteria. The only >>>>reason I can think of why you would want >>>>to do this is that you are promoting ignorance. >>> >>>In these considerations, should >>>be sustainability (if others were >>>to demand it too) of wild animals >>>and animal welfare if farmed. >>>These alone knock it down below >>>veganism do to existing flaws in >>>the systems. >> >>That was completely non-responsive. > > > Let me dumb it down for you > then. Wild animal eating is > not sustainable if it ever became > popular. The proven bad > welfare of farmed animals is > well documented. These two > points knock it down below > veganism, comparison-wise. You are IMPERMISSIBLY trying to use averages again. >>>>>Health has a lot to do with it. >>>> >>>>It was nothing to do with it. >>> >>>Yes it does. No, it does NOT. Your appalling ignorance of health, and your health beliefs being based on superstition and pseudo-science, both are extremely well documented. >>>It connects with what >>>place we have in nature and >>>whether we should be eating >>>animals. >> >>It's a diversion, health and ethics are >>two different topics. > > > If our bodies were those of meat > eaters, then it would not be > unethical to eat meat. Our bodies ARE those of meat eaters, and the ethics of meat eating are not in any way dependent on our physiology or anatomy. Our index fingers are ALSO those of trigger-pullers, but that does NOT, in and of itself, "prove" the ethicality of killing someone with a gun. >>>>Health is an important issue, but in this >>>>context it's just another diversion. If >>>>something is immoral, then you must >>>>not do it, even if it would benefit you >>>>to do so. Health is a personal benefit. >>> >>>So anything less than total >>>martydom is not enough? >> >>Not at all, you can and should act in your >>own self-interest, just quit trying to pretend >>otherwise. All this blathering about animals >>is just a way of making yourself feel good. > > > You are wanting people to not > think of the killing of animals > to be immoral? We want you to SUPPORT the claim that it is immoral to kill animals. You might begin by proving that YOU really do believe it to be immoral; at present, your behavior proves you believe otherwise. >>>And what value are you expecting >>>to be placed on it? >> >>You have claimed that you place a >>high value on defending and protecting >>the lives of animals. > > > Ask someone else to pat the > backs this time. You've practically twisted your arms off from your self-congratulatory back patting. How do you type? >>>>>You want to be >>>>>recognised for being better than >>>>>most meat eaters, I think. >>>> >>>>Wrong, and you don't think, ever, except >>>>for ways to dance around the subject. >>> >>>Make up your mind. I don't care >>>who is the recipient of the >>>recognition, you or someone >>>else. >> >>Then be more specific. If harming fewer >>animals is the currency of goodness that >>you are proposing then you have no business >>withholding your admiration from people >>who eat meat when they harm fewer animals >>than the vegans you worship. > > > You're assuming that these > marginal, minority of meat > eaters are deserving of a pat > on the back. It is the implication of YOUR belief about the desirability and virtue of killing fewer animals. It's YOUR standard. > The decision to > eat a dead body kind of puts > an end to that plan, don't you > think? Absolutely not. Why would you think that? > You want me to praise > a semi-mythical harm-lessened > meateater over an animal > rights intended vegan. If your standard is causing the least harm, and you claim it to be that, then YES, you should praise the very real meat eater who meats your standard. > Nope. Of course not. You have zero ethical consistency; why should we expect you to have any intellectual consistency, either? > Your show and tell meat eater > doesn't care about animal > welfare or deaths necessarily. Irrelevant. It's the result, not the intent, that counts. >>>For every less bad meat eater >>>out there, there's probably also >>>a less bad vegan, growing their >>>own food, etc. I think it still all >>>balances out in the vegan's >>>favour. >> >>Morals don't "balance out", get that idea >>out of your head, they are indivdual. > > > Other times you have said > that they are never individual > and they are determined by > society etc. You are hopelessly confused. The STANDARDS of morality are not individually determined on an utterly ad hoc basis, as you wish to pretend. But the DETERMINATION of whether any given behavior is ethical or not is made based on an examination of each person's INDIVIDUAL behavior. Some "vegan" who consumes the highest imaginable CD diet - you, for example - does not get to wrap herself in some flag of virtue. >>>>>>>The fact that one of those people >>>>>>>also happens to eat a salmon >>>>>>>once a month doesn't mean that >>>>>>>that person doesn't also eat more >>>>>>>in general and STILL has the >>>>>>>bigger footprint. They might be >>>>>>>an athlete and need more overall >>>>>>>calories. >>>>>> >>>>>>The vegan may be the one who is a glutton, >>>>>>you can't assume that the person who eats >>>>>>some salmon automatically consumes more >>>>>>calories, in fact there is a good probability >>>>>>that their diet is more satisfying overall. >>>>> >>>>>Now you are claiming that >>>>>there is 'good probability'?? >>>>>On what basis? >>>> >>>>On the basis that I have followed both vegan and non-vegan >>>>diets over long periods of time during my adult life, and >>>>non-vegan diets are more satisfying. >>> >>>Well now, I guess that makes >>>you an expert. >> >>It validates my opinion. > > > No, you just felt like eating > meat again and so you did. > It means nothing. It validates his opinion as to which diet he finds more satisfying. >>The problem is that you made up your mind >>long ago and now you're just defending that >>position in knee-jerk fashion. > > > No, Yes. You made up your mind at age 16, based on foolish teenage girlish sentiment and nothing more, and you locked it and threw away the key. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
hlink.net... > Scented Nectar wrote: > > > "Dutch" > wrote in message > > ... > > > >>"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message > ... > >> > >>>"Dutch" > wrote in message > ... > >>> > >>>>"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message > ... > >>>> > >>>>>"Dutch" > wrote in message > ... > >>>>> > >>>>>>"Scented Nectar" > wrote > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>"Dutch" > wrote > > > > > > [--snip--] > > > > > >>>>>>>I refuse to play your game of > >>>>>>>comparing the 'worst' of the > >>>>>>>vegans to the 'best' of the meat > >>>>>>>eaters. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>It's not a game, it's a comparison of real foods, > >>>>>>real diets available in the real world to people. > >>>>>>You refuse to consider any comparison that > >>>>>>fails to come to the result you want. > >>>>> > >>>>>You want to compare apples with > >>>>>oranges. > >>>> > >>>>Yes, because I would like to know the relative > >>>>merits of apples vs oranges. Why don't you? > >>> > >>>I don't think you're quite getting > >>>the meaning of that phrase. > >> > >>I am getting the exact meaning. It was a very > >>appropriate phrase, since we are talking about > >>different types of food, and your refusal to > >>compare them. > > > > > > I'm refusing to compare your > > 'best' of the meats to the 'worst' > > of the vegan foods because it > > is a setup. It's using a nonsensical > > comparison to come up with the > > only way to make meat look good. > > It is not a "setup", and it's not an accurate > description of what he's doing. You are stupidly > claiming there is something *intrinsically* better > about a vegetarian diet. He is legitimately showing > you that, according to the measurement standards YOU > are setting, it is easily possible to find a > meat-including diet that "beats" your vegetarian one. I don't think so, unless we go back to the original topic here and discuss meat grown in a lab/farm. Although I would still abstain for health reasons, I would sure feel a lot better about what other people are doing. > You are IMPERMISSIBLY trying to cover yourself in glory > by a bogus use of averages. You cannot say ANYTHING > about YOUR diet by appealing to some (inaccurate) > beliefs about "average" vegetarian diets. You might > well follow the absolute WORST vegetarian diet of all, > meaning that your death toll is much worse even than > the average meat-including diet. Why do you assume that the 'worst' of veg diets is worse than the 'average' meat eating one? And what permission are you talking about? > Averages are meaningless in this kind of discussion. Then explain your above statement about "the average..." > >>>Oh I'm hearing that distant cry > >>>of "oh pat me on the back for > >>>being a marginal, organic meat > >>>eater". Once ok, twice maybe, > >>>but really, a million times now? > >>>Stop it already. > >> > >>I am NOT a "marginal organic meat eater", > >>nor do I want or need your approval for > >>my choice of food. You are living in lala > >>land. The issue is your refusal to compare > >>foods, period. > > > > > > I will only compare them > > appropriately. > > That's a lie. You compare them only INappropriately. The best with the best and the worst with the worst. That's fair and square. > >>>>That's a weak response to a pertinent > >>>>query. If I am trying to choose between > >>>>all available foods based on impact, then > >>>>I must compare all foods, there is no other > >>>>way. It's absurdly self-defeating to create > >>>>two arbitrary categories then only compare > >>>>foods in limited ways based on those two > >>>>categories. You cannot find out how foods > >>>>rank unless you attempt to rate them all > >>>>according to consistent criteria. The only > >>>>reason I can think of why you would want > >>>>to do this is that you are promoting ignorance. > >>> > >>>In these considerations, should > >>>be sustainability (if others were > >>>to demand it too) of wild animals > >>>and animal welfare if farmed. > >>>These alone knock it down below > >>>veganism do to existing flaws in > >>>the systems. > >> > >>That was completely non-responsive. > > > > > > Let me dumb it down for you > > then. Wild animal eating is > > not sustainable if it ever became > > popular. The proven bad > > welfare of farmed animals is > > well documented. These two > > points knock it down below > > veganism, comparison-wise. > > You are IMPERMISSIBLY trying to use averages again. I don't need permission. > >>>>>Health has a lot to do with it. > >>>> > >>>>It was nothing to do with it. > >>> > >>>Yes it does. > > No, it does NOT. Your appalling ignorance of health, > and your health beliefs being based on superstition and > pseudo-science, both are extremely well documented. If we were meant to be meat eaters than it would not be morally wrong to kill and eat them. But we are not meant to be meat eaters so it is morally wrong to kill them unnecessarily. > >>>It connects with what > >>>place we have in nature and > >>>whether we should be eating > >>>animals. > >> > >>It's a diversion, health and ethics are > >>two different topics. > > > > > > If our bodies were those of meat > > eaters, then it would not be > > unethical to eat meat. > > Our bodies ARE those of meat eaters, and the ethics of > meat eating are not in any way dependent on our > physiology or anatomy. Our index fingers are ALSO > those of trigger-pullers, but that does NOT, in and of > itself, "prove" the ethicality of killing someone with > a gun. Our bodies are NOT those of meat eaters. Your gun example is too wacky to respond to. > >>>>Health is an important issue, but in this > >>>>context it's just another diversion. If > >>>>something is immoral, then you must > >>>>not do it, even if it would benefit you > >>>>to do so. Health is a personal benefit. > >>> > >>>So anything less than total > >>>martydom is not enough? > >> > >>Not at all, you can and should act in your > >>own self-interest, just quit trying to pretend > >>otherwise. All this blathering about animals > >>is just a way of making yourself feel good. > > > > > > You are wanting people to not > > think of the killing of animals > > to be immoral? > > We want you to SUPPORT the claim that it is immoral to > kill animals. You might begin by proving that YOU > really do believe it to be immoral; at present, your > behavior proves you believe otherwise. I've proven it many times. If you weren't listening the first few hundred times, oh well. > >>>And what value are you expecting > >>>to be placed on it? > >> > >>You have claimed that you place a > >>high value on defending and protecting > >>the lives of animals. > > > > > > Ask someone else to pat the > > backs this time. > > You've practically twisted your arms off from your > self-congratulatory back patting. How do you type? Easy. I don't need to pat myself on the back. I already know and like what I do and who I am. > >>>>>You want to be > >>>>>recognised for being better than > >>>>>most meat eaters, I think. > >>>> > >>>>Wrong, and you don't think, ever, except > >>>>for ways to dance around the subject. > >>> > >>>Make up your mind. I don't care > >>>who is the recipient of the > >>>recognition, you or someone > >>>else. > >> > >>Then be more specific. If harming fewer > >>animals is the currency of goodness that > >>you are proposing then you have no business > >>withholding your admiration from people > >>who eat meat when they harm fewer animals > >>than the vegans you worship. > > > > > > You're assuming that these > > marginal, minority of meat > > eaters are deserving of a pat > > on the back. > > It is the implication of YOUR belief about the > desirability and virtue of killing fewer animals. It's > YOUR standard. I would like a number. The number of times we need to do this again. I've given a pat on the back here and there already. No more. Such neediness is unbecoming. > > The decision to > > eat a dead body kind of puts > > an end to that plan, don't you > > think? > > Absolutely not. Why would you think that? It's the avoidable unnecessary death. Cds are currently unavoidable. The for-food animal is avoidable and has greater moral impact. > > You want me to praise > > a semi-mythical harm-lessened > > meateater over an animal > > rights intended vegan. > > If your standard is causing the least harm, and you > claim it to be that, then YES, you should praise the > very real meat eater who meats your standard. Intention counts for a lot. The meat eater does not meet the standard for anything more than the pats on the backs I've already given over the months. > > Nope. > > Of course not. You have zero ethical consistency; why > should we expect you to have any intellectual > consistency, either? I knew you'd get around to the insults sooner or later. > > Your show and tell meat eater > > doesn't care about animal > > welfare or deaths necessarily. > > Irrelevant. It's the result, not the intent, that counts. Intent is a huge consideration. > >>>For every less bad meat eater > >>>out there, there's probably also > >>>a less bad vegan, growing their > >>>own food, etc. I think it still all > >>>balances out in the vegan's > >>>favour. > >> > >>Morals don't "balance out", get that idea > >>out of your head, they are indivdual. > > > > > > Other times you have said > > that they are never individual > > and they are determined by > > society etc. > > You are hopelessly confused. The STANDARDS of morality > are not individually determined on an utterly ad hoc > basis, as you wish to pretend. But the DETERMINATION > of whether any given behavior is ethical or not is made > based on an examination of each person's INDIVIDUAL > behavior. Some "vegan" who consumes the highest > imaginable CD diet - you, for example - does not get to > wrap herself in some flag of virtue. Me for example? Where do you get that? Oh yeah, your insult list. Nice twist around by the way, trying to agree with Dutch's "they are individual" while still sticking with your belief that it's never the individual. > >>>>>>>The fact that one of those people > >>>>>>>also happens to eat a salmon > >>>>>>>once a month doesn't mean that > >>>>>>>that person doesn't also eat more > >>>>>>>in general and STILL has the > >>>>>>>bigger footprint. They might be > >>>>>>>an athlete and need more overall > >>>>>>>calories. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>The vegan may be the one who is a glutton, > >>>>>>you can't assume that the person who eats > >>>>>>some salmon automatically consumes more > >>>>>>calories, in fact there is a good probability > >>>>>>that their diet is more satisfying overall. > >>>>> > >>>>>Now you are claiming that > >>>>>there is 'good probability'?? > >>>>>On what basis? > >>>> > >>>>On the basis that I have followed both vegan and non-vegan > >>>>diets over long periods of time during my adult life, and > >>>>non-vegan diets are more satisfying. > >>> > >>>Well now, I guess that makes > >>>you an expert. > >> > >>It validates my opinion. > > > > > > No, you just felt like eating > > meat again and so you did. > > It means nothing. > > It validates his opinion as to which diet he finds more > satisfying. And it still means nothing. > >>The problem is that you made up your mind > >>long ago and now you're just defending that > >>position in knee-jerk fashion. > > > > > > No, > > Yes. You made up your mind at age 16, based on foolish > teenage girlish sentiment and nothing more, and you > locked it and threw away the key. I was 18 when I turned vegetarian. It was based on research and personal results that continued to be reinforced over the years by further research and results. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|||
|
|||
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > hlink.net... > >>Scented Nectar wrote: >> >> >>>"Dutch" > wrote in message ... >>> >>> >>>>>>Yes, because I would like to know the relative >>>>>>merits of apples vs oranges. Why don't you? >>>>> >>>>>I don't think you're quite getting >>>>>the meaning of that phrase. >>>> >>>>I am getting the exact meaning. It was a very >>>>appropriate phrase, since we are talking about >>>>different types of food, and your refusal to >>>>compare them. >>> >>> >>>I'm refusing to compare your >>>'best' of the meats to the 'worst' >>>of the vegan foods because it >>>is a setup. It's using a nonsensical >>>comparison to come up with the >>>only way to make meat look good. >> >>It is not a "setup", and it's not an accurate >>description of what he's doing. You are stupidly >>claiming there is something *intrinsically* better >>about a vegetarian diet. He is legitimately showing >>you that, according to the measurement standards YOU >>are setting, it is easily possible to find a >>meat-including diet that "beats" your vegetarian one. > > > I don't think so, Yes, it is EXACTLY what he is showing you. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant. > unless we go > back to the original topic here > and discuss meat grown in a > lab/farm. Although I would still > abstain for health reasons, I > would sure feel a lot better > about what other people are > doing. > > >>You are IMPERMISSIBLY trying to cover yourself in glory >>by a bogus use of averages. You cannot say ANYTHING >>about YOUR diet by appealing to some (inaccurate) >>beliefs about "average" vegetarian diets. You might >>well follow the absolute WORST vegetarian diet of all, >>meaning that your death toll is much worse even than >>the average meat-including diet. > > > Why do you assume that the > 'worst' of veg diets is worse > than the 'average' meat eating > one? Why would you assume it isn't? > And what permission > are you talking about? You stupid skank. It is LOGICALLY impermissible to make any kind of appeal to averages in talking about your personal practices. >>Averages are meaningless in this kind of discussion. > > > Then explain your above statement > about "the average..." You are so stupid it's almost not believable. YOU are the one trying to cover yourself in glory by a comparison of averages. But it is ONLY your personal behavior that matters, not any averages. If you follow the worst possible strictly vegetarian diet ("worst" pertaining to numbers of deaths), then you might well be causing more deaths than the great majority of INDIVIDUAL meat eaters. >>>>>Oh I'm hearing that distant cry >>>>>of "oh pat me on the back for >>>>>being a marginal, organic meat >>>>>eater". Once ok, twice maybe, >>>>>but really, a million times now? >>>>>Stop it already. >>>> >>>>I am NOT a "marginal organic meat eater", >>>>nor do I want or need your approval for >>>>my choice of food. You are living in lala >>>>land. The issue is your refusal to compare >>>>foods, period. >>> >>> >>>I will only compare them >>>appropriately. >> >>That's a lie. You compare them only INappropriately. > > > The best with the best and > the worst with the worst. That's > fair and square. No. You are comparing averages - not even legitimately computed averages, just your ignorant surmises - in order to arrive at some moral conclusion about yourself. That's logically and morally impermissible. You must compare your behavior with some objective, impersonal standard. On that measure, you stink, because your so-called "standard" is that killing animals is morally wrong, period. >>>>>>That's a weak response to a pertinent >>>>>>query. If I am trying to choose between >>>>>>all available foods based on impact, then >>>>>>I must compare all foods, there is no other >>>>>>way. It's absurdly self-defeating to create >>>>>>two arbitrary categories then only compare >>>>>>foods in limited ways based on those two >>>>>>categories. You cannot find out how foods >>>>>>rank unless you attempt to rate them all >>>>>>according to consistent criteria. The only >>>>>>reason I can think of why you would want >>>>>>to do this is that you are promoting ignorance. >>>>> >>>>>In these considerations, should >>>>>be sustainability (if others were >>>>>to demand it too) of wild animals >>>>>and animal welfare if farmed. >>>>>These alone knock it down below >>>>>veganism do to existing flaws in >>>>>the systems. >>>> >>>>That was completely non-responsive. >>> >>> >>>Let me dumb it down for you >>>then. Wild animal eating is >>>not sustainable if it ever became >>>popular. The proven bad >>>welfare of farmed animals is >>>well documented. These two >>>points knock it down below >>>veganism, comparison-wise. >> >>You are IMPERMISSIBLY trying to use averages again. > > > I don't need permission. There it is again: "you're not the boss of me!" It's automatic with you. Stupid ****. You do need permission: logical permission. You can't reach a logical conclusion by committing logical and moral fallacies. It is impermissible - against the rules of logic and morality - to use some comparison of averages to reach a conclusion about an individual. In fact, such comparisons are THE SOURCE of racist thinking. >>>>>>>Health has a lot to do with it. >>>>>> >>>>>>It was nothing to do with it. >>>>> >>>>>Yes it does. >> >>No, it does NOT. Your appalling ignorance of health, >>and your health beliefs being based on superstition and >>pseudo-science, both are extremely well documented. > > > If we were meant to be meat > eaters We are. We have the anatomy and physiology of omnivores. This is beyond dispute. NO ONE among professional academics studying these questions disputes it. > than THEN, you stupid ****, not "than". > it would not be morally > wrong to kill and eat them. You're repeating yourself, and you were wrong the first time. Anatomy doesn't justify ethics. > But we are not meant to be meat eaters You are wrong. You simply do not know what you're talking about. We ARE "meant" to be meat eaters. We are omnivores, period. > so it is morally wrong to kill them > unnecessarily. No. That is logically invalid, AND your underlying premise is false. >>>>>It connects with what >>>>>place we have in nature and >>>>>whether we should be eating >>>>>animals. >>>> >>>>It's a diversion, health and ethics are >>>>two different topics. >>> >>> >>>If our bodies were those of meat >>>eaters, then it would not be >>>unethical to eat meat. >> >>Our bodies ARE those of meat eaters, and the ethics of >>meat eating are not in any way dependent on our >>physiology or anatomy. Our index fingers are ALSO >>those of trigger-pullers, but that does NOT, in and of >>itself, "prove" the ethicality of killing someone with >>a gun. > > > Our bodies are NOT those of > meat eaters. You are wrong. Our bodies ARE those of meat eaters. Find ONE anatomy or physiology textbook - NOT another horseshit "vegan" propaganda website, you **** - that says we are not naturally meat eaters. JUST ONE. > Your gun example > is too wacky to respond to. It isn't. You CAN'T respond to it, because you're stupid, and unable to deal with analogies. >>>>>>Health is an important issue, but in this >>>>>>context it's just another diversion. If >>>>>>something is immoral, then you must >>>>>>not do it, even if it would benefit you >>>>>>to do so. Health is a personal benefit. >>>>> >>>>>So anything less than total >>>>>martydom is not enough? >>>> >>>>Not at all, you can and should act in your >>>>own self-interest, just quit trying to pretend >>>>otherwise. All this blathering about animals >>>>is just a way of making yourself feel good. >>> >>> >>>You are wanting people to not >>>think of the killing of animals >>>to be immoral? >> >>We want you to SUPPORT the claim that it is immoral to >>kill animals. You might begin by proving that YOU >>really do believe it to be immoral; at present, your >>behavior proves you believe otherwise. > > > I've proven it many times. We have DISPROVEN it even more times. >>>>>And what value are you expecting >>>>>to be placed on it? >>>> >>>>You have claimed that you place a >>>>high value on defending and protecting >>>>the lives of animals. >>> >>> >>>Ask someone else to pat the >>>backs this time. >> >>You've practically twisted your arms off from your >>self-congratulatory back patting. How do you type? > > > Easy. I don't need to pat myself > on the back. You DO pat yourself on the back. Stop lying. > >>>>>>>You want to be >>>>>>>recognised for being better than >>>>>>>most meat eaters, I think. >>>>>> >>>>>>Wrong, and you don't think, ever, except >>>>>>for ways to dance around the subject. >>>>> >>>>>Make up your mind. I don't care >>>>>who is the recipient of the >>>>>recognition, you or someone >>>>>else. >>>> >>>>Then be more specific. If harming fewer >>>>animals is the currency of goodness that >>>>you are proposing then you have no business >>>>withholding your admiration from people >>>>who eat meat when they harm fewer animals >>>>than the vegans you worship. >>> >>> >>>You're assuming that these >>>marginal, minority of meat >>>eaters are deserving of a pat >>>on the back. >> >>It is the implication of YOUR belief about the >>desirability and virtue of killing fewer animals. It's >>YOUR standard. > > > I would like a number. Eat shit. YOUR adjusted statement of belief is that it is desirable to kill fewer animals. If that's so, then meat eaters who cause fewer animals to die than vegetarians cause - and we know there are some such meat eaters - deserve a pat on the back. Give it to them. >>>The decision to >>>eat a dead body kind of puts >>>an end to that plan, don't you >>>think? >> >>Absolutely not. Why would you think that? > > > It's the avoidable unnecessary > death. Cds are currently > unavoidable. YOU could avoid them...if you wanted to. But you don't. You are trying to make it a counting game, NOT an avoidance or "necessity" game. If it's a counting game - which it isn't - then someone with a lower count deserves a pat on the back, from you. Give it to them. Now. >>>You want me to praise >>>a semi-mythical harm-lessened >>>meateater over an animal >>>rights intended vegan. >> >>If your standard is causing the least harm, and you >>claim it to be that, then YES, you should praise the >>very real meat eater who meets your standard. > > > Intention counts for a lot. Now you're adjusting your standard again! Out of thin air. > The meat eater does not meet the > standard for anything more > than the pats on the backs I've > already given over the months. If he meets your previously adjusted standard, he deserves pats on the back. Give them. Now. >>>Nope. >> >>Of course not. You have zero ethical consistency; why >>should we expect you to have any intellectual >>consistency, either? > > > I knew you'd get around to the > insults sooner or later. You set yourself up for them. >>>Your show and tell meat eater >>>doesn't care about animal >>>welfare or deaths necessarily. >> >>Irrelevant. It's the result, not the intent, that counts. > > > Intent is a huge consideration. No. A bank robber maybe doesn't intend to shoot anyone, but if he does shoot someone, he can go off for it. Intent doesn't matter; results matter. >>>>>For every less bad meat eater >>>>>out there, there's probably also >>>>>a less bad vegan, growing their >>>>>own food, etc. I think it still all >>>>>balances out in the vegan's >>>>>favour. >>>> >>>>Morals don't "balance out", get that idea >>>>out of your head, they are indivdual. >>> >>> >>>Other times you have said >>>that they are never individual >>>and they are determined by >>>society etc. >> >>You are hopelessly confused. The STANDARDS of morality >>are not individually determined on an utterly ad hoc >>basis, as you wish to pretend. But the DETERMINATION >>of whether any given behavior is ethical or not is made >>based on an examination of each person's INDIVIDUAL >>behavior. Some "vegan" who consumes the highest >>imaginable CD diet - you, for example - does not get to >>wrap herself in some flag of virtue. > > > Me for example? Yes. > Where do you get that? From your documented indifference to animal death and suffering if it gets in the way of your hedonistic pleasure, that's where. From your UNIVERSAL discarding of your supposed moral standard if you want something, and adhering to the standard would prevent you from having it. THAT'S where I get it, you ****. > Oh yeah, your > insult list. Nice twist around > by the way, trying to agree with > Dutch's "they are individual" > while still sticking with your > belief that it's never the > individual. The setting of moral standards is NOT individual. The determination of whether some given individual meets standards of not MUST ALWAYS be individual. You are so stupid. >>>>>>>>>The fact that one of those people >>>>>>>>>also happens to eat a salmon >>>>>>>>>once a month doesn't mean that >>>>>>>>>that person doesn't also eat more >>>>>>>>>in general and STILL has the >>>>>>>>>bigger footprint. They might be >>>>>>>>>an athlete and need more overall >>>>>>>>>calories. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>The vegan may be the one who is a glutton, >>>>>>>>you can't assume that the person who eats >>>>>>>>some salmon automatically consumes more >>>>>>>>calories, in fact there is a good probability >>>>>>>>that their diet is more satisfying overall. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Now you are claiming that >>>>>>>there is 'good probability'?? >>>>>>>On what basis? >>>>>> >>>>>>On the basis that I have followed both vegan and non-vegan >>>>>>diets over long periods of time during my adult life, and >>>>>>non-vegan diets are more satisfying. >>>>> >>>>>Well now, I guess that makes >>>>>you an expert. >>>> >>>>It validates my opinion. >>> >>> >>>No, you just felt like eating >>>meat again and so you did. >>>It means nothing. >> >>It validates his opinion as to which diet he finds more >>satisfying. > > > And it still means nothing. It means what he says it means. >>>>The problem is that you made up your mind >>>>long ago and now you're just defending that >>>>position in knee-jerk fashion. >>> >>> >>>No, >> >>Yes. You made up your mind at age 16, based on foolish >>teenage girlish sentiment and nothing more, and you >>locked it and threw away the key. > > > I was 18 when I turned vegetarian. You were under age 20. You were a foolish teenaged GIRL, ABSOLUTELY governed by immature sentiment, not reason. > It was based on research That's a lie. It MOSTLY was based on your deeply felt, innate sense of "eeeewwwww...that's ICKY!" To the extent it was based on ANYTHING else, it was based only on bullshit vegetarian dogma and propaganda. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
nk.net... > Scented Nectar wrote: > > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > > hlink.net... > > > >>Scented Nectar wrote: > >> > >> > >>>"Dutch" > wrote in message > ... > >>> > >>> > > >>>>>>Yes, because I would like to know the relative > >>>>>>merits of apples vs oranges. Why don't you? > >>>>> > >>>>>I don't think you're quite getting > >>>>>the meaning of that phrase. > >>>> > >>>>I am getting the exact meaning. It was a very > >>>>appropriate phrase, since we are talking about > >>>>different types of food, and your refusal to > >>>>compare them. > >>> > >>> > >>>I'm refusing to compare your > >>>'best' of the meats to the 'worst' > >>>of the vegan foods because it > >>>is a setup. It's using a nonsensical > >>>comparison to come up with the > >>>only way to make meat look good. > >> > >>It is not a "setup", and it's not an accurate > >>description of what he's doing. You are stupidly > >>claiming there is something *intrinsically* better > >>about a vegetarian diet. He is legitimately showing > >>you that, according to the measurement standards YOU > >>are setting, it is easily possible to find a > >>meat-including diet that "beats" your vegetarian one. > > > > > > I don't think so, > > Yes, it is EXACTLY what he is showing you. Whether you > like it or not is irrelevant. I don't think so. > > unless we go > > back to the original topic here > > and discuss meat grown in a > > lab/farm. Although I would still > > abstain for health reasons, I > > would sure feel a lot better > > about what other people are > > doing. > > > > > >>You are IMPERMISSIBLY trying to cover yourself in glory > >>by a bogus use of averages. You cannot say ANYTHING > >>about YOUR diet by appealing to some (inaccurate) > >>beliefs about "average" vegetarian diets. You might > >>well follow the absolute WORST vegetarian diet of all, > >>meaning that your death toll is much worse even than > >>the average meat-including diet. > > > > > > Why do you assume that the > > 'worst' of veg diets is worse > > than the 'average' meat eating > > one? > > Why would you assume it isn't? Why do you assume that it is? Even the worst of vegan diets consume no animal parts. > > And what permission > > are you talking about? > > You stupid skank. It is LOGICALLY impermissible to > make any kind of appeal to averages in talking about > your personal practices. Calm down Rude Rudey! When one plays golf, isn't par what people are trying to meet or do better than? > >>Averages are meaningless in this kind of discussion. > > > > > > Then explain your above statement > > about "the average..." > > You are so stupid it's almost not believable. Stop projecting. > YOU are the one trying to cover yourself in glory by a > comparison of averages. But it is ONLY your personal > behavior that matters, not any averages. If you follow > the worst possible strictly vegetarian diet ("worst" > pertaining to numbers of deaths), then you might well > be causing more deaths than the great majority of > INDIVIDUAL meat eaters. You're not making sense. And your numbers are pulled from a biased hat. > >>>>>Oh I'm hearing that distant cry > >>>>>of "oh pat me on the back for > >>>>>being a marginal, organic meat > >>>>>eater". Once ok, twice maybe, > >>>>>but really, a million times now? > >>>>>Stop it already. > >>>> > >>>>I am NOT a "marginal organic meat eater", > >>>>nor do I want or need your approval for > >>>>my choice of food. You are living in lala > >>>>land. The issue is your refusal to compare > >>>>foods, period. > >>> > >>> > >>>I will only compare them > >>>appropriately. > >> > >>That's a lie. You compare them only INappropriately. > > > > > > The best with the best and > > the worst with the worst. That's > > fair and square. > > No. You are comparing averages - not even legitimately > computed averages, just your ignorant surmises - in > order to arrive at some moral conclusion about > yourself. That's logically and morally impermissible. > You must compare your behavior with some objective, > impersonal standard. On that measure, you stink, > because your so-called "standard" is that killing > animals is morally wrong, period. You are so full of shit, that I have a new nickname for you. ~port~a~jonnie~, or maybe ~jonnie~on~the~spot~. > >>>>>>That's a weak response to a pertinent > >>>>>>query. If I am trying to choose between > >>>>>>all available foods based on impact, then > >>>>>>I must compare all foods, there is no other > >>>>>>way. It's absurdly self-defeating to create > >>>>>>two arbitrary categories then only compare > >>>>>>foods in limited ways based on those two > >>>>>>categories. You cannot find out how foods > >>>>>>rank unless you attempt to rate them all > >>>>>>according to consistent criteria. The only > >>>>>>reason I can think of why you would want > >>>>>>to do this is that you are promoting ignorance. > >>>>> > >>>>>In these considerations, should > >>>>>be sustainability (if others were > >>>>>to demand it too) of wild animals > >>>>>and animal welfare if farmed. > >>>>>These alone knock it down below > >>>>>veganism do to existing flaws in > >>>>>the systems. > >>>> > >>>>That was completely non-responsive. > >>> > >>> > >>>Let me dumb it down for you > >>>then. Wild animal eating is > >>>not sustainable if it ever became > >>>popular. The proven bad > >>>welfare of farmed animals is > >>>well documented. These two > >>>points knock it down below > >>>veganism, comparison-wise. > >> > >>You are IMPERMISSIBLY trying to use averages again. > > > > > > I don't need permission. > > There it is again: "you're not the boss of me!" It's > automatic with you. Stupid ****. Calm down Jonnie. That vein in your temple is pulsing again. > You do need permission: logical permission. You can't > reach a logical conclusion by committing logical and > moral fallacies. It is impermissible - against the > rules of logic and morality - to use some comparison of > averages to reach a conclusion about an individual. In > fact, such comparisons are THE SOURCE of racist thinking. Since I'm not a racist, you must be wrong about either all of the above, or just about the part saying it's the source of racism. Take your pick. What are you really saying? > >>>>>>>Health has a lot to do with it. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>It was nothing to do with it. > >>>>> > >>>>>Yes it does. > >> > >>No, it does NOT. Your appalling ignorance of health, > >>and your health beliefs being based on superstition and > >>pseudo-science, both are extremely well documented. > > > > > > If we were meant to be meat > > eaters > > We are. We have the anatomy and physiology of > omnivores. This is beyond dispute. NO ONE among > professional academics studying these questions > disputes it. I've read otherwise. > > than > > THEN, you stupid ****, not "than". Take some nice slow deep breaths. Now try and calm down. If you go and have a massive stroke, um, well, never mind go ahead. > > it would not be morally > > wrong to kill and eat them. > > You're repeating yourself, and you were wrong the first > time. Anatomy doesn't justify ethics. Yes it does in this instance. > > But we are not meant to be meat eaters > > You are wrong. You simply do not know what you're > talking about. We ARE "meant" to be meat eaters. We > are omnivores, period. I don't believe that. > > so it is morally wrong to kill them > > unnecessarily. > > No. That is logically invalid, AND your underlying > premise is false. The 'unnecessarily' condition is a big one. Think about that. > >>>>>It connects with what > >>>>>place we have in nature and > >>>>>whether we should be eating > >>>>>animals. > >>>> > >>>>It's a diversion, health and ethics are > >>>>two different topics. > >>> > >>> > >>>If our bodies were those of meat > >>>eaters, then it would not be > >>>unethical to eat meat. > >> > >>Our bodies ARE those of meat eaters, and the ethics of > >>meat eating are not in any way dependent on our > >>physiology or anatomy. Our index fingers are ALSO > >>those of trigger-pullers, but that does NOT, in and of > >>itself, "prove" the ethicality of killing someone with > >>a gun. > > > > > > Our bodies are NOT those of > > meat eaters. > > You are wrong. Our bodies ARE those of meat eaters. > Find ONE anatomy or physiology textbook - NOT another > horseshit "vegan" propaganda website, you **** - that > says we are not naturally meat eaters. JUST ONE. "You ****"? Look up your own books. I'm not even going to give you ISBN numbers from my bookshelves. > > Your gun example > > is too wacky to respond to. > > It isn't. You CAN'T respond to it, because you're > stupid, and unable to deal with analogies. You're a wacky one, Jonnie By the way, why DO you keep changing your name? From what I've read here the first one you used was Jon Ball. When I saw you change from Jay Santos into Rudy Carnosa, you were completely transparent. You didn't even bother to hide it. So what's with that? You have like 20 or 30 names you've used. > >>>>>>Health is an important issue, but in this > >>>>>>context it's just another diversion. If > >>>>>>something is immoral, then you must > >>>>>>not do it, even if it would benefit you > >>>>>>to do so. Health is a personal benefit. > >>>>> > >>>>>So anything less than total > >>>>>martydom is not enough? > >>>> > >>>>Not at all, you can and should act in your > >>>>own self-interest, just quit trying to pretend > >>>>otherwise. All this blathering about animals > >>>>is just a way of making yourself feel good. > >>> > >>> > >>>You are wanting people to not > >>>think of the killing of animals > >>>to be immoral? > >> > >>We want you to SUPPORT the claim that it is immoral to > >>kill animals. You might begin by proving that YOU > >>really do believe it to be immoral; at present, your > >>behavior proves you believe otherwise. > > > > > > I've proven it many times. > > We have DISPROVEN it even more times. But I'm right, you're not. > >>>>>And what value are you expecting > >>>>>to be placed on it? > >>>> > >>>>You have claimed that you place a > >>>>high value on defending and protecting > >>>>the lives of animals. > >>> > >>> > >>>Ask someone else to pat the > >>>backs this time. > >> > >>You've practically twisted your arms off from your > >>self-congratulatory back patting. How do you type? > > > > > > Easy. I don't need to pat myself > > on the back. > > You DO pat yourself on the back. Stop lying. No need. I feel good about what I do and who I am. It always feels like my back is being patted. > >>>>>>>You want to be > >>>>>>>recognised for being better than > >>>>>>>most meat eaters, I think. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Wrong, and you don't think, ever, except > >>>>>>for ways to dance around the subject. > >>>>> > >>>>>Make up your mind. I don't care > >>>>>who is the recipient of the > >>>>>recognition, you or someone > >>>>>else. > >>>> > >>>>Then be more specific. If harming fewer > >>>>animals is the currency of goodness that > >>>>you are proposing then you have no business > >>>>withholding your admiration from people > >>>>who eat meat when they harm fewer animals > >>>>than the vegans you worship. > >>> > >>> > >>>You're assuming that these > >>>marginal, minority of meat > >>>eaters are deserving of a pat > >>>on the back. > >> > >>It is the implication of YOUR belief about the > >>desirability and virtue of killing fewer animals. It's > >>YOUR standard. > > > > > > I would like a number. > > Eat shit. Sorry Rudey, but that's an animal product, one that I believe would be best on YOUR plate. > YOUR adjusted statement of belief is that it is > desirable to kill fewer animals. If that's so, then > meat eaters who cause fewer animals to die than > vegetarians cause - and we know there are some such > meat eaters - deserve a pat on the back. Give it to them. No more pats. > >>>The decision to > >>>eat a dead body kind of puts > >>>an end to that plan, don't you > >>>think? > >> > >>Absolutely not. Why would you think that? > > > > > > It's the avoidable unnecessary > > death. Cds are currently > > unavoidable. > > YOU could avoid them...if you wanted to. But you don't. > > You are trying to make it a counting game, NOT an > avoidance or "necessity" game. If it's a counting game > - which it isn't - then someone with a lower count > deserves a pat on the back, from you. Give it to them. > Now. No more pats. All gone. > >>>You want me to praise > >>>a semi-mythical harm-lessened > >>>meateater over an animal > >>>rights intended vegan. > >> > >>If your standard is causing the least harm, and you > >>claim it to be that, then YES, you should praise the > >>very real meat eater who meets your standard. > > > > > > Intention counts for a lot. > > Now you're adjusting your standard again! Out of thin air. I'm fine tuning as I learn and evaluate things more. > > The meat eater does not meet the > > standard for anything more > > than the pats on the backs I've > > already given over the months. > > If he meets your previously adjusted standard, he > deserves pats on the back. Give them. Now. I think you know my answer to that by now. > >>>Nope. > >> > >>Of course not. You have zero ethical consistency; why > >>should we expect you to have any intellectual > >>consistency, either? > > > > > > I knew you'd get around to the > > insults sooner or later. > > You set yourself up for them. Nope. Your insults just lower your credibility. To blame the recipient of any abusive behaviour not very ethical. The launcher of the first insult is to blame. Blaming a victim is designed with the intent of making them feel worse. > >>>Your show and tell meat eater > >>>doesn't care about animal > >>>welfare or deaths necessarily. > >> > >>Irrelevant. It's the result, not the intent, that counts. > > > > > > Intent is a huge consideration. > > No. A bank robber maybe doesn't intend to shoot > anyone, but if he does shoot someone, he can go off for > it. Intent doesn't matter; results matter. If that bank robber didn't intend to kill anyone, he could have faked a gun or used blanks. > >>>>>For every less bad meat eater > >>>>>out there, there's probably also > >>>>>a less bad vegan, growing their > >>>>>own food, etc. I think it still all > >>>>>balances out in the vegan's > >>>>>favour. > >>>> > >>>>Morals don't "balance out", get that idea > >>>>out of your head, they are indivdual. > >>> > >>> > >>>Other times you have said > >>>that they are never individual > >>>and they are determined by > >>>society etc. > >> > >>You are hopelessly confused. The STANDARDS of morality > >>are not individually determined on an utterly ad hoc > >>basis, as you wish to pretend. But the DETERMINATION > >>of whether any given behavior is ethical or not is made > >>based on an examination of each person's INDIVIDUAL > >>behavior. Some "vegan" who consumes the highest > >>imaginable CD diet - you, for example - does not get to > >>wrap herself in some flag of virtue. > > > > > > Me for example? > > Yes. > > > > Where do you get that? > > From your documented indifference to animal death and > suffering if it gets in the way of your hedonistic > pleasure, that's where. From your UNIVERSAL discarding > of your supposed moral standard if you want something, > and adhering to the standard would prevent you from > having it. THAT'S where I get it, you ****. Calm down again Rudey. > > Oh yeah, your > > insult list. Nice twist around > > by the way, trying to agree with > > Dutch's "they are individual" > > while still sticking with your > > belief that it's never the > > individual. > > The setting of moral standards is NOT individual. The > determination of whether some given individual meets > standards of not MUST ALWAYS be individual. > > You are so stupid. Me? Have you read any of your own stuff? You're beyond most of the troll stereotypes. > >>>>>>>>>The fact that one of those people > >>>>>>>>>also happens to eat a salmon > >>>>>>>>>once a month doesn't mean that > >>>>>>>>>that person doesn't also eat more > >>>>>>>>>in general and STILL has the > >>>>>>>>>bigger footprint. They might be > >>>>>>>>>an athlete and need more overall > >>>>>>>>>calories. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>The vegan may be the one who is a glutton, > >>>>>>>>you can't assume that the person who eats > >>>>>>>>some salmon automatically consumes more > >>>>>>>>calories, in fact there is a good probability > >>>>>>>>that their diet is more satisfying overall. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Now you are claiming that > >>>>>>>there is 'good probability'?? > >>>>>>>On what basis? > >>>>>> > >>>>>>On the basis that I have followed both vegan and non-vegan > >>>>>>diets over long periods of time during my adult life, and > >>>>>>non-vegan diets are more satisfying. > >>>>> > >>>>>Well now, I guess that makes > >>>>>you an expert. > >>>> > >>>>It validates my opinion. > >>> > >>> > >>>No, you just felt like eating > >>>meat again and so you did. > >>>It means nothing. > >> > >>It validates his opinion as to which diet he finds more > >>satisfying. > > > > > > And it still means nothing. > > It means what he says it means. And it still means nothing. It's just opinion. > >>>>The problem is that you made up your mind > >>>>long ago and now you're just defending that > >>>>position in knee-jerk fashion. > >>> > >>> > >>>No, > >> > >>Yes. You made up your mind at age 16, based on foolish > >>teenage girlish sentiment and nothing more, and you > >>locked it and threw away the key. > > > > > > I was 18 when I turned vegetarian. > > You were under age 20. You were a foolish teenaged > GIRL, ABSOLUTELY governed by immature sentiment, not > reason. Now you're insulting everyone 20 and under. You're very grouchy. How long have you been constipated for? > > It was based on research > > That's a lie. It MOSTLY was based on your deeply felt, > innate sense of "eeeewwwww...that's ICKY!" To the > extent it was based on ANYTHING else, it was based only > on bullshit vegetarian dogma and propaganda. Nope. All insults in this post were inspired by our ~jonnie~, who launched them first. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Scented Nectar" > wrote > "Dutch" > wrote (..) >> >> > You want to compare apples with >> >> > oranges. >> >> >> >> Yes, because I would like to know the relative >> >> merits of apples vs oranges. Why don't you? >> > >> > I don't think you're quite getting >> > the meaning of that phrase. >> >> I am getting the exact meaning. It was a very >> appropriate phrase, since we are talking about >> different types of food, and your refusal to >> compare them. > > I'm refusing to compare your > 'best' of the meats to the 'worst' > of the vegan foods because it > is a setup. It's using a nonsensical > comparison to come up with the > only way to make meat look good. How is it a setup to simply compare foods without placing any conditions on it? It is you who is proposing a setup, limiting the comparisons to only ones that you believe favour your bias. [--snip--] [..] >> The issue is your refusal to compare >> foods, period. > > I will only compare them > appropriately. Meaning only in specific ways that reinforce your predjudice. [--snip--] > >> >> That's a weak response to a pertinent >> >> query. If I am trying to choose between >> >> all available foods based on impact, then >> >> I must compare all foods, there is no other >> >> way. It's absurdly self-defeating to create >> >> two arbitrary categories then only compare >> >> foods in limited ways based on those two >> >> categories. You cannot find out how foods >> >> rank unless you attempt to rate them all >> >> according to consistent criteria. The only >> >> reason I can think of why you would want >> >> to do this is that you are promoting ignorance. >> > >> > In these considerations, should >> > be sustainability (if others were >> > to demand it too) of wild animals >> > and animal welfare if farmed. >> > These alone knock it down below >> > veganism do to existing flaws in >> > the systems. >> >> That was completely non-responsive. > > Let me dumb it down for you > then. You mean try to state your point clearly for a change? > Wild animal eating is > not sustainable if it ever became > popular. You live in an urban western bubble, wild animal eating is very prevalent all over the world. > The proven bad > welfare of farmed animals is > well documented. It's grossly exaggerated by extremists like you. > These two > points knock it down below > veganism, comparison-wise. Vegans are blind to the death and suffering underlying their fruits, grains, and other so called non-violent foods. Veganism is a lie. [--snip--] >> >> > Health has a lot to do with it. >> >> >> >> It was nothing to do with it. >> > >> > Yes it does. It connects with what >> > place we have in nature and >> > whether we should be eating >> > animals. >> >> It's a diversion, health and ethics are >> two different topics. > > If our bodies were those of meat > eaters, then it would not be > unethical to eat meat. We have eaten meat since the time our species emerged. Our species has thrived. How can you conclude that our bodies are not those of meat eaters? >> >> Health is an important issue, but in this >> >> context it's just another diversion. If >> >> something is immoral, then you must >> >> not do it, even if it would benefit you >> >> to do so. Health is a personal benefit. >> > >> > So anything less than total >> > martydom is not enough? >> >> Not at all, you can and should act in your >> own self-interest, just quit trying to pretend >> otherwise. All this blathering about animals >> is just a way of making yourself feel good. > > You are wanting people to not > think of the killing of animals > to be immoral? Correct, killing is part of life, not immoral in and of itself. We all do it, mostly indirectly. >> >> >> > For another, the salmon have a >> >> >> > good chance at becoming >> >> >> > endangered in the future. >> >> >> >> >> >> Land has a good chance of becoming devoid >> >> >> of all nutrients and poisoned due to farming, >> >> >> does that mean we should not do it? >> >> > >> >> > That's right. At least not the way >> >> > we (you) do it now. Enriching the >> >> > soil rather than just stealing from >> >> > it would be a good start. >> >> >> >> Good, I don't advocate farming *or* fishing in >> >> non-sustainable ways. >> > >> > Then according to your views >> > on morality, you must not >> > contribute to it, even if it would >> > benefit you. >> >> Correct. > > Then do you only buy organic, > as that feeds the soil? Do you > avoid ALL foods not grown or > caught in sustainable manners? No, I don't, but I don't set myself up as a moral paragon, that's vegans' game. I accept that people are imperfect. > [--snip--] > >> >> You are completely missing the point. I >> >> am NOT one of those marginal minority >> >> of meat eaters, so I can't be asking for >> >> approval. I am looking for you recognize >> >> that they exist and the value of that. >> > >> > How many more times are you >> > hoping that I'll give it recognition? >> >> How should I know? I don't have a >> crystal ball. > > Well now, this should be fun. It's tiresome actually, and disheartening that anyone can be as dull as you are. >> > And what value are you expecting >> > to be placed on it? >> >> You have claimed that you place a >> high value on defending and protecting >> the lives of animals. > > Ask someone else to pat the > backs this time. Wha??? >> >> > You want to be >> >> > recognised for being better than >> >> > most meat eaters, I think. >> >> >> >> Wrong, and you don't think, ever, except >> >> for ways to dance around the subject. >> > >> > Make up your mind. I don't care >> > who is the recipient of the >> > recognition, you or someone >> > else. >> >> Then be more specific. If harming fewer >> animals is the currency of goodness that >> you are proposing then you have no business >> withholding your admiration from people >> who eat meat when they harm fewer animals >> than the vegans you worship. > > You're assuming that these > marginal, minority of meat > eaters are deserving of a pat > on the back. Why would they not? > The decision to > eat a dead body kind of puts > an end to that plan, don't you > think? Why? Dead bodies don't feel anything, they have no interests. Once you have done counting the death toll associated with a lifestyle then is the time to hand out the kudos. What people put on their plates should make no moral difference. > You want me to praise > a semi-mythical harm-lessened > meateater over an animal > rights intended vegan. The myth here is that the vegan you admire so much actually believes in animal rights. He does no such thing, he believes in convenience and feeling good just like the rest of us, he is just deluding himself. > Nope. > Your show and tell meat eater > doesn't care about animal > welfare or deaths necessarily. Your vegan cares about the animals harmed by *other people*, not by his own cushy lifestyle, because that's what supports his moral posturing. > > [--snip--] > >> > For every less bad meat eater >> > out there, there's probably also >> > a less bad vegan, growing their >> > own food, etc. I think it still all >> > balances out in the vegan's >> > favour. >> >> Morals don't "balance out", get that idea >> out of your head, they are indivdual. > > Other times you have said > that they are never individual > and they are determined by > society etc. Morals are determined through social evolution and contract, but whether or not *you* are moral is only detemined but your own actions, not by the average of what some group does. You are just flailing in the dark with such comments. >> >> >> > The fact that one of those people >> >> >> > also happens to eat a salmon >> >> >> > once a month doesn't mean that >> >> >> > that person doesn't also eat more >> >> >> > in general and STILL has the >> >> >> > bigger footprint. They might be >> >> >> > an athlete and need more overall >> >> >> > calories. >> >> >> >> >> >> The vegan may be the one who is a glutton, >> >> >> you can't assume that the person who eats >> >> >> some salmon automatically consumes more >> >> >> calories, in fact there is a good probability >> >> >> that their diet is more satisfying overall. >> >> > >> >> > Now you are claiming that >> >> > there is 'good probability'?? >> >> > On what basis? >> >> >> >> On the basis that I have followed both vegan and non-vegan >> >> diets over long periods of time during my adult life, and >> >> non-vegan diets are more satisfying. >> > >> > Well now, I guess that makes >> > you an expert. >> >> It validates my opinion. > > No, you just felt like eating > meat again and so you did. > It means nothing. Meat is very satisfying, meaning I need less of the manufactured soy substitutes that are derived by intensive farming which kills animals. > > [--snip--] > >> The problem is that you made up your mind >> long ago and now you're just defending that >> position in knee-jerk fashion. > > No, I'm just not taking on your > opinions as my own. Get used > to it. Yes, you are defending an irrational position and doing a shoddy job of it. |
|
|||
|
|||
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > nk.net... > >>Scented Nectar wrote: >> >> >>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message arthlink.net... >>> >>> >>>>Scented Nectar wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>"Dutch" > wrote in message ... >>>>> >>>>> >> >>>>>>>>Yes, because I would like to know the relative >>>>>>>>merits of apples vs oranges. Why don't you? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I don't think you're quite getting >>>>>>>the meaning of that phrase. >>>>>> >>>>>>I am getting the exact meaning. It was a very >>>>>>appropriate phrase, since we are talking about >>>>>>different types of food, and your refusal to >>>>>>compare them. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I'm refusing to compare your >>>>>'best' of the meats to the 'worst' >>>>>of the vegan foods because it >>>>>is a setup. It's using a nonsensical >>>>>comparison to come up with the >>>>>only way to make meat look good. >>>> >>>>It is not a "setup", and it's not an accurate >>>>description of what he's doing. You are stupidly >>>>claiming there is something *intrinsically* better >>>>about a vegetarian diet. He is legitimately showing >>>>you that, according to the measurement standards YOU >>>>are setting, it is easily possible to find a >>>>meat-including diet that "beats" your vegetarian one. >>> >>> >>>I don't think so, >> >>Yes, it is EXACTLY what he is showing you. Whether you >>like it or not is irrelevant. > > > I don't think so. Irrelevant what you think. We KNOW so. He is legitimately showing you that, according to the measurement standards YOU are setting, it is easily possible to find a meat-including diet that "beats" your vegetarian one. >>>unless we go >>>back to the original topic here >>>and discuss meat grown in a >>>lab/farm. Although I would still >>>abstain for health reasons, I >>>would sure feel a lot better >>>about what other people are >>>doing. >>> >>> >>> >>>>You are IMPERMISSIBLY trying to cover yourself in glory >>>>by a bogus use of averages. You cannot say ANYTHING >>>>about YOUR diet by appealing to some (inaccurate) >>>>beliefs about "average" vegetarian diets. You might >>>>well follow the absolute WORST vegetarian diet of all, >>>>meaning that your death toll is much worse even than >>>>the average meat-including diet. >>> >>> >>>Why do you assume that the >>>'worst' of veg diets is worse >>>than the 'average' meat eating >>>one? >> >>Why would you assume it isn't? > > > Why do you assume that it is? Why do you assume that it isn't? >>>And what permission >>>are you talking about? >> >>You stupid skank. It is LOGICALLY impermissible to >>make any kind of appeal to averages in talking about >>your personal practices. > > > Calm down Rude Rudey! > When one plays golf, isn't par > what people are trying to meet > or do better than? INDIVIDUALLY, they are. The par score doesn't change, and doesn't reflect an average. >>>>Averages are meaningless in this kind of discussion. >>> >>> >>>Then explain your above statement >>>about "the average..." >> >>You are so stupid it's almost not believable. > > > Stop projecting. You are intensely, unbelievably stupid. >>YOU are the one trying to cover yourself in glory by a >>comparison of averages. But it is ONLY your personal >>behavior that matters, not any averages. If you follow >>the worst possible strictly vegetarian diet ("worst" >>pertaining to numbers of deaths), then you might well >>be causing more deaths than the great majority of >>INDIVIDUAL meat eaters. > > > You're not making sense. I'm making perfect sense. You are trying to use averages, wrongly, to say something about your own status. That's completely impermissible. > And your numbers are pulled from a > biased hat. I haven't used any numbers. >>>>>>>Oh I'm hearing that distant cry >>>>>>>of "oh pat me on the back for >>>>>>>being a marginal, organic meat >>>>>>>eater". Once ok, twice maybe, >>>>>>>but really, a million times now? >>>>>>>Stop it already. >>>>>> >>>>>>I am NOT a "marginal organic meat eater", >>>>>>nor do I want or need your approval for >>>>>>my choice of food. You are living in lala >>>>>>land. The issue is your refusal to compare >>>>>>foods, period. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I will only compare them >>>>>appropriately. >>>> >>>>That's a lie. You compare them only INappropriately. >>> >>> >>>The best with the best and >>>the worst with the worst. That's >>>fair and square. >> >>No. You are comparing averages - not even legitimately >>computed averages, just your ignorant surmises - in >>order to arrive at some moral conclusion about >>yourself. That's logically and morally impermissible. >>You must compare your behavior with some objective, >>impersonal standard. On that measure, you stink, >>because your so-called "standard" is that killing >>animals is morally wrong, period. > > > You are so full of shit, Non-responsive. I am absolutely RIGHT: You may not reach ANY legitimate conclusion about yourself by saying you're part of some average. That's racism. >>>>>>>>That's a weak response to a pertinent >>>>>>>>query. If I am trying to choose between >>>>>>>>all available foods based on impact, then >>>>>>>>I must compare all foods, there is no other >>>>>>>>way. It's absurdly self-defeating to create >>>>>>>>two arbitrary categories then only compare >>>>>>>>foods in limited ways based on those two >>>>>>>>categories. You cannot find out how foods >>>>>>>>rank unless you attempt to rate them all >>>>>>>>according to consistent criteria. The only >>>>>>>>reason I can think of why you would want >>>>>>>>to do this is that you are promoting ignorance. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>In these considerations, should >>>>>>>be sustainability (if others were >>>>>>>to demand it too) of wild animals >>>>>>>and animal welfare if farmed. >>>>>>>These alone knock it down below >>>>>>>veganism do to existing flaws in >>>>>>>the systems. >>>>>> >>>>>>That was completely non-responsive. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Let me dumb it down for you >>>>>then. Wild animal eating is >>>>>not sustainable if it ever became >>>>>popular. The proven bad >>>>>welfare of farmed animals is >>>>>well documented. These two >>>>>points knock it down below >>>>>veganism, comparison-wise. >>>> >>>>You are IMPERMISSIBLY trying to use averages again. >>> >>> >>>I don't need permission. >> >>There it is again: "you're not the boss of me!" It's >>automatic with you. Stupid ****. > You stupid ****. >>You do need permission: logical permission. You can't >>reach a logical conclusion by committing logical and >>moral fallacies. It is impermissible - against the >>rules of logic and morality - to use some comparison of >>averages to reach a conclusion about an individual. In >>fact, such comparisons are THE SOURCE of racist thinking. > > > Since I'm not a racist, You are. > you must be wrong about either > all of the above, or just about > the part saying it's the source > of racism. Take your pick. > What are you really saying? That reaching conclusions about individuals based on the average of some group to which they belong is logically and morally impermissible, and that it's the source of racism. I am right. >>>>>>>>>Health has a lot to do with it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>It was nothing to do with it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Yes it does. >>>> >>>>No, it does NOT. Your appalling ignorance of health, >>>>and your health beliefs being based on superstition and >>>>pseudo-science, both are extremely well documented. >>> >>> >>>If we were meant to be meat >>>eaters >> >>We are. We have the anatomy and physiology of >>omnivores. This is beyond dispute. NO ONE among >>professional academics studying these questions >>disputes it. > > > I've read otherwise. You have read bullshit "vegan" dogma and propaganda that says otherwise, but that's...bullshit. You have read NOTHING scientifically sound that says otherwise. The scientific consensus, from REAL scientists rather than "vegan" ideologues, is that humans evolved as meat eaters, and are physiologically and anatomically adapted to eating meat. Find even ONE anatomy or physiology textbook that says otherwise. >>>than >> >>THEN, you stupid ****, not "than". > >>>it would not be morally >>>wrong to kill and eat them. >> >>You're repeating yourself, and you were wrong the first >>time. Anatomy doesn't justify ethics. > > > Yes it does in this instance. No, it does not in ANY instance. It's pure bullshit. >>>But we are not meant to be meat eaters >> >>You are wrong. You simply do not know what you're >>talking about. We ARE "meant" to be meat eaters. We >>are omnivores, period. > > > I don't believe that. It doesn't matter if you believe it or not. We are. Your beliefs are 100% grounded in ignorance and a deliberate choice to believe bullshit. > > >>>so it is morally wrong to kill them >>>unnecessarily. >> >>No. That is logically invalid, AND your underlying >>premise is false. > > > The 'unnecessarily' condition > is a big one. It's shit - just shit. It means zero. >>>>>>>It connects with what >>>>>>>place we have in nature and >>>>>>>whether we should be eating >>>>>>>animals. >>>>>> >>>>>>It's a diversion, health and ethics are >>>>>>two different topics. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>If our bodies were those of meat >>>>>eaters, then it would not be >>>>>unethical to eat meat. >>>> >>>>Our bodies ARE those of meat eaters, and the ethics of >>>>meat eating are not in any way dependent on our >>>>physiology or anatomy. Our index fingers are ALSO >>>>those of trigger-pullers, but that does NOT, in and of >>>>itself, "prove" the ethicality of killing someone with >>>>a gun. >>> >>> >>>Our bodies are NOT those of >>>meat eaters. >> >>You are wrong. Our bodies ARE those of meat eaters. >>Find ONE anatomy or physiology textbook - NOT another >>horseshit "vegan" propaganda website, you **** - that >>says we are not naturally meat eaters. JUST ONE. > > > "You ****"? Look up your own > books. I'm not even going to > give you ISBN numbers from > my bookshelves. You don't have any books on physiology or anatomy. You've never even LOOKED at such a book, ever. Find even ONE anatomy or physiology textbook that says we are not naturally omnivores. ONE, you stupid ****. It's all you have to do to refute my claim that ALL academics who study and teach physiology and anatomy believe we are naturally omnivores, meaning meat is a natural part of our diet and we are "meant" to eat meat. >>>Your gun example >>>is too wacky to respond to. >> >>It isn't. You CAN'T respond to it, because you're >>stupid, and unable to deal with analogies. > > > You're a wacky one You can't deal with analogies, you stupid ****. The analogy is a good one. Your conclusion is utterly ****witted. >>>>>>>>Health is an important issue, but in this >>>>>>>>context it's just another diversion. If >>>>>>>>something is immoral, then you must >>>>>>>>not do it, even if it would benefit you >>>>>>>>to do so. Health is a personal benefit. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>So anything less than total >>>>>>>martydom is not enough? >>>>>> >>>>>>Not at all, you can and should act in your >>>>>>own self-interest, just quit trying to pretend >>>>>>otherwise. All this blathering about animals >>>>>>is just a way of making yourself feel good. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>You are wanting people to not >>>>>think of the killing of animals >>>>>to be immoral? >>>> >>>>We want you to SUPPORT the claim that it is immoral to >>>>kill animals. You might begin by proving that YOU >>>>really do believe it to be immoral; at present, your >>>>behavior proves you believe otherwise. >>> >>> >>>I've proven it many times. >> >>We have DISPROVEN it even more times. > > > But I'm right, you're not. You are not right. You couldn't possibly be right, because your statements are false, your behavior completely contradicts what you say you believe. You do not, in effect, believe it to be wrong to kill animals. >>>>>>>And what value are you expecting >>>>>>>to be placed on it? >>>>>> >>>>>>You have claimed that you place a >>>>>>high value on defending and protecting >>>>>>the lives of animals. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Ask someone else to pat the >>>>>backs this time. >>>> >>>>You've practically twisted your arms off from your >>>>self-congratulatory back patting. How do you type? >>> >>> >>>Easy. I don't need to pat myself >>>on the back. >> >>You DO pat yourself on the back. Stop lying. > > > No need. Then just STOP the lying. >>>>>>>>>You want to be >>>>>>>>>recognised for being better than >>>>>>>>>most meat eaters, I think. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Wrong, and you don't think, ever, except >>>>>>>>for ways to dance around the subject. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Make up your mind. I don't care >>>>>>>who is the recipient of the >>>>>>>recognition, you or someone >>>>>>>else. >>>>>> >>>>>>Then be more specific. If harming fewer >>>>>>animals is the currency of goodness that >>>>>>you are proposing then you have no business >>>>>>withholding your admiration from people >>>>>>who eat meat when they harm fewer animals >>>>>>than the vegans you worship. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>You're assuming that these >>>>>marginal, minority of meat >>>>>eaters are deserving of a pat >>>>>on the back. >>>> >>>>It is the implication of YOUR belief about the >>>>desirability and virtue of killing fewer animals. It's >>>>YOUR standard. >>> >>> >>>I would like a number. >> >>Eat shit. >> >>YOUR adjusted statement of belief is that it is >>desirable to kill fewer animals. If that's so, then >>meat eaters who cause fewer animals to die than >>vegetarians cause - and we know there are some such >>meat eaters - deserve a pat on the back. Give it to them. > > > No more pats. Because your statement of belief is horseshit. So, first you've abandoned your claim that it's wrong to kill animals for the weaker claim that it's "good" to kill fewer; and NOW, you've abandoned your claim that it's good to kill fewer, because you won't offer congratulations to some who DO kill fewer. >>>>>The decision to >>>>>eat a dead body kind of puts >>>>>an end to that plan, don't you >>>>>think? >>>> >>>>Absolutely not. Why would you think that? >>> >>> >>>It's the avoidable unnecessary >>>death. Cds are currently >>>unavoidable. >> >>YOU could avoid them...if you wanted to. But you don't. >> >>You are trying to make it a counting game, NOT an >>avoidance or "necessity" game. If it's a counting game >>- which it isn't - then someone with a lower count >>deserves a pat on the back, from you. Give it to them. >> Now. > > > No more pats. All gone. Because your beliefs have been discredited. >>>>>You want me to praise >>>>>a semi-mythical harm-lessened >>>>>meateater over an animal >>>>>rights intended vegan. >>>> >>>>If your standard is causing the least harm, and you >>>>claim it to be that, then YES, you should praise the >>>>very real meat eater who meets your standard. >>> >>> >>>Intention counts for a lot. >> >>Now you're adjusting your standard again! Out of thin air. > > > I'm fine tuning as I learn and > evaluate things more. You aren't learning, and your evaluations are wrong. Intention counts for nothing. You claim you intend to stop sodomizing that neighbor boy, but you don't actually stop. Your intentions are worth shit. >>>The meat eater does not meet the >>>standard for anything more >>>than the pats on the backs I've >>>already given over the months. >> >>If he meets your previously adjusted standard, he >>deserves pats on the back. Give them. Now. > > > I think you know my answer to > that by now. I know that you've abandoned all pretense of ethical thinking. The pretense was wafer-thin to begin with. >>>>>Nope. >>>> >>>>Of course not. You have zero ethical consistency; why >>>>should we expect you to have any intellectual >>>>consistency, either? >>> >>> >>>I knew you'd get around to the >>>insults sooner or later. >> >>You set yourself up for them. > > > Nope. Yep. > >>>>>Your show and tell meat eater >>>>>doesn't care about animal >>>>>welfare or deaths necessarily. >>>> >>>>Irrelevant. It's the result, not the intent, that counts. >>> >>> >>>Intent is a huge consideration. >> >>No. A bank robber maybe doesn't intend to shoot >>anyone, but if he does shoot someone, he can go off for >>it. Intent doesn't matter; results matter. > > > If that bank robber didn't > intend to kill anyone, he > could have faked a gun or > used blanks. No. MOST armed robberies go off without an injury or death. But the robber feels the need to be prepared, perhaps to battle it out with police. The point, which you of course are too stupid to get, is that intent doesn't matter. Results matter. >>>>>>>For every less bad meat eater >>>>>>>out there, there's probably also >>>>>>>a less bad vegan, growing their >>>>>>>own food, etc. I think it still all >>>>>>>balances out in the vegan's >>>>>>>favour. >>>>>> >>>>>>Morals don't "balance out", get that idea >>>>>>out of your head, they are indivdual. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Other times you have said >>>>>that they are never individual >>>>>and they are determined by >>>>>society etc. >>>> >>>>You are hopelessly confused. The STANDARDS of morality >>>>are not individually determined on an utterly ad hoc >>>>basis, as you wish to pretend. But the DETERMINATION >>>>of whether any given behavior is ethical or not is made >>>>based on an examination of each person's INDIVIDUAL >>>>behavior. Some "vegan" who consumes the highest >>>>imaginable CD diet - you, for example - does not get to >>>>wrap herself in some flag of virtue. >>> >>> >>>Me for example? >> >>Yes. >> >> >> >>>Where do you get that? >> >> From your documented indifference to animal death and >>suffering if it gets in the way of your hedonistic >>pleasure, that's where. From your UNIVERSAL discarding >>of your supposed moral standard if you want something, >>and adhering to the standard would prevent you from >>having it. THAT'S where I get it, you ****. > > > Calm down again **** off. >>>Oh yeah, your >>>insult list. Nice twist around >>>by the way, trying to agree with >>>Dutch's "they are individual" >>>while still sticking with your >>>belief that it's never the >>>individual. >> >>The setting of moral standards is NOT individual. The >>determination of whether some given individual meets >>standards of not MUST ALWAYS be individual. >> >>You are so stupid. > > > Me? Yes. > Have you read any of your > own stuff? All of it. It's tightly reasoned and compelling. It is RIGHT. The setting of moral standards is NOT individual. The determination of whether some given individual meets standards of not MUST ALWAYS be individual. >>>>>>>>>>>The fact that one of those people >>>>>>>>>>>also happens to eat a salmon >>>>>>>>>>>once a month doesn't mean that >>>>>>>>>>>that person doesn't also eat more >>>>>>>>>>>in general and STILL has the >>>>>>>>>>>bigger footprint. They might be >>>>>>>>>>>an athlete and need more overall >>>>>>>>>>>calories. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>The vegan may be the one who is a glutton, >>>>>>>>>>you can't assume that the person who eats >>>>>>>>>>some salmon automatically consumes more >>>>>>>>>>calories, in fact there is a good probability >>>>>>>>>>that their diet is more satisfying overall. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Now you are claiming that >>>>>>>>>there is 'good probability'?? >>>>>>>>>On what basis? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On the basis that I have followed both vegan and non-vegan >>>>>>>>diets over long periods of time during my adult life, and >>>>>>>>non-vegan diets are more satisfying. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Well now, I guess that makes >>>>>>>you an expert. >>>>>> >>>>>>It validates my opinion. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>No, you just felt like eating >>>>>meat again and so you did. >>>>>It means nothing. >>>> >>>>It validates his opinion as to which diet he finds more >>>>satisfying. >>> >>> >>>And it still means nothing. >> >>It means what he says it means. > > > And it still means nothing. It means plenty. >>>>>>The problem is that you made up your mind >>>>>>long ago and now you're just defending that >>>>>>position in knee-jerk fashion. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>No, >>>> >>>>Yes. You made up your mind at age 16, based on foolish >>>>teenage girlish sentiment and nothing more, and you >>>>locked it and threw away the key. >>> >>> >>>I was 18 when I turned vegetarian. >> >>You were under age 20. You were a foolish teenaged >>GIRL, ABSOLUTELY governed by immature sentiment, not >>reason. > > > Now you're insulting everyone 20 > and under. People under 20 are usually very stupid. Girls under 20 are stupid and crippled by emotion. You still are both. Your decision to become vegetarian was pure emotion and ZERO reason. >>>It was based on research >> >>That's a lie. It MOSTLY was based on your deeply felt, >>innate sense of "eeeewwwww...that's ICKY!" To the >>extent it was based on ANYTHING else, it was based only >>on bullshit vegetarian dogma and propaganda. > > > Nope. Yep: based only on bullshit vegetarian dogma and propaganda, and on a hyperventilating, girlish "eeeewwwww...that's ICKY!" sentiment. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Dutch" > wrote in message
... > > "Scented Nectar" > wrote > > "Dutch" > wrote > > (..) > > >> >> > You want to compare apples with > >> >> > oranges. > >> >> > >> >> Yes, because I would like to know the relative > >> >> merits of apples vs oranges. Why don't you? > >> > > >> > I don't think you're quite getting > >> > the meaning of that phrase. > >> > >> I am getting the exact meaning. It was a very > >> appropriate phrase, since we are talking about > >> different types of food, and your refusal to > >> compare them. > > > > I'm refusing to compare your > > 'best' of the meats to the 'worst' > > of the vegan foods because it > > is a setup. It's using a nonsensical > > comparison to come up with the > > only way to make meat look good. > > How is it a setup to simply compare foods > without placing any conditions on it? > > It is you who is proposing a setup, limiting > the comparisons to only ones that you > believe favour your bias. I'm just sticking to what's fair. > [--snip--] > > [..] > > >> The issue is your refusal to compare > >> foods, period. > > > > I will only compare them > > appropriately. > > Meaning only in specific ways that reinforce > your predjudice. > > [--snip--] > > > > >> >> That's a weak response to a pertinent > >> >> query. If I am trying to choose between > >> >> all available foods based on impact, then > >> >> I must compare all foods, there is no other > >> >> way. It's absurdly self-defeating to create > >> >> two arbitrary categories then only compare > >> >> foods in limited ways based on those two > >> >> categories. You cannot find out how foods > >> >> rank unless you attempt to rate them all > >> >> according to consistent criteria. The only > >> >> reason I can think of why you would want > >> >> to do this is that you are promoting ignorance. > >> > > >> > In these considerations, should > >> > be sustainability (if others were > >> > to demand it too) of wild animals > >> > and animal welfare if farmed. > >> > These alone knock it down below > >> > veganism do to existing flaws in > >> > the systems. > >> > >> That was completely non-responsive. > > > > Let me dumb it down for you > > then. > > You mean try to state your point clearly > for a change? > > > Wild animal eating is > > not sustainable if it ever became > > popular. > > You live in an urban western bubble, > wild animal eating is very prevalent > all over the world. Who do the factory farms feed? And are there enough wildlife to replace them? > > The proven bad > > welfare of farmed animals is > > well documented. > > It's grossly exaggerated by extremists like you. > > > These two > > points knock it down below > > veganism, comparison-wise. > > Vegans are blind to the death and suffering > underlying their fruits, grains, and other so > called non-violent foods. Veganism is a lie. > > [--snip--] > > >> >> > Health has a lot to do with it. > >> >> > >> >> It was nothing to do with it. > >> > > >> > Yes it does. It connects with what > >> > place we have in nature and > >> > whether we should be eating > >> > animals. > >> > >> It's a diversion, health and ethics are > >> two different topics. > > > > If our bodies were those of meat > > eaters, then it would not be > > unethical to eat meat. > > We have eaten meat since the time > our species emerged. Our species > has thrived. How can you conclude > that our bodies are not those of meat > eaters? > > >> >> Health is an important issue, but in this > >> >> context it's just another diversion. If > >> >> something is immoral, then you must > >> >> not do it, even if it would benefit you > >> >> to do so. Health is a personal benefit. > >> > > >> > So anything less than total > >> > martydom is not enough? > >> > >> Not at all, you can and should act in your > >> own self-interest, just quit trying to pretend > >> otherwise. All this blathering about animals > >> is just a way of making yourself feel good. > > > > You are wanting people to not > > think of the killing of animals > > to be immoral? > > Correct, killing is part of life, not immoral > in and of itself. We all do it, mostly indirectly. > > >> >> >> > For another, the salmon have a > >> >> >> > good chance at becoming > >> >> >> > endangered in the future. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Land has a good chance of becoming devoid > >> >> >> of all nutrients and poisoned due to farming, > >> >> >> does that mean we should not do it? > >> >> > > >> >> > That's right. At least not the way > >> >> > we (you) do it now. Enriching the > >> >> > soil rather than just stealing from > >> >> > it would be a good start. > >> >> > >> >> Good, I don't advocate farming *or* fishing in > >> >> non-sustainable ways. > >> > > >> > Then according to your views > >> > on morality, you must not > >> > contribute to it, even if it would > >> > benefit you. > >> > >> Correct. > > > > Then do you only buy organic, > > as that feeds the soil? Do you > > avoid ALL foods not grown or > > caught in sustainable manners? > > No, I don't, but I don't set myself > up as a moral paragon, that's vegans' > game. I accept that people are imperfect. > > > [--snip--] > > > >> >> You are completely missing the point. I > >> >> am NOT one of those marginal minority > >> >> of meat eaters, so I can't be asking for > >> >> approval. I am looking for you recognize > >> >> that they exist and the value of that. > >> > > >> > How many more times are you > >> > hoping that I'll give it recognition? > >> > >> How should I know? I don't have a > >> crystal ball. > > > > Well now, this should be fun. > > It's tiresome actually, and disheartening > that anyone can be as dull as you are. Buh bye then. > >> > And what value are you expecting > >> > to be placed on it? > >> > >> You have claimed that you place a > >> high value on defending and protecting > >> the lives of animals. > > > > Ask someone else to pat the > > backs this time. > > Wha??? The part that refers to has been snipped. > >> >> > You want to be > >> >> > recognised for being better than > >> >> > most meat eaters, I think. > >> >> > >> >> Wrong, and you don't think, ever, except > >> >> for ways to dance around the subject. > >> > > >> > Make up your mind. I don't care > >> > who is the recipient of the > >> > recognition, you or someone > >> > else. > >> > >> Then be more specific. If harming fewer > >> animals is the currency of goodness that > >> you are proposing then you have no business > >> withholding your admiration from people > >> who eat meat when they harm fewer animals > >> than the vegans you worship. > > > > You're assuming that these > > marginal, minority of meat > > eaters are deserving of a pat > > on the back. > > Why would they not? So you DO feel they are being more moral compared to regular meat eaters. > > The decision to > > eat a dead body kind of puts > > an end to that plan, don't you > > think? > > Why? Dead bodies don't feel > anything, they have no interests. > Once you have done counting > the death toll associated with a > lifestyle then is the time to hand > out the kudos. What people put > on their plates should make no > moral difference. The moral difference lies in the intent. Cds are an unfortunate necessity, but meat eating isn't. > > You want me to praise > > a semi-mythical harm-lessened > > meateater over an animal > > rights intended vegan. > > The myth here is that the vegan > you admire so much actually > believes in animal rights. He does > no such thing, he believes in > convenience and feeling good > just like the rest of us, he is just > deluding himself. Huh? You're saying ARAs are not ARAs? > > Nope. > > Your show and tell meat eater > > doesn't care about animal > > welfare or deaths necessarily. > > Your vegan cares about the animals > harmed by *other people*, not by his > own cushy lifestyle, because that's > what supports his moral posturing. Headline! Cushy Lifestyle Kills 5. > > [--snip--] > > > >> > For every less bad meat eater > >> > out there, there's probably also > >> > a less bad vegan, growing their > >> > own food, etc. I think it still all > >> > balances out in the vegan's > >> > favour. > >> > >> Morals don't "balance out", get that idea > >> out of your head, they are indivdual. > > > > Other times you have said > > that they are never individual > > and they are determined by > > society etc. > > Morals are determined through social evolution > and contract, but whether or not *you* are > moral is only detemined but your own actions, > not by the average of what some group does. > > You are just flailing in the dark with > such comments. Your lack of understanding is boring me. > >> >> >> > The fact that one of those people > >> >> >> > also happens to eat a salmon > >> >> >> > once a month doesn't mean that > >> >> >> > that person doesn't also eat more > >> >> >> > in general and STILL has the > >> >> >> > bigger footprint. They might be > >> >> >> > an athlete and need more overall > >> >> >> > calories. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> The vegan may be the one who is a glutton, > >> >> >> you can't assume that the person who eats > >> >> >> some salmon automatically consumes more > >> >> >> calories, in fact there is a good probability > >> >> >> that their diet is more satisfying overall. > >> >> > > >> >> > Now you are claiming that > >> >> > there is 'good probability'?? > >> >> > On what basis? > >> >> > >> >> On the basis that I have followed both vegan and non-vegan > >> >> diets over long periods of time during my adult life, and > >> >> non-vegan diets are more satisfying. > >> > > >> > Well now, I guess that makes > >> > you an expert. > >> > >> It validates my opinion. > > > > No, you just felt like eating > > meat again and so you did. > > It means nothing. > > Meat is very satisfying, meaning I need > less of the manufactured soy substitutes > that are derived by intensive farming which > kills animals. That's such a myth about vegetarians, that all we eat is soy and that we all eat soy. > > > > [--snip--] > > > >> The problem is that you made up your mind > >> long ago and now you're just defending that > >> position in knee-jerk fashion. > > > > No, I'm just not taking on your > > opinions as my own. Get used > > to it. > > Yes, you are defending an irrational position > and doing a shoddy job of it. I see it the other way around. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|||
|
|||
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message > ... > >>"Scented Nectar" > wrote >> >>>"Dutch" > wrote >> >>(..) >> >> >>>>>>>You want to compare apples with >>>>>>>oranges. >>>>>> >>>>>>Yes, because I would like to know the relative >>>>>>merits of apples vs oranges. Why don't you? >>>>> >>>>>I don't think you're quite getting >>>>>the meaning of that phrase. >>>> >>>>I am getting the exact meaning. It was a very >>>>appropriate phrase, since we are talking about >>>>different types of food, and your refusal to >>>>compare them. >>> >>>I'm refusing to compare your >>>'best' of the meats to the 'worst' >>>of the vegan foods because it >>>is a setup. It's using a nonsensical >>>comparison to come up with the >>>only way to make meat look good. >> >>How is it a setup to simply compare foods >>without placing any conditions on it? >> >>It is you who is proposing a setup, limiting >>the comparisons to only ones that you >>believe favour your bias. > > > I'm just sticking to what's fair. No, you're not. You're trying to have it multiple ways. >>>If our bodies were those of meat >>>eaters, then it would not be >>>unethical to eat meat. >> >>We have eaten meat since the time >>our species emerged. Our species >>has thrived. How can you conclude >>that our bodies are not those of meat >>eaters? It's her fundamental dishonesty, and her refusal to learn. >>>>>>You are completely missing the point. I >>>>>>am NOT one of those marginal minority >>>>>>of meat eaters, so I can't be asking for >>>>>>approval. I am looking for you recognize >>>>>>that they exist and the value of that. >>>>> >>>>>How many more times are you >>>>>hoping that I'll give it recognition? >>>> >>>>How should I know? I don't have a >>>>crystal ball. >>> >>>Well now, this should be fun. >> >>It's tiresome actually, and disheartening >>that anyone can be as dull as you are. > > > Buh bye then. Then **** off out of here, then. ****. >>>The decision to >>>eat a dead body kind of puts >>>an end to that plan, don't you >>>think? >> >>Why? Dead bodies don't feel >>anything, they have no interests. >>Once you have done counting >>the death toll associated with a >>lifestyle then is the time to hand >>out the kudos. What people put >>on their plates should make no >>moral difference. > > > The moral difference lies in the > intent. Intent is meaningless. Dead is dead. If there's more death behind your plate than behind some meat eaters, then according to your shitty pseudo-standard, he's better than you. That's just how it is. >>>You want me to praise >>>a semi-mythical harm-lessened >>>meateater over an animal >>>rights intended vegan. >> >>The myth here is that the vegan >>you admire so much actually >>believes in animal rights. He does >>no such thing, he believes in >>convenience and feeling good >>just like the rest of us, he is just >>deluding himself. > > > Huh? You're saying ARAs are > not ARAs? He's saying they're liars and hypocrites. >>>>Morals don't "balance out", get that idea >>>>out of your head, they are indivdual. >>> >>>Other times you have said >>>that they are never individual >>>and they are determined by >>>society etc. >> >>Morals are determined through social evolution >>and contract, but whether or not *you* are >>moral is only detemined but your own actions, >>not by the average of what some group does. >> >>You are just flailing in the dark with >>such comments. > > > Your lack of understanding is > boring me. It's your own lack of understanding that's boring you and everyone else. You are unbelievably stupid and dense. Individuals do not create their own morality according to individual tastes. Morality is a social construct. Once moral standards are established, the determination of whether some *given* individual person is moral or not is based solely on his individual behavior, NOT on some bullshit "average" of some ephemeral group to which he belongs. To do otherwise leads to racism. >>>>>>>Now you are claiming that >>>>>>>there is 'good probability'?? >>>>>>>On what basis? >>>>>> >>>>>>On the basis that I have followed both vegan and non-vegan >>>>>>diets over long periods of time during my adult life, and >>>>>>non-vegan diets are more satisfying. >>>>> >>>>>Well now, I guess that makes >>>>>you an expert. >>>> >>>>It validates my opinion. >>> >>>No, you just felt like eating >>>meat again and so you did. >>>It means nothing. >> >>Meat is very satisfying, meaning I need >>less of the manufactured soy substitutes >>that are derived by intensive farming which >>kills animals. > > > That's such a myth about > vegetarians, that all we eat is > soy and that we all eat soy. It's your strawman, too, because Dutch didn't say anything like that. You ****. >>>>The problem is that you made up your mind >>>>long ago and now you're just defending that >>>>position in knee-jerk fashion. >>> >>>No, I'm just not taking on your >>>opinions as my own. Get used >>>to it. >> >>Yes, you are defending an irrational position >>and doing a shoddy job of it. > > > I see it the other way around. But you are known to be stupid and irrational. It doesn't matter how you see it. No one, anywhere, comes to you to ask what things mean. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
nk.net... > Scented Nectar wrote: > > > "Dutch" > wrote in message > > ... > > > >>"Scented Nectar" > wrote > >> > >>>"Dutch" > wrote > >> > >>(..) > >> > >> > >>>>>>>You want to compare apples with > >>>>>>>oranges. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Yes, because I would like to know the relative > >>>>>>merits of apples vs oranges. Why don't you? > >>>>> > >>>>>I don't think you're quite getting > >>>>>the meaning of that phrase. > >>>> > >>>>I am getting the exact meaning. It was a very > >>>>appropriate phrase, since we are talking about > >>>>different types of food, and your refusal to > >>>>compare them. > >>> > >>>I'm refusing to compare your > >>>'best' of the meats to the 'worst' > >>>of the vegan foods because it > >>>is a setup. It's using a nonsensical > >>>comparison to come up with the > >>>only way to make meat look good. > >> > >>How is it a setup to simply compare foods > >>without placing any conditions on it? > >> > >>It is you who is proposing a setup, limiting > >>the comparisons to only ones that you > >>believe favour your bias. > > > > > > I'm just sticking to what's fair. > > No, you're not. You're trying to have it multiple ways. You're accusing me of doing what you want to do. Interesting. > >>>If our bodies were those of meat > >>>eaters, then it would not be > >>>unethical to eat meat. > >> > >>We have eaten meat since the time > >>our species emerged. Our species > >>has thrived. How can you conclude > >>that our bodies are not those of meat > >>eaters? > > It's her fundamental dishonesty, and her refusal to learn. What have I to learn from anyone who calls me ****? Not much obviously. > >>>>>>You are completely missing the point. I > >>>>>>am NOT one of those marginal minority > >>>>>>of meat eaters, so I can't be asking for > >>>>>>approval. I am looking for you recognize > >>>>>>that they exist and the value of that. > >>>>> > >>>>>How many more times are you > >>>>>hoping that I'll give it recognition? > >>>> > >>>>How should I know? I don't have a > >>>>crystal ball. > >>> > >>>Well now, this should be fun. > >> > >>It's tiresome actually, and disheartening > >>that anyone can be as dull as you are. > > > > > > Buh bye then. > > Then **** off out of here, then. ****. Calm down Rudey! Oh, by the way, I'm still here. > >>>The decision to > >>>eat a dead body kind of puts > >>>an end to that plan, don't you > >>>think? > >> > >>Why? Dead bodies don't feel > >>anything, they have no interests. > >>Once you have done counting > >>the death toll associated with a > >>lifestyle then is the time to hand > >>out the kudos. What people put > >>on their plates should make no > >>moral difference. > > > > > > The moral difference lies in the > > intent. > > Intent is meaningless. Dead is dead. If there's more > death behind your plate than behind some meat eaters, > then according to your shitty pseudo-standard, he's > better than you. That's just how it is. If? Only by your wished for, wrong comparisons could it ever come out that way. > >>>You want me to praise > >>>a semi-mythical harm-lessened > >>>meateater over an animal > >>>rights intended vegan. > >> > >>The myth here is that the vegan > >>you admire so much actually > >>believes in animal rights. He does > >>no such thing, he believes in > >>convenience and feeling good > >>just like the rest of us, he is just > >>deluding himself. > > > > > > Huh? You're saying ARAs are > > not ARAs? > > He's saying they're liars and hypocrites. > > > > >>>>Morals don't "balance out", get that idea > >>>>out of your head, they are indivdual. > >>> > >>>Other times you have said > >>>that they are never individual > >>>and they are determined by > >>>society etc. > >> > >>Morals are determined through social evolution > >>and contract, but whether or not *you* are > >>moral is only detemined but your own actions, > >>not by the average of what some group does. > >> > >>You are just flailing in the dark with > >>such comments. > > > > > > Your lack of understanding is > > boring me. > > It's your own lack of understanding that's boring you > and everyone else. You are unbelievably stupid and dense. > > Individuals do not create their own morality according > to individual tastes. Morality is a social construct. > Once moral standards are established, the > determination of whether some *given* individual person > is moral or not is based solely on his individual > behavior, NOT on some bullshit "average" of some > ephemeral group to which he belongs. To do otherwise > leads to racism. You're full of it. Bullshit, and likely some of that good old racism too. > >>>>>>>Now you are claiming that > >>>>>>>there is 'good probability'?? > >>>>>>>On what basis? > >>>>>> > >>>>>>On the basis that I have followed both vegan and non-vegan > >>>>>>diets over long periods of time during my adult life, and > >>>>>>non-vegan diets are more satisfying. > >>>>> > >>>>>Well now, I guess that makes > >>>>>you an expert. > >>>> > >>>>It validates my opinion. > >>> > >>>No, you just felt like eating > >>>meat again and so you did. > >>>It means nothing. > >> > >>Meat is very satisfying, meaning I need > >>less of the manufactured soy substitutes > >>that are derived by intensive farming which > >>kills animals. > > > > > > That's such a myth about > > vegetarians, that all we eat is > > soy and that we all eat soy. > > It's your strawman, too, because Dutch didn't say > anything like that. You ****. Calm down Rudey! He did so say that. Reread the 3rd paragraph above this one. > >>>>The problem is that you made up your mind > >>>>long ago and now you're just defending that > >>>>position in knee-jerk fashion. > >>> > >>>No, I'm just not taking on your > >>>opinions as my own. Get used > >>>to it. > >> > >>Yes, you are defending an irrational position > >>and doing a shoddy job of it. > > > > > > I see it the other way around. > > But you are known to be stupid and irrational. It > doesn't matter how you see it. No one, anywhere, comes > to you to ask what things mean. Why do you project so much? -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|||
|
|||
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > nk.net... > >>Scented Nectar wrote: >> >> >>>"Dutch" > wrote in message ... >>>>How is it a setup to simply compare foods >>>>without placing any conditions on it? >>>> >>>>It is you who is proposing a setup, limiting >>>>the comparisons to only ones that you >>>>believe favour your bias. >>> >>> >>>I'm just sticking to what's fair. >> >>No, you're not. You're trying to have it multiple ways. > > > You're accusing me of doing > what you want to do. Nope. I'm accusing you of trying to have things multiple, conflicting ways. You are. >>>>>If our bodies were those of meat >>>>>eaters, then it would not be >>>>>unethical to eat meat. >>>> >>>>We have eaten meat since the time >>>>our species emerged. Our species >>>>has thrived. How can you conclude >>>>that our bodies are not those of meat >>>>eaters? >> >>It's her fundamental dishonesty, and her refusal to learn. > > > What have I to learn from anyone > who calls me ****? Not much > obviously. Plenty. But you're too pig-headed, too *deliberately* stupid, too fixated on your "you're not the boss of me!" defiance. You can't learn. >>>>>>>>You are completely missing the point. I >>>>>>>>am NOT one of those marginal minority >>>>>>>>of meat eaters, so I can't be asking for >>>>>>>>approval. I am looking for you recognize >>>>>>>>that they exist and the value of that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>How many more times are you >>>>>>>hoping that I'll give it recognition? >>>>>> >>>>>>How should I know? I don't have a >>>>>>crystal ball. >>>>> >>>>>Well now, this should be fun. >>>> >>>>It's tiresome actually, and disheartening >>>>that anyone can be as dull as you are. >>> >>> >>>Buh bye then. >> >>Then **** off out of here, then. ****. >> >>>>>The decision to >>>>>eat a dead body kind of puts >>>>>an end to that plan, don't you >>>>>think? >>>> >>>>Why? Dead bodies don't feel >>>>anything, they have no interests. >>>>Once you have done counting >>>>the death toll associated with a >>>>lifestyle then is the time to hand >>>>out the kudos. What people put >>>>on their plates should make no >>>>moral difference. >>> >>> >>>The moral difference lies in the >>>intent. >> >>Intent is meaningless. Dead is dead. If there's more >>death behind your plate than behind some meat eaters, >>then according to your shitty pseudo-standard, he's >>better than you. That's just how it is. > > > If? Only by your wished for, > wrong comparisons could it > ever come out that way. No, it *easily* comes out that way. It's a certainty that Rick Etter causes far less death overall than you. You owe him congratulations, but because you're a dishonest sleazky skanky ****, you won't do it. >>>>You are just flailing in the dark with >>>>such comments. >>> >>> >>>Your lack of understanding is >>>boring me. >> >>It's your own lack of understanding that's boring you >>and everyone else. You are unbelievably stupid and dense. >> >>Individuals do not create their own morality according >>to individual tastes. Morality is a social construct. >> Once moral standards are established, the >>determination of whether some *given* individual person >>is moral or not is based solely on his individual >>behavior, NOT on some bullshit "average" of some >>ephemeral group to which he belongs. To do otherwise >>leads to racism. > > > You're full of it. Full of logic and wisdom. > Bullshit, and > likely some of that good old > racism too. YOU are the one who uses group averages to analyze individuals. You are the racist. >>>>>>>>>Now you are claiming that >>>>>>>>>there is 'good probability'?? >>>>>>>>>On what basis? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On the basis that I have followed both vegan and non-vegan >>>>>>>>diets over long periods of time during my adult life, and >>>>>>>>non-vegan diets are more satisfying. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Well now, I guess that makes >>>>>>>you an expert. >>>>>> >>>>>>It validates my opinion. >>>>> >>>>>No, you just felt like eating >>>>>meat again and so you did. >>>>>It means nothing. >>>> >>>>Meat is very satisfying, meaning I need >>>>less of the manufactured soy substitutes >>>>that are derived by intensive farming which >>>>kills animals. >>> >>> >>>That's such a myth about >>>vegetarians, that all we eat is >>>soy and that we all eat soy. >> >>It's your strawman, too, because Dutch didn't say >>anything like that. You ****. > > > He did so say that. He did not, you lying ****. > Reread the 3rd > paragraph above this one. He did not say that "all 'vegans' eat" is soy, you lying ****. It's your strawman argument. He didn't say *anything* about "vegans" eating soy; he wrote only about *his* soy consumption. What's the matter, **** - it hits close to home or something? The fact is, you *do* eat a lot of soy. You see soy as Virtue Food. >>>>>>The problem is that you made up your mind >>>>>>long ago and now you're just defending that >>>>>>position in knee-jerk fashion. >>>>> >>>>>No, I'm just not taking on your >>>>>opinions as my own. Get used >>>>>to it. >>>> >>>>Yes, you are defending an irrational position >>>>and doing a shoddy job of it. >>> >>> >>>I see it the other way around. >> >>But you are known to be stupid and irrational. It >>doesn't matter how you see it. No one, anywhere, comes >>to you to ask what things mean. No one considers you a source of wisdom or solid reasoning - no one. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
nk.net... > Scented Nectar wrote: > > > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > > nk.net... > > > >>Scented Nectar wrote: > >> > >> > >>>"Dutch" > wrote in message > ... > > >>>>How is it a setup to simply compare foods > >>>>without placing any conditions on it? > >>>> > >>>>It is you who is proposing a setup, limiting > >>>>the comparisons to only ones that you > >>>>believe favour your bias. > >>> > >>> > >>>I'm just sticking to what's fair. > >> > >>No, you're not. You're trying to have it multiple ways. > > > > > > You're accusing me of doing > > what you want to do. > > Nope. I'm accusing you of trying to have things > multiple, conflicting ways. You are. You're projecting again. > >>>>>If our bodies were those of meat > >>>>>eaters, then it would not be > >>>>>unethical to eat meat. > >>>> > >>>>We have eaten meat since the time > >>>>our species emerged. Our species > >>>>has thrived. How can you conclude > >>>>that our bodies are not those of meat > >>>>eaters? > >> > >>It's her fundamental dishonesty, and her refusal to learn. > > > > > > What have I to learn from anyone > > who calls me ****? Not much > > obviously. > > Plenty. But you're too pig-headed, too *deliberately* > stupid, too fixated on your "you're not the boss of > me!" defiance. You can't learn. I have nothing of any good to learn from anyone who calls me a ****. That person is obviously an abusive bully and does NOT have anyone's best interest in mind. > >>>>>>>>You are completely missing the point. I > >>>>>>>>am NOT one of those marginal minority > >>>>>>>>of meat eaters, so I can't be asking for > >>>>>>>>approval. I am looking for you recognize > >>>>>>>>that they exist and the value of that. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>How many more times are you > >>>>>>>hoping that I'll give it recognition? > >>>>>> > >>>>>>How should I know? I don't have a > >>>>>>crystal ball. > >>>>> > >>>>>Well now, this should be fun. > >>>> > >>>>It's tiresome actually, and disheartening > >>>>that anyone can be as dull as you are. > >>> > >>> > >>>Buh bye then. > >> > >>Then **** off out of here, then. ****. > >> > >>>>>The decision to > >>>>>eat a dead body kind of puts > >>>>>an end to that plan, don't you > >>>>>think? > >>>> > >>>>Why? Dead bodies don't feel > >>>>anything, they have no interests. > >>>>Once you have done counting > >>>>the death toll associated with a > >>>>lifestyle then is the time to hand > >>>>out the kudos. What people put > >>>>on their plates should make no > >>>>moral difference. > >>> > >>> > >>>The moral difference lies in the > >>>intent. > >> > >>Intent is meaningless. Dead is dead. If there's more > >>death behind your plate than behind some meat eaters, > >>then according to your shitty pseudo-standard, he's > >>better than you. That's just how it is. > > > > > > If? Only by your wished for, > > wrong comparisons could it > > ever come out that way. > > No, it *easily* comes out that way. It's a certainty > that Rick Etter causes far less death overall than you. > You owe him congratulations, but because you're a > dishonest sleazky skanky ****, you won't do it. He gets no more than I've already given him. I'm also not convinced of his sainthood. None of us here but him know what he eats in total. > >>>>You are just flailing in the dark with > >>>>such comments. > >>> > >>> > >>>Your lack of understanding is > >>>boring me. > >> > >>It's your own lack of understanding that's boring you > >>and everyone else. You are unbelievably stupid and dense. > >> > >>Individuals do not create their own morality according > >>to individual tastes. Morality is a social construct. > >> Once moral standards are established, the > >>determination of whether some *given* individual person > >>is moral or not is based solely on his individual > >>behavior, NOT on some bullshit "average" of some > >>ephemeral group to which he belongs. To do otherwise > >>leads to racism. > > > > > > You're full of it. > > Full of logic and wisdom. Keep dreaming. It's very revealing that you have to keep reinforcing yourself to believe all that. > > Bullshit, and > > likely some of that good old > > racism too. > > YOU are the one who uses group averages to analyze > individuals. You are the racist. Nope. Try again. > >>>>>>>>>Now you are claiming that > >>>>>>>>>there is 'good probability'?? > >>>>>>>>>On what basis? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>On the basis that I have followed both vegan and non-vegan > >>>>>>>>diets over long periods of time during my adult life, and > >>>>>>>>non-vegan diets are more satisfying. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Well now, I guess that makes > >>>>>>>you an expert. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>It validates my opinion. > >>>>> > >>>>>No, you just felt like eating > >>>>>meat again and so you did. > >>>>>It means nothing. > >>>> > >>>>Meat is very satisfying, meaning I need > >>>>less of the manufactured soy substitutes > >>>>that are derived by intensive farming which > >>>>kills animals. > >>> > >>> > >>>That's such a myth about > >>>vegetarians, that all we eat is > >>>soy and that we all eat soy. > >> > >>It's your strawman, too, because Dutch didn't say > >>anything like that. You ****. > > > > > > He did so say that. > > He did not, you lying ****. Calm down Rudey. > > Reread the 3rd > > paragraph above this one. > > He did not say that "all 'vegans' eat" is soy, you > lying ****. It's your strawman argument. He didn't > say *anything* about "vegans" eating soy; he wrote only > about *his* soy consumption. He is using himself to show what has influenced his beliefs re veganism. He is claiming that without meat there was a NEED for soy. > What's the matter, **** - it hits close to home or > something? The fact is, you *do* eat a lot of soy. > You see soy as Virtue Food. I do?? That's news to me. Especially since I don't eat much soy at all. Except for my chili a couple times a year, almost none. Explain why you believe I consume a lot of soy. > >>>>>>The problem is that you made up your mind > >>>>>>long ago and now you're just defending that > >>>>>>position in knee-jerk fashion. > >>>>> > >>>>>No, I'm just not taking on your > >>>>>opinions as my own. Get used > >>>>>to it. > >>>> > >>>>Yes, you are defending an irrational position > >>>>and doing a shoddy job of it. > >>> > >>> > >>>I see it the other way around. > >> > >>But you are known to be stupid and irrational. It > >>doesn't matter how you see it. No one, anywhere, comes > >>to you to ask what things mean. > > No one considers you a source of wisdom or solid > reasoning - no one. Won't work Rudey, my self-esteem is very good, so sticks and stones etc. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|||
|
|||
Scented Nectar wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > nk.net... > >>Scented Nectar wrote: >> >> >>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message hlink.net... >>> >>> >>>>Scented Nectar wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>"Dutch" > wrote in message ... >> >>>>>>How is it a setup to simply compare foods >>>>>>without placing any conditions on it? >>>>>> >>>>>>It is you who is proposing a setup, limiting >>>>>>the comparisons to only ones that you >>>>>>believe favour your bias. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I'm just sticking to what's fair. >>>> >>>>No, you're not. You're trying to have it multiple ways. >>> >>> >>>You're accusing me of doing >>>what you want to do. >> >>Nope. I'm accusing you of trying to have things >>multiple, conflicting ways. You are. > > > You're projecting again. No. A couple of new words, *all* of which you use incorrectly, are all you've learned in your time here. >>>>>>>If our bodies were those of meat >>>>>>>eaters, then it would not be >>>>>>>unethical to eat meat. >>>>>> >>>>>>We have eaten meat since the time >>>>>>our species emerged. Our species >>>>>>has thrived. How can you conclude >>>>>>that our bodies are not those of meat >>>>>>eaters? >>>> >>>>It's her fundamental dishonesty, and her refusal to learn. >>> >>> >>>What have I to learn from anyone >>>who calls me ****? Not much >>>obviously. >> >>Plenty. But you're too pig-headed, too *deliberately* >>stupid, too fixated on your "you're not the boss of >>me!" defiance. You can't learn. > > > I have nothing of any good to > learn from anyone who calls me > a ****. Of *course* you have a lot to learn from me. You're just too pig-headed. A pig-headed, stupid ****. >>>>Intent is meaningless. Dead is dead. If there's more >>>>death behind your plate than behind some meat eaters, >>>>then according to your shitty pseudo-standard, he's >>>>better than you. That's just how it is. >>> >>> >>>If? Only by your wished for, >>>wrong comparisons could it >>>ever come out that way. >> >>No, it *easily* comes out that way. It's a certainty >>that Rick Etter causes far less death overall than you. >> You owe him congratulations, but because you're a >>dishonest sleazky skanky ****, you won't do it. > > > He gets no more than I've > already given him. I'm also not > convinced of his sainthood. Strawman. No one said he's a saint. But it's a certainty that he does *much* better than you on the only thing you (wrongly) say matters. >>>>>>You are just flailing in the dark with >>>>>>such comments. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Your lack of understanding is >>>>>boring me. >>>> >>>>It's your own lack of understanding that's boring you >>>>and everyone else. You are unbelievably stupid and dense. >>>> >>>>Individuals do not create their own morality according >>>>to individual tastes. Morality is a social construct. >>>> Once moral standards are established, the >>>>determination of whether some *given* individual person >>>>is moral or not is based solely on his individual >>>>behavior, NOT on some bullshit "average" of some >>>>ephemeral group to which he belongs. To do otherwise >>>>leads to racism. >>> >>> >>>You're full of it. >> >>Full of logic and wisdom. > > > Keep dreaming. I'll keep writing my logic and wisdom. You'll keep reading it, too, but you're too much the stupid **** to learn anything from it, even though you could learn a lot. >>>Bullshit, and >>>likely some of that good old >>>racism too. >> >>YOU are the one who uses group averages to analyze >>individuals. You are the racist. > > > Nope. Try again. Yep. Your thinking is exactly the same as the basis for racist thinking. You are undoubtedly a racist in fact, not just potentially. You believe things about people based on group averages rather than examining the individual people. That's what racists do. >>>>>>Meat is very satisfying, meaning I need >>>>>>less of the manufactured soy substitutes >>>>>>that are derived by intensive farming which >>>>>>kills animals. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>That's such a myth about >>>>>vegetarians, that all we eat is >>>>>soy and that we all eat soy. >>>> >>>>It's your strawman, too, because Dutch didn't say >>>>anything like that. You ****. >>> >>> >>>He did so say that. >> >>He did not, you lying ****. You stupid lying ****. >>>Reread the 3rd >>>paragraph above this one. >> >>He did not say that "all 'vegans' eat" is soy, you >>lying ****. It's your strawman argument. He didn't >>say *anything* about "vegans" eating soy; he wrote only >>about *his* soy consumption. > > > He is using himself to show what has > influenced his beliefs re veganism. He didn't say that all "vegans" only eat soy. He didn't say that *any* "vegans" only eat soy. That's your strawman, you lying ****. > He is claiming that without meat > there was a NEED for soy. He didn't say anything about "vegans" eating soy, you stupid pig-headed lying ****. >>What's the matter, **** - it hits close to home or >>something? The fact is, you *do* eat a lot of soy. >>You see soy as Virtue Food. > > > I do?? Yes. > That's news to me. Not to us. > Especially since I don't eat > much soy at all. That's a lie. You lying stinking ****. >>>>>>>>The problem is that you made up your mind >>>>>>>>long ago and now you're just defending that >>>>>>>>position in knee-jerk fashion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>No, I'm just not taking on your >>>>>>>opinions as my own. "You're not the boss of me!" she shrieked. >>>>>>>Get used to it. **** off. Stupid ****. >>>>>> >>>>>>Yes, you are defending an irrational position >>>>>>and doing a shoddy job of it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I see it the other way around. >>>> >>>>But you are known to be stupid and irrational. It >>>>doesn't matter how you see it. No one, anywhere, comes >>>>to you to ask what things mean. >> >>No one considers you a source of wisdom or solid >>reasoning - no one. > > > Won't work The facts are what they a *no one* sees you as a source of wisdom or solid reasoning. |
|
|||
|
|||
Burgers, I like mine medium rare with cheese and lots of
mayonaise!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|||
|
|||
Chris wrote:
> Burgers, I like mine medium rare with cheese and lots of > mayonaise!!!!!!!!!!! Two 'n's in mayonnaise, ****stick. |
|
|||
|
|||
Chris wrote:
> In article et>, > says... > >>Chris wrote: >> >> >>>Burgers, I like mine medium rare with cheese and lots of >>>mayonaise!!!!!!!!!!! >> >>Two 'n's in mayonnaise, ****stick. >> > > ****stick is not even a word you ignorant vegetable head!!!! Of course it is. See http://tinyurl.com/dajnr You're one, too. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ... > "Dutch" > wrote in message > ... >> >> "Scented Nectar" > wrote >> > "Dutch" > wrote >> >> (..) >> >> >> >> > You want to compare apples with >> >> >> > oranges. >> >> >> >> >> >> Yes, because I would like to know the relative >> >> >> merits of apples vs oranges. Why don't you? >> >> > >> >> > I don't think you're quite getting >> >> > the meaning of that phrase. >> >> >> >> I am getting the exact meaning. It was a very >> >> appropriate phrase, since we are talking about >> >> different types of food, and your refusal to >> >> compare them. >> > >> > I'm refusing to compare your >> > 'best' of the meats to the 'worst' >> > of the vegan foods because it >> > is a setup. It's using a nonsensical >> > comparison to come up with the >> > only way to make meat look good. >> >> How is it a setup to simply compare foods >> without placing any conditions on it? >> >> It is you who is proposing a setup, limiting >> the comparisons to only ones that you >> believe favour your bias. > > I'm just sticking to what's fair. You have an unbelievably childish notion about this discussion that it is a sport, and the population is divided into two teams, the vegans and the non-vegans. In this puerile view, the "fair" thing to do is for the vegans to put out their heavyweights against the non-vegan heavyweights. I have news for you, it's not a sport to adults, it's an examination of the world and our attitudes. > >> [--snip--] >> >> [..] >> >> >> The issue is your refusal to compare >> >> foods, period. >> > >> > I will only compare them >> > appropriately. >> >> Meaning only in specific ways that reinforce >> your predjudice. >> >> [--snip--] >> >> > >> >> >> That's a weak response to a pertinent >> >> >> query. If I am trying to choose between >> >> >> all available foods based on impact, then >> >> >> I must compare all foods, there is no other >> >> >> way. It's absurdly self-defeating to create >> >> >> two arbitrary categories then only compare >> >> >> foods in limited ways based on those two >> >> >> categories. You cannot find out how foods >> >> >> rank unless you attempt to rate them all >> >> >> according to consistent criteria. The only >> >> >> reason I can think of why you would want >> >> >> to do this is that you are promoting ignorance. >> >> > >> >> > In these considerations, should >> >> > be sustainability (if others were >> >> > to demand it too) of wild animals >> >> > and animal welfare if farmed. >> >> > These alone knock it down below >> >> > veganism do to existing flaws in >> >> > the systems. >> >> >> >> That was completely non-responsive. >> > >> > Let me dumb it down for you >> > then. >> >> You mean try to state your point clearly >> for a change? >> >> > Wild animal eating is >> > not sustainable if it ever became >> > popular. >> >> You live in an urban western bubble, >> wild animal eating is very prevalent >> all over the world. > > Who do the factory farms feed? "Factory farms" is another catch-phrase vegans love to toss around. I just returned from a trip across the country, and cattle are everywhere, grazing. That's where a lot of non-vegan food and other products come from, not "factories". > And are there enough wildlife > to replace them? Irrelevant, we're talking about now and the forseeable future. >> > The proven bad >> > welfare of farmed animals is >> > well documented. >> >> It's grossly exaggerated by extremists like you. >> >> > These two >> > points knock it down below >> > veganism, comparison-wise. >> >> Vegans are blind to the death and suffering >> underlying their fruits, grains, and other so >> called non-violent foods. Veganism is a lie. >> >> [--snip--] >> >> >> >> > Health has a lot to do with it. >> >> >> >> >> >> It was nothing to do with it. >> >> > >> >> > Yes it does. It connects with what >> >> > place we have in nature and >> >> > whether we should be eating >> >> > animals. >> >> >> >> It's a diversion, health and ethics are >> >> two different topics. >> > >> > If our bodies were those of meat >> > eaters, then it would not be >> > unethical to eat meat. >> >> We have eaten meat since the time >> our species emerged. Our species >> has thrived. How can you conclude >> that our bodies are not those of meat >> eaters? >> >> >> >> Health is an important issue, but in this >> >> >> context it's just another diversion. If >> >> >> something is immoral, then you must >> >> >> not do it, even if it would benefit you >> >> >> to do so. Health is a personal benefit. >> >> > >> >> > So anything less than total >> >> > martydom is not enough? >> >> >> >> Not at all, you can and should act in your >> >> own self-interest, just quit trying to pretend >> >> otherwise. All this blathering about animals >> >> is just a way of making yourself feel good. >> > >> > You are wanting people to not >> > think of the killing of animals >> > to be immoral? >> >> Correct, killing is part of life, not immoral >> in and of itself. We all do it, mostly indirectly. >> >> >> >> >> > For another, the salmon have a >> >> >> >> > good chance at becoming >> >> >> >> > endangered in the future. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Land has a good chance of becoming devoid >> >> >> >> of all nutrients and poisoned due to farming, >> >> >> >> does that mean we should not do it? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > That's right. At least not the way >> >> >> > we (you) do it now. Enriching the >> >> >> > soil rather than just stealing from >> >> >> > it would be a good start. >> >> >> >> >> >> Good, I don't advocate farming *or* fishing in >> >> >> non-sustainable ways. >> >> > >> >> > Then according to your views >> >> > on morality, you must not >> >> > contribute to it, even if it would >> >> > benefit you. >> >> >> >> Correct. >> > >> > Then do you only buy organic, >> > as that feeds the soil? Do you >> > avoid ALL foods not grown or >> > caught in sustainable manners? >> >> No, I don't, but I don't set myself >> up as a moral paragon, that's vegans' >> game. I accept that people are imperfect. >> >> > [--snip--] >> > >> >> >> You are completely missing the point. I >> >> >> am NOT one of those marginal minority >> >> >> of meat eaters, so I can't be asking for >> >> >> approval. I am looking for you recognize >> >> >> that they exist and the value of that. >> >> > >> >> > How many more times are you >> >> > hoping that I'll give it recognition? >> >> >> >> How should I know? I don't have a >> >> crystal ball. >> > >> > Well now, this should be fun. >> >> It's tiresome actually, and disheartening >> that anyone can be as dull as you are. > > Buh bye then. Another juvenile phrase. You have already effectively signed off from any meaningful participation in this discussion. >> >> > And what value are you expecting >> >> > to be placed on it? >> >> >> >> You have claimed that you place a >> >> high value on defending and protecting >> >> the lives of animals. >> > >> > Ask someone else to pat the >> > backs this time. >> >> Wha??? > > The part that refers to has been > snipped. The issue here is that you think you get to walk around smug and self-satisfied about your diet while laying criticism at the feet of others. You are NOT entitled, morally, to do that. >> >> >> > You want to be >> >> >> > recognised for being better than >> >> >> > most meat eaters, I think. >> >> >> >> >> >> Wrong, and you don't think, ever, except >> >> >> for ways to dance around the subject. >> >> > >> >> > Make up your mind. I don't care >> >> > who is the recipient of the >> >> > recognition, you or someone >> >> > else. >> >> >> >> Then be more specific. If harming fewer >> >> animals is the currency of goodness that >> >> you are proposing then you have no business >> >> withholding your admiration from people >> >> who eat meat when they harm fewer animals >> >> than the vegans you worship. >> > >> > You're assuming that these >> > marginal, minority of meat >> > eaters are deserving of a pat >> > on the back. >> >> Why would they not? > > So you DO feel they are being > more moral compared to > regular meat eaters. I feel they are doing as much or more than many vegans to diminish harm to animals, and that is supposed to be what you are advocating. Apparently not though.. > >> > The decision to >> > eat a dead body kind of puts >> > an end to that plan, don't you >> > think? >> >> Why? Dead bodies don't feel >> anything, they have no interests. >> Once you have done counting >> the death toll associated with a >> lifestyle then is the time to hand >> out the kudos. What people put >> on their plates should make no >> moral difference. > > The moral difference lies in the > intent. There is no difference in intent. Cds are caused by the intent to obtain food cheaply and conveniently. Livestock deaths are a result of the intent to obtain food also. You are manufacturing a non-existent difference and you don't even realize it. > Cds are an unfortunate > necessity, but meat eating isn't. You can't base your argument on "necessity", nothing that vegans consume is necessary either, it's all a matter of choice. > >> > You want me to praise >> > a semi-mythical harm-lessened >> > meateater over an animal >> > rights intended vegan. >> >> The myth here is that the vegan >> you admire so much actually >> believes in animal rights. He does >> no such thing, he believes in >> convenience and feeling good >> just like the rest of us, he is just >> deluding himself. > > Huh? You're saying ARAs are > not ARAs? I am saying that they are self-deluded frauds, professing phantom beliefs that are not borne out by their lives. >> > Nope. >> > Your show and tell meat eater >> > doesn't care about animal >> > welfare or deaths necessarily. >> >> Your vegan cares about the animals >> harmed by *other people*, not by his >> own cushy lifestyle, because that's >> what supports his moral posturing. > > Headline! Cushy Lifestyle Kills 5. The only headlines in AR and vegan publications proclaim the death toll caused by the use of animal products, never the victims of all the products and services used by vegans. It's disgustingly self-serving. >> > [--snip--] >> > >> >> > For every less bad meat eater >> >> > out there, there's probably also >> >> > a less bad vegan, growing their >> >> > own food, etc. I think it still all >> >> > balances out in the vegan's >> >> > favour. >> >> >> >> Morals don't "balance out", get that idea >> >> out of your head, they are indivdual. >> > >> > Other times you have said >> > that they are never individual >> > and they are determined by >> > society etc. >> >> Morals are determined through social evolution >> and contract, but whether or not *you* are >> moral is only detemined but your own actions, >> not by the average of what some group does. >> >> You are just flailing in the dark with >> such comments. > > Your lack of understanding is > boring me. Your own stupidity is boring you. > >> >> >> >> > The fact that one of those people >> >> >> >> > also happens to eat a salmon >> >> >> >> > once a month doesn't mean that >> >> >> >> > that person doesn't also eat more >> >> >> >> > in general and STILL has the >> >> >> >> > bigger footprint. They might be >> >> >> >> > an athlete and need more overall >> >> >> >> > calories. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The vegan may be the one who is a glutton, >> >> >> >> you can't assume that the person who eats >> >> >> >> some salmon automatically consumes more >> >> >> >> calories, in fact there is a good probability >> >> >> >> that their diet is more satisfying overall. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Now you are claiming that >> >> >> > there is 'good probability'?? >> >> >> > On what basis? >> >> >> >> >> >> On the basis that I have followed both vegan and non-vegan >> >> >> diets over long periods of time during my adult life, and >> >> >> non-vegan diets are more satisfying. >> >> > >> >> > Well now, I guess that makes >> >> > you an expert. >> >> >> >> It validates my opinion. >> > >> > No, you just felt like eating >> > meat again and so you did. >> > It means nothing. >> >> Meat is very satisfying, meaning I need >> less of the manufactured soy substitutes >> that are derived by intensive farming which >> kills animals. > > That's such a myth about > vegetarians, that all we eat is > soy and that we all eat soy. Doesn't matter, soy, wheat, rice, potatoes, *none* of those things are natural foods for humans, and the production of all result in animal suffering. > >> > >> > [--snip--] >> > >> >> The problem is that you made up your mind >> >> long ago and now you're just defending that >> >> position in knee-jerk fashion. >> > >> > No, I'm just not taking on your >> > opinions as my own. Get used >> > to it. >> >> Yes, you are defending an irrational position >> and doing a shoddy job of it. > > I see it the other way around. You see it completely backwards. You have been in the veg*n trance for too long, and lack the integrity to fight your way beyond it. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Dutch" > wrote in message
... > > "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message > ... > > "Dutch" > wrote in message > > ... > >> > >> "Scented Nectar" > wrote > >> > "Dutch" > wrote > >> > >> (..) > >> > >> >> >> > You want to compare apples with > >> >> >> > oranges. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Yes, because I would like to know the relative > >> >> >> merits of apples vs oranges. Why don't you? > >> >> > > >> >> > I don't think you're quite getting > >> >> > the meaning of that phrase. > >> >> > >> >> I am getting the exact meaning. It was a very > >> >> appropriate phrase, since we are talking about > >> >> different types of food, and your refusal to > >> >> compare them. > >> > > >> > I'm refusing to compare your > >> > 'best' of the meats to the 'worst' > >> > of the vegan foods because it > >> > is a setup. It's using a nonsensical > >> > comparison to come up with the > >> > only way to make meat look good. > >> > >> How is it a setup to simply compare foods > >> without placing any conditions on it? > >> > >> It is you who is proposing a setup, limiting > >> the comparisons to only ones that you > >> believe favour your bias. > > > > I'm just sticking to what's fair. > > You have an unbelievably childish notion > about this discussion that it is a sport, and > the population is divided into two teams, > the vegans and the non-vegans. In this > puerile view, the "fair" thing to do is for > the vegans to put out their heavyweights > against the non-vegan heavyweights. I have > news for you, it's not a sport to adults, it's an > examination of the world and our attitudes. Maybe you're taking this all a little too seriously. > >> [--snip--] > >> > >> [..] > >> > >> >> The issue is your refusal to compare > >> >> foods, period. > >> > > >> > I will only compare them > >> > appropriately. > >> > >> Meaning only in specific ways that reinforce > >> your predjudice. > >> > >> [--snip--] > >> > >> > > >> >> >> That's a weak response to a pertinent > >> >> >> query. If I am trying to choose between > >> >> >> all available foods based on impact, then > >> >> >> I must compare all foods, there is no other > >> >> >> way. It's absurdly self-defeating to create > >> >> >> two arbitrary categories then only compare > >> >> >> foods in limited ways based on those two > >> >> >> categories. You cannot find out how foods > >> >> >> rank unless you attempt to rate them all > >> >> >> according to consistent criteria. The only > >> >> >> reason I can think of why you would want > >> >> >> to do this is that you are promoting ignorance. > >> >> > > >> >> > In these considerations, should > >> >> > be sustainability (if others were > >> >> > to demand it too) of wild animals > >> >> > and animal welfare if farmed. > >> >> > These alone knock it down below > >> >> > veganism do to existing flaws in > >> >> > the systems. > >> >> > >> >> That was completely non-responsive. > >> > > >> > Let me dumb it down for you > >> > then. > >> > >> You mean try to state your point clearly > >> for a change? > >> > >> > Wild animal eating is > >> > not sustainable if it ever became > >> > popular. > >> > >> You live in an urban western bubble, > >> wild animal eating is very prevalent > >> all over the world. > > > > Who do the factory farms feed? > > "Factory farms" is another catch-phrase vegans > love to toss around. I just returned from a trip > across the country, and cattle are everywhere, > grazing. That's where a lot of non-vegan food > and other products come from, not "factories". You know perfectly well that factory farms exist. > > And are there enough wildlife > > to replace them? > > Irrelevant, we're talking about now and the > forseeable future. If it's the morally best manner of eating that allows meat, then it's very relevant. > >> > The proven bad > >> > welfare of farmed animals is > >> > well documented. > >> > >> It's grossly exaggerated by extremists like you. > >> > >> > These two > >> > points knock it down below > >> > veganism, comparison-wise. > >> > >> Vegans are blind to the death and suffering > >> underlying their fruits, grains, and other so > >> called non-violent foods. Veganism is a lie. > >> > >> [--snip--] > >> > >> >> >> > Health has a lot to do with it. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> It was nothing to do with it. > >> >> > > >> >> > Yes it does. It connects with what > >> >> > place we have in nature and > >> >> > whether we should be eating > >> >> > animals. > >> >> > >> >> It's a diversion, health and ethics are > >> >> two different topics. > >> > > >> > If our bodies were those of meat > >> > eaters, then it would not be > >> > unethical to eat meat. > >> > >> We have eaten meat since the time > >> our species emerged. Our species > >> has thrived. How can you conclude > >> that our bodies are not those of meat > >> eaters? > >> > >> >> >> Health is an important issue, but in this > >> >> >> context it's just another diversion. If > >> >> >> something is immoral, then you must > >> >> >> not do it, even if it would benefit you > >> >> >> to do so. Health is a personal benefit. > >> >> > > >> >> > So anything less than total > >> >> > martydom is not enough? > >> >> > >> >> Not at all, you can and should act in your > >> >> own self-interest, just quit trying to pretend > >> >> otherwise. All this blathering about animals > >> >> is just a way of making yourself feel good. > >> > > >> > You are wanting people to not > >> > think of the killing of animals > >> > to be immoral? > >> > >> Correct, killing is part of life, not immoral > >> in and of itself. We all do it, mostly indirectly. > >> > >> >> >> >> > For another, the salmon have a > >> >> >> >> > good chance at becoming > >> >> >> >> > endangered in the future. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Land has a good chance of becoming devoid > >> >> >> >> of all nutrients and poisoned due to farming, > >> >> >> >> does that mean we should not do it? > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > That's right. At least not the way > >> >> >> > we (you) do it now. Enriching the > >> >> >> > soil rather than just stealing from > >> >> >> > it would be a good start. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Good, I don't advocate farming *or* fishing in > >> >> >> non-sustainable ways. > >> >> > > >> >> > Then according to your views > >> >> > on morality, you must not > >> >> > contribute to it, even if it would > >> >> > benefit you. > >> >> > >> >> Correct. > >> > > >> > Then do you only buy organic, > >> > as that feeds the soil? Do you > >> > avoid ALL foods not grown or > >> > caught in sustainable manners? > >> > >> No, I don't, but I don't set myself > >> up as a moral paragon, that's vegans' > >> game. I accept that people are imperfect. > >> > >> > [--snip--] > >> > > >> >> >> You are completely missing the point. I > >> >> >> am NOT one of those marginal minority > >> >> >> of meat eaters, so I can't be asking for > >> >> >> approval. I am looking for you recognize > >> >> >> that they exist and the value of that. > >> >> > > >> >> > How many more times are you > >> >> > hoping that I'll give it recognition? > >> >> > >> >> How should I know? I don't have a > >> >> crystal ball. > >> > > >> > Well now, this should be fun. > >> > >> It's tiresome actually, and disheartening > >> that anyone can be as dull as you are. > > > > Buh bye then. > > Another juvenile phrase. You have already effectively > signed off from any meaningful participation in this > discussion. Buh bye then. > >> >> > And what value are you expecting > >> >> > to be placed on it? > >> >> > >> >> You have claimed that you place a > >> >> high value on defending and protecting > >> >> the lives of animals. > >> > > >> > Ask someone else to pat the > >> > backs this time. > >> > >> Wha??? > > > > The part that refers to has been > > snipped. > > The issue here is that you think you get to > walk around smug and self-satisfied about > your diet while laying criticism at the feet > of others. You are NOT entitled, morally, > to do that. I'm entitled to feel morally good about anything I like. > >> >> >> > You want to be > >> >> >> > recognised for being better than > >> >> >> > most meat eaters, I think. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Wrong, and you don't think, ever, except > >> >> >> for ways to dance around the subject. > >> >> > > >> >> > Make up your mind. I don't care > >> >> > who is the recipient of the > >> >> > recognition, you or someone > >> >> > else. > >> >> > >> >> Then be more specific. If harming fewer > >> >> animals is the currency of goodness that > >> >> you are proposing then you have no business > >> >> withholding your admiration from people > >> >> who eat meat when they harm fewer animals > >> >> than the vegans you worship. > >> > > >> > You're assuming that these > >> > marginal, minority of meat > >> > eaters are deserving of a pat > >> > on the back. > >> > >> Why would they not? > > > > So you DO feel they are being > > more moral compared to > > regular meat eaters. > > I feel they are doing as much or more > than many vegans to diminish harm > to animals, and that is supposed to be > what you are advocating. Apparently > not though.. > > > > >> > The decision to > >> > eat a dead body kind of puts > >> > an end to that plan, don't you > >> > think? > >> > >> Why? Dead bodies don't feel > >> anything, they have no interests. > >> Once you have done counting > >> the death toll associated with a > >> lifestyle then is the time to hand > >> out the kudos. What people put > >> on their plates should make no > >> moral difference. > > > > The moral difference lies in the > > intent. > > There is no difference in intent. Cds > are caused by the intent to obtain food > cheaply and conveniently. Livestock > deaths are a result of the intent to obtain > food also. You are manufacturing a > non-existent difference and you don't > even realize it. I'm not going to explain it further. If you don't get it, you don't get it. > > Cds are an unfortunate > > necessity, but meat eating isn't. > > You can't base your argument on > "necessity", nothing that vegans > consume is necessary either, it's > all a matter of choice. Oh yeah, this is where you say that healthy food is an optional thing, not a need. > >> > You want me to praise > >> > a semi-mythical harm-lessened > >> > meateater over an animal > >> > rights intended vegan. > >> > >> The myth here is that the vegan > >> you admire so much actually > >> believes in animal rights. He does > >> no such thing, he believes in > >> convenience and feeling good > >> just like the rest of us, he is just > >> deluding himself. > > > > Huh? You're saying ARAs are > > not ARAs? > > I am saying that they are self-deluded > frauds, professing phantom beliefs that > are not borne out by their lives. > > >> > Nope. > >> > Your show and tell meat eater > >> > doesn't care about animal > >> > welfare or deaths necessarily. > >> > >> Your vegan cares about the animals > >> harmed by *other people*, not by his > >> own cushy lifestyle, because that's > >> what supports his moral posturing. > > > > Headline! Cushy Lifestyle Kills 5. > > The only headlines in AR and vegan > publications proclaim the death toll > caused by the use of animal products, > never the victims of all the products > and services used by vegans. It's > disgustingly self-serving. > > > >> > [--snip--] > >> > > >> >> > For every less bad meat eater > >> >> > out there, there's probably also > >> >> > a less bad vegan, growing their > >> >> > own food, etc. I think it still all > >> >> > balances out in the vegan's > >> >> > favour. > >> >> > >> >> Morals don't "balance out", get that idea > >> >> out of your head, they are indivdual. > >> > > >> > Other times you have said > >> > that they are never individual > >> > and they are determined by > >> > society etc. > >> > >> Morals are determined through social evolution > >> and contract, but whether or not *you* are > >> moral is only detemined but your own actions, > >> not by the average of what some group does. > >> > >> You are just flailing in the dark with > >> such comments. > > > > Your lack of understanding is > > boring me. > > Your own stupidity is boring you. You're boring me. You might notice my lack of response in general here. > >> >> >> >> > The fact that one of those people > >> >> >> >> > also happens to eat a salmon > >> >> >> >> > once a month doesn't mean that > >> >> >> >> > that person doesn't also eat more > >> >> >> >> > in general and STILL has the > >> >> >> >> > bigger footprint. They might be > >> >> >> >> > an athlete and need more overall > >> >> >> >> > calories. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> The vegan may be the one who is a glutton, > >> >> >> >> you can't assume that the person who eats > >> >> >> >> some salmon automatically consumes more > >> >> >> >> calories, in fact there is a good probability > >> >> >> >> that their diet is more satisfying overall. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Now you are claiming that > >> >> >> > there is 'good probability'?? > >> >> >> > On what basis? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> On the basis that I have followed both vegan and non-vegan > >> >> >> diets over long periods of time during my adult life, and > >> >> >> non-vegan diets are more satisfying. > >> >> > > >> >> > Well now, I guess that makes > >> >> > you an expert. > >> >> > >> >> It validates my opinion. > >> > > >> > No, you just felt like eating > >> > meat again and so you did. > >> > It means nothing. > >> > >> Meat is very satisfying, meaning I need > >> less of the manufactured soy substitutes > >> that are derived by intensive farming which > >> kills animals. > > > > That's such a myth about > > vegetarians, that all we eat is > > soy and that we all eat soy. > > Doesn't matter, soy, wheat, rice, potatoes, > *none* of those things are natural foods for > humans, and the production of all result in > animal suffering. Those plant foods are indeed natural for humans. > >> > > >> > [--snip--] > >> > > >> >> The problem is that you made up your mind > >> >> long ago and now you're just defending that > >> >> position in knee-jerk fashion. > >> > > >> > No, I'm just not taking on your > >> > opinions as my own. Get used > >> > to it. > >> > >> Yes, you are defending an irrational position > >> and doing a shoddy job of it. > > > > I see it the other way around. > > You see it completely backwards. You have > been in the veg*n trance for too long, and > lack the integrity to fight your way beyond it. Trance. Give me a break. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Scented Nectar" > wrote > "Dutch" > wrote >> >> (..) >> >> >> >> >> >> > You want to compare apples with >> >> >> >> > oranges. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Yes, because I would like to know the relative >> >> >> >> merits of apples vs oranges. Why don't you? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > I don't think you're quite getting >> >> >> > the meaning of that phrase. >> >> >> >> >> >> I am getting the exact meaning. It was a very >> >> >> appropriate phrase, since we are talking about >> >> >> different types of food, and your refusal to >> >> >> compare them. >> >> > >> >> > I'm refusing to compare your >> >> > 'best' of the meats to the 'worst' >> >> > of the vegan foods because it >> >> > is a setup. It's using a nonsensical >> >> > comparison to come up with the >> >> > only way to make meat look good. >> >> >> >> How is it a setup to simply compare foods >> >> without placing any conditions on it? >> >> >> >> It is you who is proposing a setup, limiting >> >> the comparisons to only ones that you >> >> believe favour your bias. >> > >> > I'm just sticking to what's fair. >> >> You have an unbelievably childish notion >> about this discussion that it is a sport, and >> the population is divided into two teams, >> the vegans and the non-vegans. In this >> puerile view, the "fair" thing to do is for >> the vegans to put out their heavyweights >> against the non-vegan heavyweights. I have >> news for you, it's not a sport to adults, it's an >> examination of the world and our attitudes. > > Maybe you're taking this all > a little too seriously. Maybe you're living in a childlike fantasy world. >> >> [--snip--] >> >> >> >> [..] >> >> >> >> >> The issue is your refusal to compare >> >> >> foods, period. >> >> > >> >> > I will only compare them >> >> > appropriately. >> >> >> >> Meaning only in specific ways that reinforce >> >> your predjudice. >> >> >> >> [--snip--] >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> That's a weak response to a pertinent >> >> >> >> query. If I am trying to choose between >> >> >> >> all available foods based on impact, then >> >> >> >> I must compare all foods, there is no other >> >> >> >> way. It's absurdly self-defeating to create >> >> >> >> two arbitrary categories then only compare >> >> >> >> foods in limited ways based on those two >> >> >> >> categories. You cannot find out how foods >> >> >> >> rank unless you attempt to rate them all >> >> >> >> according to consistent criteria. The only >> >> >> >> reason I can think of why you would want >> >> >> >> to do this is that you are promoting ignorance. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > In these considerations, should >> >> >> > be sustainability (if others were >> >> >> > to demand it too) of wild animals >> >> >> > and animal welfare if farmed. >> >> >> > These alone knock it down below >> >> >> > veganism do to existing flaws in >> >> >> > the systems. >> >> >> >> >> >> That was completely non-responsive. >> >> > >> >> > Let me dumb it down for you >> >> > then. >> >> >> >> You mean try to state your point clearly >> >> for a change? >> >> >> >> > Wild animal eating is >> >> > not sustainable if it ever became >> >> > popular. >> >> >> >> You live in an urban western bubble, >> >> wild animal eating is very prevalent >> >> all over the world. >> > >> > Who do the factory farms feed? >> >> "Factory farms" is another catch-phrase vegans >> love to toss around. I just returned from a trip >> across the country, and cattle are everywhere, >> grazing. That's where a lot of non-vegan food >> and other products come from, not "factories". > > You know perfectly well that > factory farms exist. I didn't say they didn't exist, but large-scale farming is not necessarily more cruel than small-scale. It's still just a "catch-phrase", as I said, rhetoric vegans like to toss around. Plant products are also farmed on a large scale. >> > And are there enough wildlife >> > to replace them? >> >> Irrelevant, we're talking about now and the >> forseeable future. > > If it's the morally best manner of > eating that allows meat, then it's > very relevant. Some of the best and most sustainable diets on the planet include meat, if you can't get anything else through that thick skull of yours, take that as a project. > >> >> > The proven bad >> >> > welfare of farmed animals is >> >> > well documented. >> >> >> >> It's grossly exaggerated by extremists like you. >> >> >> >> > These two >> >> > points knock it down below >> >> > veganism, comparison-wise. >> >> >> >> Vegans are blind to the death and suffering >> >> underlying their fruits, grains, and other so >> >> called non-violent foods. Veganism is a lie. >> >> >> >> [--snip--] >> >> >> >> >> >> > Health has a lot to do with it. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> It was nothing to do with it. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Yes it does. It connects with what >> >> >> > place we have in nature and >> >> >> > whether we should be eating >> >> >> > animals. >> >> >> >> >> >> It's a diversion, health and ethics are >> >> >> two different topics. >> >> > >> >> > If our bodies were those of meat >> >> > eaters, then it would not be >> >> > unethical to eat meat. >> >> >> >> We have eaten meat since the time >> >> our species emerged. Our species >> >> has thrived. How can you conclude >> >> that our bodies are not those of meat >> >> eaters? >> >> >> >> >> >> Health is an important issue, but in this >> >> >> >> context it's just another diversion. If >> >> >> >> something is immoral, then you must >> >> >> >> not do it, even if it would benefit you >> >> >> >> to do so. Health is a personal benefit. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > So anything less than total >> >> >> > martydom is not enough? >> >> >> >> >> >> Not at all, you can and should act in your >> >> >> own self-interest, just quit trying to pretend >> >> >> otherwise. All this blathering about animals >> >> >> is just a way of making yourself feel good. >> >> > >> >> > You are wanting people to not >> >> > think of the killing of animals >> >> > to be immoral? >> >> >> >> Correct, killing is part of life, not immoral >> >> in and of itself. We all do it, mostly indirectly. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > For another, the salmon have a >> >> >> >> >> > good chance at becoming >> >> >> >> >> > endangered in the future. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Land has a good chance of becoming devoid >> >> >> >> >> of all nutrients and poisoned due to farming, >> >> >> >> >> does that mean we should not do it? >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > That's right. At least not the way >> >> >> >> > we (you) do it now. Enriching the >> >> >> >> > soil rather than just stealing from >> >> >> >> > it would be a good start. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Good, I don't advocate farming *or* fishing in >> >> >> >> non-sustainable ways. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Then according to your views >> >> >> > on morality, you must not >> >> >> > contribute to it, even if it would >> >> >> > benefit you. >> >> >> >> >> >> Correct. >> >> > >> >> > Then do you only buy organic, >> >> > as that feeds the soil? Do you >> >> > avoid ALL foods not grown or >> >> > caught in sustainable manners? >> >> >> >> No, I don't, but I don't set myself >> >> up as a moral paragon, that's vegans' >> >> game. I accept that people are imperfect. >> >> >> >> > [--snip--] >> >> > >> >> >> >> You are completely missing the point. I >> >> >> >> am NOT one of those marginal minority >> >> >> >> of meat eaters, so I can't be asking for >> >> >> >> approval. I am looking for you recognize >> >> >> >> that they exist and the value of that. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > How many more times are you >> >> >> > hoping that I'll give it recognition? >> >> >> >> >> >> How should I know? I don't have a >> >> >> crystal ball. >> >> > >> >> > Well now, this should be fun. >> >> >> >> It's tiresome actually, and disheartening >> >> that anyone can be as dull as you are. >> > >> > Buh bye then. >> >> Another juvenile phrase. You have already effectively >> signed off from any meaningful participation in this >> discussion. > > Buh bye then. What is it like to have nothing original or interesting happening in your mind? >> >> >> > And what value are you expecting >> >> >> > to be placed on it? >> >> >> >> >> >> You have claimed that you place a >> >> >> high value on defending and protecting >> >> >> the lives of animals. >> >> > >> >> > Ask someone else to pat the >> >> > backs this time. >> >> >> >> Wha??? >> > >> > The part that refers to has been >> > snipped. >> >> The issue here is that you think you get to >> walk around smug and self-satisfied about >> your diet while laying criticism at the feet >> of others. You are NOT entitled, morally, >> to do that. > > I'm entitled to feel morally good > about anything I like. No you aren't, it has to be justified or else it's self-deception. >> >> >> >> > You want to be >> >> >> >> > recognised for being better than >> >> >> >> > most meat eaters, I think. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Wrong, and you don't think, ever, except >> >> >> >> for ways to dance around the subject. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Make up your mind. I don't care >> >> >> > who is the recipient of the >> >> >> > recognition, you or someone >> >> >> > else. >> >> >> >> >> >> Then be more specific. If harming fewer >> >> >> animals is the currency of goodness that >> >> >> you are proposing then you have no business >> >> >> withholding your admiration from people >> >> >> who eat meat when they harm fewer animals >> >> >> than the vegans you worship. >> >> > >> >> > You're assuming that these >> >> > marginal, minority of meat >> >> > eaters are deserving of a pat >> >> > on the back. >> >> >> >> Why would they not? >> > >> > So you DO feel they are being >> > more moral compared to >> > regular meat eaters. >> >> I feel they are doing as much or more >> than many vegans to diminish harm >> to animals, and that is supposed to be >> what you are advocating. Apparently >> not though.. >> >> > >> >> > The decision to >> >> > eat a dead body kind of puts >> >> > an end to that plan, don't you >> >> > think? >> >> >> >> Why? Dead bodies don't feel >> >> anything, they have no interests. >> >> Once you have done counting >> >> the death toll associated with a >> >> lifestyle then is the time to hand >> >> out the kudos. What people put >> >> on their plates should make no >> >> moral difference. >> > >> > The moral difference lies in the >> > intent. >> >> There is no difference in intent. Cds >> are caused by the intent to obtain food >> cheaply and conveniently. Livestock >> deaths are a result of the intent to obtain >> food also. You are manufacturing a >> non-existent difference and you don't >> even realize it. > > I'm not going to explain it > further. If you don't get it, you > don't get it. I get it perfectly well. You are living a lie, demeaning others in order to pump yourself up. Everything about you is despicable. > >> > Cds are an unfortunate >> > necessity, but meat eating isn't. >> >> You can't base your argument on >> "necessity", nothing that vegans >> consume is necessary either, it's >> all a matter of choice. > > Oh yeah, this is where you > say that healthy food is an > optional thing, not a need. Food may be a need, but no specific food is necessary. You eat many foods that are not necessary for your health, therefore you cannot logically argue that we should not eat any type of meat based on it being not necessary. >> >> > You want me to praise >> >> > a semi-mythical harm-lessened >> >> > meateater over an animal >> >> > rights intended vegan. >> >> >> >> The myth here is that the vegan >> >> you admire so much actually >> >> believes in animal rights. He does >> >> no such thing, he believes in >> >> convenience and feeling good >> >> just like the rest of us, he is just >> >> deluding himself. >> > >> > Huh? You're saying ARAs are >> > not ARAs? >> >> I am saying that they are self-deluded >> frauds, professing phantom beliefs that >> are not borne out by their lives. >> >> >> > Nope. >> >> > Your show and tell meat eater >> >> > doesn't care about animal >> >> > welfare or deaths necessarily. >> >> >> >> Your vegan cares about the animals >> >> harmed by *other people*, not by his >> >> own cushy lifestyle, because that's >> >> what supports his moral posturing. >> > >> > Headline! Cushy Lifestyle Kills 5. >> >> The only headlines in AR and vegan >> publications proclaim the death toll >> caused by the use of animal products, >> never the victims of all the products >> and services used by vegans. It's >> disgustingly self-serving. >> >> >> >> > [--snip--] >> >> > >> >> >> > For every less bad meat eater >> >> >> > out there, there's probably also >> >> >> > a less bad vegan, growing their >> >> >> > own food, etc. I think it still all >> >> >> > balances out in the vegan's >> >> >> > favour. >> >> >> >> >> >> Morals don't "balance out", get that idea >> >> >> out of your head, they are indivdual. >> >> > >> >> > Other times you have said >> >> > that they are never individual >> >> > and they are determined by >> >> > society etc. >> >> >> >> Morals are determined through social evolution >> >> and contract, but whether or not *you* are >> >> moral is only detemined but your own actions, >> >> not by the average of what some group does. >> >> >> >> You are just flailing in the dark with >> >> such comments. >> > >> > Your lack of understanding is >> > boring me. >> >> Your own stupidity is boring you. > > You're boring me. You might > notice my lack of response > in general here. If you don't want to have a discussion then go away. > >> >> >> >> >> > The fact that one of those people >> >> >> >> >> > also happens to eat a salmon >> >> >> >> >> > once a month doesn't mean that >> >> >> >> >> > that person doesn't also eat more >> >> >> >> >> > in general and STILL has the >> >> >> >> >> > bigger footprint. They might be >> >> >> >> >> > an athlete and need more overall >> >> >> >> >> > calories. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> The vegan may be the one who is a glutton, >> >> >> >> >> you can't assume that the person who eats >> >> >> >> >> some salmon automatically consumes more >> >> >> >> >> calories, in fact there is a good probability >> >> >> >> >> that their diet is more satisfying overall. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Now you are claiming that >> >> >> >> > there is 'good probability'?? >> >> >> >> > On what basis? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On the basis that I have followed both vegan and non-vegan >> >> >> >> diets over long periods of time during my adult life, and >> >> >> >> non-vegan diets are more satisfying. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Well now, I guess that makes >> >> >> > you an expert. >> >> >> >> >> >> It validates my opinion. >> >> > >> >> > No, you just felt like eating >> >> > meat again and so you did. >> >> > It means nothing. >> >> >> >> Meat is very satisfying, meaning I need >> >> less of the manufactured soy substitutes >> >> that are derived by intensive farming which >> >> kills animals. >> > >> > That's such a myth about >> > vegetarians, that all we eat is >> > soy and that we all eat soy. >> >> Doesn't matter, soy, wheat, rice, potatoes, >> *none* of those things are natural foods for >> humans, and the production of all result in >> animal suffering. > > Those plant foods are indeed > natural for humans. No kidding.. all right, go out and eat some wheat, tell us how that goes. >> >> > >> >> > [--snip--] >> >> > >> >> >> The problem is that you made up your mind >> >> >> long ago and now you're just defending that >> >> >> position in knee-jerk fashion. >> >> > >> >> > No, I'm just not taking on your >> >> > opinions as my own. Get used >> >> > to it. >> >> >> >> Yes, you are defending an irrational position >> >> and doing a shoddy job of it. >> > >> > I see it the other way around. >> >> You see it completely backwards. You have >> been in the veg*n trance for too long, and >> lack the integrity to fight your way beyond it. > > Trance. Give me a break. It's a trance all right. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Dutch" > wrote in message
... > > "Scented Nectar" > wrote > > "Dutch" > wrote [--snip--] > >> You have an unbelievably childish notion > >> about this discussion that it is a sport, and > >> the population is divided into two teams, > >> the vegans and the non-vegans. In this > >> puerile view, the "fair" thing to do is for > >> the vegans to put out their heavyweights > >> against the non-vegan heavyweights. I have > >> news for you, it's not a sport to adults, it's an > >> examination of the world and our attitudes. > > > > Maybe you're taking this all > > a little too seriously. > > Maybe you're living in a childlike fantasy > world. Nope. You're taking this a little too seriously. [--snip--] > > You know perfectly well that > > factory farms exist. > > I didn't say they didn't exist, but large-scale > farming is not necessarily more cruel than > small-scale. It's still just a "catch-phrase", > as I said, rhetoric vegans like to toss around. > Plant products are also farmed on a large scale. The animal factory farms are more cruel than the plant ones. [--snip--] > >> Another juvenile phrase. You have already effectively > >> signed off from any meaningful participation in this > >> discussion. > > > > Buh bye then. > > What is it like to have nothing original or interesting > happening in your mind? Then why are you responding? Buh bye. [--snip--] > > I'm entitled to feel morally good > > about anything I like. > > No you aren't, it has to be justified > or else it's self-deception. Justified by who? Only by myself is what matters. Who do you think is supposed to approve of your morals before you're ALLOWED to feel good? [--snip--] > > I'm not going to explain it > > further. If you don't get it, you > > don't get it. > > I get it perfectly well. You are living a > lie, demeaning others in order to pump > yourself up. Everything about you is > despicable. You're really projecting on that one. Who are the ones here who frequently (almost always in fact) use insults instead of normalcy? The meat lobby here. You and the other meat pushers are the ones who put others (veg*ns) down in order to feel better than them. > >> > Cds are an unfortunate > >> > necessity, but meat eating isn't. > >> > >> You can't base your argument on > >> "necessity", nothing that vegans > >> consume is necessary either, it's > >> all a matter of choice. > > > > Oh yeah, this is where you > > say that healthy food is an > > optional thing, not a need. > > Food may be a need, but no specific > food is necessary. You eat many foods > that are not necessary for your health, > therefore you cannot logically argue > that we should not eat any type of > meat based on it being not necessary. I don't say it's unnecessary, I say it's out and out unhealthy. [--snip--] > >> Doesn't matter, soy, wheat, rice, potatoes, > >> *none* of those things are natural foods for > >> humans, and the production of all result in > >> animal suffering. > > > > Those plant foods are indeed > > natural for humans. > > No kidding.. all right, go out and eat some > wheat, tell us how that goes. I have many times, raw. Sprouted wheat is very tasty and healthy. I've also ground up the sprouts to make loaves of raw sprout bread. When was the last time you ate raw meat? [--snip--] > >> You see it completely backwards. You have > >> been in the veg*n trance for too long, and > >> lack the integrity to fight your way beyond it. > > > > Trance. Give me a break. > > It's a trance all right. Then I'm sure functioning well for someone in a trance. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Best Burgers 2007. Was: Red Robin Burgers | General Cooking | |||
Burgers | General Cooking | |||
Burgers | Barbecue | |||
Burgers Break Apart - How to grill burgers | Barbecue |