"Scented Nectar" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote
>> "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.

No, I am taking it exactly as seriously as is
warranted. You aren't taking it seriously
enough. The reason is, your position is
irrational and flawed and to take it
seriously would mean honestly reassessing it.
You are either afraid to or incapable of
doing that.

> [--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.

You don't know a thing about either, you're just
shooting off your mouth.

> [--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.

I enjoy addressing ignorance. Why are you?

> [--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?

To anyone you proclaim it to, in this
case, me.

> Only by
> myself is what matters. Who
> do you think is supposed to
> approve of your morals before
> you're ALLOWED to feel good?

You are not objective enough to
be the arbiter of your own morals,
that's why we have a society.

Here's an extreme example or two to
illustrate the point..

A killer may feel proud that he didn't
torture his last victim, is he entitled to
that good feeling? A wife-beater may
take a night off, should he feel moral
pride? No, he must submit to the
arbitration of society and other thinking
people. That's what you are doing by
stating your moral reasoning in a
discussion group.

> [--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.

I knock vegans off their self-made
perches because they are not
entitled to them. We are all living
off and amid the carnage of many
many, animals. Pointing fingers at
others will not change that. It's
demeaning and disgusting to do so.


>> >> > 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,

Yes you do, you said it in your last message.

It's a common fallacious vegan argument.

> I say it's out and out unhealthy.

Wrong, and not relevant here anyway.

> [--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.

Not sprouts, wheat, or rice, or soya beans. None
of them can be eaten without processing and cooking

> I've also ground up the sprouts to
> make loaves of raw sprout bread.
> When was the last time you ate
> raw meat?

Not long ago. When did you eat raw soybeans last?

> [--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.

You are functioning at a low level of
consciousness. You have chosen a
cheap high from smarmy smugness over
the much deeper satisfaction of connection
with real truth and honesty.

"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Scented Nectar" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote
> >> "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.
>
> No, I am taking it exactly as seriously as is
> warranted. You aren't taking it seriously
> enough. The reason is, your position is
> irrational and flawed and to take it
> seriously would mean honestly reassessing it.
> You are either afraid to or incapable of
> doing that.

I take it seriously enough. I
disagree with your assessment.
My own shows me to be doing
quite fine.

> > [--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.
>
> You don't know a thing about either, you're just
> shooting off your mouth.
>
> > [--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.
>
> I enjoy addressing ignorance. Why are you?

To try and correct your wrong
assessments.

> > [--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?
>
> To anyone you proclaim it to, in this
> case, me.

Ah, you want to play god.
According to you, my morals
must be justified by you?
Please, get real!

> > Only by
> > myself is what matters. Who
> > do you think is supposed to
> > approve of your morals before
> > you're ALLOWED to feel good?
>
> You are not objective enough to
> be the arbiter of your own morals,
> that's why we have a society.
>
> Here's an extreme example or two to
> illustrate the point..
>
> A killer may feel proud that he didn't
> torture his last victim, is he entitled to
> that good feeling? A wife-beater may
> take a night off, should he feel moral
> pride? No, he must submit to the
> arbitration of society and other thinking
> people. That's what you are doing by
> stating your moral reasoning in a
> discussion group.

Your examples are all those of
people doing optional wrongs.
By that I mean that they could
easily stop the wrong acts
completely but are choosing
not to. This is very unlike the
case of cds where it's NOT
easily avoided and not able
to be stopped completely, at
least currently.

> > [--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.
>
> I knock vegans off their self-made
> perches because they are not
> entitled to them. We are all living
> off and amid the carnage of many
> many, animals. Pointing fingers at
> others will not change that. It's
> demeaning and disgusting to do so.

But you're the one here who's
pointing fingers.

> >> >> > 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,
>
> Yes you do, you said it in your last message.
>
> It's a common fallacious vegan argument.

Actually there are many people
who are living proof that meat
isn't necessary.

> > I say it's out and out unhealthy.
>
> Wrong, and not relevant here anyway.
>
> > [--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.
>
> Not sprouts, wheat, or rice, or soya beans. None
> of them can be eaten without processing and cooking

Yes sprouts. That's how all
3 can be eaten without
processing or cooking. Rice
isn't very good though. It's a
bit bitter if I remember right.
If you think that raw edibility
is the determining factor in
which foods to eat, then you
should probably eat all your
food raw.

> > I've also ground up the sprouts to
> > make loaves of raw sprout bread.
> > When was the last time you ate
> > raw meat?
>
> Not long ago. When did you eat raw soybeans last?

I don't know. I tend towards
different bean sprouts like
mung. You ate raw meat?
What kind?

> > [--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.
>
> You are functioning at a low level of
> consciousness. You have chosen a
> cheap high from smarmy smugness over
> the much deeper satisfaction of connection
> with real truth and honesty.

Yet if I was posting from the side
of promoting the eating of meat
and against veganism, you would
never resort to insults about my
functioning, 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:
<...>
> Why do you assume that the
> 'worst' of veg diets is worse
> than the 'average' meat eating
> one?

Vegetarian diets can be healthful and nutritionally sound if
they’re carefully planned to include essential nutrients.
However, a vegetarian diet can be unhealthy if it contains too
many calories and not enough important nutrients.
http://www.americanheart.org/present...dentifier=4777

Those important nutrients include B12, zinc, and iron.

>>>>>>>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

THEN

> it would not be morally
> wrong to kill and eat them.

Your claim that it's immoral to kill and eat animals is based on what?
It isn't any religious text. Hindus are allowed to eat meat in many
instances. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam don't consider it immoral to
kill and eat animals.

> But we are not meant to be meat eaters

According to whom or what?

> so it is morally wrong to kill them

Non sequitur.


>>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.

Ipse dixit.

>>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.

No, you never have. Repeating yourself ad nauseum is tautology, not proof.

>>>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.

Especially when you refuse to adjust your lifestyle to match your
bullshit rhetoric about saving animals.

> The for-food
> animal is avoidable

You're objecting only to the 1001st death -- you do abso-****ing-lutely
NOTHING to not kill the first 1000 killed collaterally with your own
diet, you object only to ONE animal death if people consume the meat
from it.

> and has greater moral impact.

Moral impact? No. Rank sanctimony? *Yes*.

>>>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.

You intend to do nothing except bitch and moan and pine about "veganics"
even though there is no such thing, so you don't count for anything. The
results of your diet cause more suffering and death to animals and
people than a diet like Rick's. You shouldn't pat yourself on your hairy
back just because you think more highly of your own intentions than his.

>>>>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 (and still are) very immature.

> It was based on research

Liar, you never did any research. You read pamphlets and books by
activists extolling vegetarianism. You were already looking for cheap,
meaningless gestures rather than developing character or integrity.
You've never strayed from your cheap, meaningless gestures, either.

Scented Nectar wrote:
<...>
> If you go and have a
> massive stroke, um, well,
> never mind go ahead.

Typical vegan misanthropy. You're a hate-filled bitch who openly wishes
suffering and death upon others. **** you and your phony compassion for
other creatures -- you have no compassion for anyone or anything.

<...>
>>>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.

The result is still an armed bank robbery even if the robber intended to
scare his victims into compliance through use a phony gun or blanks. If
anyone dies during such a robbery -- from heart attack, crash during
getaway, etc. -- it's a capital offense in some states because the death
occurs during the commission of a felony.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Scented Nectar wrote:
> <...>
> > Why do you assume that the
> > 'worst' of veg diets is worse
> > than the 'average' meat eating
> > one?
>
> Vegetarian diets can be healthful and nutritionally sound if
> they’re carefully planned to include essential nutrients.
> However, a vegetarian diet can be unhealthy if it contains too
> many calories and not enough important nutrients.
> http://www.americanheart.org/present...dentifier=4777
>
> Those important nutrients include B12, zinc, and iron.
>
> >>>>>>>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
>
> THEN



> > it would not be morally
> > wrong to kill and eat them.
>
> Your claim that it's immoral to kill and eat animals is based on what?
> It isn't any religious text. Hindus are allowed to eat meat in many
> instances. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam don't consider it immoral to
> kill and eat animals.

Do you believe that morality
must be connected to religion?
I don't.

> > But we are not meant to be meat eaters
>
> According to whom or what?

Our physiology.

> > so it is morally wrong to kill them
>
> Non sequitur.
>
>
> >>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.
>
> Ipse dixit.
>
> >>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.
>
> No, you never have. Repeating yourself ad nauseum is tautology, not proof.

That's what you do.

> >>>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.
>
> Especially when you refuse to adjust your lifestyle to match your
> bullshit rhetoric about saving animals.

You've already presented a few
adjustments. They were not
reasonable.

> > The for-food
> > animal is avoidable
>
> You're objecting only to the 1001st death -- you do abso-****ing-lutely
> NOTHING to not kill the first 1000 killed collaterally with your own
> diet, you object only to ONE animal death if people consume the meat
> from it.

That's the only avoidable one.
Why don't you get it?

> > and has greater moral impact.
>
> Moral impact? No. Rank sanctimony? *Yes*.
>
> >>>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.
>
> You intend to do nothing except bitch and moan and pine about "veganics"
> even though there is no such thing, so you don't count for anything. The
> results of your diet cause more suffering and death to animals and
> people than a diet like Rick's. You shouldn't pat yourself on your hairy
> back just because you think more highly of your own intentions than his.

You don't know what I eat, and
you don't know what Ricky eats.

> >>>>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 (and still are) very immature.
>
> > It was based on research
>
> Liar, you never did any research. You read pamphlets and books by
> activists extolling vegetarianism. You were already looking for cheap,
> meaningless gestures rather than developing character or integrity.
> You've never strayed from your cheap, meaningless gestures, either.

Stop making stupid assumptions.

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> 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.

He can even order a shirt to tell the world he's one:
http://tinyurl.com/adruc

Skanky wrote:
>>>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.

You're agriculturally ignorant. Your 'knowledge' of and knee-jerk
objections to so-called factory farming is limited to leftwing agitprop
from people less concerned about animal welfare than they are in making
a few fast bucks from gullible people like you. I linked to images of
"factory-farmed" pork a few weeks ago. Unlike the OP (I forget whom, I
think it was the dot-****er from Australia) who blathered stupidly about
pigs being held in unconscionable conditions, including in tiny crates,
the images showed pigs in well-lit pens with other pigs, all well-fed,
and all in very clean surroundings.

> You're really projecting on that
> one.

You didn't even know the definition of "vegan" or of other words you've
ignorantly thrown about in these groups. You sure as hell don't
comprehend what "projection" is.

<...>
>>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.

A claim you've yet to substantiate. You've also failed to distinguish
between fatty meats and leaner ones. You have nothing but
generalizations to make because you're parroting the activists whose
works you've read.

>>>>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.

So are certain meats, including some you enjoy smelling as they cook or
you still enjoy tasting in your fake meat products.

> I've also ground up the sprouts to
> make loaves of raw sprout bread.

Isn't that special.

> When was the last time you ate
> raw meat?

The last couple times I ate any meat it was raw (sashimi is uncooked
fish). Lots of people eat raw meat. Sashimi, tartar, carpaccio. People
down here enjoy raw oysters; I've had raw clams in New England. It's not
uncommon at all, Skanky.

Stupid Skanky wrote:
>><...>
>>
>>>Why do you assume that the
>>>'worst' of veg diets is worse
>>>than the 'average' meat eating
>>>one?
>>
>>Vegetarian diets can be healthful and nutritionally sound if
>>they’re carefully planned to include essential nutrients.
>>However, a vegetarian diet can be unhealthy if it contains too
>>many calories and not enough important nutrients.
>>http://www.americanheart.org/present...dentifier=4777
>>
>>Those important nutrients include B12, zinc, and iron.

Established.

>>>>>>>>>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
>>
>>THEN

Why do you continue to **** up the English language, Skanky?

>>>it would not be morally
>>>wrong to kill and eat them.
>>
>>Your claim that it's immoral to kill and eat animals is based on what?

*ANSWER THE DAMN QUESTION, SKANKY.*

>>It isn't any religious text. Hindus are allowed to eat meat in many
>>instances. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam don't consider it immoral to
>>kill and eat animals.
>
> Do you believe that morality
> must be connected to religion?

I didn't say I did.

> I don't.

THEN WTF DO YOU BASE YOUR MORALITY CLAIM UPON? TWIT!

>>>But we are not meant to be meat eaters
>>
>>According to whom or what?
>
> Our physiology.

You're so ****ing dense that I fear Toronto will soon be sucked into a
black hole centered in your squalid apartment.

http://www.beyondveg.com/billings-t/...-anat-1a.shtml

>>>so it is morally wrong to kill them
>>
>>Non sequitur.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>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.
>>
>>Ipse dixit.
>>
>>
>>>>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.
>>
>>No, you never have. Repeating yourself ad nauseum is tautology, not proof.
>
> That's

You never have proven ANYthing. Repeating yourself ad nauseum is
tautology, not proof.

>>>>>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.
>>
>>Especially when you refuse to adjust your lifestyle to match your
>>bullshit rhetoric about saving animals.
>
> You've already presented a few
> adjustments. They were not
> reasonable.

Because you find your own principles to be handicaps, liabilities. That
tells us what a charlatan you are.

>>>The for-food
>>>animal is avoidable
>>
>>You're objecting only to the 1001st death -- you do abso-****ing-lutely
>>NOTHING to not kill the first 1000 killed collaterally with your own
>>diet, you object only to ONE animal death if people consume the meat
>>from it.
>
> That's the only avoidable one.

It's *not* avoidable. People are hungry. They want meat. They eat a dead
animal. You're hungry. You don't want meat. You kill many animals which
you don't eat.

>>>and has greater moral impact.
>>
>>Moral impact? No. Rank sanctimony? *Yes*.

FIRMLY ESTABLISHED.

>>>>>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.
>>
>>You intend to do nothing except bitch and moan and pine about "veganics"
>>even though there is no such thing, so you don't count for anything. The
>>results of your diet cause more suffering and death to animals and
>>people than a diet like Rick's. You shouldn't pat yourself on your hairy
>>back just because you think more highly of your own intentions than his.
>
> You don't know what I eat, and
> you don't know what Ricky eats.

I have both your accounts of what you've eaten in the past and enough to
know what both your norms are. If your platitudes about "killing animals
is wrong" and your ranting about causing fewer (you ignorantly say
"less") animals deaths matter, Rick's diet is more noble than yours.

>>>>>>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 (and still are) very immature.
>>
>>
>>>It was based on research
>>
>>Liar, you never did any research. You read pamphlets and books by
>>activists extolling vegetarianism. You were already looking for cheap,
>>meaningless gestures rather than developing character or integrity.
>>You've never strayed from your cheap, meaningless gestures, either.
>
> Stop

No, you have no character or integrity. You never did research. You read
agitprop -- the same emotive bullshit propaganda you've been reading now
about "factory farming" -- and you saw that as your way to make the
world a better place through pathetically empty, meaningless gestures.

Stop being insulting, demanding,
lying, and snipping from the part
you are responding to, and maybe
I'll actually reply to what you write.

--
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:
> Stop

Go back and answer the questions, twit.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Scented Nectar wrote:
> > Stop
>
> Go back and answer the questions, twit.

"answer the questions, *TWIT*???
Yeah, I'm really going to do what
someone like you tells me to do.
Anything I answer is because I
want to answer, not because you
order it. Ordering makes me
especially not want to. So ask
me everything all over again,
nicely and we'll see.


--
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

[--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.
>>
>> No, I am taking it exactly as seriously as is
>> warranted. You aren't taking it seriously
>> enough. The reason is, your position is
>> irrational and flawed and to take it
>> seriously would mean honestly reassessing it.
>> You are either afraid to or incapable of
>> doing that.
>
> I take it seriously enough.

You are probably taking it as seriously
as you are capable of.

> I
> disagree with your assessment.

Of what?

> My own shows me to be doing
> quite fine.

Your self-assessment is worthless, you
glorify yourself by demeaning others.

>> > [--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.
>>
>> You don't know a thing about either, you're just
>> shooting off your mouth.
>>
>> > [--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.
>>
>> I enjoy addressing ignorance. Why are you?
>
> To try and correct your wrong
> assessments.

I wish you were capable of something that
useful.

>
>> > [--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?
>>
>> To anyone you proclaim it to, in this
>> case, me.
>
> Ah, you want to play god.
> According to you, my morals
> must be justified by you?
> Please, get real!

I'm the one to whom you are currently
presenting your moral evaluations, so I
am the one reflecting them back to you.
We all gauge our ideas based on feedback
from others, assuming we are acting
morally and intelligently. In your case
you have chosen knee-jerk adherence to
dogma over intelligent thought.

>> > Only by
>> > myself is what matters. Who
>> > do you think is supposed to
>> > approve of your morals before
>> > you're ALLOWED to feel good?
>>
>> You are not objective enough to
>> be the arbiter of your own morals,
>> that's why we have a society.
>>
>> Here's an extreme example or two to
>> illustrate the point..
>>
>> A killer may feel proud that he didn't
>> torture his last victim, is he entitled to
>> that good feeling? A wife-beater may
>> take a night off, should he feel moral
>> pride? No, he must submit to the
>> arbitration of society and other thinking
>> people. That's what you are doing by
>> stating your moral reasoning in a
>> discussion group.
>
> Your examples are all those of
> people doing optional wrongs.
> By that I mean that they could
> easily stop the wrong acts
> completely but are choosing
> not to. This is very unlike the
> case of cds where it's NOT
> easily avoided and not able
> to be stopped completely, at
> least currently.

I agree with that to a degree, but it's
not what we're talking about here. I
was illustrating that one cannot simply
be the arbiter of one's own morality.
You must submit almost completely to
the morals society has evolved over
millenia. You do that constantly by
reflecting on what goes on around you
and by getting feedback from your
environment, in this particular case, me.


[--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.
>>
>> I knock vegans off their self-made
>> perches because they are not
>> entitled to them. We are all living
>> off and amid the carnage of many
>> many, animals. Pointing fingers at
>> others will not change that. It's
>> demeaning and disgusting to do so.
>
> But you're the one here who's
> pointing fingers.

Not at all.

I am observing that as a meat-eater I
have the accusing fingers of vegans
pointed at me, saying and implying
that I am immoral. I am reacting to
those accusations, because they are
unjust.


>> >> >> > 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,
>>
>> Yes you do, you said it in your last message.
>>
>> It's a common fallacious vegan argument.
>
> Actually there are many people
> who are living proof that meat
> isn't necessary.

Of course it's not necessary, I ought to know, I
didn't eat it for eitheen years. The point is that
necessity is not a valid argument in this case.

>> > I say it's out and out unhealthy.
>>
>> Wrong, and not relevant here anyway.
>>
>> > [--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.
>>
>> Not sprouts, wheat, or rice, or soya beans. None
>> of them can be eaten without processing and cooking
>
> Yes sprouts. That's how all
> 3 can be eaten without
> processing or cooking. Rice
> isn't very good though. It's a
> bit bitter if I remember right.
> If you think that raw edibility
> is the determining factor in
> which foods to eat, then you
> should probably eat all your
> food raw.
>
>> > I've also ground up the sprouts to
>> > make loaves of raw sprout bread.
>> > When was the last time you ate
>> > raw meat?
>>
>> Not long ago. When did you eat raw soybeans last?
>
> I don't know. I tend towards
> different bean sprouts like
> mung.

Not sprouts, GRAIN. Grains, roots, legumes
are inedible without cooking.

>You ate raw meat?
> What kind?

I have had raw tuna and rare steak, which is
mainly raw.


>> > [--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.
>>
>> You are functioning at a low level of
>> consciousness. You have chosen a
>> cheap high from smarmy smugness over
>> the much deeper satisfaction of connection
>> with real truth and honesty.
>
> Yet if I was posting from the side
> of promoting the eating of meat
> and against veganism, you would
> never resort to insults about my
> functioning, etc.

That's false, ****wit Harrison is a promoter
of meat and he operates at the level of a
doorknob. At least vegans and vegan wannabes
have a genuine concern for animals as part of
their ideology, which to makes them worth
spending time to reach out to.

"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.
> >>
> >> No, I am taking it exactly as seriously as is
> >> warranted. You aren't taking it seriously
> >> enough. The reason is, your position is
> >> irrational and flawed and to take it
> >> seriously would mean honestly reassessing it.
> >> You are either afraid to or incapable of
> >> doing that.
> >
> > I take it seriously enough.
>
> You are probably taking it as seriously
> as you are capable of.
>
> > I
> > disagree with your assessment.
>
> Of what?

Of me. Of my morals. Of
whether I live up to them.

> > My own shows me to be doing
> > quite fine.
>
> Your self-assessment is worthless, you
> glorify yourself by demeaning others.

Then how come it's the
anti-vegans here who do 98%
(approx) of the insulting?

> >> > [--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.
> >>
> >> You don't know a thing about either, you're just
> >> shooting off your mouth.
> >>
> >> > [--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.
> >>
> >> I enjoy addressing ignorance. Why are you?
> >
> > To try and correct your wrong
> > assessments.
>
> I wish you were capable of something that
> useful.

Yes, it would be useful to be
able to correct your wrong
assessments, but oh well.

> >> > [--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?
> >>
> >> To anyone you proclaim it to, in this
> >> case, me.
> >
> > Ah, you want to play god.
> > According to you, my morals
> > must be justified by you?
> > Please, get real!
>
> I'm the one to whom you are currently
> presenting your moral evaluations, so I
> am the one reflecting them back to you.
> We all gauge our ideas based on feedback
> from others, assuming we are acting
> morally and intelligently. In your case
> you have chosen knee-jerk adherence to
> dogma over intelligent thought.

You're not someone I would
go to for feedback. You are
insulting as well as the fact
that I don't respect you.

> >> > Only by
> >> > myself is what matters. Who
> >> > do you think is supposed to
> >> > approve of your morals before
> >> > you're ALLOWED to feel good?
> >>
> >> You are not objective enough to
> >> be the arbiter of your own morals,
> >> that's why we have a society.
> >>
> >> Here's an extreme example or two to
> >> illustrate the point..
> >>
> >> A killer may feel proud that he didn't
> >> torture his last victim, is he entitled to
> >> that good feeling? A wife-beater may
> >> take a night off, should he feel moral
> >> pride? No, he must submit to the
> >> arbitration of society and other thinking
> >> people. That's what you are doing by
> >> stating your moral reasoning in a
> >> discussion group.
> >
> > Your examples are all those of
> > people doing optional wrongs.
> > By that I mean that they could
> > easily stop the wrong acts
> > completely but are choosing
> > not to. This is very unlike the
> > case of cds where it's NOT
> > easily avoided and not able
> > to be stopped completely, at
> > least currently.
>
> I agree with that to a degree, but it's
> not what we're talking about here. I
> was illustrating that one cannot simply
> be the arbiter of one's own morality.
> You must submit almost completely to
> the morals society has evolved over
> millenia. You do that constantly by
> reflecting on what goes on around you
> and by getting feedback from your
> environment, in this particular case, me.

I see your feedback as being
of low value. In the negatives
actually.

> [--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.
> >>
> >> I knock vegans off their self-made
> >> perches because they are not
> >> entitled to them. We are all living
> >> off and amid the carnage of many
> >> many, animals. Pointing fingers at
> >> others will not change that. It's
> >> demeaning and disgusting to do so.
> >
> > But you're the one here who's
> > pointing fingers.
>
> Not at all.
>
> I am observing that as a meat-eater I
> have the accusing fingers of vegans
> pointed at me, saying and implying
> that I am immoral. I am reacting to
> those accusations, because they are
> unjust.

I don't see all these meanies
you do. I see no one pointing
fingers at you.

> >> >> >> > 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,
> >>
> >> Yes you do, you said it in your last message.
> >>
> >> It's a common fallacious vegan argument.
> >
> > Actually there are many people
> > who are living proof that meat
> > isn't necessary.
>
> Of course it's not necessary, I ought to know, I
> didn't eat it for eitheen years. The point is that
> necessity is not a valid argument in this case.

It is however the only avoidable
animal death in food production.

> >> > I say it's out and out unhealthy.
> >>
> >> Wrong, and not relevant here anyway.
> >>
> >> > [--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.
> >>
> >> Not sprouts, wheat, or rice, or soya beans. None
> >> of them can be eaten without processing and cooking
> >
> > Yes sprouts. That's how all
> > 3 can be eaten without
> > processing or cooking. Rice
> > isn't very good though. It's a
> > bit bitter if I remember right.
> > If you think that raw edibility
> > is the determining factor in
> > which foods to eat, then you
> > should probably eat all your
> > food raw.
> >
> >> > I've also ground up the sprouts to
> >> > make loaves of raw sprout bread.
> >> > When was the last time you ate
> >> > raw meat?
> >>
> >> Not long ago. When did you eat raw soybeans last?
> >
> > I don't know. I tend towards
> > different bean sprouts like
> > mung.
>
> Not sprouts, GRAIN. Grains, roots, legumes
> are inedible without cooking.

Sprouting isn't cooking. It's just
rinsing grains and legumes with
water a few times a day. Roots
like potatoes aren't very palatable
by most people's standards, but
it is just as easy to eat as an apple.
Many seeds are edible without
sprouting, like nuts, sunflowers,
etc. Why the no-cooking
requirement? Many green
vegetables are edible raw
including the legumes green
beans and peas. Most fruits are
eaten raw. Years ago I made
a great dip from ground chick
pea sprouts put through a
grinder.

> >You ate raw meat?
> > What kind?
>
> I have had raw tuna and rare steak, which is
> mainly raw.

I think I'd prefer the sunflower
pate.

> >> > [--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.
> >>
> >> You are functioning at a low level of
> >> consciousness. You have chosen a
> >> cheap high from smarmy smugness over
> >> the much deeper satisfaction of connection
> >> with real truth and honesty.
> >
> > Yet if I was posting from the side
> > of promoting the eating of meat
> > and against veganism, you would
> > never resort to insults about my
> > functioning, etc.
>
> That's false, ****wit Harrison is a promoter
> of meat and he operates at the level of a
> doorknob. At least vegans and vegan wannabes
> have a genuine concern for animals as part of
> their ideology, which to makes them worth
> spending time to reach out to.

Do you believe then that eating
meat improves the welfare of
animals? I ask since you say that
a genuine concern for animals is
a good thing.


--
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 Hoser wrote:
>>>Stop
>>
>>Go back and answer the questions, twit.
>
> "answer the questions, *TWIT*???

Yes. *TWIT*.

> Yeah, I'm really going to do what
> someone like you tells me to do.

Mr Canoza is correct about your immature defiance. Whiff noted.

Scented Nectar wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Scented Nectar wrote:
>>
>>>Stop
>>
>>Go back and answer the questions, twit.
>
>
> "answer the questions, *TWIT*???
> Yeah, I'm really going to do what
> someone like you tells me to do.

Right on cue: "You're not the boss of me!"

> Anything I answer is because I
> want to answer, not because you
> order it.

"You're not the boss of me!"


> Ordering makes me
> especially not want to.

"You're not the boss of me!"

> So ask
> me everything all over again,
> nicely and we'll see.

**** off, twit.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote >>
>> "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.
>> >>
>> >> No, I am taking it exactly as seriously as is
>> >> warranted. You aren't taking it seriously
>> >> enough. The reason is, your position is
>> >> irrational and flawed and to take it
>> >> seriously would mean honestly reassessing it.
>> >> You are either afraid to or incapable of
>> >> doing that.
>> >
>> > I take it seriously enough.
>>
>> You are probably taking it as seriously
>> as you are capable of.
>>
>> > I
>> > disagree with your assessment.
>>
>> Of what?
>
> Of me. Of my morals. Of
> whether I live up to them.
>
>> > My own shows me to be doing
>> > quite fine.
>>
>> Your self-assessment is worthless, you
>> glorify yourself by demeaning others.
>
> Then how come it's the
> anti-vegans here who do 98%
> (approx) of the insulting?

They don't, look again.

>> >> > [--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.
>> >>
>> >> You don't know a thing about either, you're just
>> >> shooting off your mouth.
>> >>
>> >> > [--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.
>> >>
>> >> I enjoy addressing ignorance. Why are you?
>> >
>> > To try and correct your wrong
>> > assessments.
>>
>> I wish you were capable of something that
>> useful.
>
> Yes, it would be useful to be
> able to correct your wrong
> assessments, but oh well.

Try harder, you'll never do it with the
superficial approach you are using.

>> >> > [--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?
>> >>
>> >> To anyone you proclaim it to, in this
>> >> case, me.
>> >
>> > Ah, you want to play god.
>> > According to you, my morals
>> > must be justified by you?
>> > Please, get real!
>>
>> I'm the one to whom you are currently
>> presenting your moral evaluations, so I
>> am the one reflecting them back to you.
>> We all gauge our ideas based on feedback
>> from others, assuming we are acting
>> morally and intelligently. In your case
>> you have chosen knee-jerk adherence to
>> dogma over intelligent thought.
>
> You're not someone I would
> go to for feedback.

That's false, you are doing it now.

> You are
> insulting as well as the fact
> that I don't respect you.

You must like it, you keep coming back
for more.

>
>> >> > Only by
>> >> > myself is what matters. Who
>> >> > do you think is supposed to
>> >> > approve of your morals before
>> >> > you're ALLOWED to feel good?
>> >>
>> >> You are not objective enough to
>> >> be the arbiter of your own morals,
>> >> that's why we have a society.
>> >>
>> >> Here's an extreme example or two to
>> >> illustrate the point..
>> >>
>> >> A killer may feel proud that he didn't
>> >> torture his last victim, is he entitled to
>> >> that good feeling? A wife-beater may
>> >> take a night off, should he feel moral
>> >> pride? No, he must submit to the
>> >> arbitration of society and other thinking
>> >> people. That's what you are doing by
>> >> stating your moral reasoning in a
>> >> discussion group.
>> >
>> > Your examples are all those of
>> > people doing optional wrongs.
>> > By that I mean that they could
>> > easily stop the wrong acts
>> > completely but are choosing
>> > not to. This is very unlike the
>> > case of cds where it's NOT
>> > easily avoided and not able
>> > to be stopped completely, at
>> > least currently.
>>
>> I agree with that to a degree, but it's
>> not what we're talking about here. I
>> was illustrating that one cannot simply
>> be the arbiter of one's own morality.
>> You must submit almost completely to
>> the morals society has evolved over
>> millenia. You do that constantly by
>> reflecting on what goes on around you
>> and by getting feedback from your
>> environment, in this particular case, me.
>
> I see your feedback as being
> of low value. In the negatives
> actually.

Because I don't pat you on the back and
reinforce your self-serving beliefs..

>> [--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.
>> >>
>> >> I knock vegans off their self-made
>> >> perches because they are not
>> >> entitled to them. We are all living
>> >> off and amid the carnage of many
>> >> many, animals. Pointing fingers at
>> >> others will not change that. It's
>> >> demeaning and disgusting to do so.
>> >
>> > But you're the one here who's
>> > pointing fingers.
>>
>> Not at all.
>>
>> I am observing that as a meat-eater I
>> have the accusing fingers of vegans
>> pointed at me, saying and implying
>> that I am immoral. I am reacting to
>> those accusations, because they are
>> unjust.
>
> I don't see all these meanies
> you do. I see no one pointing
> fingers at you.

This statement, taken from below
is a finger pointed at me.

"It is however the only avoidable
animal death in food production."

That is a clear and direct indictment
of one of my most basic life choices.
I do not take kindly to such unthinking
comments coming from nitwits.

>> >> >> >> > 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,
>> >>
>> >> Yes you do, you said it in your last message.
>> >>
>> >> It's a common fallacious vegan argument.
>> >
>> > Actually there are many people
>> > who are living proof that meat
>> > isn't necessary.
>>
>> Of course it's not necessary, I ought to know, I
>> didn't eat it for eitheen years. The point is that
>> necessity is not a valid argument in this case.
>
> It is however the only avoidable
> animal death in food production.

That's nonsense. You can avoid ALL the deaths
in rice production by not eating rice.

>> >> > I say it's out and out unhealthy.
>> >>
>> >> Wrong, and not relevant here anyway.
>> >>
>> >> > [--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.
>> >>
>> >> Not sprouts, wheat, or rice, or soya beans. None
>> >> of them can be eaten without processing and cooking
>> >
>> > Yes sprouts. That's how all
>> > 3 can be eaten without
>> > processing or cooking. Rice
>> > isn't very good though. It's a
>> > bit bitter if I remember right.
>> > If you think that raw edibility
>> > is the determining factor in
>> > which foods to eat, then you
>> > should probably eat all your
>> > food raw.
>> >
>> >> > I've also ground up the sprouts to
>> >> > make loaves of raw sprout bread.
>> >> > When was the last time you ate
>> >> > raw meat?
>> >>
>> >> Not long ago. When did you eat raw soybeans last?
>> >
>> > I don't know. I tend towards
>> > different bean sprouts like
>> > mung.
>>
>> Not sprouts, GRAIN. Grains, roots, legumes
>> are inedible without cooking.
>
> Sprouting isn't cooking. It's just
> rinsing grains and legumes with
> water a few times a day. Roots
> like potatoes aren't very palatable
> by most people's standards, but
> it is just as easy to eat as an apple.
> Many seeds are edible without
> sprouting, like nuts, sunflowers,
> etc. Why the no-cooking
> requirement?

The alleged need to cook meat is the
most common phoney argument that
it is not a "natural" food.

> Many green
> vegetables are edible raw
> including the legumes green
> beans and peas. Most fruits are
> eaten raw. Years ago I made
> a great dip from ground chick
> pea sprouts put through a
> grinder.


zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


>
>> >You ate raw meat?
>> > What kind?
>>
>> I have had raw tuna and rare steak, which is
>> mainly raw.
>
> I think I'd prefer the sunflower
> pate.

I prefer a choice among all foods.

>> >> > [--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.
>> >>
>> >> You are functioning at a low level of
>> >> consciousness. You have chosen a
>> >> cheap high from smarmy smugness over
>> >> the much deeper satisfaction of connection
>> >> with real truth and honesty.
>> >
>> > Yet if I was posting from the side
>> > of promoting the eating of meat
>> > and against veganism, you would
>> > never resort to insults about my
>> > functioning, etc.
>>
>> That's false, ****wit Harrison is a promoter
>> of meat and he operates at the level of a
>> doorknob. At least vegans and vegan wannabes
>> have a genuine concern for animals as part of
>> their ideology, which to makes them worth
>> spending time to reach out to.
>
> Do you believe then that eating
> meat improves the welfare of
> animals?

No it doesn't. Production/consumption of all
types harms animals, because they live where
food is grown and stored.

> I ask since you say that
> a genuine concern for animals is
> a good thing.

Of course it's a good thing, but veganism perverts
it into an us/them religion, and the animals become
just pawns in this "look-at-me" game. The desire to
be "righteous" or holy is as old as the human race,
and veganism fills this void quite nicely, especially
for people who have no other formal religious beliefs.

Scented Nectar wrote:
<...>
> Then how come it's the
> anti-vegans here who do 98%
> (approx) of the insulting?

If you go and have a
massive stroke, um, well,
never mind go ahead.
-- Skanky, 18 July 2005

Veganism is misanthropy. Consider the 'love' your fellow vegan travelers
have shared along the way:

We should plaster Etter's, Dutch's and Ball's homes with PETA
and PCRM flyers so that THEY will have NO square inch to post
THEIR views and discuss topics of interest to THEM.
http://tinyurl.com/5m5ew

I hope you die slowly, and in excruciating pain from cancer or in a
house fire you worthless tramp for what you have just said. Just one
animals life is worth 10 of yours. Your wife is better off where
she is,
at least she doesn't have to live with YOU. I bet she would have
committed suicide anyway rather than put up with you. Please do
like her
and choke to death.
http://tinyurl.com/5lndg

I can hardly wait until you get your first heart attack.
I will jump for joy when you suffer and drop dead!
It will be hilarious for the medical staff to laugh at you
and tell you that they don't have to be told by YOU what to do.
http://tinyurl.com/3jalp

Keep on eating that red meat, Dick Etter!
http://tinyurl.com/3vkss

So you are saying I and fellow vegetarians have the legal
right to run an office the way WE want. Well, then, that is good --
because I encourage medical doctors not to help hunters and
non-vegetarians.
http://tinyurl.com/4j4tm

Feel the compassion...

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Scented Nectar wrote:
> <...>
>> Then how come it's the
>> anti-vegans here who do 98%
>> (approx) of the insulting?
>
> If you go and have a
> massive stroke, um, well,
> never mind go ahead.
> -- Skanky, 18 July 2005
>
> Veganism is misanthropy. Consider the 'love' your fellow vegan
> travelers have shared along the way:
>
> We should plaster Etter's, Dutch's and Ball's homes with
> PETA
> and PCRM flyers so that THEY will have NO square inch to
> post
> THEIR views and discuss topics of interest to THEM.
> http://tinyurl.com/5m5ew
>
> I hope you die slowly, and in excruciating pain from
> cancer or in a
> house fire you worthless tramp for what you have just
> said. Just one
> animals life is worth 10 of yours. Your wife is better off
> where she is,
> at least she doesn't have to live with YOU. I bet she
> would have
> committed suicide anyway rather than put up with you.
> Please do like her
> and choke to death.
> http://tinyurl.com/5lndg
>
> I can hardly wait until you get your first heart attack.
> I will jump for joy when you suffer and drop dead!
> It will be hilarious for the medical staff to laugh at you
> and tell you that they don't have to be told by YOU what
> to do.
> http://tinyurl.com/3jalp
>
> Keep on eating that red meat, Dick Etter!
> http://tinyurl.com/3vkss
>
> So you are saying I and fellow vegetarians have the legal
> right to run an office the way WE want. Well, then, that
> is good --
> because I encourage medical doctors not to help hunters
> and
> non-vegetarians.
> http://tinyurl.com/4j4tm
>
> Feel the compassion...
=========
Let's share more of that vegan compassion, eh?


"I always cheer any time I hear someone who is a hunter dies
in a war or plane crash or from cancer...
They should not receive any medical assistance or legal
assistance. They should be denied
housing..."
exploratory, t.p.a. Oct 10 2003, 6:09 pm


"...I hope he dies or sooner rather than later, but I'd settle
for his
institutionalization..."
frlpwr, t.p.a. Apr 18 2004, 4:44 pm about jonathan

"...As for his current absence, I sincerely hope he finally threw
a clot.
The world would be better place without him..."
frlpwr, t.p.a. Apr 17 2004, 5:43 pm again, her obsession
with jonathon..


"...I live a couple of miles from an intensive turkkey rearing
factory, I know
both directors of the company, I hope they die a slow death asap,
They are
stinking lousy low life Yorkshire scum..."
Ray, Feb 12 2004, 12:45 pm a.a.e.v.


I just love to feel the compassion from the truly compassionate
among us....

"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Scented Nectar" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote >>
> >> "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.
> >> >>
> >> >> No, I am taking it exactly as seriously as is
> >> >> warranted. You aren't taking it seriously
> >> >> enough. The reason is, your position is
> >> >> irrational and flawed and to take it
> >> >> seriously would mean honestly reassessing it.
> >> >> You are either afraid to or incapable of
> >> >> doing that.
> >> >
> >> > I take it seriously enough.
> >>
> >> You are probably taking it as seriously
> >> as you are capable of.
> >>
> >> > I
> >> > disagree with your assessment.
> >>
> >> Of what?
> >
> > Of me. Of my morals. Of
> > whether I live up to them.
> >
> >> > My own shows me to be doing
> >> > quite fine.
> >>
> >> Your self-assessment is worthless, you
> >> glorify yourself by demeaning others.
> >
> > Then how come it's the
> > anti-vegans here who do 98%
> > (approx) of the insulting?
>
> They don't, look again.

I look every day.

> >> >> > [--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.
> >> >>
> >> >> You don't know a thing about either, you're just
> >> >> shooting off your mouth.
> >> >>
> >> >> > [--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.
> >> >>
> >> >> I enjoy addressing ignorance. Why are you?
> >> >
> >> > To try and correct your wrong
> >> > assessments.
> >>
> >> I wish you were capable of something that
> >> useful.
> >
> > Yes, it would be useful to be
> > able to correct your wrong
> > assessments, but oh well.
>
> Try harder, you'll never do it with the
> superficial approach you are using.

No. I give up. I'm not going
to be able to convince you,
and your assessments will
continue to be wrong. I may
debate it anyways, but I
have no real reason to
believe that I'm going to get
you to see anything the way
I do.

> >> >> > [--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?
> >> >>
> >> >> To anyone you proclaim it to, in this
> >> >> case, me.
> >> >
> >> > Ah, you want to play god.
> >> > According to you, my morals
> >> > must be justified by you?
> >> > Please, get real!
> >>
> >> I'm the one to whom you are currently
> >> presenting your moral evaluations, so I
> >> am the one reflecting them back to you.
> >> We all gauge our ideas based on feedback
> >> from others, assuming we are acting
> >> morally and intelligently. In your case
> >> you have chosen knee-jerk adherence to
> >> dogma over intelligent thought.
> >
> > You're not someone I would
> > go to for feedback.
>
> That's false, you are doing it now.

No. There is usually fun in the
debates regarding things I
believe. I don't consider you
to be someone who I am going
to for advice. You are someone
who is either saying things I
agree or disagree with. With
you I happen to disagree more
than agree. If new concepts
are introduced, I consider
them too. Sometimes the
debates here get too boring
or they get too insult-and-snip
filled, so I'll 'whiff' off and ignore.

> > You are
> > insulting as well as the fact
> > that I don't respect you.
>
> You must like it, you keep coming back
> for more.

I may enjoy debating with you
but it doesn't mean that I
respect you. Also, someone
has to keep you in your place.

> >> >> > Only by
> >> >> > myself is what matters. Who
> >> >> > do you think is supposed to
> >> >> > approve of your morals before
> >> >> > you're ALLOWED to feel good?
> >> >>
> >> >> You are not objective enough to
> >> >> be the arbiter of your own morals,
> >> >> that's why we have a society.
> >> >>
> >> >> Here's an extreme example or two to
> >> >> illustrate the point..
> >> >>
> >> >> A killer may feel proud that he didn't
> >> >> torture his last victim, is he entitled to
> >> >> that good feeling? A wife-beater may
> >> >> take a night off, should he feel moral
> >> >> pride? No, he must submit to the
> >> >> arbitration of society and other thinking
> >> >> people. That's what you are doing by
> >> >> stating your moral reasoning in a
> >> >> discussion group.
> >> >
> >> > Your examples are all those of
> >> > people doing optional wrongs.
> >> > By that I mean that they could
> >> > easily stop the wrong acts
> >> > completely but are choosing
> >> > not to. This is very unlike the
> >> > case of cds where it's NOT
> >> > easily avoided and not able
> >> > to be stopped completely, at
> >> > least currently.
> >>
> >> I agree with that to a degree, but it's
> >> not what we're talking about here. I
> >> was illustrating that one cannot simply
> >> be the arbiter of one's own morality.
> >> You must submit almost completely to
> >> the morals society has evolved over
> >> millenia. You do that constantly by
> >> reflecting on what goes on around you
> >> and by getting feedback from your
> >> environment, in this particular case, me.
> >
> > I see your feedback as being
> > of low value. In the negatives
> > actually.
>
> Because I don't pat you on the back and
> reinforce your self-serving beliefs..

No, because you are only here
to be on the anti- side of a
debate. Personally I only
enjoy debating and chatting on
topics I have a strong interest
in. But you are not a vegetarian.
Why are you here? Just to be on
the anti- side of something. If I
turned into a meat eater, I would
not come back here to bug
everyone to do the same. I'd
move on.

> >> [--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.
> >> >>
> >> >> I knock vegans off their self-made
> >> >> perches because they are not
> >> >> entitled to them. We are all living
> >> >> off and amid the carnage of many
> >> >> many, animals. Pointing fingers at
> >> >> others will not change that. It's
> >> >> demeaning and disgusting to do so.
> >> >
> >> > But you're the one here who's
> >> > pointing fingers.
> >>
> >> Not at all.
> >>
> >> I am observing that as a meat-eater I
> >> have the accusing fingers of vegans
> >> pointed at me, saying and implying
> >> that I am immoral. I am reacting to
> >> those accusations, because they are
> >> unjust.
> >
> > I don't see all these meanies
> > you do. I see no one pointing
> > fingers at you.
>
> This statement, taken from below
> is a finger pointed at me.
>
> "It is however the only avoidable
> animal death in food production."
>
> That is a clear and direct indictment
> of one of my most basic life choices.
> I do not take kindly to such unthinking
> comments coming from nitwits.

So, you are taking any pro-veg
stance as a personal insult to
you. I do many things that
Mormons would find very bad,
like my strong coffee every
morning, but I don't go over to
their newsgroups to tell them
how wrong their view of my
ways is. Also, calling people
nitwits is no way to make
friends.

> >> >> >> >> > 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,
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes you do, you said it in your last message.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's a common fallacious vegan argument.
> >> >
> >> > Actually there are many people
> >> > who are living proof that meat
> >> > isn't necessary.
> >>
> >> Of course it's not necessary, I ought to know, I
> >> didn't eat it for eitheen years. The point is that
> >> necessity is not a valid argument in this case.
> >
> > It is however the only avoidable
> > animal death in food production.
>
> That's nonsense. You can avoid ALL the deaths
> in rice production by not eating rice.

I have no evidence that says
rice production has more deaths
than other grains. Also, rice is
grown under a seasonal
wetland-like condition. There
may be some deaths, but both
the wetland and dryland species
return every year. That's how it
is in nature's seasonal wetlands
too.

> >> >> > I say it's out and out unhealthy.
> >> >>
> >> >> Wrong, and not relevant here anyway.
> >> >>
> >> >> > [--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.
> >> >>
> >> >> Not sprouts, wheat, or rice, or soya beans. None
> >> >> of them can be eaten without processing and cooking
> >> >
> >> > Yes sprouts. That's how all
> >> > 3 can be eaten without
> >> > processing or cooking. Rice
> >> > isn't very good though. It's a
> >> > bit bitter if I remember right.
> >> > If you think that raw edibility
> >> > is the determining factor in
> >> > which foods to eat, then you
> >> > should probably eat all your
> >> > food raw.
> >> >
> >> >> > I've also ground up the sprouts to
> >> >> > make loaves of raw sprout bread.
> >> >> > When was the last time you ate
> >> >> > raw meat?
> >> >>
> >> >> Not long ago. When did you eat raw soybeans last?
> >> >
> >> > I don't know. I tend towards
> >> > different bean sprouts like
> >> > mung.
> >>
> >> Not sprouts, GRAIN. Grains, roots, legumes
> >> are inedible without cooking.
> >
> > Sprouting isn't cooking. It's just
> > rinsing grains and legumes with
> > water a few times a day. Roots
> > like potatoes aren't very palatable
> > by most people's standards, but
> > it is just as easy to eat as an apple.
> > Many seeds are edible without
> > sprouting, like nuts, sunflowers,
> > etc. Why the no-cooking
> > requirement?
>
> The alleged need to cook meat is the
> most common phoney argument that
> it is not a "natural" food.

Phony? There are many
diseases and parasites you
can get from raw meat.
With plant foods, all that
needs doing is external
washing.

> > Many green
> > vegetables are edible raw
> > including the legumes green
> > beans and peas. Most fruits are
> > eaten raw. Years ago I made
> > a great dip from ground chick
> > pea sprouts put through a
> > grinder.
>
>
> zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

The truth is boring you? You
brought up rawness.

> >> >You ate raw meat?
> >> > What kind?
> >>
> >> I have had raw tuna and rare steak, which is
> >> mainly raw.
> >
> > I think I'd prefer the sunflower
> > pate.
>
> I prefer a choice among all foods.

Then stop acting like that
choice is being taken away
from you.

> >> >> > [--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.
> >> >>
> >> >> You are functioning at a low level of
> >> >> consciousness. You have chosen a
> >> >> cheap high from smarmy smugness over
> >> >> the much deeper satisfaction of connection
> >> >> with real truth and honesty.
> >> >
> >> > Yet if I was posting from the side
> >> > of promoting the eating of meat
> >> > and against veganism, you would
> >> > never resort to insults about my
> >> > functioning, etc.
> >>
> >> That's false, ****wit Harrison is a promoter
> >> of meat and he operates at the level of a
> >> doorknob. At least vegans and vegan wannabes
> >> have a genuine concern for animals as part of
> >> their ideology, which to makes them worth
> >> spending time to reach out to.
> >
> > Do you believe then that eating
> > meat improves the welfare of
> > animals?
>
> No it doesn't. Production/consumption of all
> types harms animals, because they live where
> food is grown and stored.
>
> > I ask since you say that
> > a genuine concern for animals is
> > a good thing.
>
> Of course it's a good thing, but veganism perverts
> it into an us/them religion, and the animals become
> just pawns in this "look-at-me" game. The desire to
> be "righteous" or holy is as old as the human race,
> and veganism fills this void quite nicely, especially
> for people who have no other formal religious beliefs.

Whoa, that last bit is telling!
It sounds like you think that
atheists are likely to turn to
something you liken to a
religion? There's a difference
between ethical/moral, and
righteous/holy.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Scented Nectar wrote:
> <...>
> > Then how come it's the
> > anti-vegans here who do 98%
> > (approx) of the insulting?
>
> If you go and have a
> massive stroke, um, well,
> never mind go ahead.
> -- Skanky, 18 July 2005

Yet it is still the anti-vegans
who are doing 98% of the
insulting.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/

> Veganism is misanthropy. Consider the 'love' your fellow vegan travelers
> have shared along the way:
>
> We should plaster Etter's, Dutch's and Ball's homes with PETA
> and PCRM flyers so that THEY will have NO square inch to post
> THEIR views and discuss topics of interest to THEM.
> http://tinyurl.com/5m5ew
>
> I hope you die slowly, and in excruciating pain from cancer or in a
> house fire you worthless tramp for what you have just said. Just one
> animals life is worth 10 of yours. Your wife is better off where
> she is,
> at least she doesn't have to live with YOU. I bet she would have
> committed suicide anyway rather than put up with you. Please do
> like her
> and choke to death.
> http://tinyurl.com/5lndg
>
> I can hardly wait until you get your first heart attack.
> I will jump for joy when you suffer and drop dead!
> It will be hilarious for the medical staff to laugh at you
> and tell you that they don't have to be told by YOU what to do.
> http://tinyurl.com/3jalp
>
> Keep on eating that red meat, Dick Etter!
> http://tinyurl.com/3vkss
>
> So you are saying I and fellow vegetarians have the legal
> right to run an office the way WE want. Well, then, that is good --
> because I encourage medical doctors not to help hunters and
> non-vegetarians.
> http://tinyurl.com/4j4tm
>
> Feel the compassion...

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Scented Nectar" > wrote
>> > "Dutch" > wrote >>
>> >> "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.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No, I am taking it exactly as seriously as is
>> >> >> warranted. You aren't taking it seriously
>> >> >> enough. The reason is, your position is
>> >> >> irrational and flawed and to take it
>> >> >> seriously would mean honestly reassessing it.
>> >> >> You are either afraid to or incapable of
>> >> >> doing that.
>> >> >
>> >> > I take it seriously enough.
>> >>
>> >> You are probably taking it as seriously
>> >> as you are capable of.
>> >>
>> >> > I
>> >> > disagree with your assessment.
>> >>
>> >> Of what?
>> >
>> > Of me. Of my morals. Of
>> > whether I live up to them.
>> >
>> >> > My own shows me to be doing
>> >> > quite fine.
>> >>
>> >> Your self-assessment is worthless, you
>> >> glorify yourself by demeaning others.
>> >
>> > Then how come it's the
>> > anti-vegans here who do 98%
>> > (approx) of the insulting?
>>
>> They don't, look again.
>
> I look every day.

You look, but you don't see.
>
>> >> >> > [--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.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You don't know a thing about either, you're just
>> >> >> shooting off your mouth.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > [--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.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I enjoy addressing ignorance. Why are you?
>> >> >
>> >> > To try and correct your wrong
>> >> > assessments.
>> >>
>> >> I wish you were capable of something that
>> >> useful.
>> >
>> > Yes, it would be useful to be
>> > able to correct your wrong
>> > assessments, but oh well.
>>
>> Try harder, you'll never do it with the
>> superficial approach you are using.
>
> No. I give up. I'm not going
> to be able to convince you,
> and your assessments will
> continue to be wrong. I may
> debate it anyways, but I
> have no real reason to
> believe that I'm going to get
> you to see anything the way
> I do.

I have no reason to start being sanctimonous
and narrow-minded at my age.

>> >> >> > [--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?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> To anyone you proclaim it to, in this
>> >> >> case, me.
>> >> >
>> >> > Ah, you want to play god.
>> >> > According to you, my morals
>> >> > must be justified by you?
>> >> > Please, get real!
>> >>
>> >> I'm the one to whom you are currently
>> >> presenting your moral evaluations, so I
>> >> am the one reflecting them back to you.
>> >> We all gauge our ideas based on feedback
>> >> from others, assuming we are acting
>> >> morally and intelligently. In your case
>> >> you have chosen knee-jerk adherence to
>> >> dogma over intelligent thought.
>> >
>> > You're not someone I would
>> > go to for feedback.
>>
>> That's false, you are doing it now.
>
> No. There is usually fun in the
> debates regarding things I
> believe. I don't consider you
> to be someone who I am going
> to for advice. You are someone
> who is either saying things I
> agree or disagree with. With
> you I happen to disagree more
> than agree. If new concepts
> are introduced, I consider
> them too. Sometimes the
> debates here get too boring
> or they get too insult-and-snip
> filled, so I'll 'whiff' off and ignore.

You are looking for feedback from me
or you're just a talking head shooting
off her mouth, one or the other.

>> > You are
>> > insulting as well as the fact
>> > that I don't respect you.
>>
>> You must like it, you keep coming back
>> for more.
>
> I may enjoy debating with you
> but it doesn't mean that I
> respect you. Also, someone
> has to keep you in your place.

You aren't debating, you're using this as a
substitute for real social interaction.


>> >> >> > Only by
>> >> >> > myself is what matters. Who
>> >> >> > do you think is supposed to
>> >> >> > approve of your morals before
>> >> >> > you're ALLOWED to feel good?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You are not objective enough to
>> >> >> be the arbiter of your own morals,
>> >> >> that's why we have a society.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Here's an extreme example or two to
>> >> >> illustrate the point..
>> >> >>
>> >> >> A killer may feel proud that he didn't
>> >> >> torture his last victim, is he entitled to
>> >> >> that good feeling? A wife-beater may
>> >> >> take a night off, should he feel moral
>> >> >> pride? No, he must submit to the
>> >> >> arbitration of society and other thinking
>> >> >> people. That's what you are doing by
>> >> >> stating your moral reasoning in a
>> >> >> discussion group.
>> >> >
>> >> > Your examples are all those of
>> >> > people doing optional wrongs.
>> >> > By that I mean that they could
>> >> > easily stop the wrong acts
>> >> > completely but are choosing
>> >> > not to. This is very unlike the
>> >> > case of cds where it's NOT
>> >> > easily avoided and not able
>> >> > to be stopped completely, at
>> >> > least currently.
>> >>
>> >> I agree with that to a degree, but it's
>> >> not what we're talking about here. I
>> >> was illustrating that one cannot simply
>> >> be the arbiter of one's own morality.
>> >> You must submit almost completely to
>> >> the morals society has evolved over
>> >> millenia. You do that constantly by
>> >> reflecting on what goes on around you
>> >> and by getting feedback from your
>> >> environment, in this particular case, me.
>> >
>> > I see your feedback as being
>> > of low value. In the negatives
>> > actually.
>>
>> Because I don't pat you on the back and
>> reinforce your self-serving beliefs..
>
> No,

Yes, that's why you don't like what I say.

> because you are only here
> to be on the anti- side of a
> debate.

Isn't being anti things like ignorance and
narrow-mindedness a good thing?

> Personally I only
> enjoy debating and chatting on
> topics I have a strong interest
> in.

I have an interest in the pseudo religion
called veganism.

> But you are not a vegetarian.
> Why are you here? Just to be on
> the anti- side of something.

Not at all, I am here in the hopes I'll reach
the rare open-minded veg*n who happens
to come pass through.

> If I
> turned into a meat eater, I would
> not come back here to bug
> everyone to do the same.

I don't want anyone to become a meat-eater,
I find it fascinating that you think I do. It's
statements like that that keep me interested.
I want to understand what would cause a
person to be in this dialogue for so long and
still think that I want vegetarians to change
their diets. You said you wanted to help me
understand you better, explain that. After all
this time why don't you know that I want
veg*ns to reassess their attitudes, not their
diets?

> I'd
> move on.
>
>> >> [--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.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I knock vegans off their self-made
>> >> >> perches because they are not
>> >> >> entitled to them. We are all living
>> >> >> off and amid the carnage of many
>> >> >> many, animals. Pointing fingers at
>> >> >> others will not change that. It's
>> >> >> demeaning and disgusting to do so.
>> >> >
>> >> > But you're the one here who's
>> >> > pointing fingers.
>> >>
>> >> Not at all.
>> >>
>> >> I am observing that as a meat-eater I
>> >> have the accusing fingers of vegans
>> >> pointed at me, saying and implying
>> >> that I am immoral. I am reacting to
>> >> those accusations, because they are
>> >> unjust.
>> >
>> > I don't see all these meanies
>> > you do. I see no one pointing
>> > fingers at you.
>>
>> This statement, taken from below
>> is a finger pointed at me.
>>
>> "It is however the only avoidable
>> animal death in food production."
>>
>> That is a clear and direct indictment
>> of one of my most basic life choices.
>> I do not take kindly to such unthinking
>> comments coming from nitwits.
>
> So, you are taking any pro-veg
> stance as a personal insult to
> you.

No, only when personal choices are
stated as generalized moral absolutes.

> I do many things that
> Mormons would find very bad,
> like my strong coffee every
> morning, but I don't go over to
> their newsgroups to tell them
> how wrong their view of my
> ways is.

As far as I know Mormons don't
accuse people of being immoral
for drinking coffee, they simply
hold the personal belief that coffee
is bad for you.

> Also, calling people
> nitwits is no way to make
> friends.

Calling people murderers is not very friendly
http://www.meat.org/meatismurder.htm

Those are the attitudes you support.
>
>> >> >> >> >> > 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,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yes you do, you said it in your last message.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It's a common fallacious vegan argument.
>> >> >
>> >> > Actually there are many people
>> >> > who are living proof that meat
>> >> > isn't necessary.
>> >>
>> >> Of course it's not necessary, I ought to know, I
>> >> didn't eat it for eitheen years. The point is that
>> >> necessity is not a valid argument in this case.
>> >
>> > It is however the only avoidable
>> > animal death in food production.
>>
>> That's nonsense. You can avoid ALL the deaths
>> in rice production by not eating rice.
>
> I have no evidence that says
> rice production has more deaths
> than other grains.

Again you miss the point. I didn't say
it did. You said meat is the only avoidable
death in food production, and I replied
that being assciated with the deaths in rice
production are also avoidable, just avoid rice.
You want me to avoid meat, why shouldn't
you avoid rice? Why do you think that the
deaths involved in meat production are
the only avoidable ones?

> Also, rice is
> grown under a seasonal
> wetland-like condition. There
> may be some deaths, but both
> the wetland and dryland species
> return every year. That's how it
> is in nature's seasonal wetlands
> too.

Animals die in nature all the time by plagues,
starvation and predation, that doesn't help
your case.

>> >> >> > I say it's out and out unhealthy.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Wrong, and not relevant here anyway.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > [--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.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Not sprouts, wheat, or rice, or soya beans. None
>> >> >> of them can be eaten without processing and cooking
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes sprouts. That's how all
>> >> > 3 can be eaten without
>> >> > processing or cooking. Rice
>> >> > isn't very good though. It's a
>> >> > bit bitter if I remember right.
>> >> > If you think that raw edibility
>> >> > is the determining factor in
>> >> > which foods to eat, then you
>> >> > should probably eat all your
>> >> > food raw.
>> >> >
>> >> >> > I've also ground up the sprouts to
>> >> >> > make loaves of raw sprout bread.
>> >> >> > When was the last time you ate
>> >> >> > raw meat?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Not long ago. When did you eat raw soybeans last?
>> >> >
>> >> > I don't know. I tend towards
>> >> > different bean sprouts like
>> >> > mung.
>> >>
>> >> Not sprouts, GRAIN. Grains, roots, legumes
>> >> are inedible without cooking.
>> >
>> > Sprouting isn't cooking. It's just
>> > rinsing grains and legumes with
>> > water a few times a day. Roots
>> > like potatoes aren't very palatable
>> > by most people's standards, but
>> > it is just as easy to eat as an apple.
>> > Many seeds are edible without
>> > sprouting, like nuts, sunflowers,
>> > etc. Why the no-cooking
>> > requirement?
>>
>> The alleged need to cook meat is the
>> most common phoney argument that
>> it is not a "natural" food.
>
> Phony?

Yes the argument is BOGUS.

> There are many
> diseases and parasites you
> can get from raw meat.
> With plant foods, all that
> needs doing is external
> washing.

Beside the point.


>
>> > Many green
>> > vegetables are edible raw
>> > including the legumes green
>> > beans and peas. Most fruits are
>> > eaten raw. Years ago I made
>> > a great dip from ground chick
>> > pea sprouts put through a
>> > grinder.
>>
>>
>> zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
>
> The truth is boring you? You
> brought up rawness.

I already dispelled the notion that
rawness is an issue in deciding which
foods are "natural", your babbling
is irrelevant.

>> >> >You ate raw meat?
>> >> > What kind?
>> >>
>> >> I have had raw tuna and rare steak, which is
>> >> mainly raw.
>> >
>> > I think I'd prefer the sunflower
>> > pate.
>>
>> I prefer a choice among all foods.
>
> Then stop acting like that
> choice is being taken away
> from you.

I'm not. Stop acting like I think it is.
The only thing I am talking about is
your irrational arguments. I am
interested in the irrational arguments
that veg*ns come up with.

Now you will reply "I don't make irrational
arguments", as if that were sufficient. If you
want to show that you don't, explain how
you could say that animals in meat production
are the only avoidable deaths.

>> >> >> > [--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.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You are functioning at a low level of
>> >> >> consciousness. You have chosen a
>> >> >> cheap high from smarmy smugness over
>> >> >> the much deeper satisfaction of connection
>> >> >> with real truth and honesty.
>> >> >
>> >> > Yet if I was posting from the side
>> >> > of promoting the eating of meat
>> >> > and against veganism, you would
>> >> > never resort to insults about my
>> >> > functioning, etc.
>> >>
>> >> That's false, ****wit Harrison is a promoter
>> >> of meat and he operates at the level of a
>> >> doorknob. At least vegans and vegan wannabes
>> >> have a genuine concern for animals as part of
>> >> their ideology, which to makes them worth
>> >> spending time to reach out to.
>> >
>> > Do you believe then that eating
>> > meat improves the welfare of
>> > animals?
>>
>> No it doesn't. Production/consumption of all
>> types harms animals, because they live where
>> food is grown and stored.

That was an important point.

>> > I ask since you say that
>> > a genuine concern for animals is
>> > a good thing.
>>
>> Of course it's a good thing, but veganism perverts
>> it into an us/them religion, and the animals become
>> just pawns in this "look-at-me" game. The desire to
>> be "righteous" or holy is as old as the human race,
>> and veganism fills this void quite nicely, especially
>> for people who have no other formal religious beliefs.
>
> Whoa, that last bit is telling!
> It sounds like you think that
> atheists are likely to turn to
> something you liken to a
> religion?

Not only atheists, but them too.

> There's a difference
> between ethical/moral, and
> righteous/holy.

Yes, and vegans have the whole issue confused.
Just as you have the words wrong and bad mixed
up, you have the issue of diet and morality turned
inside out.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote
> "usual suspect" > wrote i
>> Scented Nectar wrote:
>> <...>
>> > Then how come it's the
>> > anti-vegans here who do 98%
>> > (approx) of the insulting?
>>
>> If you go and have a
>> massive stroke, um, well,
>> never mind go ahead.
>> -- Skanky, 18 July 2005
>
> Yet it is still the anti-vegans
> who are doing 98% of the
> insulting.

Repeating a false claim will not make it true.

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>Then how come it's the
>>>anti-vegans here who do 98%
>>>(approx) of the insulting?
>>
>>If you go and have a
>>massive stroke, um, well,
>>never mind go ahead.
>>-- Skanky, 18 July 2005
>
> Yet it is still the anti-vegans
> who are doing 98% of the
> insulting.

Ipse dixit, and greatly exaggerated. You vegans are some nasty,
hate-filled *******s. Restoring what I wrote (and you snipped) and
adding what Rick found:

> Veganism is misanthropy. Consider the 'love' your fellow vegan
> travelers have shared along the way:
>>
>> We should plaster Etter's, Dutch's and Ball's homes with
>> PETA
>> and PCRM flyers so that THEY will have NO square inch to
>> post
>> THEIR views and discuss topics of interest to THEM.
>> http://tinyurl.com/5m5ew
>>
>> I hope you die slowly, and in excruciating pain from
>> cancer or in a
>> house fire you worthless tramp for what you have just
>> said. Just one
>> animals life is worth 10 of yours. Your wife is better off
>> where she is,
>> at least she doesn't have to live with YOU. I bet she
>> would have
>> committed suicide anyway rather than put up with you.
>> Please do like her
>> and choke to death.
>> http://tinyurl.com/5lndg
>>
>> I can hardly wait until you get your first heart attack.
>> I will jump for joy when you suffer and drop dead!
>> It will be hilarious for the medical staff to laugh at you
>> and tell you that they don't have to be told by YOU what
>> to do.
>> http://tinyurl.com/3jalp
>>
>> Keep on eating that red meat, Dick Etter!
>> http://tinyurl.com/3vkss
>>
>> So you are saying I and fellow vegetarians have the legal
>> right to run an office the way WE want. Well, then, that
>> is good --
>> because I encourage medical doctors not to help hunters
>> and
>> non-vegetarians.
>> http://tinyurl.com/4j4tm
>>
>> Feel the compassion...

=========
Let's share more of that vegan compassion, eh?


"I always cheer any time I hear someone who is a hunter dies
in a war or plane crash or from cancer...
They should not receive any medical assistance or legal
assistance. They should be denied
housing..."
exploratory, t.p.a. Oct 10 2003, 6:09 pm


"...I hope he dies or sooner rather than later, but I'd settle
for his
institutionalization..."
frlpwr, t.p.a. Apr 18 2004, 4:44 pm about jonathan

"...As for his current absence, I sincerely hope he finally threw
a clot.
The world would be better place without him..."
frlpwr, t.p.a. Apr 17 2004, 5:43 pm again, her obsession
with jonathon..


"...I live a couple of miles from an intensive turkkey rearing
factory, I know
both directors of the company, I hope they die a slow death asap,
They are
stinking lousy low life Yorkshire scum..."
Ray, Feb 12 2004, 12:45 pm a.a.e.v.


I just love to feel the compassion from the truly compassionate
among us....

Scented Nectar wrote:
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Scented Nectar" > wrote
>>
>>>"Dutch" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>No, I am taking it exactly as seriously as is
>>>>warranted. You aren't taking it seriously
>>>>enough. The reason is, your position is
>>>>irrational and flawed and to take it
>>>>seriously would mean honestly reassessing it.
>>>>You are either afraid to or incapable of
>>>>doing that.
>>>
>>>I take it seriously enough.
>>
>>You are probably taking it as seriously
>>as you are capable of.
>>
>>
>>>I disagree with your assessment.
>>
>>Of what?
>
>
> Of me. Of my morals. Of
> whether I live up to them.

Your disagreement is meaningless. You *don't* live up
to them. That can be determined objectively. You are
either in denial or are a liar.


>>>My own shows me to be doing
>>>quite fine.
>>
>>Your self-assessment is worthless, you
>>glorify yourself by demeaning others.
>
>
> Then how come it's the
> anti-vegans here who do 98%
> (approx) of the insulting?

They don't. It's the "vegans" who do the overwhelming
majority of insulting. "Meat is murder", "McDeath",
etc. - those are gratuitous, snide, bitchy insults.
You lot do most of them.

Just as with the assessment of whether or not you live
by moral values, your assessment is completely wrong.




>>>>>>What is it like to have nothing original or interesting
>>>>>>happening in your mind?
>>>>>
>>>>>Then why are you responding?
>>>>>Buh bye.
>>>>
>>>>I enjoy addressing ignorance. Why are you?
>>>
>>>To try and correct your wrong
>>>assessments.
>>
>>I wish you were capable of something that
>>useful.
>
>
> Yes, it would be useful to be
> able to correct your wrong
> assessments, but oh well.

His assessments are right. The only useful thing you
do is serve as the perfect foil.


>>>>>>>I'm entitled to feel morally good
>>>>>>>about anything I like.

"You're not the boss of me!"

You are not *morally* and intellectually entitled to
feel good about "anything you like". It must be justified.


>>>>>>
>>>>>>No you aren't, it has to be justified
>>>>>>or else it's self-deception.
>>>>>
>>>>>Justified by who?

Wrong question, you twit. Figures. Not "by who"
(WHOM, not who, you twit), but "how" or "in what way".
The answer is, morally and intellectually. Your smug
self-satisfaction is not justified morally or
intellectually. You have a legal and political right
to smugly self-satisified, but not the moral and
intellectual right to it.


>>>>
>>>>To anyone you proclaim it to, in this
>>>>case, me.
>>>
>>>Ah, you want to play god.
>>>According to you, my morals
>>>must be justified by you?

No. First of all, twit, it isn't your morals you need
to justify; it's your smug feeling of
self-satisfaction. Secondly, stupid twit, it isn't a
question of Dutch "justifying" anything; it's a
question of *you* demonstrating that your
self-satisfaction is justified morally and
intellectually. You need to do it, and you haven't.


>>>Please, get real!
>>
>>I'm the one to whom you are currently
>>presenting your moral evaluations, so I
>>am the one reflecting them back to you.
>>We all gauge our ideas based on feedback
>>from others, assuming we are acting
>>morally and intelligently. In your case
>>you have chosen knee-jerk adherence to
>>dogma over intelligent thought.
>
>
> You're not someone I would
> go to for feedback. You are
> insulting as well as the fact
> that I don't respect you.

Because you're an immature dope, you don't understand
that you *do* need to justify your smug
self-satisfaction on moral and intellectual grounds.
Dutch has very clearly demonstrated, unlike you, that
he is thoughtful and fair-minded about evaluating
someone's moral reasoning, so you *ought* to respect
him enough to want to go through the steps of
justifying your self-satisfaction. Of course, all this
is just one more instance of "you're not the boss of
me!" You really are crippled by your defiance. You
think it's a great attitude to have, but in fact it's
crippling, and explains much of your low achievement.


>>>>>Only by
>>>>>myself is what matters. Who
>>>>>do you think is supposed to
>>>>>approve of your morals before
>>>>>you're ALLOWED to feel good?
>>>>
>>>>You are not objective enough to
>>>>be the arbiter of your own morals,
>>>>that's why we have a society.
>>>>
>>>>Here's an extreme example or two to
>>>>illustrate the point..
>>>>
>>>>A killer may feel proud that he didn't
>>>>torture his last victim, is he entitled to
>>>>that good feeling? A wife-beater may
>>>>take a night off, should he feel moral
>>>>pride? No, he must submit to the
>>>>arbitration of society and other thinking
>>>>people. That's what you are doing by
>>>>stating your moral reasoning in a
>>>>discussion group.
>>>
>>>Your examples are all those of
>>>people doing optional wrongs.
>>>By that I mean that they could
>>>easily stop the wrong acts
>>>completely but are choosing
>>>not to. This is very unlike the
>>>case of cds where it's NOT
>>>easily avoided and not able
>>>to be stopped completely, at
>>>least currently.
>>
>>I agree with that to a degree, but it's
>>not what we're talking about here. I
>>was illustrating that one cannot simply
>>be the arbiter of one's own morality.

That's right.


>>You must submit almost completely to
>>the morals society has evolved over
>>millenia. You do that constantly by
>>reflecting on what goes on around you
>>and by getting feedback from your
>>environment, in this particular case, me.
>
>
> I see your feedback as being
> of low value. In the negatives
> actually.

You would, but that's your defect.


>>>>>>>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?

"vegans".


>>>>>The meat lobby here.

There is no "meat lobby". There's your unwarranted
demeaning of others. This is *evidence* of your living
the lie that Dutch just said.


>>>>>You and
>>>>>the other meat pushers are the
>>>>>ones who put others (veg*ns)
>>>>>down in order to feel better than
>>>>>them.
>>>>
>>>>I knock vegans off their self-made
>>>>perches because they are not
>>>>entitled to them. We are all living
>>>>off and amid the carnage of many
>>>>many, animals. Pointing fingers at
>>>>others will not change that. It's
>>>>demeaning and disgusting to do so.
>>>
>>>But you're the one here who's
>>>pointing fingers.
>>
>>Not at all.
>>
>>I am observing that as a meat-eater I
>>have the accusing fingers of vegans
>>pointed at me, saying and implying
>>that I am immoral. I am reacting to
>>those accusations, because they are
>>unjust.
>
>
> I don't see all these meanies
> you do. I see no one pointing
> fingers at you.

It's an inherent part of the "vegan" pose.


>>>>>>>>>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,

Imported spices and seasonings, for example.


>>>>>>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,
>>>>
>>>>Yes you do, you said it in your last message.
>>>>
>>>>It's a common fallacious vegan argument.
>>>
>>>Actually there are many people
>>>who are living proof that meat
>>>isn't necessary.
>>
>>Of course it's not necessary, I ought to know, I
>>didn't eat it for eitheen years. The point is that
>>necessity is not a valid argument in this case.
>
>
> It is however the only avoidable
> animal death in food production.

That's not true. You *could* avoid all animal death in
the production of your food; you just CHOOSE not to do
so. Then, you lie and say you have no choice. You're
a chronic liar.


>>>>>I say it's out and out unhealthy.
>>>>
>>>>Wrong, and not relevant here anyway.
>>>>
>>>>

>>>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>Not sprouts, wheat, or rice, or soya beans. None
>>>>of them can be eaten without processing and cooking
>>>
>>>Yes sprouts. That's how all
>>>3 can be eaten without
>>>processing or cooking.

That's processing, you twit.


>>>Rice isn't very good though. It's
>>>a bit bitter if I remember right.

If the dope haze isn't too thick, you might remember
right. Doubtful.


>>>If you think that raw edibility
>>>is the determining factor in
>>>which foods to eat, then you
>>>should probably eat all your
>>>food raw.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I've also ground up the sprouts to
>>>>>make loaves of raw sprout bread.

PROCESSING, you stupid twit.


>>>>>When was the last time you ate
>>>>>raw meat?
>>>>
>>>>Not long ago. When did you eat raw soybeans last?
>>>
>>>I don't know.

We do know: never.


>>>I tend towards
>>>different bean sprouts like
>>>mung.
>>
>>Not sprouts, GRAIN. Grains, roots, legumes
>>are inedible without cooking.
>
>
> Sprouting isn't cooking.

It's processing. It uses energy and other materials
whose production killed animals. Nice going.


> It's just
> rinsing grains and legumes with
> water a few times a day. Roots
> like potatoes aren't very palatable
> by most people's standards, but
> it is just as easy to eat as an apple.

Do it.


> Many seeds are edible without
> sprouting, like nuts, sunflowers,
> etc. Why the no-cooking
> requirement? Many green
> vegetables are edible raw
> including the legumes green
> beans and peas. Most fruits are
> eaten raw. Years ago I made
> a great dip from ground chick
> pea sprouts put through a
> grinder.

It's called "hummus", you stupid ****.



>>>>>>>>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.

You're a marginal. You function, but at a very low
level; few people would want to live the dull,
stultifying, vacuous life you live.


>>>>You are functioning at a low level of
>>>>consciousness. You have chosen a
>>>>cheap high from smarmy smugness over
>>>>the much deeper satisfaction of connection
>>>>with real truth and honesty.
>>>
>>>Yet if I was posting from the side
>>>of promoting the eating of meat
>>>and against veganism, you would
>>>never resort to insults about my
>>>functioning, etc.
>>
>>That's false, ****wit Harrison is a promoter
>>of meat and he operates at the level of a
>>doorknob. At least vegans and vegan wannabes
>>have a genuine concern for animals as part of
>>their ideology, which to makes them worth
>>spending time to reach out to.

I don't actually accept that it's genuine.


> Do you believe then that eating
> meat improves the welfare of
> animals? I ask since you say that
> a genuine concern for animals is
> a good thing.

Eating meat per se doesn't improve the welfare of
animals, because the literal eating takes place outside
any welfare considerations. But the process leading to
eating meat might well improve the welfare of animals.
For example, if there's a serious overpopulation of
deer, and a lot of people hunt some deer to obtain
meat, thereby reducing the overpopulation, then yes,
that has improved the welfare of the remaining deer.

Scented Nectar wrote:

> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Scented Nectar wrote:
>><...>
>>
>>>Then how come it's the
>>>anti-vegans here who do 98%
>>>(approx) of the insulting?
>>
>>If you go and have a
>>massive stroke, um, well,
>>never mind go ahead.
>>-- Skanky, 18 July 2005
>
>
> Yet it is still the anti-vegans
> who are doing 98% of the
> insulting.

That's a lie, and your selection of a specific
percentage reflects stupidity. It is "vegans" doing
the vast bulk of the insulting. "veganism" has
anti-omnivore insults as an intrinsic part of it. The
very act of announcing one is "vegan" is intended to
convey insult to omnivores.

"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Scented Nectar" > wrote
> > "usual suspect" > wrote i
> >> Scented Nectar wrote:
> >> <...>
> >> > Then how come it's the
> >> > anti-vegans here who do 98%
> >> > (approx) of the insulting?
> >>
> >> If you go and have a
> >> massive stroke, um, well,
> >> never mind go ahead.
> >> -- Skanky, 18 July 2005
> >
> > Yet it is still the anti-vegans
> > who are doing 98% of the
> > insulting.
>
> Repeating a false claim will not make it true.

The repeated insults from
the anti-vegans make it true.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Scented Nectar wrote:
> >>>Then how come it's the
> >>>anti-vegans here who do 98%
> >>>(approx) of the insulting?
> >>
> >>If you go and have a
> >>massive stroke, um, well,
> >>never mind go ahead.
> >>-- Skanky, 18 July 2005

Every time you follow this
with "Skanky", your insult
cancels out mine.

> > Yet it is still the anti-vegans
> > who are doing 98% of the
> > insulting.
>
> Ipse dixit, and greatly exaggerated. You vegans are some nasty,
> hate-filled *******s. Restoring what I wrote (and you snipped) and
> adding what Rick found:

And that's the grand total
of what you've found. Big
deal. I still say that 98% of
the insults here come from
the anti-vegans. The insults
from the vegan side are so
few you have to keep a
small list, whereas your
insults are so frequent, one
can find them in almost all
of your posts to vegans.
No list needed. They are
strewn all over. I didn't snip
in this thread yet, but I will
now.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/

"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>
> >> "Scented Nectar" > wrote
> >> > "Dutch" > wrote >>
> >> >> "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.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> No, I am taking it exactly as seriously as is
> >> >> >> warranted. You aren't taking it seriously
> >> >> >> enough. The reason is, your position is
> >> >> >> irrational and flawed and to take it
> >> >> >> seriously would mean honestly reassessing it.
> >> >> >> You are either afraid to or incapable of
> >> >> >> doing that.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I take it seriously enough.
> >> >>
> >> >> You are probably taking it as seriously
> >> >> as you are capable of.
> >> >>
> >> >> > I
> >> >> > disagree with your assessment.
> >> >>
> >> >> Of what?
> >> >
> >> > Of me. Of my morals. Of
> >> > whether I live up to them.
> >> >
> >> >> > My own shows me to be doing
> >> >> > quite fine.
> >> >>
> >> >> Your self-assessment is worthless, you
> >> >> glorify yourself by demeaning others.
> >> >
> >> > Then how come it's the
> >> > anti-vegans here who do 98%
> >> > (approx) of the insulting?
> >>
> >> They don't, look again.
> >
> > I look every day.
>
> You look, but you don't see.

There's another insult.

> >> >> >> > [--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.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You don't know a thing about either, you're just
> >> >> >> shooting off your mouth.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > [--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.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I enjoy addressing ignorance. Why are you?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > To try and correct your wrong
> >> >> > assessments.
> >> >>
> >> >> I wish you were capable of something that
> >> >> useful.
> >> >
> >> > Yes, it would be useful to be
> >> > able to correct your wrong
> >> > assessments, but oh well.
> >>
> >> Try harder, you'll never do it with the
> >> superficial approach you are using.
> >
> > No. I give up. I'm not going
> > to be able to convince you,
> > and your assessments will
> > continue to be wrong. I may
> > debate it anyways, but I
> > have no real reason to
> > believe that I'm going to get
> > you to see anything the way
> > I do.
>
> I have no reason to start being sanctimonous
> and narrow-minded at my age.

There's another insult.

> >> >> >> > [--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?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> To anyone you proclaim it to, in this
> >> >> >> case, me.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Ah, you want to play god.
> >> >> > According to you, my morals
> >> >> > must be justified by you?
> >> >> > Please, get real!
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm the one to whom you are currently
> >> >> presenting your moral evaluations, so I
> >> >> am the one reflecting them back to you.
> >> >> We all gauge our ideas based on feedback
> >> >> from others, assuming we are acting
> >> >> morally and intelligently. In your case
> >> >> you have chosen knee-jerk adherence to
> >> >> dogma over intelligent thought.
> >> >
> >> > You're not someone I would
> >> > go to for feedback.
> >>
> >> That's false, you are doing it now.
> >
> > No. There is usually fun in the
> > debates regarding things I
> > believe. I don't consider you
> > to be someone who I am going
> > to for advice. You are someone
> > who is either saying things I
> > agree or disagree with. With
> > you I happen to disagree more
> > than agree. If new concepts
> > are introduced, I consider
> > them too. Sometimes the
> > debates here get too boring
> > or they get too insult-and-snip
> > filled, so I'll 'whiff' off and ignore.
>
> You are looking for feedback from me
> or you're just a talking head shooting
> off her mouth, one or the other.

Or, I'm trying to correct your
wrong ideas about me.

> >> > You are
> >> > insulting as well as the fact
> >> > that I don't respect you.
> >>
> >> You must like it, you keep coming back
> >> for more.
> >
> > I may enjoy debating with you
> > but it doesn't mean that I
> > respect you. Also, someone
> > has to keep you in your place.
>
> You aren't debating, you're using this as a
> substitute for real social interaction.

Although this newsgroup
is a form of interaction, it's
no substitute for real life.
Those of you who are
insulting are not those I
would choose to have as
friends. My friends and
I don't fight, argue or
insult.

> >> >> >> > Only by
> >> >> >> > myself is what matters. Who
> >> >> >> > do you think is supposed to
> >> >> >> > approve of your morals before
> >> >> >> > you're ALLOWED to feel good?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You are not objective enough to
> >> >> >> be the arbiter of your own morals,
> >> >> >> that's why we have a society.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Here's an extreme example or two to
> >> >> >> illustrate the point..
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> A killer may feel proud that he didn't
> >> >> >> torture his last victim, is he entitled to
> >> >> >> that good feeling? A wife-beater may
> >> >> >> take a night off, should he feel moral
> >> >> >> pride? No, he must submit to the
> >> >> >> arbitration of society and other thinking
> >> >> >> people. That's what you are doing by
> >> >> >> stating your moral reasoning in a
> >> >> >> discussion group.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Your examples are all those of
> >> >> > people doing optional wrongs.
> >> >> > By that I mean that they could
> >> >> > easily stop the wrong acts
> >> >> > completely but are choosing
> >> >> > not to. This is very unlike the
> >> >> > case of cds where it's NOT
> >> >> > easily avoided and not able
> >> >> > to be stopped completely, at
> >> >> > least currently.
> >> >>
> >> >> I agree with that to a degree, but it's
> >> >> not what we're talking about here. I
> >> >> was illustrating that one cannot simply
> >> >> be the arbiter of one's own morality.
> >> >> You must submit almost completely to
> >> >> the morals society has evolved over
> >> >> millenia. You do that constantly by
> >> >> reflecting on what goes on around you
> >> >> and by getting feedback from your
> >> >> environment, in this particular case, me.
> >> >
> >> > I see your feedback as being
> >> > of low value. In the negatives
> >> > actually.
> >>
> >> Because I don't pat you on the back and
> >> reinforce your self-serving beliefs..
> >
> > No,
>
> Yes, that's why you don't like what I say.

I don't like what you say because
I disagree with you, and other
times because you're insulting.

> > because you are only here
> > to be on the anti- side of a
> > debate.
>
> Isn't being anti things like ignorance and
> narrow-mindedness a good thing?

There's another insult.

> > Personally I only
> > enjoy debating and chatting on
> > topics I have a strong interest
> > in.
>
> I have an interest in the pseudo religion
> called veganism.

There's another insult.

> > But you are not a vegetarian.
> > Why are you here? Just to be on
> > the anti- side of something.
>
> Not at all, I am here in the hopes I'll reach
> the rare open-minded veg*n who happens
> to come pass through.

And does what???
"Repent. Put down your
veggies and turn to meat"?

> > If I
> > turned into a meat eater, I would
> > not come back here to bug
> > everyone to do the same.
>
> I don't want anyone to become a meat-eater,
> I find it fascinating that you think I do. It's

What are you hoping they'll
do? What belief system do
you want them to adopt?

> statements like that that keep me interested.
> I want to understand what would cause a
> person to be in this dialogue for so long and
> still think that I want vegetarians to change
> their diets. You said you wanted to help me
> understand you better, explain that. After all
> this time why don't you know that I want
> veg*ns to reassess their attitudes, not their
> diets?

As long as a person is vegan
you think they are not of good
attitude.

> > I'd
> > move on.
> >
> >> >> [--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.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I knock vegans off their self-made
> >> >> >> perches because they are not
> >> >> >> entitled to them. We are all living
> >> >> >> off and amid the carnage of many
> >> >> >> many, animals. Pointing fingers at
> >> >> >> others will not change that. It's
> >> >> >> demeaning and disgusting to do so.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > But you're the one here who's
> >> >> > pointing fingers.
> >> >>
> >> >> Not at all.
> >> >>
> >> >> I am observing that as a meat-eater I
> >> >> have the accusing fingers of vegans
> >> >> pointed at me, saying and implying
> >> >> that I am immoral. I am reacting to
> >> >> those accusations, because they are
> >> >> unjust.
> >> >
> >> > I don't see all these meanies
> >> > you do. I see no one pointing
> >> > fingers at you.
> >>
> >> This statement, taken from below
> >> is a finger pointed at me.
> >>
> >> "It is however the only avoidable
> >> animal death in food production."
> >>
> >> That is a clear and direct indictment
> >> of one of my most basic life choices.
> >> I do not take kindly to such unthinking
> >> comments coming from nitwits.
> >
> > So, you are taking any pro-veg
> > stance as a personal insult to
> > you.
>
> No, only when personal choices are
> stated as generalized moral absolutes.

No one is saying that you
have to embrace what
someone else is finding
to be moral.

> > I do many things that
> > Mormons would find very bad,
> > like my strong coffee every
> > morning, but I don't go over to
> > their newsgroups to tell them
> > how wrong their view of my
> > ways is.
>
> As far as I know Mormons don't
> accuse people of being immoral
> for drinking coffee, they simply
> hold the personal belief that coffee
> is bad for you.

And I think it's good for you.
I still wouldn't go over there
and tell them to change
their attitude on coffee. If
you are so convinced that
veganism is like a religion,
then at least give it the
leeway you would hopefully
give them.

> > Also, calling people
> > nitwits is no way to make
> > friends.
>
> Calling people murderers is not very friendly
> http://www.meat.org/meatismurder.htm
>
> Those are the attitudes you support.

But meat IS murder. You
can call it killing or whatever
but it's all the same. As for
supporting attitudes, I have
my own exclusive combination
of opinions and I don't
'support' other's attitudes, just
my own.

> >> >> >> >> >> > 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,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Yes you do, you said it in your last message.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> It's a common fallacious vegan argument.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Actually there are many people
> >> >> > who are living proof that meat
> >> >> > isn't necessary.
> >> >>
> >> >> Of course it's not necessary, I ought to know, I
> >> >> didn't eat it for eitheen years. The point is that
> >> >> necessity is not a valid argument in this case.
> >> >
> >> > It is however the only avoidable
> >> > animal death in food production.
> >>
> >> That's nonsense. You can avoid ALL the deaths
> >> in rice production by not eating rice.
> >
> > I have no evidence that says
> > rice production has more deaths
> > than other grains.
>
> Again you miss the point. I didn't say
> it did. You said meat is the only avoidable
> death in food production, and I replied
> that being assciated with the deaths in rice
> production are also avoidable, just avoid rice.
> You want me to avoid meat, why shouldn't
> you avoid rice? Why do you think that the
> deaths involved in meat production are
> the only avoidable ones?

I'm not convinced that rice is
any worse for cds than other
grains.

> > Also, rice is
> > grown under a seasonal
> > wetland-like condition. There
> > may be some deaths, but both
> > the wetland and dryland species
> > return every year. That's how it
> > is in nature's seasonal wetlands
> > too.
>
> Animals die in nature all the time by plagues,
> starvation and predation, that doesn't help
> your case.

Yes it does.

> >> >> >> > I say it's out and out unhealthy.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Wrong, and not relevant here anyway.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > [--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.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Not sprouts, wheat, or rice, or soya beans. None
> >> >> >> of them can be eaten without processing and cooking
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Yes sprouts. That's how all
> >> >> > 3 can be eaten without
> >> >> > processing or cooking. Rice
> >> >> > isn't very good though. It's a
> >> >> > bit bitter if I remember right.
> >> >> > If you think that raw edibility
> >> >> > is the determining factor in
> >> >> > which foods to eat, then you
> >> >> > should probably eat all your
> >> >> > food raw.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I've also ground up the sprouts to
> >> >> >> > make loaves of raw sprout bread.
> >> >> >> > When was the last time you ate
> >> >> >> > raw meat?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Not long ago. When did you eat raw soybeans last?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I don't know. I tend towards
> >> >> > different bean sprouts like
> >> >> > mung.
> >> >>
> >> >> Not sprouts, GRAIN. Grains, roots, legumes
> >> >> are inedible without cooking.
> >> >
> >> > Sprouting isn't cooking. It's just
> >> > rinsing grains and legumes with
> >> > water a few times a day. Roots
> >> > like potatoes aren't very palatable
> >> > by most people's standards, but
> >> > it is just as easy to eat as an apple.
> >> > Many seeds are edible without
> >> > sprouting, like nuts, sunflowers,
> >> > etc. Why the no-cooking
> >> > requirement?
> >>
> >> The alleged need to cook meat is the
> >> most common phoney argument that
> >> it is not a "natural" food.
> >
> > Phony?
>
> Yes the argument is BOGUS.

Have I ever told you that all
foods that need cooking are
no good? No.

> > There are many
> > diseases and parasites you
> > can get from raw meat.
> > With plant foods, all that
> > needs doing is external
> > washing.
>
> Beside the point.

It's a major point if rawness
is in question. Personally I
have nothing against cooking
many foods, but whatever.

> >> > Many green
> >> > vegetables are edible raw
> >> > including the legumes green
> >> > beans and peas. Most fruits are
> >> > eaten raw. Years ago I made
> >> > a great dip from ground chick
> >> > pea sprouts put through a
> >> > grinder.
> >>
> >>
> >> zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
> >
> > The truth is boring you? You
> > brought up rawness.
>
> I already dispelled the notion that
> rawness is an issue in deciding which
> foods are "natural", your babbling
> is irrelevant.

How good are you at making
a fire with no matches or
lighter, and on a rainy day?
If anyone is saying that raw
is more natural, they are
probably right, not that I
personally have anything
against cooking.

> >> >> >You ate raw meat?
> >> >> > What kind?
> >> >>
> >> >> I have had raw tuna and rare steak, which is
> >> >> mainly raw.
> >> >
> >> > I think I'd prefer the sunflower
> >> > pate.
> >>
> >> I prefer a choice among all foods.
> >
> > Then stop acting like that
> > choice is being taken away
> > from you.
>
> I'm not. Stop acting like I think it is.
> The only thing I am talking about is
> your irrational arguments. I am
> interested in the irrational arguments
> that veg*ns come up with.
>
> Now you will reply "I don't make irrational
> arguments", as if that were sufficient. If you
> want to show that you don't, explain how
> you could say that animals in meat production
> are the only avoidable deaths.

Let me dumb this down.
Cds are not currently avoidable.
Animal slaughter for meat is
avoidable. Intent and ability to
avoid the death counts for a lot.

> >> >> >> > [--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.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> You are functioning at a low level of
> >> >> >> consciousness. You have chosen a
> >> >> >> cheap high from smarmy smugness over
> >> >> >> the much deeper satisfaction of connection
> >> >> >> with real truth and honesty.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Yet if I was posting from the side
> >> >> > of promoting the eating of meat
> >> >> > and against veganism, you would
> >> >> > never resort to insults about my
> >> >> > functioning, etc.
> >> >>
> >> >> That's false, ****wit Harrison is a promoter
> >> >> of meat and he operates at the level of a
> >> >> doorknob. At least vegans and vegan wannabes
> >> >> have a genuine concern for animals as part of
> >> >> their ideology, which to makes them worth
> >> >> spending time to reach out to.
> >> >
> >> > Do you believe then that eating
> >> > meat improves the welfare of
> >> > animals?
> >>
> >> No it doesn't. Production/consumption of all
> >> types harms animals, because they live where
> >> food is grown and stored.
>
> That was an important point.
>
> >> > I ask since you say that
> >> > a genuine concern for animals is
> >> > a good thing.
> >>
> >> Of course it's a good thing, but veganism perverts
> >> it into an us/them religion, and the animals become
> >> just pawns in this "look-at-me" game. The desire to
> >> be "righteous" or holy is as old as the human race,
> >> and veganism fills this void quite nicely, especially
> >> for people who have no other formal religious beliefs.
> >
> > Whoa, that last bit is telling!
> > It sounds like you think that
> > atheists are likely to turn to
> > something you liken to a
> > religion?
>
> Not only atheists, but them too.

Who other than atheists hold
no formal religious beliefs?

> > There's a difference
> > between ethical/moral, and
> > righteous/holy.
>
> Yes, and vegans have the whole issue confused.
> Just as you have the words wrong and bad mixed
> up, you have the issue of diet and morality turned
> inside out.

I guess just about everything
is mixed up in your view.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/

Scented Nectar wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Scented Nectar wrote:
>>
>>>>>Then how come it's the
>>>>>anti-vegans here who do 98%
>>>>>(approx) of the insulting?
>>>>
>>>>If you go and have a
>>>>massive stroke, um, well,
>>>>never mind go ahead.
>>>>-- Skanky, 18 July 2005
>
>
> Every time you follow this
> with "Skanky", your insult
> cancels out mine.

No, it doesn't. You have *earned* the name Skanky.


>>>Yet it is still the anti-vegans
>>>who are doing 98% of the
>>>insulting.
>>
>>Ipse dixit, and greatly exaggerated. You vegans are some nasty,
>>hate-filled *******s. Restoring what I wrote (and you snipped) and
>>adding what Rick found:
>
>
> And that's the grand total
> of what you've found.

No, it isn't, you lying twit. It's the grand total of
what he *posted*. There is LOTS more.


> Big deal. I still say that 98% of
> the insults here come from
> the anti-vegans.

And you're still wrong, for two reasons. First, most
of the insults come from "vegans", particularly given
that "veganism" has insult built into it. Secondly,
there are no "anti-vegans", at least as you mean the
term (people opposed to "vegans" personally.) There
are some highly articulate, intelligent, thoughtful
people here who are opposed to "veganISM".


> The insults
> from the vegan side are so
> few

That's a lie.

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Scented Nectar wrote:
> > "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Scented Nectar wrote:
> >>
> >>>>>Then how come it's the
> >>>>>anti-vegans here who do 98%
> >>>>>(approx) of the insulting?
> >>>>
> >>>>If you go and have a
> >>>>massive stroke, um, well,
> >>>>never mind go ahead.
> >>>>-- Skanky, 18 July 2005
> >
> >
> > Every time you follow this
> > with "Skanky", your insult
> > cancels out mine.
>
> No, it doesn't. You have *earned* the name Skanky.

Then you've earned names
like Rudey Connasse (French
insult). http://tinyurl.com/avug5
It fits your name and
disposition perfectly, yet
how often do I call you that?
I used the C word on you
once and now above, yet
how often have you called
me a ****? Skanky? Etc.

> >>>Yet it is still the anti-vegans
> >>>who are doing 98% of the
> >>>insulting.
> >>
> >>Ipse dixit, and greatly exaggerated. You vegans are some nasty,
> >>hate-filled *******s. Restoring what I wrote (and you snipped) and
> >>adding what Rick found:
> >
> >
> > And that's the grand total
> > of what you've found.
>
> No, it isn't, you lying twit. It's the grand total of
> what he *posted*. There is LOTS more.
>
>
> > Big deal. I still say that 98% of
> > the insults here come from
> > the anti-vegans.
>
> And you're still wrong, for two reasons. First, most
> of the insults come from "vegans", particularly given
> that "veganism" has insult built into it. Secondly,

You're more bizarre than I
realized. You have taken on
the very existance of veganism
as a personal insult.

> there are no "anti-vegans", at least as you mean the
> term (people opposed to "vegans" personally.) There
> are some highly articulate, intelligent, thoughtful
> people here who are opposed to "veganISM".

You're playing with semantics. A
vegan is obviously practising
veganism.

> > The insults
> > from the vegan side are so
> > few
>
> That's a lie.

You're wrong again.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> Scented Nectar wrote:
>
> > "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Scented Nectar wrote:
> >><...>
> >>
> >>>Then how come it's the
> >>>anti-vegans here who do 98%
> >>>(approx) of the insulting?
> >>
> >>If you go and have a
> >>massive stroke, um, well,
> >>never mind go ahead.
> >>-- Skanky, 18 July 2005
> >
> >
> > Yet it is still the anti-vegans
> > who are doing 98% of the
> > insulting.
>
> That's a lie, and your selection of a specific
> percentage reflects stupidity. It is "vegans" doing
> the vast bulk of the insulting. "veganism" has
> anti-omnivore insults as an intrinsic part of it. The
> very act of announcing one is "vegan" is intended to
> convey insult to omnivores.

Intrinsic? Now you're sounding
like a conspiracy nut. If I
announce that I am atheist, am
I conveying insults to religious
people? If I announce that I
like to have indoor fragrant
and/or food plants only, am
I insulting those who grow
common houseplants?


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> Scented Nectar wrote:
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>"Scented Nectar" > wrote
> >>
> >>>"Dutch" > wrote

[--snip--]

> You have a legal and political right
> to smugly self-satisified, but not the moral and
> intellectual right to it.

Yes I do.

[--snip--]

> > You're not someone I would
> > go to for feedback. You are
> > insulting as well as the fact
> > that I don't respect you.
>
> Because you're an immature dope, you don't understand
> that you *do* need to justify your smug
> self-satisfaction on moral and intellectual grounds.
> Dutch has very clearly demonstrated, unlike you, that
> he is thoughtful and fair-minded about evaluating
> someone's moral reasoning, so you *ought* to respect
> him enough to want to go through the steps of
> justifying your self-satisfaction. Of course, all this
> is just one more instance of "you're not the boss of
> me!" You really are crippled by your defiance. You
> think it's a great attitude to have, but in fact it's
> crippling, and explains much of your low achievement.

Interesting. Abusive personality
disorders show up around these
issues. The abuser doesn't like
to see signs of defiance or
individuality outside his defined
range.

[--snip--]

> >>I am observing that as a meat-eater I
> >>have the accusing fingers of vegans
> >>pointed at me, saying and implying
> >>that I am immoral. I am reacting to
> >>those accusations, because they are
> >>unjust.
> >
> >
> > I don't see all these meanies
> > you do. I see no one pointing
> > fingers at you.
>
> It's an inherent part of the "vegan" pose.

You're paranoid.

> >>>Yes sprouts. That's how all
> >>>3 can be eaten without
> >>>processing or cooking.
>
> That's processing, you twit.

Then using a knife and fork
on your meat is processing
too. Tear through the fur with
your teeth and then stick your
face in and eat away.

[--snip--]

> >>>>>I've also ground up the sprouts to
> >>>>>make loaves of raw sprout bread.
>
> PROCESSING, you stupid twit.

If we are talking natural, the
sprouts can be grown using
a gourd or clay bowl. Grinding
the sprouts takes 2 stones.
Are we at least talking stone
age here re natural?

[--snip--]

> >>Not sprouts, GRAIN. Grains, roots, legumes
> >>are inedible without cooking.
> >
> >
> > Sprouting isn't cooking.
>
> It's processing. It uses energy and other materials
> whose production killed animals. Nice going.

It only uses clean water. And
not much.

> > It's just
> > rinsing grains and legumes with
> > water a few times a day. Roots
> > like potatoes aren't very palatable
> > by most people's standards, but
> > it is just as easy to eat as an apple.
>
> Do it.

No. I prefer potatoes cooked.
I'm not a believer that all foods
must be raw nor did I bring up
the 'raw' topic.

> > Many seeds are edible without
> > sprouting, like nuts, sunflowers,
> > etc. Why the no-cooking
> > requirement? Many green
> > vegetables are edible raw
> > including the legumes green
> > beans and peas. Most fruits are
> > eaten raw. Years ago I made
> > a great dip from ground chick
> > pea sprouts put through a
> > grinder.
>
> It's called "hummus", you stupid ****.

Again the insults pile up on
your side. The ground sprouts
had a very different texture than
cooked chickpeas. It's not
hummus. Also you are assuming
that the other ingredients were
that of hummus.

[--snip--]


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/