 |
|
| Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
The 99% vegan
In this country it's just about impossible to be a 100% vegan which is just
a label. I'm about a 95% vegan. Today I was hungry and needed some food, so I went to taco bell because that was just about all there was and got a 7 layer burrito which I guess was as close to a vegan meal as I could get. If I'm working hard in the boon docks and really tired and hungry and needed food to continue my next 4 hours of work and the boss brought everyone a whooper from burger king, I'm afraid I would just have to eat it. Don't get me wrong, I'm 100% for being a vegan and I'll always try, but I just try and use common since. In some cases eating meat because that's all there is might do more good than harm. Thanks for reading my little tid bit. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
The 99% vegan
Richard Miller wrote: > In this country it's just about impossible to be a 100% vegan which is just > a label. No it's not. You need to look more closely at your options. > I'm afraid I would just have to eat it. Then clearly, by your own admissions, you are an omnivore and not a true vegan. This is a little bit scary, as it appears that the ethical considerations for switching to a veg*n diet and making humane cruelty-free choices seems to escape you. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
The 99% vegan
"Pinnochio Mojo" > wrote in message oups.com... > > Richard Miller wrote: > >> In this country it's just about impossible to be a 100% vegan >> which is just >> a label. > > > No it's not. You need to look more closely at your options. > >> I'm afraid I would just have to eat it. > > Then clearly, by your own admissions, you are an omnivore and > not a > true vegan. =========================== Wow, what a coincedence, neither are you... This is a little bit scary, as it appears that the ethical > considerations for switching to a veg*n diet and making humane > cruelty-free choices seems to escape you. > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
The 99% vegan
Why would you say impossible... many get by fine as vegan. Just like
you can't be a little bit pregnant, you can't say you're 99.9% vegan. You can say you eat a helluva lot of veggies and little meat in your diet, but you can't say you are a vegetarian or a vegan. I work out alot burning alot of calories and get by on a vegetarian diet very nicely-iLearn to cook/create quick tasty non-meat meals that you can take to work. If you are in the boondocks, consider taking to work pre-cooked meals/tofu/nuts/organic honey-peanut butter/whole-wheat bread based sandwiches... load up on nutritious foods and you'll feel more than full-and very healthy - this is common sense if you really want to avoid meat intake. Hope that helps-and it's good that you try,but you'll find it's not impossible. On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 16:32:13 -0700, "Richard Miller" > wrote: >In this country it's just about impossible to be a 100% vegan which is just >a label. I'm about a 95% vegan. Today I was hungry and needed some food, so >I went to taco bell because that was just about all there was and got a 7 >layer burrito which I guess was as close to a vegan meal as I could get. If >I'm working hard in the boon docks and really tired and hungry and needed >food to continue my next 4 hours of work and the boss brought everyone a >whooper from burger king, I'm afraid I would just have to eat it. Don't get >me wrong, I'm 100% for being a vegan and I'll always try, but I just try and >use common since. In some cases eating meat because that's all there is >might do more good than harm. Thanks for reading my little tid bit. > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
The 99% vegan
Joe wrote: > Why would you say impossible... many get by fine as vegan. Just like > you can't be a little bit pregnant, you can't say you're 99.9% vegan. > You can say you eat a helluva lot of veggies and little meat in your > diet, but you can't say you are a vegetarian or a vegan. I work out > alot burning alot of calories and get by on a vegetarian diet very > nicely-iLearn to cook/create quick tasty non-meat meals that you can > take to work. If you are in the boondocks, consider taking to work > pre-cooked meals/tofu/nuts/organic honey-peanut butter/whole-wheat > bread based sandwiches... load up on nutritious foods and you'll feel > more than full-and very healthy - this is common sense if you really > want to avoid meat intake. Hope that helps-and it's good that you > try,but you'll find it's not impossible. > > > On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 16:32:13 -0700, "Richard Miller" > > wrote: > > >>In this country it's just about impossible to be a 100% vegan which is just >>a label. I'm about a 95% vegan. Today I was hungry and needed some food, so >>I went to taco bell because that was just about all there was and got a 7 >>layer burrito which I guess was as close to a vegan meal as I could get. If >>I'm working hard in the boon docks and really tired and hungry and needed >>food to continue my next 4 hours of work and the boss brought everyone a >>whooper from burger king, I'm afraid I would just have to eat it. Don't get >>me wrong, I'm 100% for being a vegan and I'll always try, but I just try and >>use common since. In some cases eating meat because that's all there is >>might do more good than harm. Thanks for reading my little tid bit. >> > > If it's important bring food. It's your choice. A burrito need not have cheese, and you can bet it's the cheapest cheese available. Then if you cut down on meat congratulation. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
The 99% vegan
Joe wrote:
> Why would you say impossible... many get by fine as vegan. Just like > you can't be a little bit pregnant, you can't say you're 99.9% > vegan. Of course you can. You have to. Animals are killed for the glue in your furniture, for the dye of your clothes, for the electricity of your computer. You can only do your best. And it's far better to eat a little bit of cheese once a week than to eat meat and diary every day. It's not an all-or-nothing matter. We don't have that much control. T. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
The 99% vegan
I disagree; you're talking about extremeties in which a vegan has
zippo control-a 100% vegan by your standards means they shouldn't walk on the ground for the rest of their life lest they stomp on minute sized creatures by the 1000's with each step - Will any vegans will claim such extremes as a base-line pre-requisite! Personally I'm scrutinizing non-'vegetarian' food product ingredients closely now and make an occasional catch of an animal-additive and off my grocery list that item goes-it's a reasonable ongoing learning process. A vegan doesn't need "cheese once a week" in place of meat since there are alternate sources for similar nutrition found in that and other dairy products-otherwise by definition that once-a-week cheese would take-on vegetarian status. On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 11:08:00 +0200, "Taemon" > wrote: >Joe wrote: > >> Why would you say impossible... many get by fine as vegan. Just like >> you can't be a little bit pregnant, you can't say you're 99.9% >> vegan. > >Of course you can. You have to. Animals are killed for the glue in >your furniture, for the dye of your clothes, for the electricity of >your computer. You can only do your best. And it's far better to eat a >little bit of cheese once a week than to eat meat and diary every day. >It's not an all-or-nothing matter. We don't have that much control. > >T. > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
The 99% vegan
Joe wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 11:08:00 +0200, "Taemon" > > wrote: >> Joe wrote: >>> Why would you say impossible... many get by fine as vegan. Just >>> like >>> you can't be a little bit pregnant, you can't say you're 99.9% >>> vegan. >> Of course you can. You have to. Animals are killed for the glue in >> your furniture, for the dye of your clothes, for the electricity of >> your computer. You can only do your best. And it's far better to >> eat >> a little bit of cheese once a week than to eat meat and diary every >> day. It's not an all-or-nothing matter. We don't have that much >> control. > I disagree; you're talking about extremeties in which a vegan has > zippo control-a 100% vegan by your standards means they shouldn't > walk > on the ground for the rest of their life lest they stomp on minute > sized creatures by the 1000's with each step - Will any vegans will > claim such extremes as a base-line pre-requisite! Yes. So it's a matter of where to draw the line. The farther you draw it, the better. That doesn't mean it's all useless if you don't draw it as far as some. The more you do the better. > A vegan doesn't need "cheese once a week" in place of meat > since there are alternate sources for similar nutrition found in > that > and other dairy products-otherwise by definition that once-a-week > cheese would take-on vegetarian status. No one needs cheese. I said, it's far better to eat a little bit of cheese once a week than to eat meat and diary every day. If you slip once in a while it doesn't mean you have to give the whole thing up. Be happy with what you can achieve. From there one, maybe you can achieve more. T. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
The 99% vegan
"Joe" > wrote in message ... >I disagree; you're talking about extremeties in which a vegan >has > zippo control-a 100% vegan by your standards means they > shouldn't walk > on the ground for the rest of their life lest they stomp on > minute > sized creatures by the 1000's with each step - Will any vegans > will > claim such extremes as a base-line pre-requisite! ======================== Why go that far, killer? The point is that YOU do nothing to alleviate/eliminate unnecessary death and suffering of animals. Following a simple rule for your simple mind does nothing, hypocrite. > Personally I'm scrutinizing non-'vegetarian' food product > ingredients > closely now and make an occasional catch of an animal-additive > and off > my grocery list that item goes-it's a reasonable ongoing > learning > process. ========================== Ah yes, the micro-pieces obsession of an eating disorder... A vegan doesn't need "cheese once a week" in place of meat > since there are alternate sources for similar nutrition found > in that > and other dairy products-otherwise by definition that > once-a-week > cheese would take-on vegetarian status. ====================== ROTFLMAO These 'alternatives' cause far more brutal, inhumane deaths than is you just ate the real things you ignorant dolt. But then, you keep proving with each inane post that unnecessary animals death and suffering means nothing to you, killer. > > On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 11:08:00 +0200, "Taemon" > > wrote: > >>Joe wrote: >> >>> Why would you say impossible... many get by fine as vegan. >>> Just like >>> you can't be a little bit pregnant, you can't say you're >>> 99.9% >>> vegan. >> >>Of course you can. You have to. Animals are killed for the glue >>in >>your furniture, for the dye of your clothes, for the >>electricity of >>your computer. You can only do your best. And it's far better >>to eat a >>little bit of cheese once a week than to eat meat and diary >>every day. >>It's not an all-or-nothing matter. We don't have that much >>control. >> >>T. >> > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
The 99% vegan
Taemon wrote: >>>Of course you can. You have to. Animals are killed for the glue in >>>your furniture, Only musical instruments because it's weak glue and has acoustic properties |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
The 99% vegan
Rick, I think you should change your name to;
"Much ado about nothing." You say the same thing over and over until we're bored to tears. On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 13:34:51 GMT, "rick" > wrote: >ROTFLMAO ..........., killer. > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
The 99% vegan
rick wrote: > "Joe" > wrote in message > ... > >I disagree; you're talking about extremeties in which a vegan > >has > > zippo control-a 100% vegan by your standards means they > > shouldn't walk > > on the ground for the rest of their life lest they stomp on > > minute > > sized creatures by the 1000's with each step - Will any vegans > > will > > claim such extremes as a base-line pre-requisite! > ======================== > Why go that far, killer? The point is that YOU do nothing to > alleviate/eliminate unnecessary death and suffering of animals. You are overplaying your hand. By becoming vegan Joe has eliminated from his diet factory farmed animals that have been fed factory farmed veggies. You can argue that veganism is not the most effective way to alleviate unnecessary death and suffering of animals but to claim it does nothing is just silly. > Following a simple rule for your simple mind does nothing, > hypocrite. > > > > > Personally I'm scrutinizing non-'vegetarian' food product > > ingredients > > closely now and make an occasional catch of an animal-additive > > and off > > my grocery list that item goes-it's a reasonable ongoing > > learning > > process. > ========================== > Ah yes, the micro-pieces obsession of an eating disorder... > > > A vegan doesn't need "cheese once a week" in place of meat > > since there are alternate sources for similar nutrition found > > in that > > and other dairy products-otherwise by definition that > > once-a-week > > cheese would take-on vegetarian status. > ====================== > ROTFLMAO These 'alternatives' cause far more brutal, inhumane > deaths than is you just ate the real things you ignorant dolt. > But then, you keep proving with each inane post that unnecessary > animals death and suffering means nothing to you, killer. > > > > > > > On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 11:08:00 +0200, "Taemon" > > > wrote: > > > >>Joe wrote: > >> > >>> Why would you say impossible... many get by fine as vegan. > >>> Just like > >>> you can't be a little bit pregnant, you can't say you're > >>> 99.9% > >>> vegan. > >> > >>Of course you can. You have to. Animals are killed for the glue > >>in > >>your furniture, for the dye of your clothes, for the > >>electricity of > >>your computer. You can only do your best. And it's far better > >>to eat a > >>little bit of cheese once a week than to eat meat and diary > >>every day. > >>It's not an all-or-nothing matter. We don't have that much > >>control. > >> > >>T. > >> > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
The 99% vegan
"Dave" > wrote in message oups.com... > > rick wrote: >> "Joe" > wrote in message >> ... >> >I disagree; you're talking about extremeties in which a vegan >> >has >> > zippo control-a 100% vegan by your standards means they >> > shouldn't walk >> > on the ground for the rest of their life lest they stomp on >> > minute >> > sized creatures by the 1000's with each step - Will any >> > vegans >> > will >> > claim such extremes as a base-line pre-requisite! >> ======================== >> Why go that far, killer? The point is that YOU do nothing to >> alleviate/eliminate unnecessary death and suffering of >> animals. > > You are overplaying your hand. By becoming vegan Joe has > eliminated > from his diet factory farmed animals that have been fed factory > farmed veggies. ================================== At what cost? He has, like you, done exactly zero research into the alternatives he has chosen. I claim there are different alternatives that DO make a difference, instead of the illusionary ones vegans claims. All he follows is the simple rule for his simple mind, 'eat no meat.' That does nothing to reduce eliminate overall animal death and suffering. And, again you have to resort to this 'factory-farmed' myth, which is all vegans rant about despite the fact that there are alternative meats. You can argue that veganism is not the most effective > way to alleviate unnecessary death and suffering of animals but > to claim it does nothing is just silly. ============================= No, it's not. By just becomeing a 'vegan' wannbe does nothing to really reduce/eliminate unnecessary death and suffering. besides, there are NO vegans here on usenet... > >> Following a simple rule for your simple mind does nothing, >> hypocrite. >> >> >> >> > Personally I'm scrutinizing non-'vegetarian' food product >> > ingredients >> > closely now and make an occasional catch of an >> > animal-additive >> > and off >> > my grocery list that item goes-it's a reasonable ongoing >> > learning >> > process. >> ========================== >> Ah yes, the micro-pieces obsession of an eating disorder... >> >> >> A vegan doesn't need "cheese once a week" in place of meat >> > since there are alternate sources for similar nutrition >> > found >> > in that >> > and other dairy products-otherwise by definition that >> > once-a-week >> > cheese would take-on vegetarian status. >> ====================== >> ROTFLMAO These 'alternatives' cause far more brutal, inhumane >> deaths than is you just ate the real things you ignorant dolt. >> But then, you keep proving with each inane post that >> unnecessary >> animals death and suffering means nothing to you, killer. >> >> >> >> > >> > On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 11:08:00 +0200, "Taemon" >> > > >> > wrote: >> > >> >>Joe wrote: >> >> >> >>> Why would you say impossible... many get by fine as vegan. >> >>> Just like >> >>> you can't be a little bit pregnant, you can't say you're >> >>> 99.9% >> >>> vegan. >> >> >> >>Of course you can. You have to. Animals are killed for the >> >>glue >> >>in >> >>your furniture, for the dye of your clothes, for the >> >>electricity of >> >>your computer. You can only do your best. And it's far >> >>better >> >>to eat a >> >>little bit of cheese once a week than to eat meat and diary >> >>every day. >> >>It's not an all-or-nothing matter. We don't have that much >> >>control. >> >> >> >>T. >> >> >> > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
The 99% vegan
"Joe" > wrote in message ... > Rick, I think you should change your name to; > "Much ado about nothing." > > You say the same thing over and over until we're bored to > tears. ======================== LOL Only because you keep spewing the same lys over and over, hypocrite. change your tune and I won't have to tell you the truth again.... > > On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 13:34:51 GMT, "rick" > wrote: > > >>ROTFLMAO ..........., killer. > >> > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
The 99% vegan
rick wrote: > "Dave" > wrote in message > oups.com... > > > > rick wrote: > >> "Joe" > wrote in message > >> ... > >> >I disagree; you're talking about extremeties in which a vegan > >> >has > >> > zippo control-a 100% vegan by your standards means they > >> > shouldn't walk > >> > on the ground for the rest of their life lest they stomp on > >> > minute > >> > sized creatures by the 1000's with each step - Will any > >> > vegans > >> > will > >> > claim such extremes as a base-line pre-requisite! > >> ======================== > >> Why go that far, killer? The point is that YOU do nothing to > >> alleviate/eliminate unnecessary death and suffering of > >> animals. > > > > You are overplaying your hand. By becoming vegan Joe has > > eliminated > > from his diet factory farmed animals that have been fed factory > > farmed veggies. > ================================== > At what cost? He has, like you, done exactly zero research into > the alternatives he has chosen. I claim there are different > alternatives that DO make a difference, instead of the > illusionary ones vegans claims. There is nothing illusory about the claim that commonplace methods for producing animal products cause more harm than non-animal products. Not only do the welfare conditions of these animals range from sub-optimal to appaling but more of the grain and soya you make such a big thing about grown to feed the animals than would be needed to feed humans directly. > All he follows is the simple > rule for his simple mind, 'eat no meat.' That does nothing to > reduce eliminate overall animal death and suffering. If he ate conventionally reared meat and dairy products his diet would cause a great deal more overall animal death and suffering. You are blinded by your hatred of vegans and this is preventing you from thinking rationally. > And, again > you have to resort to this 'factory-farmed' myth, I simply do not believe that having spent so long on this newsgroup you can still be ignorant enough to describe the factory-farming of animals as a myth. > which is all > vegans rant about despite the fact that there are alternative > meats. There are alternative methods of producing meat and dairy that are considerably more compassionate and environmentally responsible. The fact that Joe also avoids these products does not alter the fact that he avoids the food products of animal based factory farming and thereby does something to reduce the unnecessary death and suffering of animals. > > You can argue that veganism is not the most effective > > way to alleviate unnecessary death and suffering of animals but > > to claim it does nothing is just silly. > ============================= > No, it's not. By just becomeing a 'vegan' wannbe does nothing to > really reduce/eliminate unnecessary death and suffering. > besides, there are NO vegans here on usenet... > > >> Following a simple rule for your simple mind does nothing, > >> hypocrite. > >> > >> > >> > >> > Personally I'm scrutinizing non-'vegetarian' food product > >> > ingredients > >> > closely now and make an occasional catch of an > >> > animal-additive > >> > and off > >> > my grocery list that item goes-it's a reasonable ongoing > >> > learning > >> > process. > >> ========================== > >> Ah yes, the micro-pieces obsession of an eating disorder... > >> > >> > >> A vegan doesn't need "cheese once a week" in place of meat > >> > since there are alternate sources for similar nutrition > >> > found > >> > in that > >> > and other dairy products-otherwise by definition that > >> > once-a-week > >> > cheese would take-on vegetarian status. > >> ====================== > >> ROTFLMAO These 'alternatives' cause far more brutal, inhumane > >> deaths than is you just ate the real things you ignorant dolt. > >> But then, you keep proving with each inane post that > >> unnecessary > >> animals death and suffering means nothing to you, killer. > >> > >> > >> > >> > > >> > On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 11:08:00 +0200, "Taemon" > >> > > > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> >>Joe wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> Why would you say impossible... many get by fine as vegan. > >> >>> Just like > >> >>> you can't be a little bit pregnant, you can't say you're > >> >>> 99.9% > >> >>> vegan. > >> >> > >> >>Of course you can. You have to. Animals are killed for the > >> >>glue > >> >>in > >> >>your furniture, for the dye of your clothes, for the > >> >>electricity of > >> >>your computer. You can only do your best. And it's far > >> >>better > >> >>to eat a > >> >>little bit of cheese once a week than to eat meat and diary > >> >>every day. > >> >>It's not an all-or-nothing matter. We don't have that much > >> >>control. > >> >> > >> >>T. > >> >> > >> > > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
The 99% vegan
Joe wrote: > I disagree; you're talking about extremeties in which a vegan has > zippo control-a 100% vegan by your standards means they shouldn't walk > on the ground for the rest of their life lest they stomp on minute > sized creatures by the 1000's with each step - Will any vegans will > claim such extremes as a base-line pre-requisite! You could always claim that such deaths are accidental and in practical terms unavoidable. > Personally I'm scrutinizing non-'vegetarian' food product ingredients > closely now and make an occasional catch of an animal-additive and off > my grocery list that item goes-it's a reasonable ongoing learning > process. A vegan doesn't need "cheese once a week" in place of meat > since there are alternate sources for similar nutrition found in that > and other dairy products-otherwise by definition that once-a-week > cheese would take-on vegetarian status. The point I think you are missing. It is highly unlikely that neither your computer nor the power plants nor the pylons nor the telecommunications networks are free of animal products. Therefore by venturing onto the internet you are almost certainly consuming animal products and therefore less than 100% vegan unless the vegan standard applies only to food products. This doesn't mean that you should abandon eliminating animal source products from your diet. As I am explaining to Rick elsewhere in the thread this is a positive step towards reducing your complicity in animal cruelty. What it does mean is that you should reconsider your all or nothing approach evidenced by the quote "you can't say you're 99.9% vegan." > On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 11:08:00 +0200, "Taemon" > wrote: > > >Joe wrote: > > > >> Why would you say impossible... many get by fine as vegan. Just like > >> you can't be a little bit pregnant, you can't say you're 99.9% > >> vegan. > > > >Of course you can. You have to. Animals are killed for the glue in > >your furniture, for the dye of your clothes, for the electricity of > >your computer. You can only do your best. And it's far better to eat a > >little bit of cheese once a week than to eat meat and diary every day. > >It's not an all-or-nothing matter. We don't have that much control. > > > >T. > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
The 99% vegan
"Dave" > wrote in message ups.com... > > rick wrote: >> "Dave" > wrote in message >> oups.com... >> > >> > rick wrote: >> >> "Joe" > wrote in message >> >> ... >> >> >I disagree; you're talking about extremeties in which a >> >> >vegan >> >> >has >> >> > zippo control-a 100% vegan by your standards means they >> >> > shouldn't walk >> >> > on the ground for the rest of their life lest they stomp >> >> > on >> >> > minute >> >> > sized creatures by the 1000's with each step - Will any >> >> > vegans >> >> > will >> >> > claim such extremes as a base-line pre-requisite! >> >> ======================== >> >> Why go that far, killer? The point is that YOU do nothing >> >> to >> >> alleviate/eliminate unnecessary death and suffering of >> >> animals. >> > >> > You are overplaying your hand. By becoming vegan Joe has >> > eliminated >> > from his diet factory farmed animals that have been fed >> > factory >> > farmed veggies. >> ================================== >> At what cost? He has, like you, done exactly zero research >> into >> the alternatives he has chosen. I claim there are different >> alternatives that DO make a difference, instead of the >> illusionary ones vegans claims. > > There is nothing illusory about the claim that commonplace > methods for producing animal products cause more harm than > non-animal products. ======================= And, there is nothing illusionary about the fact that vegan wannbes ONLY focus on that belief, and regard ALL meat as bad regardless of the choices they then make. Thus proving that it is all about a simple rule for simple minds and NOT about any real concern for innecessary death and suffering of animals. Not only do the welfare conditions of > these animals range from sub-optimal to appaling but more > of the grain and soya you make such a big thing about grown > to feed the animals than would be needed to feed humans > directly. =============================== Another myth. Soy is grown for it's oil for human consumption. The 'waste' is then turned into feed. Or do your believe that the beans are fed directly to cows? > >> All he follows is the simple >> rule for his simple mind, 'eat no meat.' That does nothing >> to >> reduce eliminate overall animal death and suffering. > > If he ate conventionally reared meat and dairy products his > diet > would cause a great deal more overall animal death and > suffering. > You are blinded by your hatred of vegans and this is preventing > you from thinking rationally. ============================ The blindness is not on my part, as you keep provving by YOUR fixation only on one type of meat. Why is that, killer? Anything else blows your delusions out of the water? > >> And, again >> you have to resort to this 'factory-farmed' myth, > > I simply do not believe that having spent so long > on this newsgroup you can still be ignorant enough to > describe the factory-farming of animals as a myth. =============================== As describe by vegan loons here, yes, it is a myth. They continue to spew that all beef cows are fed only grains at feedlots all their lives. What part of that myth do you dispute? > >> which is all >> vegans rant about despite the fact that there are alternative >> meats. > > There are alternative methods of producing meat and dairy that > are > considerably more compassionate and environmentally > responsible. ========================= Which vegans refuse to even acknowledge because their brainwashing relies solely on a simple rule for their simple minds. Instead they spew about micro grams in their mass produced, processed petro-chemical industry based foods. They care nothing about the massive amounts of dead bodies that are the result of those choices. Why is that? Hypocrisy, willful ignorance, or stupidity? > The fact that Joe also avoids these products does not alter > the fact that he avoids the food products of animal based > factory > farming and thereby does something to reduce the unnecessary > death and suffering of animals. ====================== To the detriment of what other animals, fool? He, and you, continue to focus only on what YOU believe happens in the meat industry and continue to ignore the far more brutal, inhumane deaths that occur in crop productions. Why is that? What research have you, or any vegan done to spew as much about which veggies cause more deaths? You spend NO time comparing your own foods, because the simple rule for simple minds says it is automatically 'better.' How many animals are you, or any vegan willing to kill for a pound of rice? Potatoes? Brocolli? Why is it that vegans don't even care. Why do vegans spend so much energy processing veggies into a meat substitute despite the fact that many more animals die per pound than for some real meats? Again, hypocrisy, willful ignorabce, stupidity? > >> > You can argue that veganism is not the most effective >> > way to alleviate unnecessary death and suffering of animals >> > but >> > to claim it does nothing is just silly. >> ============================= >> No, it's not. By just becomeing a 'vegan' wannbe does nothing >> to >> really reduce/eliminate unnecessary death and suffering. >> besides, there are NO vegans here on usenet... >> >> >> Following a simple rule for your simple mind does nothing, >> >> hypocrite. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Personally I'm scrutinizing non-'vegetarian' food product >> >> > ingredients >> >> > closely now and make an occasional catch of an >> >> > animal-additive >> >> > and off >> >> > my grocery list that item goes-it's a reasonable ongoing >> >> > learning >> >> > process. >> >> ========================== >> >> Ah yes, the micro-pieces obsession of an eating disorder... >> >> >> >> >> >> A vegan doesn't need "cheese once a week" in place of meat >> >> > since there are alternate sources for similar nutrition >> >> > found >> >> > in that >> >> > and other dairy products-otherwise by definition that >> >> > once-a-week >> >> > cheese would take-on vegetarian status. >> >> ====================== >> >> ROTFLMAO These 'alternatives' cause far more brutal, >> >> inhumane >> >> deaths than is you just ate the real things you ignorant >> >> dolt. >> >> But then, you keep proving with each inane post that >> >> unnecessary >> >> animals death and suffering means nothing to you, killer. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 11:08:00 +0200, "Taemon" >> >> > > >> >> > wrote: >> >> > >> >> >>Joe wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> Why would you say impossible... many get by fine as >> >> >>> vegan. >> >> >>> Just like >> >> >>> you can't be a little bit pregnant, you can't say >> >> >>> you're >> >> >>> 99.9% >> >> >>> vegan. >> >> >> >> >> >>Of course you can. You have to. Animals are killed for >> >> >>the >> >> >>glue >> >> >>in >> >> >>your furniture, for the dye of your clothes, for the >> >> >>electricity of >> >> >>your computer. You can only do your best. And it's far >> >> >>better >> >> >>to eat a >> >> >>little bit of cheese once a week than to eat meat and >> >> >>diary >> >> >>every day. >> >> >>It's not an all-or-nothing matter. We don't have that >> >> >>much >> >> >>control. >> >> >> >> >> >>T. >> >> >> >> >> > >> > > |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
The 99% vegan
Dave wrote:
> This doesn't mean that you should abandon eliminating animal source > products from your diet. As I am explaining to Rick elsewhere in > the thread this is a positive step towards reducing your complicity > in animal cruelty. What it does mean is that you should reconsider > your all or nothing approach evidenced by the quote "you can't say > you're 99.9% vegan." Exactly my point. Apart from that, could you stop feeding the trolls, please? T. |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
The 99% vegan
Taemon wrote: > Dave wrote: > > > This doesn't mean that you should abandon eliminating animal source > > products from your diet. As I am explaining to Rick elsewhere in > > the thread this is a positive step towards reducing your complicity > > in animal cruelty. What it does mean is that you should reconsider > > your all or nothing approach evidenced by the quote "you can't say > > you're 99.9% vegan." > > Exactly my point. Apart from that, could you stop feeding the trolls, > please? Is alt.food.vegan an inappropriate place to be discussing the ethics of veganism? If it becomes clear that this is the general feeling of the group then I shall confine my troll feeding to aaev and tpa in future. Of course no one is forcing you to read my discussions with those you consider trolls.... > > T. |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
The 99% vegan
rick wrote: > "Dave" > wrote in message > ups.com... > > > > rick wrote: > >> "Dave" > wrote in message > >> oups.com... > >> > > >> > rick wrote: > >> >> "Joe" > wrote in message > >> >> ... > >> >> >I disagree; you're talking about extremeties in which a > >> >> >vegan > >> >> >has > >> >> > zippo control-a 100% vegan by your standards means they > >> >> > shouldn't walk > >> >> > on the ground for the rest of their life lest they stomp > >> >> > on > >> >> > minute > >> >> > sized creatures by the 1000's with each step - Will any > >> >> > vegans > >> >> > will > >> >> > claim such extremes as a base-line pre-requisite! > >> >> ======================== > >> >> Why go that far, killer? The point is that YOU do nothing > >> >> to > >> >> alleviate/eliminate unnecessary death and suffering of > >> >> animals. > >> > > >> > You are overplaying your hand. By becoming vegan Joe has > >> > eliminated > >> > from his diet factory farmed animals that have been fed > >> > factory > >> > farmed veggies. > >> ================================== > >> At what cost? He has, like you, done exactly zero research > >> into > >> the alternatives he has chosen. I claim there are different > >> alternatives that DO make a difference, instead of the > >> illusionary ones vegans claims. > > > > There is nothing illusory about the claim that commonplace > > methods for producing animal products cause more harm than > > non-animal products. > ======================= > And, there is nothing illusionary about the fact that vegan > wannbes ONLY focus on that belief, and regard ALL meat as bad > regardless of the choices they then make. Thus proving that it > is all about a simple rule for simple minds and NOT about any > real concern for innecessary death and suffering of animals. > > > > Not only do the welfare conditions of > > these animals range from sub-optimal to appaling but more > > of the grain and soya you make such a big thing about grown > > to feed the animals than would be needed to feed humans > > directly. > =============================== > Another myth. Soy is grown for it's oil for human consumption. > The 'waste' is then turned into feed. Or do your believe that > the beans are fed directly to cows? Sunflowers and olives are far more oily than soybeans. The soy is grown as much for livestock as it is for vegetable oil. The byproduct of the oil production is human consumable - it is the main component of TVP. > >> All he follows is the simple > >> rule for his simple mind, 'eat no meat.' That does nothing > >> to > >> reduce eliminate overall animal death and suffering. > > > > If he ate conventionally reared meat and dairy products his > > diet > > would cause a great deal more overall animal death and > > suffering. > > You are blinded by your hatred of vegans and this is preventing > > you from thinking rationally. > ============================ > The blindness is not on my part, as you keep provving by YOUR > fixation only on one type of meat. Why is that, killer? > Anything else blows your delusions out of the water? I'm fixated on mainstream commercial meats because I find those highly objectionable. I am not fixated on decent, organic mixed agriculture systems because I find them more acceptable. > >> And, again > >> you have to resort to this 'factory-farmed' myth, > > > > I simply do not believe that having spent so long > > on this newsgroup you can still be ignorant enough to > > describe the factory-farming of animals as a myth. > =============================== > As describe by vegan loons here, yes, it is a myth. They > continue to spew that all beef cows are fed only grains at > feedlots all their lives. What part of that myth do you > dispute? I don't promote any of that myth and I haven't seen anyone else do so either. Now let's talk about chickens...... > > > >> which is all > >> vegans rant about despite the fact that there are alternative > >> meats. > > > > There are alternative methods of producing meat and dairy that > > are > > considerably more compassionate and environmentally > > responsible. > ========================= > Which vegans refuse to even acknowledge because their > brainwashing relies solely on a simple rule for their simple > minds. Instead they spew about micro grams in their mass > produced, processed petro-chemical industry based foods. They > care nothing about the massive amounts of dead bodies that are > the result of those choices. Why is that? Hypocrisy, willful > ignorance, or stupidity? > > > > The fact that Joe also avoids these products does not alter > > the fact that he avoids the food products of animal based > > factory > > farming and thereby does something to reduce the unnecessary > > death and suffering of animals. > ====================== > To the detriment of what other animals, fool? He, and you, > continue to focus only on what YOU believe happens in the meat > industry and continue to ignore the far more brutal, inhumane > deaths that occur in crop productions. Why is that? Why do you ignore that, unlike many farm animals, the wild animals lead decent lives before their deaths? Why do you ignore that the same deaths associated with crop production are also associated with livestock production? > What > research have you, or any vegan done to spew as much about which > veggies cause more deaths? You spend NO time comparing your own > foods, because the simple rule for simple minds says it is > automatically 'better.' How many animals are you, or any vegan > willing to kill for a pound of rice? Potatoes? Brocolli? Why > is it that vegans don't even care. Why do vegans spend so much > energy processing veggies into a meat substitute despite the fact > that many more animals die per pound than for some real meats? > Again, hypocrisy, willful ignorabce, stupidity? I don't think you have reliable enough data to call that a fact. > >> > You can argue that veganism is not the most effective > >> > way to alleviate unnecessary death and suffering of animals > >> > but > >> > to claim it does nothing is just silly. > >> ============================= > >> No, it's not. By just becomeing a 'vegan' wannbe does nothing > >> to > >> really reduce/eliminate unnecessary death and suffering. > >> besides, there are NO vegans here on usenet... > >> > >> >> Following a simple rule for your simple mind does nothing, > >> >> hypocrite. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Personally I'm scrutinizing non-'vegetarian' food product > >> >> > ingredients > >> >> > closely now and make an occasional catch of an > >> >> > animal-additive > >> >> > and off > >> >> > my grocery list that item goes-it's a reasonable ongoing > >> >> > learning > >> >> > process. > >> >> ========================== > >> >> Ah yes, the micro-pieces obsession of an eating disorder... > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> A vegan doesn't need "cheese once a week" in place of meat > >> >> > since there are alternate sources for similar nutrition > >> >> > found > >> >> > in that > >> >> > and other dairy products-otherwise by definition that > >> >> > once-a-week > >> >> > cheese would take-on vegetarian status. > >> >> ====================== > >> >> ROTFLMAO These 'alternatives' cause far more brutal, > >> >> inhumane > >> >> deaths than is you just ate the real things you ignorant > >> >> dolt. > >> >> But then, you keep proving with each inane post that > >> >> unnecessary > >> >> animals death and suffering means nothing to you, killer. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 11:08:00 +0200, "Taemon" > >> >> > > > >> >> > wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >>Joe wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >>> Why would you say impossible... many get by fine as > >> >> >>> vegan. > >> >> >>> Just like > >> >> >>> you can't be a little bit pregnant, you can't say > >> >> >>> you're > >> >> >>> 99.9% > >> >> >>> vegan. > >> >> >> > >> >> >>Of course you can. You have to. Animals are killed for > >> >> >>the > >> >> >>glue > >> >> >>in > >> >> >>your furniture, for the dye of your clothes, for the > >> >> >>electricity of > >> >> >>your computer. You can only do your best. And it's far > >> >> >>better > >> >> >>to eat a > >> >> >>little bit of cheese once a week than to eat meat and > >> >> >>diary > >> >> >>every day. > >> >> >>It's not an all-or-nothing matter. We don't have that > >> >> >>much > >> >> >>control. > >> >> >> > >> >> >>T. > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> > > > |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
The 99% vegan
Dave wrote:
> Taemon wrote: >> Dave wrote: >>> This doesn't mean that you should abandon eliminating animal >>> source >>> products from your diet. As I am explaining to Rick elsewhere in >>> the thread this is a positive step towards reducing your >>> complicity >>> in animal cruelty. What it does mean is that you should reconsider >>> your all or nothing approach evidenced by the quote "you can't say >>> you're 99.9% vegan." >> Exactly my point. Apart from that, could you stop feeding the >> trolls, >> please? > Is alt.food.vegan an inappropriate place to be discussing the ethics > of veganism? Not necessarily, but this is no discussion, since you are having it with a troll :-) > If it becomes clear that this is the general feeling > of the group then I shall confine my troll feeding to aaev and tpa > in future. Of course no one is forcing you to read my discussions > with those you consider trolls.... Of course not, and you are in no way obliged to pay heed to my little request. I just would like to save this group. It used to be much better. T. |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
The 99% vegan
On 25 Oct 2005 18:01:49 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: Maybe I shouldn't have trod into this thread, and should've let the vegans respond where it was applicable. I'm vegetarian and get by it fine as an alternative to not eating meat. Rick has a problem believing not eating meat is an unhealthy alternative. But it works for me very well and in the process I'm learning about proper nutritionary intake and the absurd delusionary attitudes hard-core meat 'cravers' cannot get over. Most of all in my small part I'd like to think I'm part of the process where common sense indicates animals needn't be slaughtered for human food consumption just because of the misguided notion repeatedly often chanted by meat-cravers "..But we need meat!" |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
The 99% vegan
"Taemon" > wrote in message ... > Dave wrote: > >> Taemon wrote: >>> Dave wrote: >>>> This doesn't mean that you should abandon eliminating animal >>>> source >>>> products from your diet. As I am explaining to Rick >>>> elsewhere in >>>> the thread this is a positive step towards reducing your >>>> complicity >>>> in animal cruelty. What it does mean is that you should >>>> reconsider >>>> your all or nothing approach evidenced by the quote "you >>>> can't say >>>> you're 99.9% vegan." >>> Exactly my point. Apart from that, could you stop feeding the >>> trolls, >>> please? >> Is alt.food.vegan an inappropriate place to be discussing the >> ethics >> of veganism? > > Not necessarily, but this is no discussion, since you are > having it with a troll :-) > ================================== Obviously you don't know the meaning of the word troll, killer. >> If it becomes clear that this is the general feeling >> of the group then I shall confine my troll feeding to aaev and >> tpa >> in future. Of course no one is forcing you to read my >> discussions >> with those you consider trolls.... > > Of course not, and you are in no way obliged to pay heed to my > little request. I just would like to save this group. It used > to be much better. > > T. > |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
The 99% vegan
"Joe" > wrote in message ... > > > > On 25 Oct 2005 18:01:49 -0700, "Dave" > > wrote: > > Maybe I shouldn't have trod into this thread, and should've let > the > vegans respond where it was applicable. I'm vegetarian and get > by it > fine as an alternative to not eating meat. Rick has a problem > believing not eating meat is an unhealthy alternative. ================================= Where did you read that, fool? I have no problem with what you eat. The problem is the veg*n lys and delusions that surround the religion of veganism.... But it works > for me very well and in the process I'm learning about proper > nutritionary intake and the absurd delusionary attitudes > hard-core > meat 'cravers' cannot get over. Most of all in my small part > I'd like > to think I'm part of the process where common sense indicates > animals > needn't be slaughtered for human food consumption just because > of the > misguided notion repeatedly often chanted by meat-cravers > "..But we > need meat!" =========================== But the problem is dolt, animals do need to be slaughtered for your food production. The problem for you is that the ones that die for your veggies die far more brutally and inhumanely than slaughterhouse animals do. Why is it that you always neglect to take that into account? Oh, yeah, that simple rule for simple minds thingy.... |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
The 99% vegan
"Dave" > wrote in message oups.com... > > rick wrote: >> "Dave" > wrote in message >> ups.com... >> > >> > rick wrote: >> >> "Dave" > wrote in message >> >> oups.com... >> >> > >> >> > rick wrote: >> >> >> "Joe" > wrote in message >> >> >> ... >> >> >> >I disagree; you're talking about extremeties in which a >> >> >> >vegan >> >> >> >has >> >> >> > zippo control-a 100% vegan by your standards means >> >> >> > they >> >> >> > shouldn't walk >> >> >> > on the ground for the rest of their life lest they >> >> >> > stomp >> >> >> > on >> >> >> > minute >> >> >> > sized creatures by the 1000's with each step - Will >> >> >> > any >> >> >> > vegans >> >> >> > will >> >> >> > claim such extremes as a base-line pre-requisite! >> >> >> ======================== >> >> >> Why go that far, killer? The point is that YOU do >> >> >> nothing >> >> >> to >> >> >> alleviate/eliminate unnecessary death and suffering of >> >> >> animals. >> >> > >> >> > You are overplaying your hand. By becoming vegan Joe has >> >> > eliminated >> >> > from his diet factory farmed animals that have been fed >> >> > factory >> >> > farmed veggies. >> >> ================================== >> >> At what cost? He has, like you, done exactly zero >> >> research >> >> into >> >> the alternatives he has chosen. I claim there are >> >> different >> >> alternatives that DO make a difference, instead of the >> >> illusionary ones vegans claims. >> > >> > There is nothing illusory about the claim that commonplace >> > methods for producing animal products cause more harm than >> > non-animal products. >> ======================= >> And, there is nothing illusionary about the fact that vegan >> wannbes ONLY focus on that belief, and regard ALL meat as bad >> regardless of the choices they then make. Thus proving that >> it >> is all about a simple rule for simple minds and NOT about any >> real concern for innecessary death and suffering of animals. >> >> >> >> Not only do the welfare conditions of >> > these animals range from sub-optimal to appaling but more >> > of the grain and soya you make such a big thing about grown >> > to feed the animals than would be needed to feed humans >> > directly. >> =============================== >> Another myth. Soy is grown for it's oil for human >> consumption. >> The 'waste' is then turned into feed. Or do your believe that >> the beans are fed directly to cows? > > Sunflowers and olives are far more oily than soybeans. The soy > is > grown as much for livestock as it is for vegetable oil. ================== really? fed whole and raw to cattle?.... > The byproduct of the oil production is human consumable - it > is the main component of TVP. ========================== highly processed, and very complicit in the death and suffering of animals. > >> >> All he follows is the simple >> >> rule for his simple mind, 'eat no meat.' That does >> >> nothing >> >> to >> >> reduce eliminate overall animal death and suffering. >> > >> > If he ate conventionally reared meat and dairy products his >> > diet >> > would cause a great deal more overall animal death and >> > suffering. >> > You are blinded by your hatred of vegans and this is >> > preventing >> > you from thinking rationally. >> ============================ >> The blindness is not on my part, as you keep provving by YOUR >> fixation only on one type of meat. Why is that, killer? >> Anything else blows your delusions out of the water? > > I'm fixated on mainstream commercial meats because I find those > highly objectionable. I am not fixated on decent, organic mixed > agriculture systems because I find them more acceptable. ============================ Tell that to the vegans here that i'm talking about. You keep talking the talk you get lumped in with the delusion fools... > >> >> And, again >> >> you have to resort to this 'factory-farmed' myth, >> > >> > I simply do not believe that having spent so long >> > on this newsgroup you can still be ignorant enough to >> > describe the factory-farming of animals as a myth. >> =============================== >> As describe by vegan loons here, yes, it is a myth. They >> continue to spew that all beef cows are fed only grains at >> feedlots all their lives. What part of that myth do you >> dispute? > > I don't promote any of that myth and I haven't seen anyone > else do so either. Now let's talk about chickens...... ======================== Sure, lets.... From this window I can see about a dozen roaming around our back yard/field right now. They especially love it after we mow... Plus there is a great blue heron at the edge of the pond... > >> > >> >> which is all >> >> vegans rant about despite the fact that there are >> >> alternative >> >> meats. >> > >> > There are alternative methods of producing meat and dairy >> > that >> > are >> > considerably more compassionate and environmentally >> > responsible. >> ========================= >> Which vegans refuse to even acknowledge because their >> brainwashing relies solely on a simple rule for their simple >> minds. Instead they spew about micro grams in their mass >> produced, processed petro-chemical industry based foods. They >> care nothing about the massive amounts of dead bodies that are >> the result of those choices. Why is that? Hypocrisy, willful >> ignorance, or stupidity? >> >> >> > The fact that Joe also avoids these products does not alter >> > the fact that he avoids the food products of animal based >> > factory >> > farming and thereby does something to reduce the unnecessary >> > death and suffering of animals. >> ====================== >> To the detriment of what other animals, fool? He, and you, >> continue to focus only on what YOU believe happens in the meat >> industry and continue to ignore the far more brutal, inhumane >> deaths that occur in crop productions. Why is that? > > Why do you ignore that, unlike many farm animals, the wild > animals > lead decent lives before their deaths? =============================== Do they all? Mortality is very high for field animals even whrn not being sprayed and run over. But that aside, since you think they lived 'good lives' that makes it ok to slice, dice, shred, dis-member and poison them in the end? How does that work exactly in your head? Why do you ignore that the > same deaths associated with crop production are also associated > with > livestock production? ============================ Which ones? The beef I eat is all grass fed. No hormones, no antibiotics. I just told you about chickens.... So, tell me where all the 'same' deaths are that are caused by crop production. > >> What >> research have you, or any vegan done to spew as much about >> which >> veggies cause more deaths? You spend NO time comparing your >> own >> foods, because the simple rule for simple minds says it is >> automatically 'better.' How many animals are you, or any >> vegan >> willing to kill for a pound of rice? Potatoes? Brocolli? >> Why >> is it that vegans don't even care. Why do vegans spend so >> much >> energy processing veggies into a meat substitute despite the >> fact >> that many more animals die per pound than for some real meats? >> Again, hypocrisy, willful ignorabce, stupidity? > > I don't think you have reliable enough data to call that a > fact. ============================= LOL I asked you for YOURS. Where is it? Where is all that data that backs up the claims that being vegan automatically causes no/fewer/less deaths to animals? The data I have provided are from sites from many sources, mostly colleges and government sites. All vegans ever seem to have are the same loony propaganda sites... > >> >> > You can argue that veganism is not the most effective >> >> > way to alleviate unnecessary death and suffering of >> >> > animals >> >> > but >> >> > to claim it does nothing is just silly. >> >> ============================= >> >> No, it's not. By just becomeing a 'vegan' wannbe does >> >> nothing >> >> to >> >> really reduce/eliminate unnecessary death and suffering. >> >> besides, there are NO vegans here on usenet... >> >> >> >> >> Following a simple rule for your simple mind does >> >> >> nothing, >> >> >> hypocrite. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Personally I'm scrutinizing non-'vegetarian' food >> >> >> > product >> >> >> > ingredients >> >> >> > closely now and make an occasional catch of an >> >> >> > animal-additive >> >> >> > and off >> >> >> > my grocery list that item goes-it's a reasonable >> >> >> > ongoing >> >> >> > learning >> >> >> > process. >> >> >> ========================== >> >> >> Ah yes, the micro-pieces obsession of an eating >> >> >> disorder... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> A vegan doesn't need "cheese once a week" in place of >> >> >> meat >> >> >> > since there are alternate sources for similar >> >> >> > nutrition >> >> >> > found >> >> >> > in that >> >> >> > and other dairy products-otherwise by definition that >> >> >> > once-a-week >> >> >> > cheese would take-on vegetarian status. >> >> >> ====================== >> >> >> ROTFLMAO These 'alternatives' cause far more brutal, >> >> >> inhumane >> >> >> deaths than is you just ate the real things you ignorant >> >> >> dolt. >> >> >> But then, you keep proving with each inane post that >> >> >> unnecessary >> >> >> animals death and suffering means nothing to you, >> >> >> killer. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 11:08:00 +0200, "Taemon" >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >>Joe wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> Why would you say impossible... many get by fine as >> >> >> >>> vegan. >> >> >> >>> Just like >> >> >> >>> you can't be a little bit pregnant, you can't say >> >> >> >>> you're >> >> >> >>> 99.9% >> >> >> >>> vegan. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Of course you can. You have to. Animals are killed for >> >> >> >>the >> >> >> >>glue >> >> >> >>in >> >> >> >>your furniture, for the dye of your clothes, for the >> >> >> >>electricity of >> >> >> >>your computer. You can only do your best. And it's far >> >> >> >>better >> >> >> >>to eat a >> >> >> >>little bit of cheese once a week than to eat meat and >> >> >> >>diary >> >> >> >>every day. >> >> >> >>It's not an all-or-nothing matter. We don't have that >> >> >> >>much >> >> >> >>control. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>T. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > > |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
The 99% vegan
rick wrote: > "Dave" > wrote in message > oups.com... > > > > rick wrote: > >> "Dave" > wrote in message > >> ups.com... > >> > > >> > rick wrote: > >> >> "Dave" > wrote in message > >> >> oups.com... > >> >> > > >> >> > rick wrote: > >> >> >> "Joe" > wrote in message > >> >> >> ... > >> >> >> >I disagree; you're talking about extremeties in which a > >> >> >> >vegan > >> >> >> >has > >> >> >> > zippo control-a 100% vegan by your standards means > >> >> >> > they > >> >> >> > shouldn't walk > >> >> >> > on the ground for the rest of their life lest they > >> >> >> > stomp > >> >> >> > on > >> >> >> > minute > >> >> >> > sized creatures by the 1000's with each step - Will > >> >> >> > any > >> >> >> > vegans > >> >> >> > will > >> >> >> > claim such extremes as a base-line pre-requisite! > >> >> >> ======================== > >> >> >> Why go that far, killer? The point is that YOU do > >> >> >> nothing > >> >> >> to > >> >> >> alleviate/eliminate unnecessary death and suffering of > >> >> >> animals. > >> >> > > >> >> > You are overplaying your hand. By becoming vegan Joe has > >> >> > eliminated > >> >> > from his diet factory farmed animals that have been fed > >> >> > factory > >> >> > farmed veggies. > >> >> ================================== > >> >> At what cost? He has, like you, done exactly zero > >> >> research > >> >> into > >> >> the alternatives he has chosen. I claim there are > >> >> different > >> >> alternatives that DO make a difference, instead of the > >> >> illusionary ones vegans claims. > >> > > >> > There is nothing illusory about the claim that commonplace > >> > methods for producing animal products cause more harm than > >> > non-animal products. > >> ======================= > >> And, there is nothing illusionary about the fact that vegan > >> wannbes ONLY focus on that belief, and regard ALL meat as bad > >> regardless of the choices they then make. Thus proving that > >> it > >> is all about a simple rule for simple minds and NOT about any > >> real concern for innecessary death and suffering of animals. > >> > >> > >> > >> Not only do the welfare conditions of > >> > these animals range from sub-optimal to appaling but more > >> > of the grain and soya you make such a big thing about grown > >> > to feed the animals than would be needed to feed humans > >> > directly. > >> =============================== > >> Another myth. Soy is grown for it's oil for human > >> consumption. > >> The 'waste' is then turned into feed. Or do your believe that > >> the beans are fed directly to cows? > > > > Sunflowers and olives are far more oily than soybeans. The soy > > is > > grown as much for livestock as it is for vegetable oil. > ================== > really? fed whole and raw to cattle?.... The vegetable oil is much a byproduct of cattle feed as the cattle feed is a by product of vegetable oil. According to the figures Pearl recently posted when you raised this point in another thread, most of the commercial value is as cattle feed. If you were growing the crops only for their oil, why chose soya instead of something more oily like sunflowers or olives? > > The byproduct of the oil production is human consumable - it > > is the main component of TVP. > ========================== > highly processed, and very complicit in the death and suffering > of animals. Then people who eat the cattle who it is fed to are even more complicit. > >> >> All he follows is the simple > >> >> rule for his simple mind, 'eat no meat.' That does > >> >> nothing > >> >> to > >> >> reduce eliminate overall animal death and suffering. > >> > > >> > If he ate conventionally reared meat and dairy products his > >> > diet > >> > would cause a great deal more overall animal death and > >> > suffering. > >> > You are blinded by your hatred of vegans and this is > >> > preventing > >> > you from thinking rationally. > >> ============================ > >> The blindness is not on my part, as you keep provving by YOUR > >> fixation only on one type of meat. Why is that, killer? > >> Anything else blows your delusions out of the water? > > > > I'm fixated on mainstream commercial meats because I find those > > highly objectionable. I am not fixated on decent, organic mixed > > agriculture systems because I find them more acceptable. > ============================ > Tell that to the vegans here that i'm talking about. You keep > talking the talk you get lumped in with the delusion fools... You can lump me in with whoever I like just as long as you continue to address my arguments instead of arguments of those you have lumped me in with. > > >> And, again > >> >> you have to resort to this 'factory-farmed' myth, > >> > > >> > I simply do not believe that having spent so long > >> > on this newsgroup you can still be ignorant enough to > >> > describe the factory-farming of animals as a myth. > >> =============================== > >> As describe by vegan loons here, yes, it is a myth. They > >> continue to spew that all beef cows are fed only grains at > >> feedlots all their lives. What part of that myth do you > >> dispute? > > > > I don't promote any of that myth and I haven't seen anyone > > else do so either. Now let's talk about chickens...... > ======================== > Sure, lets.... From this window I can see about a dozen roaming > around our back yard/field right now. They especially love it > after we mow... Plus there is a great blue heron at the edge of > the pond... That's nice. And the cheap supermarket chickens? > >> > > >> >> which is all > >> >> vegans rant about despite the fact that there are > >> >> alternative > >> >> meats. > >> > > >> > There are alternative methods of producing meat and dairy > >> > that > >> > are > >> > considerably more compassionate and environmentally > >> > responsible. > >> ========================= > >> Which vegans refuse to even acknowledge because their > >> brainwashing relies solely on a simple rule for their simple > >> minds. Instead they spew about micro grams in their mass > >> produced, processed petro-chemical industry based foods. They > >> care nothing about the massive amounts of dead bodies that are > >> the result of those choices. Why is that? Hypocrisy, willful > >> ignorance, or stupidity? > >> > >> > >> > The fact that Joe also avoids these products does not alter > >> > the fact that he avoids the food products of animal based > >> > factory > >> > farming and thereby does something to reduce the unnecessary > >> > death and suffering of animals. > >> ====================== > >> To the detriment of what other animals, fool? He, and you, > >> continue to focus only on what YOU believe happens in the meat > >> industry and continue to ignore the far more brutal, inhumane > >> deaths that occur in crop productions. Why is that? > > > > Why do you ignore that, unlike many farm animals, the wild > > animals > > lead decent lives before their deaths? > =============================== > Do they all? Well, they don't spend their lives in uncomfortable and unhealthy conditions where they are treated as machines. > Mortality is very high for field animals even whrn > not being sprayed and run over. But that aside, since you think > they lived 'good lives' that makes it ok to slice, dice, shred, > dis-member and poison them in the end? Of course not but neither are these brief periods of pain comparable to the lifetime of discomfort suffered by some factory farmed animals, poultry in particular. > How does that work > exactly in your head? > > > Why do you ignore that the > > same deaths associated with crop production are also associated > > with > > livestock production? > ============================ > Which ones? The beef I eat is all grass fed. No hormones, no > antibiotics. I just told you about chickens.... > So, tell me where all the 'same' deaths are that are caused by > crop production. Irrelevant to my claim that Joe is reducing the impact of his diet, compared with someone who has no dietary ethics. He avoids the worst products. > > > >> What > >> research have you, or any vegan done to spew as much about > >> which > >> veggies cause more deaths? You spend NO time comparing your > >> own > >> foods, because the simple rule for simple minds says it is > >> automatically 'better.' How many animals are you, or any > >> vegan > >> willing to kill for a pound of rice? Potatoes? Brocolli? > >> Why > >> is it that vegans don't even care. Why do vegans spend so > >> much > >> energy processing veggies into a meat substitute despite the > >> fact > >> that many more animals die per pound than for some real meats? > >> Again, hypocrisy, willful ignorabce, stupidity? > > > > I don't think you have reliable enough data to call that a > > fact. > ============================= > LOL I asked you for YOURS. Where is it? Where is all that data > that backs up the claims that being vegan automatically causes > no/fewer/less deaths to animals? Becoming vegan reduces complicity in animal death and suffering in exactly the same way that being a discerning omnivore does, by eliminating the products that result in the most - factory farmed meat! > The data I have provided are from sites from many sources, mostly > colleges and government sites. All vegans ever seem to have are > the same loony propaganda sites... So where is the data that proves that many more animals die per pound for meat 'substitutes' than they do for some meat products? > > > >> >> > You can argue that veganism is not the most effective > >> >> > way to alleviate unnecessary death and suffering of > >> >> > animals > >> >> > but > >> >> > to claim it does nothing is just silly. > >> >> ============================= > >> >> No, it's not. By just becomeing a 'vegan' wannbe does > >> >> nothing > >> >> to > >> >> really reduce/eliminate unnecessary death and suffering. > >> >> besides, there are NO vegans here on usenet... > >> >> > >> >> >> Following a simple rule for your simple mind does > >> >> >> nothing, > >> >> >> hypocrite. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Personally I'm scrutinizing non-'vegetarian' food > >> >> >> > product > >> >> >> > ingredients > >> >> >> > closely now and make an occasional catch of an > >> >> >> > animal-additive > >> >> >> > and off > >> >> >> > my grocery list that item goes-it's a reasonable > >> >> >> > ongoing > >> >> >> > learning > >> >> >> > process. > >> >> >> ========================== > >> >> >> Ah yes, the micro-pieces obsession of an eating > >> >> >> disorder... > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> A vegan doesn't need "cheese once a week" in place of > >> >> >> meat > >> >> >> > since there are alternate sources for similar > >> >> >> > nutrition > >> >> >> > found > >> >> >> > in that > >> >> >> > and other dairy products-otherwise by definition that > >> >> >> > once-a-week > >> >> >> > cheese would take-on vegetarian status. > >> >> >> ====================== > >> >> >> ROTFLMAO These 'alternatives' cause far more brutal, > >> >> >> inhumane > >> >> >> deaths than is you just ate the real things you ignorant > >> >> >> dolt. > >> >> >> But then, you keep proving with each inane post that > >> >> >> unnecessary > >> >> >> animals death and suffering means nothing to you, > >> >> >> killer. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 11:08:00 +0200, "Taemon" > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > wrote: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >>Joe wrote: > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >>> Why would you say impossible... many get by fine as > >> >> >> >>> vegan. > >> >> >> >>> Just like > >> >> >> >>> you can't be a little bit pregnant, you can't say > >> >> >> >>> you're > >> >> >> >>> 99.9% > >> >> >> >>> vegan. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >>Of course you can. You have to. Animals are killed for > >> >> >> >>the > >> >> >> >>glue > >> >> >> >>in > >> >> >> >>your furniture, for the dye of your clothes, for the > >> >> >> >>electricity of > >> >> >> >>your computer. You can only do your best. And it's far > >> >> >> >>better > >> >> >> >>to eat a > >> >> >> >>little bit of cheese once a week than to eat meat and > >> >> >> >>diary > >> >> >> >>every day. > >> >> >> >>It's not an all-or-nothing matter. We don't have that > >> >> >> >>much > >> >> >> >>control. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >>T. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > >> > > > |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
The 99% vegan
Joe wrote: > On 25 Oct 2005 18:01:49 -0700, "Dave" > wrote: > > Maybe I shouldn't have trod into this thread, and should've let the > vegans respond where it was applicable. I'm vegetarian and get by it > fine as an alternative to not eating meat. Rick has a problem > believing not eating meat is an unhealthy alternative. But it works > for me very well and in the process I'm learning about proper > nutritionary intake and the absurd delusionary attitudes hard-core > meat 'cravers' cannot get over. Most of all in my small part I'd like > to think I'm part of the process where common sense indicates animals > needn't be slaughtered for human food consumption just because of the > misguided notion repeatedly often chanted by meat-cravers "..But we > need meat!" One thing for you to consider: If the objective is to reduce your complicity in animal death and suffering then would it not be better to be 99% vegan with 1% meat and fish than 100% vegetarian with 10% milk and eggs? |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
The 99% vegan
Taemon wrote: > Dave wrote: > > > Taemon wrote: > >> Dave wrote: > >>> This doesn't mean that you should abandon eliminating animal > >>> source > >>> products from your diet. As I am explaining to Rick elsewhere in > >>> the thread this is a positive step towards reducing your > >>> complicity > >>> in animal cruelty. What it does mean is that you should reconsider > >>> your all or nothing approach evidenced by the quote "you can't say > >>> you're 99.9% vegan." > >> Exactly my point. Apart from that, could you stop feeding the > >> trolls, > >> please? > > Is alt.food.vegan an inappropriate place to be discussing the ethics > > of veganism? > > Not necessarily, but this is no discussion, since you are having it > with a troll :-) > > > If it becomes clear that this is the general feeling > > of the group then I shall confine my troll feeding to aaev and tpa > > in future. Of course no one is forcing you to read my discussions > > with those you consider trolls.... > > Of course not, and you are in no way obliged to pay heed to my little > request. I just would like to save this group. It used to be much > better. What sort of discussions took place in the good old days? > > T. |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
The 99% vegan
"Dave" > wrote in message ups.com... > > rick wrote: >> "Dave" > wrote in message >> oups.com... >> > >> > rick wrote: >> >> "Dave" > wrote in message >> >> ups.com... >> >> > >> >> > rick wrote: >> >> >> "Dave" > wrote in message >> >> >> oups.com... >> >> >> > >> >> >> > rick wrote: >> >> >> >> "Joe" > wrote in message >> >> >> >> ... >> >> >> >> >I disagree; you're talking about extremeties in >> >> >> >> >which a >> >> >> >> >vegan >> >> >> >> >has >> >> >> >> > zippo control-a 100% vegan by your standards means >> >> >> >> > they >> >> >> >> > shouldn't walk >> >> >> >> > on the ground for the rest of their life lest they >> >> >> >> > stomp >> >> >> >> > on >> >> >> >> > minute >> >> >> >> > sized creatures by the 1000's with each step - Will >> >> >> >> > any >> >> >> >> > vegans >> >> >> >> > will >> >> >> >> > claim such extremes as a base-line pre-requisite! >> >> >> >> ======================== >> >> >> >> Why go that far, killer? The point is that YOU do >> >> >> >> nothing >> >> >> >> to >> >> >> >> alleviate/eliminate unnecessary death and suffering >> >> >> >> of >> >> >> >> animals. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > You are overplaying your hand. By becoming vegan Joe >> >> >> > has >> >> >> > eliminated >> >> >> > from his diet factory farmed animals that have been >> >> >> > fed >> >> >> > factory >> >> >> > farmed veggies. >> >> >> ================================== >> >> >> At what cost? He has, like you, done exactly zero >> >> >> research >> >> >> into >> >> >> the alternatives he has chosen. I claim there are >> >> >> different >> >> >> alternatives that DO make a difference, instead of the >> >> >> illusionary ones vegans claims. >> >> > >> >> > There is nothing illusory about the claim that >> >> > commonplace >> >> > methods for producing animal products cause more harm >> >> > than >> >> > non-animal products. >> >> ======================= >> >> And, there is nothing illusionary about the fact that vegan >> >> wannbes ONLY focus on that belief, and regard ALL meat as >> >> bad >> >> regardless of the choices they then make. Thus proving >> >> that >> >> it >> >> is all about a simple rule for simple minds and NOT about >> >> any >> >> real concern for innecessary death and suffering of >> >> animals. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Not only do the welfare conditions of >> >> > these animals range from sub-optimal to appaling but more >> >> > of the grain and soya you make such a big thing about >> >> > grown >> >> > to feed the animals than would be needed to feed humans >> >> > directly. >> >> =============================== >> >> Another myth. Soy is grown for it's oil for human >> >> consumption. >> >> The 'waste' is then turned into feed. Or do your believe >> >> that >> >> the beans are fed directly to cows? >> > >> > Sunflowers and olives are far more oily than soybeans. The >> > soy >> > is >> > grown as much for livestock as it is for vegetable oil. >> ================== >> really? fed whole and raw to cattle?.... > > The vegetable oil is much a byproduct of cattle feed as the > cattle feed is a by product of vegetable oil. According to > the figures Pearl recently posted when you raised this point > in another thread, most of the commercial value is as cattle > feed. If you were growing the crops only for their oil, why > chose > soya instead of something more oily like sunflowers or olives? > >> > The byproduct of the oil production is human consumable - it >> > is the main component of TVP. >> ========================== >> highly processed, and very complicit in the death and >> suffering >> of animals. > > Then people who eat the cattle who it is fed to are even more > complicit. =================== Thanks for again proving you can't do anything except return to what you think is the worst meats, and never even consider the wrost veggies. Simple rule for simple mind..... > >> >> >> All he follows is the simple >> >> >> rule for his simple mind, 'eat no meat.' That does >> >> >> nothing >> >> >> to >> >> >> reduce eliminate overall animal death and suffering. >> >> > >> >> > If he ate conventionally reared meat and dairy products >> >> > his >> >> > diet >> >> > would cause a great deal more overall animal death and >> >> > suffering. >> >> > You are blinded by your hatred of vegans and this is >> >> > preventing >> >> > you from thinking rationally. >> >> ============================ >> >> The blindness is not on my part, as you keep provving by >> >> YOUR >> >> fixation only on one type of meat. Why is that, killer? >> >> Anything else blows your delusions out of the water? >> > >> > I'm fixated on mainstream commercial meats because I find >> > those >> > highly objectionable. I am not fixated on decent, organic >> > mixed >> > agriculture systems because I find them more acceptable. >> ============================ >> Tell that to the vegans here that i'm talking about. You keep >> talking the talk you get lumped in with the delusion fools... > > You can lump me in with whoever I like just as long as you > continue > to address my arguments instead of arguments of those you have > lumped me in with. =============== You keep backing the lys up.... > >> > >> And, again >> >> >> you have to resort to this 'factory-farmed' myth, >> >> > >> >> > I simply do not believe that having spent so long >> >> > on this newsgroup you can still be ignorant enough to >> >> > describe the factory-farming of animals as a myth. >> >> =============================== >> >> As describe by vegan loons here, yes, it is a myth. They >> >> continue to spew that all beef cows are fed only grains at >> >> feedlots all their lives. What part of that myth do you >> >> dispute? >> > >> > I don't promote any of that myth and I haven't seen anyone >> > else do so either. Now let's talk about chickens...... >> ======================== >> Sure, lets.... From this window I can see about a dozen >> roaming >> around our back yard/field right now. They especially love it >> after we mow... Plus there is a great blue heron at the edge >> of >> the pond... > > That's nice. And the cheap supermarket chickens? =================== Thanks for again proving you can't do anything except return to what you think is the worst meats, and never even consider the wrost veggies. Simple rule for simple mind..... > >> >> > >> >> >> which is all >> >> >> vegans rant about despite the fact that there are >> >> >> alternative >> >> >> meats. >> >> > >> >> > There are alternative methods of producing meat and dairy >> >> > that >> >> > are >> >> > considerably more compassionate and environmentally >> >> > responsible. >> >> ========================= >> >> Which vegans refuse to even acknowledge because their >> >> brainwashing relies solely on a simple rule for their >> >> simple >> >> minds. Instead they spew about micro grams in their mass >> >> produced, processed petro-chemical industry based foods. >> >> They >> >> care nothing about the massive amounts of dead bodies that >> >> are >> >> the result of those choices. Why is that? Hypocrisy, >> >> willful >> >> ignorance, or stupidity? >> >> >> >> >> >> > The fact that Joe also avoids these products does not >> >> > alter >> >> > the fact that he avoids the food products of animal based >> >> > factory >> >> > farming and thereby does something to reduce the >> >> > unnecessary >> >> > death and suffering of animals. >> >> ====================== >> >> To the detriment of what other animals, fool? He, and you, >> >> continue to focus only on what YOU believe happens in the >> >> meat >> >> industry and continue to ignore the far more brutal, >> >> inhumane >> >> deaths that occur in crop productions. Why is that? >> > >> > Why do you ignore that, unlike many farm animals, the wild >> > animals >> > lead decent lives before their deaths? >> =============================== >> Do they all? > > Well, they don't spend their lives in uncomfortable and > unhealthy > conditions where they are treated as machines. ============= Neither do the animals I eat, fool. And, on top of that they die far more humanely. > >> Mortality is very high for field animals even whrn >> not being sprayed and run over. But that aside, since you >> think >> they lived 'good lives' that makes it ok to slice, dice, >> shred, >> dis-member and poison them in the end? > > Of course not but neither are these brief periods of pain > comparable to the lifetime of discomfort suffered by some > factory farmed animals, poultry in particular. =================== Thanks for again proving you can't do anything except return to what you think is the worst meats, and never even consider the wrost veggies. Simple rule for simple mind..... > >> How does that work >> exactly in your head? >> >> >> Why do you ignore that the >> > same deaths associated with crop production are also >> > associated >> > with >> > livestock production? >> ============================ >> Which ones? The beef I eat is all grass fed. No hormones, no >> antibiotics. I just told you about chickens.... >> So, tell me where all the 'same' deaths are that are caused by >> crop production. > > Irrelevant to my claim that Joe is reducing the impact of his > diet, compared with someone who has no dietary ethics. He > avoids > the worst products. ==================== I contend that he does not, he follows only a simple rule for his simple mind. But the fact remains that vegans claim they DO ALL they can to reduce animal deaths, and all they really mean is what you call factory farmed meats. It's easy to show that the typical consumer-oriented mass consumption vegan diet is far worse than many vegan diets. > >> > >> >> What >> >> research have you, or any vegan done to spew as much about >> >> which >> >> veggies cause more deaths? You spend NO time comparing >> >> your >> >> own >> >> foods, because the simple rule for simple minds says it is >> >> automatically 'better.' How many animals are you, or any >> >> vegan >> >> willing to kill for a pound of rice? Potatoes? Brocolli? >> >> Why >> >> is it that vegans don't even care. Why do vegans spend so >> >> much >> >> energy processing veggies into a meat substitute despite >> >> the >> >> fact >> >> that many more animals die per pound than for some real >> >> meats? >> >> Again, hypocrisy, willful ignorabce, stupidity? >> > >> > I don't think you have reliable enough data to call that a >> > fact. >> ============================= >> LOL I asked you for YOURS. Where is it? Where is all that >> data >> that backs up the claims that being vegan automatically causes >> no/fewer/less deaths to animals? > > Becoming vegan reduces complicity in animal death and suffering > in exactly the same way that being a discerning omnivore does, > by eliminating the products that result in the most - factory > farmed meat! ================= Unproven assertion fool. Care to back it up? > >> The data I have provided are from sites from many sources, >> mostly >> colleges and government sites. All vegans ever seem to have >> are >> the same loony propaganda sites... > > So where is the data that proves that many more animals die per > pound > for meat 'substitutes' than they do for some meat products? > ========================= Nice strawman. Look at thge data for crop production, add in power generation and distribution and then compare it to grass-fed beef, fish, or game. ANY processed foods lose that comparison. >> > >> >> >> > You can argue that veganism is not the most effective >> >> >> > way to alleviate unnecessary death and suffering of >> >> >> > animals >> >> >> > but >> >> >> > to claim it does nothing is just silly. >> >> >> ============================= >> >> >> No, it's not. By just becomeing a 'vegan' wannbe does >> >> >> nothing >> >> >> to >> >> >> really reduce/eliminate unnecessary death and suffering. >> >> >> besides, there are NO vegans here on usenet... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Following a simple rule for your simple mind does >> >> >> >> nothing, >> >> >> >> hypocrite. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Personally I'm scrutinizing non-'vegetarian' food >> >> >> >> > product >> >> >> >> > ingredients >> >> >> >> > closely now and make an occasional catch of an >> >> >> >> > animal-additive >> >> >> >> > and off >> >> >> >> > my grocery list that item goes-it's a reasonable >> >> >> >> > ongoing >> >> >> >> > learning >> >> >> >> > process. >> >> >> >> ========================== >> >> >> >> Ah yes, the micro-pieces obsession of an eating >> >> >> >> disorder... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> A vegan doesn't need "cheese once a week" in place >> >> >> >> of >> >> >> >> meat >> >> >> >> > since there are alternate sources for similar >> >> >> >> > nutrition >> >> >> >> > found >> >> >> >> > in that >> >> >> >> > and other dairy products-otherwise by definition >> >> >> >> > that >> >> >> >> > once-a-week >> >> >> >> > cheese would take-on vegetarian status. >> >> >> >> ====================== >> >> >> >> ROTFLMAO These 'alternatives' cause far more brutal, >> >> >> >> inhumane >> >> >> >> deaths than is you just ate the real things you >> >> >> >> ignorant >> >> >> >> dolt. >> >> >> >> But then, you keep proving with each inane post that >> >> >> >> unnecessary >> >> >> >> animals death and suffering means nothing to you, >> >> >> >> killer. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 11:08:00 +0200, "Taemon" >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >>Joe wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> Why would you say impossible... many get by fine >> >> >> >> >>> as >> >> >> >> >>> vegan. >> >> >> >> >>> Just like >> >> >> >> >>> you can't be a little bit pregnant, you can't say >> >> >> >> >>> you're >> >> >> >> >>> 99.9% >> >> >> >> >>> vegan. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Of course you can. You have to. Animals are killed >> >> >> >> >>for >> >> >> >> >>the >> >> >> >> >>glue >> >> >> >> >>in >> >> >> >> >>your furniture, for the dye of your clothes, for >> >> >> >> >>the >> >> >> >> >>electricity of >> >> >> >> >>your computer. You can only do your best. And it's >> >> >> >> >>far >> >> >> >> >>better >> >> >> >> >>to eat a >> >> >> >> >>little bit of cheese once a week than to eat meat >> >> >> >> >>and >> >> >> >> >>diary >> >> >> >> >>every day. >> >> >> >> >>It's not an all-or-nothing matter. We don't have >> >> >> >> >>that >> >> >> >> >>much >> >> >> >> >>control. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>T. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > > |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
The 99% vegan
"Dave" > wrote in message ups.com... > > Joe wrote: >> On 25 Oct 2005 18:01:49 -0700, "Dave" > >> wrote: >> >> Maybe I shouldn't have trod into this thread, and should've >> let the >> vegans respond where it was applicable. I'm vegetarian and get >> by it >> fine as an alternative to not eating meat. Rick has a problem >> believing not eating meat is an unhealthy alternative. But it >> works >> for me very well and in the process I'm learning about proper >> nutritionary intake and the absurd delusionary attitudes >> hard-core >> meat 'cravers' cannot get over. Most of all in my small part >> I'd like >> to think I'm part of the process where common sense indicates >> animals >> needn't be slaughtered for human food consumption just because >> of the >> misguided notion repeatedly often chanted by meat-cravers >> "..But we >> need meat!" > > One thing for you to consider: If the objective is to reduce > your > complicity in animal death and suffering then would it not be > better > to be 99% vegan with 1% meat and fish than 100% vegetarian with > 10% > milk and eggs? >======================= or any percent processed foods, flours, surgars, tofu.... |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
The 99% vegan
Well Dave, I do understand your point, but no meat or fish for me personally ever again, no eggs too- [recently]. Milk may be off my diet too. I can't say I see how the '99% /1%' option you alluded to applies to someone who'd rather see that creature living out a natural as possible life instead of on my plate. I'm the kind of person who takes spiders outside my home rather than squish 'em. Maybe I sound off at you harshly Rick, but I don't hate you. Just having a go at you the way you fly off at others; more like jousting with you, Yes, I have in my diet a percentage [well below the standard household compliment] of processed food - albeit the types not heavily processed. ie.no canned food [0%] .... On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 01:24:40 GMT, "rick" > wrote: > >"Dave" > wrote in message oups.com... >> >> Joe wrote: >>> On 25 Oct 2005 18:01:49 -0700, "Dave" > >>> wrote: >>> >>> Maybe I shouldn't have trod into this thread, and should've >>> let the >>> vegans respond where it was applicable. I'm vegetarian and get >>> by it >>> fine as an alternative to not eating meat. Rick has a problem >>> believing not eating meat is an unhealthy alternative. But it >>> works >>> for me very well and in the process I'm learning about proper >>> nutritionary intake and the absurd delusionary attitudes >>> hard-core >>> meat 'cravers' cannot get over. Most of all in my small part >>> I'd like >>> to think I'm part of the process where common sense indicates >>> animals >>> needn't be slaughtered for human food consumption just because >>> of the >>> misguided notion repeatedly often chanted by meat-cravers >>> "..But we >>> need meat!" >> >> One thing for you to consider: If the objective is to reduce >> your >> complicity in animal death and suffering then would it not be >> better >> to be 99% vegan with 1% meat and fish than 100% vegetarian with >> 10% >> milk and eggs? >>======================= >or any percent processed foods, flours, surgars, tofu.... > > |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
The 99% vegan
Troll or not he's obviously here to stay, and without provocation or
not he intends to make his mark unwarranted or not. The problem may lie in overblowing Ricky's comments out of proportion. You really don't have to read any post he makes. I choose to. On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:47:49 +0200, "Taemon" > wrote: " > >Exactly my point. Apart from that, could you stop feeding the trolls, >please? > >T. > |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
The 99% vegan
Joe wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:47:49 +0200, "Taemon" > > wrote: >> Exactly my point. Apart from that, could you stop feeding the >> trolls, >> please? > Troll or not he's obviously here to stay, and without provocation or > not he intends to make his mark unwarranted or not. The problem may > lie in overblowing Ricky's comments out of proportion. You really > don't have to read any post he makes. I choose to. Point is, in that case everyone who has killfiled the trolls will still see their posts, unless they killfile you, too. And that would be a shame. I'm not telling anyone what to do, even if I could. I just would like to nudge this group back to, you know, food. T. |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
The 99% vegan
Dave wrote:
> Taemon wrote: >> Dave wrote: >>> If it becomes clear that this is the general feeling >>> of the group then I shall confine my troll feeding to aaev and tpa >>> in future. Of course no one is forcing you to read my discussions >>> with those you consider trolls.... >> Of course not, and you are in no way obliged to pay heed to my >> little >> request. I just would like to save this group. It used to be much >> better. > What sort of discussions took place in the good old days? Food! Food food food! Tons of recipes of course, and tips; questions about "what do I do with <some vegetable>". Support when it's tough. Shoulders to cry on when your co-workers take you to a KFC since apparently, chicken is not meat. Talk about health aspects. Teasing and other fun. Massive ignoring of trolls. Recipes! Recipes! And fighting about top-posting, of course :-) T. |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
The 99% vegan
Taemon wrote: > Dave wrote: > > > Taemon wrote: > >> Dave wrote: > >>> If it becomes clear that this is the general feeling > >>> of the group then I shall confine my troll feeding to aaev and tpa > >>> in future. Of course no one is forcing you to read my discussions > >>> with those you consider trolls.... > >> Of course not, and you are in no way obliged to pay heed to my > >> little > >> request. I just would like to save this group. It used to be much > >> better. > > What sort of discussions took place in the good old days? > > Food! Food food food! Tons of recipes of course, and tips; questions > about "what do I do with <some vegetable>". Support when it's tough. > Shoulders to cry on when your co-workers take you to a KFC since > apparently, chicken is not meat. Talk about health aspects. Teasing > and other fun. Massive ignoring of trolls. Recipes! Recipes! And > fighting about top-posting, of course :-) Sounds good. I quite like arguing over the ethics as well but no point in making this group a clone of aaev. I shall move the offending part of this thread over. > > T. |
|
Posted to alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
The 99% vegan
Dave wrote:
> Taemon wrote: >> Dave wrote: >>> What sort of discussions took place in the good old days? >> Food! Food food food! Tons of recipes of course, and tips; >> questions >> about "what do I do with <some vegetable>". Support when it's >> tough. >> Shoulders to cry on when your co-workers take you to a KFC since >> apparently, chicken is not meat. Talk about health aspects. Teasing >> and other fun. Massive ignoring of trolls. Recipes! Recipes! And >> fighting about top-posting, of course :-) > Sounds good. I quite like arguing over the ethics as well but > no point in making this group a clone of aaev. I shall move > the offending part of this thread over. Thank you! <bows> T. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
