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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-11-2005, 10:49 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

RobDar wrote:
Does anyone still watch Jerry Springer?


Skanky probably does. She doesn't seem to do much else with her life but
get stoned and watch tv and pretend she's saving animals by eating
imported foods.

There are a fair number of folks who think that crap is real...and the way
it is!


Stop top-posting, you putz.

For benefit of those who missed this show (or who turned it off early
because she felt picked on again), here's a brief summary. This show
would benefit anyone who's never had the misfortune of encountering a
vegan. It showed what vegans are like, what they think and believe, and
how they interact with normal people.

The vegan wife, Jackie, forces her entire household (including the cat)
to consume a raw vegan diet. Her actions extend beyond herself and her
household: she protests meat and hands out leaflets to strangers on the
street in an attempt to get them to live according to her peculiar
"principles." Part of those principles at home included getting rid of
their stove and many of their possessions; her home became increasingly
spartan as she sank deeper into her kooky vegan abyss.

The best way to explain her average day is that she focuses on the
things most out of her control and avoids dealing with the things most
within her control. Her husband Harold WANTS to eat meat but fears doing
so for the consequences he'd face from Jackie (note: he expressed no
fear of consequences to his health from it). Harold also overworks to
avoid coming home because Jackie is too busy navel-gazing, sun-gazing,
bitching, domineering, and protesting to clean house or do other mundane
things; he's adopted the role of housemaid by default. The whole family
were kind of drifting apart and becoming more dysfunctional, with Harold
and the daughter afraid to speak up about any of the changes (dietary,
anti-"decorating," etc.).

Jackie ends up trading places with a wife from a family who hunt out of
necessity. With her vegan psyche already very weak and fragile, Jackie
assesses her new situation by going through the fridge (filled with
meat) and the home (filled with taxidermy). As most vegans are, she's
condescending in sizing up her new family. To her credit, though, I
didn't think she was nearly as condescending as the vegan witch Barbara
from Fox's _Trading Spouses_ last year.

During one memorable segment, Jackie became emotional -- nearly
hysterical -- trying to explain how difficult it was for her to go to an
all raw diet. She offered some psychobabble comparing the whole
experience to alcoholism. To that bizarre melodrama, the other husband
(Ricky) apologized and said he didn't realize it would be so traumatic
for her.

As in the _Trading Spouses_ episodes on Fox in this vein last year, the
vegan wife felt compelled to show her new family some videos from animal
rights groups even after preaching to them about veganism for an entire
week. Jackie became an emotional wreck while watching them, even though
she said she's seen them many times before. Though the kids were briefly
stunned by such portrayals of farming (which are atypical), they didn't
exactly embrace the idea of eating nuts and fruits.

Ultimately, her attempts to convert the family in Kentucky failed. Since
the swap, they've added more vegetables to their meals but haven't given
up hunting or eating meat. Meanwhile, Jackie's kept the stove Bobbi (the
normal wife who ended up having to deal with milquetoast Harold) had
brought in and has even resumed eating some cooked foods. She admitted
maybe she was taking things too far. I'm sure her husband agrees she
*had* taken things too far, even if he lacks the courage to tell her how
****ed up he really thinks she is.

The moral of the story is that vegans DO take things too far. They try
to proselytize others, and they're usually very emotional and aggressive
about it. They think they're doing something virtuous and informative by
telling others not to eat meat, but vegans always end up coming across
as emotive, uninformed jackasses.

I also think vegans should go on more shows like this. First, it's very
entertaining. Second, it's illuminating for the wider population --
especially those in areas without or with very few vegans. Finally, it's
therapeutic in the sense that vegans on these shows seem to benefit from
interacting with *normal* people. For example, Jackie is again eating
cooked food. The vegan mother in the Fox show (Barbara) even ate meat
with the Cajun family.


You are assuming all vegans are like
each other. It's like watching Jerry
Springer and coming to the conclusion
that all couples have bizarre problems.


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






  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-11-2005, 10:52 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

RobDar top-posted:
You are right C.J....the question is...do they hurt anyone?


Yes. Themselves. Those to whom they peddle lies. Animals. Etc.

...
and you are right...all of this is okay...but as Mark Twain said...


He WROTE.

the
weakest of all things is a virtue that has not been tested in fire.


Why, you simple creatures, the weakest of all weak things is a
virtue which has not been tested in the fire.
-- "The Man that Corrupted Hadleyburg"

...
  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 16-11-2005, 11:17 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode


"RobDar" wrote in message
...
issue of cd's? not sure I am following....

================
Collateral deaths. Vegetables are full of them. Millions upon
millions upon millions of animals die in crop production. Vegans
never seem to look at that issue. In this case, I would say that
overall the hunter family was causing fewer animal deaths for
their diets than the fruitcake vegan loons. One deer could feed
the family many meals for that one death. All vegans seem to
have is a simple rule for their simple minds, 'eat no meat.'
They never take into account the death and suffering that takes
place for their foods, and so they never compare any of their
foods to each other.




"Dutch" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
"Beach Runner" wrote

A typical US post, taking one example and making every VEG*N
one behavior. How prejudicial and bigoted.


The family had to be typical of raw-food vegan/ ARAs.

Obviously the producers sought extremists to make the sure
more interesting.


The other family were extreme also, hunting every day and
eating mostly meat.

The vegan family shopped at a local market, imported nuts,
fruit, vegetables, seeds, etc.. while the hunters got most of
their food from the local woods. The issue of cds never came
up, but I am quite sure that once the hidden collateral cost
in animal death and suffering was tallied up, the hunter
family would fare quite well by comparison.






  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-11-2005, 12:14 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Beach Runner
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode



usual suspect wrote:

Beach Runner wrote:

For benefit of those who missed this show (or who turned it off early
because she felt picked on again), here's a brief summary. This show
would benefit anyone who's never had the misfortune of encountering a
vegan. It showed what vegans are like, what they think and believe,
and how they interact with normal people.

Many people consider these reality shows the mark of stupidity.



The vegan wife, Jackie, forces her entire household (including the
cat) to consume a raw vegan diet. Her actions extend beyond herself
and her household: she protests meat and hands out leaflets to
strangers on the street in an attempt to get them to live according
to her peculiar "principles." Part of those principles at home
included getting rid of their stove and many of their possessions;
her home became increasingly spartan as she sank deeper into her
kooky vegan abyss.


She's obviously obsessed and not typical.
The best way to explain her average day is that she focuses on the
things most out of her control and avoids dealing with the things
most within her control. Her husband Harold WANTS to eat meat but
fears doing so for the consequences he'd face from Jackie (note: he
expressed no fear of consequences to his health from it). Harold also
overworks to avoid coming home because Jackie is too busy
navel-gazing, sun-gazing, bitching, domineering, and protesting to
clean house or do other mundane things; he's adopted the role of
housemaid by default. The whole family were kind of drifting apart
and becoming more dysfunctional, with Harold and the daughter afraid
to speak up about any of the changes (dietary, anti-"decorating," etc.).

There are crazy vegans. The show found one. It increased their ratings.

Jackie ends up trading places with a wife from a family who hunt out
of necessity. With her vegan psyche already very weak and fragile,
Jackie assesses her new situation by going through the fridge (filled
with meat) and the home (filled with taxidermy). As most vegans are,
she's condescending in sizing up her new family. To her credit,
though, I didn't think she was nearly as condescending as the vegan
witch Barbara from Fox's _Trading Spouses_ last year.

During one memorable segment, Jackie became emotional -- nearly
hysterical -- trying to explain how difficult it was for her to go to
an all raw diet. She offered some psychobabble comparing the whole
experience to alcoholism. To that bizarre melodrama, the other
husband (Ricky) apologized and said he didn't realize it would be so
traumatic for her.

As in the _Trading Spouses_ episodes on Fox in this vein last year,
the vegan wife felt compelled to show her new family some videos from
animal rights groups even after preaching to them about veganism for
an entire week. Jackie became an emotional wreck while watching them,
even though she said she's seen them many times before. Though the
kids were briefly stunned by such portrayals of farming (which are
atypical), they didn't exactly embrace the idea of eating nuts and
fruits.

Ultimately, her attempts to convert the family in Kentucky failed.
Since the swap, they've added more vegetables to their meals but
haven't given up hunting or eating meat. Meanwhile, Jackie's kept the
stove Bobbi (the normal wife who ended up having to deal with
milquetoast Harold) had brought in and has even resumed eating some
cooked foods. She admitted maybe she was taking things too far. I'm
sure her husband agrees she *had* taken things too far, even if he
lacks the courage to tell her how ****ed up he really thinks she is.

The moral of the story is that vegans DO take things too far. They
try to proselytize others, and they're usually very emotional and
aggressive about it. They think they're doing something virtuous and
informative by telling others not to eat meat, but vegans always end
up coming across as emotive, uninformed jackasses.

You take an extreme example and make it the rule.

I also think vegans should go on more shows like this. First, it's
very entertaining. Second, it's illuminating for the wider population
-- especially those in areas without or with very few vegans.
Finally, it's therapeutic in the sense that vegans on these shows
seem to benefit from interacting with *normal* people. For example,
Jackie is again eating cooked food. The vegan mother in the Fox show
(Barbara) even ate meat with the Cajun family.






A typical US post, taking one example and making every VEG*N one
behavior.



The Koplin family from Arizona are much more typical of vegans,
especially raw faddists, than they're atypical.


Hardly. I know many vegans. I can enjoy a wonderful meal with my
father, who's still fishing and riding his bike close to 80s.


Exercise is the fountain of youth.

And your stuff about old geezer is absurd. Yes, I got hit on a
residential street by a car going 90 mph, but a week before it I was 49
and running 10K races at 7 minute miles and pushing weights. I'm back to
running shorter distances, and using machines, but I am doing what it
takes to recover. Your insults are bizarre.

My hair may be gray, but I don't take a bottle of shoe polish. Had I
not been so young and healthy for my age I would have died. My blood
chemistry is great and my organs are all young and healthy.

And I don't feel a need to go to a group of people and be the nastiest
person I've run into.

How prejudicial and bigoted.



Vegans ARE prejudiced bigots.


Some might be. You are.
Obviously the producers sought extremists to make the sure more
interesting.



Irrelevant. I pointed out that the inclusion of nuts makes shows like
this more interesting (see my first point in the last paragraph, dumb
ass). Vegans are kooks. They're extremists. They don't mesh well with
normal people. That's why they tend to make shows like this interesting
and amusing.

No, they took very extreme cases to raise their ratings.
  #20 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-11-2005, 02:49 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

Beach Runner wrote:
For benefit of those who missed this show (or who turned it off
early because she felt picked on again), here's a brief summary.
This show would benefit anyone who's never had the misfortune of
encountering a vegan. It showed what vegans are like, what they
think and believe, and how they interact with normal people.


Many people consider these reality shows the mark of stupidity.


Your posts set a new watermark for stupidity. Congratulations.

The vegan wife, Jackie, forces her entire household (including the
cat) to consume a raw vegan diet. Her actions extend beyond herself
and her household: she protests meat and hands out leaflets to
strangers on the street in an attempt to get them to live according
to her peculiar "principles." Part of those principles at home
included getting rid of their stove and many of their possessions;
her home became increasingly spartan as she sank deeper into her
kooky vegan abyss.


She's obviously obsessed


Veganism IS an obsession.

and not typical.


Ipse dixit. Since veganism is an obsessive eating disorder, it's fair to
assume Jackie is representative of most (if not all) vegans. I noted
before that there may be differences of degree, but there's not much
deviation beyond the norm.

The best way to explain her average day is that she focuses on the
things most out of her control and avoids dealing with the things
most within her control. Her husband Harold WANTS to eat meat but
fears doing so for the consequences he'd face from Jackie (note: he
expressed no fear of consequences to his health from it). Harold
also overworks to avoid coming home because Jackie is too busy
navel-gazing, sun-gazing, bitching, domineering, and protesting to
clean house or do other mundane things; he's adopted the role of
housemaid by default. The whole family were kind of drifting apart
and becoming more dysfunctional, with Harold and the daughter afraid
to speak up about any of the changes (dietary, anti-"decorating,"
etc.).


There are crazy vegans.


Veganism is either a mental disorder on its own or a symptom of
underlying mental issues. People who want to be vegan, including you and
Skanky, are mentally unwell.

Jackie ends up trading places with a wife from a family who hunt out
of necessity. With her vegan psyche already very weak and fragile,
Jackie assesses her new situation by going through the fridge
(filled with meat) and the home (filled with taxidermy). As most
vegans are, she's condescending in sizing up her new family. To her
credit, though, I didn't think she was nearly as condescending as
the vegan witch Barbara from Fox's _Trading Spouses_ last year.

During one memorable segment, Jackie became emotional -- nearly
hysterical -- trying to explain how difficult it was for her to go
to an all raw diet. She offered some psychobabble comparing the
whole experience to alcoholism. To that bizarre melodrama, the other
husband (Ricky) apologized and said he didn't realize it would be so
traumatic for her.

As in the _Trading Spouses_ episodes on Fox in this vein last year,
the vegan wife felt compelled to show her new family some videos
from animal rights groups even after preaching to them about
veganism for an entire week. Jackie became an emotional wreck while
watching them, even though she said she's seen them many times
before. Though the kids were briefly stunned by such portrayals of
farming (which are atypical), they didn't exactly embrace the idea
of eating nuts and fruits.

Ultimately, her attempts to convert the family in Kentucky failed.
Since the swap, they've added more vegetables to their meals but
haven't given up hunting or eating meat. Meanwhile, Jackie's kept
the stove Bobbi (the normal wife who ended up having to deal with
milquetoast Harold) had brought in and has even resumed eating some
cooked foods. She admitted maybe she was taking things too far. I'm
sure her husband agrees she *had* taken things too far, even if he
lacks the courage to tell her how ****ed up he really thinks she is.

The moral of the story is that vegans DO take things too far. They
try to proselytize others, and they're usually very emotional and
aggressive about it. They think they're doing something virtuous and
informative by telling others not to eat meat, but vegans always end
up coming across as emotive, uninformed jackasses.


You take an extreme example and make it the rule.


Veganism IS an extreme. It is the rule.

I also think vegans should go on more shows like this. First, it's
very entertaining. Second, it's illuminating for the wider
population -- especially those in areas without or with very few
vegans. Finally, it's therapeutic in the sense that vegans on these
shows seem to benefit from interacting with *normal* people. For
example, Jackie is again eating cooked food. The vegan mother in the
Fox show (Barbara) even ate meat with the Cajun family.

A typical US post, taking one example and making every VEG*N one
behavior.


The Koplin family from Arizona are much more typical of vegans,
especially raw faddists, than they're atypical.


Hardly. I know many vegans. I can enjoy a wonderful meal with my
father, who's still fishing and riding his bike close to 80s.


Your father isn't a vegan, dipshit. Vegans don't fish. Recreational
fishing is one of the targets of their irrational, misplaced, uninformed
anger.

Exercise is the fountain of youth.


Exercise isn't the issue at hand, nor is it something about which we
disagree (for the most part).

And your stuff about old geezer is absurd.


No, you're a doddering old coot. You can't keep straight your list of
"bullies" so you confuse the AMA for FDA, and then you continue your
bullshit by suggesting one or both is a "monopoly" even after being
given the definition of that word. Your posts ramble, they occasionally
are on topic, and too frequently they have NOTHING to do with the
subject. You ARE a geezer.

My hair may be gray,


I don't give a shit if it's purple or green or if you have enough
piercings to set off a metal detector three miles away. I'm complaining
about your slovenly style of posting and your dissheveled use of the
English language, not about your damn hair or appearance.

And I don't feel a need to go to a group of people and be the nastiest
person I've run into.


Then don't. No one's asked you to do that.

How prejudicial and bigoted.




Vegans ARE prejudiced bigots.


Some might be.


They all are. It's part of the mindset that drives someone to assume
moral superiority by what does or doesn't get chewed and swallowed.

Obviously the producers sought extremists to make the sure more
interesting.


Irrelevant. I pointed out that the inclusion of nuts makes shows like
this more interesting (see my first point in the last paragraph, dumb
ass). Vegans are kooks. They're extremists. They don't mesh well with
normal people. That's why they tend to make shows like this
interesting and amusing.


No, they took very extreme cases to raise their ratings.


That's why I suggested more shows with vegans, because veganism is an
extreme and its adherents are extremists.


  #21 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-11-2005, 03:27 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
RobDar
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

a very interesting stance...I cannot say that I am well enough educated on
the topic to comment intelligently...but believe me, I am going to look into
this!
"Dutch" wrote in message
news:[email protected]

"RobDar" wrote
issue of cd's? not sure I am following....


cds = The collateral death and suffering caused to animals by various
processes, in the case of commercial agriculture, the use of machines for
ploughing, seeding, spraying and harvesting of crops, and the use of
organic and inorganic chemicals for the elimination of pests and weeds.
The animals harmed can be larger mammals like deer, gophers, and rabbits,
also smaller mammals such as mice and other rodents such as shrews, moles
and voles. Then there are ground birds, lizards, frogs, and in the case of
poisoning, any animal that predates on them. We may even consider bees,
ants, spiders, grasshoppers, worms, and other animals of that genre,
vegans certainly consider them in their frequent semi-conscious moral
calculations. The collateral death toll to animals in food production
arguably dwarfs the number of direct deaths of livestock in food
production. This all means that the diet of the typical (sub)urban vegan
or vegetarian who shops in supermarkets could easily be related to more
animal death and suffering than a family who subsists largely on hunting.
These often ignored facts cast doubt on the vegan thought process which
concludes that consuming even a small amount of animal "product" is a
moral stain on one's character.

The vegan moral calculation is embodied in the following fallacy, called
"Denying the Antecedent":
1) Animal products cause animal suffering
2) I abstain from animal products, therefore
3) I don't cause animal suffering




"Dutch" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
"Beach Runner" wrote

A typical US post, taking one example and making every VEG*N one
behavior. How prejudicial and bigoted.

The family had to be typical of raw-food vegan/ ARAs.

Obviously the producers sought extremists to make the sure more
interesting.

The other family were extreme also, hunting every day and eating mostly
meat.

The vegan family shopped at a local market, imported nuts, fruit,
vegetables, seeds, etc.. while the hunters got most of their food from
the local woods. The issue of cds never came up, but I am quite sure
that once the hidden collateral cost in animal death and suffering was
tallied up, the hunter family would fare quite well by comparison.








  #22 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-11-2005, 10:04 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

"RobDar" wrote
a very interesting stance...I cannot say that I am well enough educated on
the topic to comment intelligently


A very refreshing outlook, you obviously aren't a vegan.

....but believe me, I am going to look into
this!


There is not much documentation on collateral deaths of animals. Up until
recently it seemed like an irrelevant statistic. Here is one web page that
discusses this issue
http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm

"Dutch" wrote in message
news:[email protected]

"RobDar" wrote
issue of cd's? not sure I am following....


cds = The collateral death and suffering caused to animals by various
processes, in the case of commercial agriculture, the use of machines for
ploughing, seeding, spraying and harvesting of crops, and the use of
organic and inorganic chemicals for the elimination of pests and weeds.
The animals harmed can be larger mammals like deer, gophers, and rabbits,
also smaller mammals such as mice and other rodents such as shrews, moles
and voles. Then there are ground birds, lizards, frogs, and in the case
of poisoning, any animal that predates on them. We may even consider
bees, ants, spiders, grasshoppers, worms, and other animals of that
genre, vegans certainly consider them in their frequent semi-conscious
moral calculations. The collateral death toll to animals in food
production arguably dwarfs the number of direct deaths of livestock in
food production. This all means that the diet of the typical (sub)urban
vegan or vegetarian who shops in supermarkets could easily be related to
more animal death and suffering than a family who subsists largely on
hunting. These often ignored facts cast doubt on the vegan thought
process which concludes that consuming even a small amount of animal
"product" is a moral stain on one's character.

The vegan moral calculation is embodied in the following fallacy, called
"Denying the Antecedent":
1) Animal products cause animal suffering
2) I abstain from animal products, therefore
3) I don't cause animal suffering




"Dutch" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
"Beach Runner" wrote

A typical US post, taking one example and making every VEG*N one
behavior. How prejudicial and bigoted.

The family had to be typical of raw-food vegan/ ARAs.

Obviously the producers sought extremists to make the sure more
interesting.

The other family were extreme also, hunting every day and eating mostly
meat.

The vegan family shopped at a local market, imported nuts, fruit,
vegetables, seeds, etc.. while the hunters got most of their food from
the local woods. The issue of cds never came up, but I am quite sure
that once the hidden collateral cost in animal death and suffering was
tallied up, the hunter family would fare quite well by comparison.










  #23 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 17-11-2005, 11:03 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode


"RobDar" wrote in message
...
a very interesting stance...I cannot say that I am well enough
educated on the topic to comment intelligently...but believe me,
I am going to look into this!



Here's a few sites to start your research..


http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm
http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm
http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html
http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/news...00/nitrate.htm
http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/P...carbofuran.htm
http://www.nwf.org/internationalwildlife/hawk.html
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm
http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/p...eFactSheet.pdf
http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_Wildl...on/pg7f2b6.htm
http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html
http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com.../leastharm.htm
http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html
http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/
http://ipm.ncsu.edu/wildlife/small_grains_wildlife.html
http://www.gbr.wwf.org.au/content/problem/sugarcane.htm
http://www.wildlifetrustofindia.org/...ele_poison.htm
http://species.fws.gov/bio_rhin.html
http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html
http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html
http://www.hornedlizards.org/hornedlizards/help.html
http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/bulletins/b-5093.html
http://www.orst.edu/dept/ncs/newsarc...00/nitrate.htm
http://www.orst.edu/instruct/fw251/n...riculture.html
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn35/pn35p6.html
http://www.greenenergyohio.org/defau...iew&pageID=135
http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/capandtrade/power.pdf
http://www.nirs.org/licensedtokill/L...xecsummary.pdf
http://www.towerkill.com/index.html
http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/issues/towers/towers.htm
http://www.abcbirds.org/policy/towerkill.htm
http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/pae/es_ma...ticle_22.mhtml
http://www.netwalk.com/~vireo/devastatingtoll.html
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...7697992.htm?1c
http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/energy...00-01-019.html
http://www.repp.org/repp_pubs/articl.../04impacts.htm
http://www.wvrivers.org/anker-upshur.htm
http://www.fisheries.org/html/Public...nts/ps_2.shtml
http://www.powerscorecard.org/issue_...cfm?issue_id=5
http://www.safesecurevital.org/artic...012012004.html

http://www.cgfi.org/materials/key_pu...oxic_Tools.pdf
http://www.ontarioprofessionals.com/organic.htm
http://hgic.clemson.edu/factsheets/HGIC2756.htm
http://www.biotech-info.net/deadly_chemicals.html
http://www.agnr.umd.edu/ipmnet/4-2art1.htm
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environmen...ing_annex1.pdf


problems with cotton.
http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html
http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/
http://www.gbr.wwf.org.au/content/problem/cotton.htm

To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a field,
here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that there
can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field.
http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache...state.edu/pubs
/natres/06507.pdf+%22voles+per+acre%22+field&hl=en&ie=UTF8
http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf
http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html
http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html


here's are a couple
dealing with power and communications.
http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html
http://www.towerkill.com/index.html








"Dutch" wrote in message
news:[email protected]

"RobDar" wrote
issue of cd's? not sure I am following....


cds = The collateral death and suffering caused to animals by
various processes, in the case of commercial agriculture, the
use of machines for ploughing, seeding, spraying and
harvesting of crops, and the use of organic and inorganic
chemicals for the elimination of pests and weeds. The animals
harmed can be larger mammals like deer, gophers, and rabbits,
also smaller mammals such as mice and other rodents such as
shrews, moles and voles. Then there are ground birds, lizards,
frogs, and in the case of poisoning, any animal that predates
on them. We may even consider bees, ants, spiders,
grasshoppers, worms, and other animals of that genre, vegans
certainly consider them in their frequent semi-conscious moral
calculations. The collateral death toll to animals in food
production arguably dwarfs the number of direct deaths of
livestock in food production. This all means that the diet of
the typical (sub)urban vegan or vegetarian who shops in
supermarkets could easily be related to more animal death and
suffering than a family who subsists largely on hunting. These
often ignored facts cast doubt on the vegan thought process
which concludes that consuming even a small amount of animal
"product" is a moral stain on one's character.

The vegan moral calculation is embodied in the following
fallacy, called "Denying the Antecedent":
1) Animal products cause animal suffering
2) I abstain from animal products, therefore
3) I don't cause animal suffering




"Dutch" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
"Beach Runner" wrote

A typical US post, taking one example and making every
VEG*N one behavior. How prejudicial and bigoted.

The family had to be typical of raw-food vegan/ ARAs.

Obviously the producers sought extremists to make the sure
more interesting.

The other family were extreme also, hunting every day and
eating mostly meat.

The vegan family shopped at a local market, imported nuts,
fruit, vegetables, seeds, etc.. while the hunters got most
of their food from the local woods. The issue of cds never
came up, but I am quite sure that once the hidden collateral
cost in animal death and suffering was tallied up, the
hunter family would fare quite well by comparison.










  #24 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-11-2005, 01:58 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Leif Erikson
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

rick wrote:
"RobDar" wrote in message
...
a very interesting stance...I cannot say that I am well enough
educated on the topic to comment intelligently...but believe me,
I am going to look into this!



Here's a few sites to start your research..


That's a pretty impressive list! How did you come up with all of them?

I picked one more or less at random,
http://www.panna.org/resources/docum...Cotton.dv.html,
and saw some staggering numbers:

Fish killed by pesticide run-off: In 1995, pesticide-contaminated
runoff from cotton fields killed at least 240,000 fish in Alabama.
Shortly after farmers had applied pesticides containing endosulfan and
methyl parathion to cotton fields, heavy rains washed them into the
water. The Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries stated that
there was no indication that the pesticides were applied in an illegal
manner.

Livestock: Meat and milk contaminated by pesticide-laden cotton straw.
In 1994, Australian beef was found to be contaminated with the cotton
insecticide Helix® (chlorfluazuron), most likely because cattle had
been fed contaminated cotton straw. In response, several countries
suspended beef imports from Australia. One year later, farmers were
alarmed to discover that newborn calves were also contaminated with
Helix, apparently because it was passed through their mother's milk. In
a similar case, 23 farms in New South Wales and Queensland were placed
in quarantine after inspectors discovered high levels of endosulfan in
beef cattle, possibly due to endosulfan spray drift contaminating
grazing land. Since 1987, Australian beef exporters have lost millions
of dollars due to concerns about chemical contamination.

Birds: It has been estimated that pesticides unintentionally kill at
least 67 million birds in the U.S. each year, and it's likely they
kill many more. Estimates of bird kills from pesticides are notoriously
low because many birds remain hidden in brush, are carried away by
scavengers or die away from treated areas where they won't be
counted. In one case, a breeding colony of laughing gulls near Corpus
Christi, Texas, was devastated when methyl parathion was applied to
cotton three miles away. More than 100 dead adults were found and 25%
of the colony's chicks were killed.

  #25 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-11-2005, 02:23 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode


"Leif Erikson" wrote in message
oups.com...
rick wrote:
"RobDar" wrote in message
...
a very interesting stance...I cannot say that I am well enough
educated on the topic to comment intelligently...but believe
me,
I am going to look into this!



Here's a few sites to start your research..


That's a pretty impressive list! How did you come up with all of
them?
==============================
Just from my various research on the subject. I did just go
through the list to verify links and found several links no
longer work, so I will have to rebuild it.

The numbers are amazing given the fact that nobody is really
researching the total problem. many of these are just results of
specific occurances, and no industry-wide research seems to be
done. But then, there really has been no cry for that research.
The farmers have no incentive to do it, the petro-chemical
industry has no incentive to do it, and the Gob has no real
incentive to do it. The only that should care, vegan/AR loons,
and demand these studies are strangly quite on the issue. Of
course, it would blow their house of cards down and destroy their
simple rule for their simple minds.



I picked one more or less at random,
http://www.panna.org/resources/docum...Cotton.dv.html,
and saw some staggering numbers:

Fish killed by pesticide run-off: In 1995, pesticide-contaminated
runoff from cotton fields killed at least 240,000 fish in
Alabama.
Shortly after farmers had applied pesticides containing
endosulfan and
methyl parathion to cotton fields, heavy rains washed them into
the
water. The Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries
stated that
there was no indication that the pesticides were applied in an
illegal
manner.

Livestock: Meat and milk contaminated by pesticide-laden cotton
straw.
In 1994, Australian beef was found to be contaminated with the
cotton
insecticide Helix® (chlorfluazuron), most likely because cattle
had
been fed contaminated cotton straw. In response, several
countries
suspended beef imports from Australia. One year later, farmers
were
alarmed to discover that newborn calves were also contaminated
with
Helix, apparently because it was passed through their mother's
milk. In
a similar case, 23 farms in New South Wales and Queensland were
placed
in quarantine after inspectors discovered high levels of
endosulfan in
beef cattle, possibly due to endosulfan spray drift contaminating
grazing land. Since 1987, Australian beef exporters have lost
millions
of dollars due to concerns about chemical contamination.

Birds: It has been estimated that pesticides unintentionally kill
at
least 67 million birds in the U.S. each year, and it's likely
they
kill many more. Estimates of bird kills from pesticides are
notoriously
low because many birds remain hidden in brush, are carried away
by
scavengers or die away from treated areas where they won't be
counted. In one case, a breeding colony of laughing gulls near
Corpus
Christi, Texas, was devastated when methyl parathion was applied
to
cotton three miles away. More than 100 dead adults were found and
25%
of the colony's chicks were killed.




  #26 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-11-2005, 02:14 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
RobDar
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

A few sites??? LOL!
"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

"RobDar" wrote in message
...
a very interesting stance...I cannot say that I am well enough educated on
the topic to comment intelligently...but believe me, I am going to look
into this!



Here's a few sites to start your research..


http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm
http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm
http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html
http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/news...00/nitrate.htm
http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/P...carbofuran.htm
http://www.nwf.org/internationalwildlife/hawk.html
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm
http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/p...eFactSheet.pdf
http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_Wildl...on/pg7f2b6.htm
http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html
http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com.../leastharm.htm
http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html
http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/
http://ipm.ncsu.edu/wildlife/small_grains_wildlife.html
http://www.gbr.wwf.org.au/content/problem/sugarcane.htm
http://www.wildlifetrustofindia.org/...ele_poison.htm
http://species.fws.gov/bio_rhin.html
http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html
http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html
http://www.hornedlizards.org/hornedlizards/help.html
http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/bulletins/b-5093.html
http://www.orst.edu/dept/ncs/newsarc...00/nitrate.htm
http://www.orst.edu/instruct/fw251/n...riculture.html
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn35/pn35p6.html
http://www.greenenergyohio.org/defau...iew&pageID=135
http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/capandtrade/power.pdf
http://www.nirs.org/licensedtokill/L...xecsummary.pdf
http://www.towerkill.com/index.html
http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/issues/towers/towers.htm
http://www.abcbirds.org/policy/towerkill.htm
http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/pae/es_ma...ticle_22.mhtml
http://www.netwalk.com/~vireo/devastatingtoll.html
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...7697992.htm?1c
http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/energy...00-01-019.html
http://www.repp.org/repp_pubs/articl.../04impacts.htm
http://www.wvrivers.org/anker-upshur.htm
http://www.fisheries.org/html/Public...nts/ps_2.shtml
http://www.powerscorecard.org/issue_...cfm?issue_id=5
http://www.safesecurevital.org/artic...012012004.html

http://www.cgfi.org/materials/key_pu...oxic_Tools.pdf
http://www.ontarioprofessionals.com/organic.htm
http://hgic.clemson.edu/factsheets/HGIC2756.htm
http://www.biotech-info.net/deadly_chemicals.html
http://www.agnr.umd.edu/ipmnet/4-2art1.htm
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environmen...ing_annex1.pdf


problems with cotton.
http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html
http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/
http://www.gbr.wwf.org.au/content/problem/cotton.htm

To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a field,
here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that there
can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field.
http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache...state.edu/pubs
/natres/06507.pdf+%22voles+per+acre%22+field&hl=en&ie=UTF8
http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf
http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html
http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html


here's are a couple
dealing with power and communications.
http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html
http://www.towerkill.com/index.html








"Dutch" wrote in message
news:[email protected]

"RobDar" wrote
issue of cd's? not sure I am following....

cds = The collateral death and suffering caused to animals by various
processes, in the case of commercial agriculture, the use of machines
for ploughing, seeding, spraying and harvesting of crops, and the use of
organic and inorganic chemicals for the elimination of pests and weeds.
The animals harmed can be larger mammals like deer, gophers, and
rabbits, also smaller mammals such as mice and other rodents such as
shrews, moles and voles. Then there are ground birds, lizards, frogs,
and in the case of poisoning, any animal that predates on them. We may
even consider bees, ants, spiders, grasshoppers, worms, and other
animals of that genre, vegans certainly consider them in their frequent
semi-conscious moral calculations. The collateral death toll to animals
in food production arguably dwarfs the number of direct deaths of
livestock in food production. This all means that the diet of the
typical (sub)urban vegan or vegetarian who shops in supermarkets could
easily be related to more animal death and suffering than a family who
subsists largely on hunting. These often ignored facts cast doubt on the
vegan thought process which concludes that consuming even a small amount
of animal "product" is a moral stain on one's character.

The vegan moral calculation is embodied in the following fallacy, called
"Denying the Antecedent":
1) Animal products cause animal suffering
2) I abstain from animal products, therefore
3) I don't cause animal suffering




"Dutch" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
"Beach Runner" wrote

A typical US post, taking one example and making every VEG*N one
behavior. How prejudicial and bigoted.

The family had to be typical of raw-food vegan/ ARAs.

Obviously the producers sought extremists to make the sure more
interesting.

The other family were extreme also, hunting every day and eating
mostly meat.

The vegan family shopped at a local market, imported nuts, fruit,
vegetables, seeds, etc.. while the hunters got most of their food from
the local woods. The issue of cds never came up, but I am quite sure
that once the hidden collateral cost in animal death and suffering was
tallied up, the hunter family would fare quite well by comparison.












  #27 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-11-2005, 02:52 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Beach Runner
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode



usual suspect wrote:
Beach Runner wrote:

For benefit of those who missed this show (or who turned it off
early because she felt picked on again), here's a brief summary.
This show would benefit anyone who's never had the misfortune of
encountering a vegan. It showed what vegans are like, what they
think and believe, and how they interact with normal people.



Many people consider these reality shows the mark of stupidity.



Your posts set a new watermark for stupidity. Congratulations.


Just another groundless insult.

The vegan wife, Jackie, forces her entire household (including the
cat) to consume a raw vegan diet. Her actions extend beyond herself
and her household: she protests meat and hands out leaflets to
strangers on the street in an attempt to get them to live according
to her peculiar "principles." Part of those principles at home
included getting rid of their stove and many of their possessions;
her home became increasingly spartan as she sank deeper into her
kooky vegan abyss.



She's obviously obsessed



Veganism IS an obsession.

and not typical.

and on the increase.

see Washington Post
http://159.54.227.3/apps/pbcs.dll/ar...510230377/1004



Ipse dixit. Since veganism is an obsessive eating disorder, it's fair to
assume Jackie is representative of most (if not all) vegans. I noted
before that there may be differences of degree, but there's not much
deviation beyond the norm.

The best way to explain her average day is that she focuses on the
things most out of her control and avoids dealing with the things
most within her control. Her husband Harold WANTS to eat meat but
fears doing so for the consequences he'd face from Jackie (note: he
expressed no fear of consequences to his health from it). Harold
also overworks to avoid coming home because Jackie is too busy
navel-gazing, sun-gazing, bitching, domineering, and protesting to
clean house or do other mundane things; he's adopted the role of
housemaid by default. The whole family were kind of drifting apart
and becoming more dysfunctional, with Harold and the daughter
afraid to speak up about any of the changes (dietary,
anti-"decorating," etc.).



There are crazy vegans.



Veganism is either a mental disorder on its own or a symptom of
underlying mental issues. People who want to be vegan, including you and
Skanky, are mentally unwell.


Show where it is considered a mental disorder.


Jackie ends up trading places with a wife from a family who hunt
out of necessity. With her vegan psyche already very weak and
fragile, Jackie assesses her new situation by going through the
fridge (filled with meat) and the home (filled with taxidermy). As
most vegans are, she's condescending in sizing up her new family.
To her credit, though, I didn't think she was nearly as
condescending as the vegan witch Barbara from Fox's _Trading
Spouses_ last year.

During one memorable segment, Jackie became emotional -- nearly
hysterical -- trying to explain how difficult it was for her to go
to an all raw diet. She offered some psychobabble comparing the
whole experience to alcoholism. To that bizarre melodrama, the
other husband (Ricky) apologized and said he didn't realize it
would be so traumatic for her.

As in the _Trading Spouses_ episodes on Fox in this vein last year,
the vegan wife felt compelled to show her new family some videos
from animal rights groups even after preaching to them about
veganism for an entire week. Jackie became an emotional wreck while
watching them, even though she said she's seen them many times
before. Though the kids were briefly stunned by such portrayals of
farming (which are atypical), they didn't exactly embrace the idea
of eating nuts and fruits.

Ultimately, her attempts to convert the family in Kentucky failed.
Since the swap, they've added more vegetables to their meals but
haven't given up hunting or eating meat. Meanwhile, Jackie's kept
the stove Bobbi (the normal wife who ended up having to deal with
milquetoast Harold) had brought in and has even resumed eating some
cooked foods. She admitted maybe she was taking things too far. I'm
sure her husband agrees she *had* taken things too far, even if he
lacks the courage to tell her how ****ed up he really thinks she is.

The moral of the story is that vegans DO take things too far. They
try to proselytize others, and they're usually very emotional and
aggressive about it. They think they're doing something virtuous
and informative by telling others not to eat meat, but vegans
always end up coming across as emotive, uninformed jackasses.



You take an extreme example and make it the rule.



Veganism IS an extreme. It is the rule.

Your opinion.
I also think vegans should go on more shows like this. First, it's
very entertaining. Second, it's illuminating for the wider
population -- especially those in areas without or with very few
vegans. Finally, it's therapeutic in the sense that vegans on these
shows seem to benefit from interacting with *normal* people. For
example, Jackie is again eating cooked food. The vegan mother in
the Fox show (Barbara) even ate meat with the Cajun family.


A typical US post, taking one example and making every VEG*N one
behavior.


The Koplin family from Arizona are much more typical of vegans,
especially raw faddists, than they're atypical.



Less typical does not make one sick. She was an irrational individual
incapable of accepting others.

Hardly. I know many vegans. I can enjoy a wonderful meal with my
father, who's still fishing and riding his bike close to 80s.



Your father isn't a vegan, dipshit. Vegans don't fish. Recreational
fishing is one of the targets of their irrational, misplaced, uninformed
anger.


I know that. He still fishes and is active and eats a variety of meats.
Too bad, as he has had to have bypass surgery. But yes, we can get
together in mixed company and respect one another. My closest friend is
not a vegetarian, we order he eats what he eats, I eat what I eat.
We respect each other. We may discuss our choices. Btw, he had a heart
attack at 39. A top notch engineer, brilliant. I do try to get him to
go swimming as he has a pool and has feet problems.


Exercise is the fountain of youth.



Exercise isn't the issue at hand, nor is it something about which we
disagree (for the most part).

And your stuff about old geezer is absurd.



No, you're a doddering old coot. You can't keep straight your list of
"bullies" so you confuse the AMA for FDA, and then you continue your
bullshit by suggesting one or both is a "monopoly" even after being
given the definition of that word. Your posts ramble, they occasionally
are on topic, and too frequently they have NOTHING to do with the
subject. You ARE a geezer.




I confused the two simply in context. It was a mistake. I'm hardly a
geezer. Everyone who knows me, says I'm heart healthy and age healthy
for my age. I do have osteoporosis, but so does my meat eating older
brother, and my dairy eating son has signs of osteopina. It's genetic.


My hair may be gray,



I don't give a shit if it's purple or green or if you have enough
piercings to set off a metal detector three miles away. I'm complaining
about your slovenly style of posting and your dissheveled use of the
English language, not about your damn hair or appearance.

And I don't feel a need to go to a group of people and be the nastiest
person I've run into.



Then don't. No one's asked you to do that.

How prejudicial and bigoted.




Vegans ARE prejudiced bigots.



Some might be.



They all are. It's part of the mindset that drives someone to assume
moral superiority by what does or doesn't get chewed and swallowed.

Obviously the producers sought extremists to make the sure more
interesting.


Irrelevant. I pointed out that the inclusion of nuts makes shows like
this more interesting (see my first point in the last paragraph, dumb
ass). Vegans are kooks. They're extremists. They don't mesh well with
normal people. That's why they tend to make shows like this
interesting and amusing.



No, they took very extreme cases to raise their ratings.



That's why I suggested more shows with vegans, because veganism is an
extreme and its adherents are extremists.


Perhaps they look at the world picture of hunger and efficiency and
actually care about animals. I know you have presented excellent
articles on collateral damage, but it takes more grain to feed livestock
than eat it directly. So your argument disproves itself.

  #28 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-11-2005, 04:17 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

Stupid Beach Runner wrote:
For benefit of those who missed this show (or who turned it off
early because she felt picked on again), here's a brief summary.
This show would benefit anyone who's never had the misfortune of
encountering a vegan. It showed what vegans are like, what they
think and believe, and how they interact with normal people.

Many people consider these reality shows the mark of stupidity.


Your posts set a new watermark for stupidity. Congratulations.


Just another groundless insult.


It's not groundless at all -- you've admitted to how horrid your posts
are when you take drugs. I don't expect you to concede to your errors of
fact or logical fallacies because you're simply not bright enough to
distinguish between facts and your beliefs. And before you suggest that,
too, is groundless, consider that you consider Neal Barnard to be an
expert in nutrition despite his psychiatry background, his relationship
with the co-founder of PETA, his and his group's involvement in various
endeavors with PETA, and his lack of distinction between causes and
effects in what he writes (see the exchange between shev and me in the
"some truth about..." thread related to that).

The vegan wife, Jackie, forces her entire household (including the
cat) to consume a raw vegan diet. Her actions extend beyond
herself and her household: she protests meat and hands out
leaflets to strangers on the street in an attempt to get them to
live according to her peculiar "principles." Part of those
principles at home included getting rid of their stove and many of
their possessions; her home became increasingly spartan as she
sank deeper into her kooky vegan abyss.

She's obviously obsessed


Veganism IS an obsession.

and not typical.


and on the increase.


Wrong.
With the number of serious vegetarians stagnating at less than
2% according to some estimates, the market potential may be just
too small, though, for a QSR selling to a mass market.
http://www.cattlenetwork.com/content.asp?contentid=4949

see Washington Post


No, dumb ass, your link goes to _The Olympian_ from Olympia, Washington.

http://159.54.227.3/apps/pbcs.dll/ar...510230377/1004


The article claims "Vegetarian and vegan diets are becoming more common
among teenagers," and notes how these diets can be dangerous to teens:
Parents are right to be concerned for their children's nutrition
because the teen years have greater nutritional requirements for
growth and optimum health. Eating a vegetarian or vegan diet can put a
teen at even higher risk for deficiencies.

The article then outlines specific areas of deficiencies and offers
suggestions and alternatives. It doesn't give data on how many teens
flirt with vegetarianism (or worse, veganism), nor does it address the
number of teens or young adults who resume eating meat. For most, it's a
phase. For others, it's a call for attention just like dying hair green
might be. For very few, though, does it ever become a lifelong pursuit.

Ipse dixit. Since veganism is an obsessive eating disorder, it's fair
to assume Jackie is representative of most (if not all) vegans. I
noted before that there may be differences of degree, but there's not
much deviation beyond the norm.

The best way to explain her average day is that she focuses on the
things most out of her control and avoids dealing with the things
most within her control. Her husband Harold WANTS to eat meat but
fears doing so for the consequences he'd face from Jackie (note:
he expressed no fear of consequences to his health from it).
Harold also overworks to avoid coming home because Jackie is too
busy navel-gazing, sun-gazing, bitching, domineering, and
protesting to clean house or do other mundane things; he's adopted
the role of housemaid by default. The whole family were kind of
drifting apart and becoming more dysfunctional, with Harold and
the daughter afraid to speak up about any of the changes (dietary,
anti-"decorating," etc.).

There are crazy vegans.


Veganism is either a mental disorder on its own or a symptom of
underlying mental issues. People who want to be vegan, including you
and Skanky, are mentally unwell.


Show where it is considered a mental disorder.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eating_disorder
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthorexia
http://www.orthorexia.com/

Jackie ends up trading places with a wife from a family who hunt
out of necessity. With her vegan psyche already very weak and
fragile, Jackie assesses her new situation by going through the
fridge (filled with meat) and the home (filled with taxidermy). As
most vegans are, she's condescending in sizing up her new family.
To her credit, though, I didn't think she was nearly as
condescending as the vegan witch Barbara from Fox's _Trading
Spouses_ last year.

During one memorable segment, Jackie became emotional -- nearly
hysterical -- trying to explain how difficult it was for her to go
to an all raw diet. She offered some psychobabble comparing the
whole experience to alcoholism. To that bizarre melodrama, the
other husband (Ricky) apologized and said he didn't realize it
would be so traumatic for her.

As in the _Trading Spouses_ episodes on Fox in this vein last
year, the vegan wife felt compelled to show her new family some
videos from animal rights groups even after preaching to them
about veganism for an entire week. Jackie became an emotional
wreck while watching them, even though she said she's seen them
many times before. Though the kids were briefly stunned by such
portrayals of farming (which are atypical), they didn't exactly
embrace the idea of eating nuts and fruits.

Ultimately, her attempts to convert the family in Kentucky failed.
Since the swap, they've added more vegetables to their meals but
haven't given up hunting or eating meat. Meanwhile, Jackie's kept
the stove Bobbi (the normal wife who ended up having to deal with
milquetoast Harold) had brought in and has even resumed eating
some cooked foods. She admitted maybe she was taking things too
far. I'm sure her husband agrees she *had* taken things too far,
even if he lacks the courage to tell her how ****ed up he really
thinks she is.

The moral of the story is that vegans DO take things too far. They
try to proselytize others, and they're usually very emotional and
aggressive about it. They think they're doing something virtuous
and informative by telling others not to eat meat, but vegans
always end up coming across as emotive, uninformed jackasses.

You take an extreme example and make it the rule.


Veganism IS an extreme. It is the rule.


Your opinion.


Veganism sure as hell isn't mainstream, you pansy.

I also think vegans should go on more shows like this. First, it's
very entertaining. Second, it's illuminating for the wider
population -- especially those in areas without or with very few
vegans. Finally, it's therapeutic in the sense that vegans on
these shows seem to benefit from interacting with *normal* people.
For example, Jackie is again eating cooked food. The vegan mother
in the Fox show (Barbara) even ate meat with the Cajun family.

A typical US post, taking one example and making every VEG*N one
behavior.

The Koplin family from Arizona are much more typical of vegans,
especially raw faddists, than they're atypical.


Less typical does not make one sick.


I didn't say it did.

She was an irrational individual
incapable of accepting others.


Right -- she's vegan.

Hardly. I know many vegans. I can enjoy a wonderful meal with my
father, who's still fishing and riding his bike close to 80s.


Your father isn't a vegan, dipshit. Vegans don't fish. Recreational
fishing is one of the targets of their irrational, misplaced,
uninformed anger.


I know that.


Then stop dropping your father into discussions about vegans, dummy.

He still fishes and is active and eats a variety of meats.


Good for him.

Too bad, as he has had to have bypass surgery.


He's elderly. It has nothing to do with his diet, retard.

But yes, we can get
together in mixed company and respect one another. My closest friend is
not a vegetarian, we order he eats what he eats, I eat what I eat.
We respect each other. We may discuss our choices.


Meaning, you're likely to give him shit about eating meat.

Btw, he had a heart attack at 39.


What does this have to do with the issue at hand, Mr Irrelevant Anecdote?

A top notch engineer, brilliant.


What does this have to do with the issue at hand, Mr Irrelevant Anecdote?

I do try to get him to
go swimming as he has a pool and has feet problems.


What does this have to do with the issue at hand, Mr Irrelevant Anecdote?

Exercise is the fountain of youth.


Exercise isn't the issue at hand, nor is it something about which we
disagree (for the most part).

And your stuff about old geezer is absurd.


No, you're a doddering old coot. You can't keep straight your list of
"bullies" so you confuse the AMA for FDA, and then you continue your
bullshit by suggesting one or both is a "monopoly" even after being
given the definition of that word. Your posts ramble, they
occasionally are on topic, and too frequently they have NOTHING to do
with the subject. You ARE a geezer.


I confused the two simply in context.


Bullshit. Stop lying.

It was a mistake.


A very serious one that diminishes what little credibility you have.

I'm hardly a geezer.


Don't sell yourself short.

Everyone who knows me, says I'm heart healthy


With the exception of your cardiologist and other medical doctors,
"everyone" else is unqualified in assessing your heart health.

and age healthy for my age.


With the exception of your medical doctors, "everyone" else is
unqualified in assessing your health.

I do have osteoporosis, but so does my meat eating older
brother, and my dairy eating son has signs of osteopina. It's genetic.


And it's old news. Why do you keep telling me about your brittle bones?

My hair may be gray,


I don't give a shit if it's purple or green or if you have enough
piercings to set off a metal detector three miles away. I'm
complaining about your slovenly style of posting and your dissheveled
use of the English language, not about your damn hair or appearance.

And I don't feel a need to go to a group of people and be the
nastiest person I've run into.


Then don't. No one's asked you to do that.

How prejudicial and bigoted.

Vegans ARE prejudiced bigots.

Some might be.


They all are. It's part of the mindset that drives someone to assume
moral superiority by what does or doesn't get chewed and swallowed.

Obviously the producers sought extremists to make the sure more
interesting.

Irrelevant. I pointed out that the inclusion of nuts makes shows
like this more interesting (see my first point in the last
paragraph, dumb ass). Vegans are kooks. They're extremists. They
don't mesh well with normal people. That's why they tend to make
shows like this interesting and amusing.

No, they took very extreme cases to raise their ratings.


That's why I suggested more shows with vegans, because veganism is an
extreme and its adherents are extremists.


Perhaps they look at the world picture of hunger


Veganism isn't a solution for world hunger.

and efficiency


Veganism isn't a solution for efficiency.

and actually care about animals.


Veganism addresses the welfare of animals in rhetoric and theory ONLY,
not in practice.

I know you have presented excellent
articles on collateral damage, but it takes more grain to feed livestock
than eat it directly.


If it bothers that livestock eat grain, consume wild game or fish.
Neither requires inputs from agriculture that cause other species to
die. You offer a one-size-fits-all solution that DOESN'T fit all. Hell,
it doesn't even address the "problem" you want solved in the first place.
  #29 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-11-2005, 07:14 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

C. James Strutz wrote:
"rick" wrote in message
k.net...

"Leif Erikson" wrote in message
groups.com...
rick wrote:

"RobDar" wrote in message
...

a very interesting stance...I cannot say that I am well enough
educated on the topic to comment intelligently...but believe me,
I am going to look into this!


Here's a few sites to start your research..


That's a pretty impressive list! How did you come up with all of them?
==============================
Just from my various research on the subject. I did just go through the
list to verify links and found several links no longer work, so I will
have to rebuild it.

The numbers are amazing given the fact that nobody is really researching
the total problem. many of these are just results of specific occurances,
and no industry-wide research seems to be done. But then, there really
has been no cry for that research. The farmers have no incentive to do it,
the petro-chemical industry has no incentive to do it, and the Gob has no
real incentive to do it. The only that should care, vegan/AR loons, and
demand these studies are strangly quite on the issue. Of course, it would
blow their house of cards down and destroy their simple rule for their
simple minds.



Your simple mind has forgotten that the problem is not one restricted to
veg*ns.


Since people who eat meat fully accept the fact animals die, the
"problem" exists only for vegans who claim
1. "no animals die" in the course of producing their food;
2. "animals don't have to die" in food production; or
3. "fewer animals die" -- as though ethics is a counting game.

The onus isn't on those who eat meat to reduce animal suffering or
death. It's on those who oppose people consuming meat and who make
categorical statements of their own moral superiority. When faced with
the facts, they ultimately make the same argument you did and claim a
virtue relative to the actions of others. They're not more ethical
because others are ethically "worse" than they are (at least according
to their capricious standard); they fail their own ethics test when they
measure themselves by their own standard.
  #30 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 18-11-2005, 09:25 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
C. James Strutz
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode


"usual suspect" wrote in message
...
C. James Strutz wrote:
"rick" wrote in message
k.net...

"Leif Erikson" wrote in message
egroups.com...
rick wrote:

"RobDar" wrote in message
...

a very interesting stance...I cannot say that I am well enough
educated on the topic to comment intelligently...but believe me,
I am going to look into this!


Here's a few sites to start your research..

That's a pretty impressive list! How did you come up with all of them?
==============================
Just from my various research on the subject. I did just go through the
list to verify links and found several links no longer work, so I will
have to rebuild it.

The numbers are amazing given the fact that nobody is really researching
the total problem. many of these are just results of specific
occurances, and no industry-wide research seems to be done. But then,
there really has been no cry for that research. The farmers have no
incentive to do it, the petro-chemical industry has no incentive to do
it, and the Gob has no real incentive to do it. The only that should
care, vegan/AR loons, and demand these studies are strangly quite on the
issue. Of course, it would blow their house of cards down and destroy
their simple rule for their simple minds.



Your simple mind has forgotten that the problem is not one restricted to
veg*ns.


Since people who eat meat fully accept the fact animals die, the "problem"
exists only for vegans who claim
1. "no animals die" in the course of producing their food;


Agreed...

2. "animals don't have to die" in food production; or


This is practically unrealistic. Animals DO die in the course of food
production and for other aspects of our existence. The only way to be
responsible for ZERO animal deaths as a result of our existence would be to
end our existence, and some animal deaths would probably result from even
that!

3. "fewer animals die" -- as though ethics is a counting game.


Sorry, but I agree with the "counting game" argument. America dropped atomic
bombs on Japan at the end of WWII because many more soldiers would have died
had we not. We killed people to prevent, in all probability, many times more
deaths. How about the death penalty? Or what about euthanasia? Or stem cell
research? Or abortion? Moral ethics aren't absolute.

The onus isn't on those who eat meat to reduce animal suffering or death.
It's on those who oppose people consuming meat and who make categorical
statements of their own moral superiority. When faced with the facts, they
ultimately make the same argument you did and claim a virtue relative to
the actions of others. They're not more ethical because others are
ethically "worse" than they are (at least according to their capricious
standard); they fail their own ethics test when they measure themselves by
their own standard.


Is it ethical to wash one's hands of responsibility for the deaths of living
things just because one doesn't claim moral superiority? The onus to
minimize the suffering or death of any living thing should be on all of us
regardless of what claims we do or don't make. The disagreement that you and
others have with vegans is the attitude of morel superiority of SOME of them
and not their wish to minimize animal deaths. AFter all, what's wrong with
trying to minimize animal deaths? It's fair to accuse a vegan of ignorance
but it's an entirely different matter to accuse them of being unethical.




Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
My favorite episode of TTZ was just on zxcvbob General Cooking 2 05-07-2012 02:54 PM
When did this FopodTV episode air? A Moose in Love General Cooking 2 13-11-2011 08:38 PM
Lidia's Italy Episode 221 Nancy Young General Cooking 13 03-02-2007 11:47 PM
**THAT** Sandra Lee episode TammyM General Cooking 17 18-12-2006 08:57 PM
wife swap vegan episode pearl Vegan 2 08-12-2005 02:35 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:23 PM.

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

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017