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
  #76 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-11-2005, 08:49 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

[-snip-]

===============================
Willful ignorance in action I see. *ALL* beeef cattle are grass
fed and grazed for most of their lives, fool. And then, only 3/4
of those go to feedlots for the last weeks of their lives. So,
you start right out with a ly, and the rest of your spew is
mmeaningless, hypocrite.


What's eating those acres of hay
that's grown? Hay is a type of
grass. A LOT of hay is grown for
the feeding of cows. Even the
cows that get to graze during the
summer must be fed hay during
the winter. The growing of hay
has at least as many cds as other
grains. Time to update your
numbers, Ricky. Even cows that
are kept indoors and fed hay all
their lives can be called grass fed.

[-snip-]


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




  #77 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-11-2005, 08:49 PM posted to alt.food.vegan
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

"usual suspect" wrote in message
...
Beach Blunder wrote:
The only similarity is that both vegans and the typical Springer
guest are dysfunctional.

Suspect, you have half a brain clearly, but you have the most wretched
social and communication skills possible and if you aren't aware you
come off as the poster pantyboy of Dysfunctional, look at yourself
long and hard in the mirror.


He is clearly intelligent


Thanks for noticing, Bob.

and has incredibly energy to insult people.


Incredible energy, period. I run and ride my bike more than you ever
could've hoped to before you ran out in front of that Mercedes Benz.


What?!?! You're not driving a
car?

I suspect by his level of obscenities and insults he is potentially
dangerous.


Amazing you suggest that given your own repeated violent threats:
You're simply an asshole who deserves to
get his ass kicked.
-- Violent Bob, 23 July 2005: http://tinyurl.com/9k2ml

Now try to find an instance in which I've *ever* wished harm upon
another person, you candy-assed loser. You can't find one because I'm
not prone to violence like you are.


You prove repeatedly that you
wish people psychological harm.
You want them to feel bad about
themselves. Even in the very
sentences above where you
claim not to wish harm, you call
him a 'candy-assed loser'. You're
transparent.


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



  #78 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-11-2005, 08:54 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode


"C. James Strutz" wrote

"Dutch" wrote

"Pinnochio Mojo" wrote
Dutch the friendly ng troll wrote:

Of course not. Vegans in general are oblivious to the extent of the
death
toll, so are most non-vegans

How would you go about "proving" this rather sloppy assertion? The fact
is you cannot. Therefore your remarks are irrelevant at best.


James has acknowledged that vegans live in ignorance of the issue, that
much is already settled.


No, I have not acknowledged that, and just because I suggested it doesn't
mean that the matter is settled.


The fact is, almost every consumer lives in ignorance of the issue of
collateral deaths in agriculture. You were being candid and honest when you
acknowledged it. And I don't attack vegans for their ignorance, I attack
vegans who are given this information then refuse to use it. I attack
"veganism" for exploiting this ignorance, in feeding off the normal desire
for righteous living.

Just read the denial in the comments of "mojo".

Examples please. But the fact remains that i am not in denial, though i
doubt that the same could be said about you. i choose to confront you
and others of your ilk choose to ignore. Still you provide only
nonsensical bias in the form of severely warped refutations.


I see you know how to string words into sentences, next learn to say
something.


This from the guy who tries to put things "succinctly"....


My explanation was succinct. "it creates an unfair and unrealistic
moral dichotomy between consumers and non-consumers of animal
products. This moral deceit is inherent in veganism, therefore veganism
per se must be rejected."

Veganism is devious, it depends on the false premise that animals are not
killed routined and systematically by every form of agriculture. If it did
not use this false premise, vegans could not logically support the sense of
moral superiority they believe they deserve.


  #79 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-11-2005, 09:07 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode


"Glorfindel" wrote

Aside from the personal attack on me, you are correct. Efforts
should be made to decrease the number of collateral deaths in
large-scale vegetable farming also. Both are a side-effect
of modern technological methods in agriculture.


Yet "veganism" addresses only one of these so-called "problems" while
remaining utterly mute on the other. I can raise a section of wheat,
including ploughing (or not), seeding, spraying for weeds and pests,
harvesting, transportation, storage and processing. My field can support
hundreds of thousands of small animals like mice, moles and toads, not to
mention grasshoppers and spiders, *many* of which are killed off by my
intrusions into their domain. Vegans gladly consume the products made from
these processes with nary a whimper. Yet if I raise one animal and slaughter
it, the shrill howls of protest go up. Murderer! Where is the logic in this
way of thinking?


  #80 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-11-2005, 09:17 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:
3. "fewer animals die" -- as though ethics is a counting game.

Sorry, but I agree with the "counting game" argument.


You shouldn't. I've addressed this issue before with what I called
"Objecting to the 1001st death." What you wrote previously about grains
fed to cattle illustrates this objection. You contend that no matter how
many deaths may be attributable to grain (or whatever) production, those
who eat meat are responsible for at least one more animal death. In the
example, the veg-n pats himself on the back for not eating meat even
though his diet causes 1000 animals to die; those animals won't be eaten
by humans. The veg-n also sanctimoniously impugns the character of those
who eat the meat of the 1001st animal to die -- let's say it's a steer,
from which a few hundred meals can be made (very realistic with sensible
quarter-pound servings). Balance the ethical scales: the veg-n's diet
causes 1000 animals to die and the omnivore's causes 1001. Is it
significantly more ethical to be responsible for one less animal death
when you're already responsible for 1000?


You misunderstand me completely.


No, I don't.

I don't have real numbers but I'm going
make some up to illustrate my point (I can try to find better numbers if it
is necessary). Let's say a steer is brought to slaughter at 2 years of age
and he weighs 1200 lbs. Let's say that he eats 1 bushel of grain a day -
that's more than 700 bushels of grain in his lifetime. If 1 acre of land can
produce 200 bushels of grain per year


Fair estimate. Almost twice that yield is possible -- I found an account
of an Iowa farmer who got 394 bushels of corn per acre -- but your
number is reasonable for this example.

then 3-1/2 acres of land are required
to produce enough grain for the steer.


No. See below.

Now let's say that 1000 small
mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, and amphibians are killed per acre as a
result of producing the grain - that's more than 3500 collateral deaths
attributed to that one steer.


Really bad example since cattle aren't fed exclusively on grain rations
-- they're typically fed that at the end of their growing phase for
fattening (marbling). The majority of a steer's diet consists of silage,
whether from direct grazing or from hay.

Another problem: corn weighs about 56 lbs a bushel (link below). Cattle
don't eat that much corn per day. The second link has guidelines for
growing and finishing cattle. It cites various studies recommending
mostly single-digit daily rations of corn for 800-lb steers.

Commdodity weights:
http://muextension.missouri.edu/xplo...ops/g04020.htm

Cattle grain/silage guidelines:
http://muextension.missouri.edu/expl...sci/g02072.htm

Now let's say that a person can make a serving from 1 cup of grain -


Your example assumes all grain is equal. Most grain fed to livestock
isn't fit for human consumption.

that's
about 150 servings from 1 bushel, or 10,500 equivalent servings that went
into feeding that steer during his lifetime.


I'll let you do more homework on beef management and determine if this
exercise was appropriate or not.

If 70% of the steer is edible
then it can provide more than 3300 servings using your 1/4 pound/serving
number.


Not to mention that its wastes while living can be used for fertilizer,
urea, etc., and that byproducts from it after slaughter can be used to
clothe people or make baseball mitts (congrats to the Pirates for
signing Jason Bay to a longer contract), gelatin, etc.

Let's normalize these numbers and make comparisons. I'm doing some rounding
with my numbers but 10,500/3300 is a little more than 3. That means that
feeding people grain instead of beef would save almost 2000 collateral
deaths (3500/3),


That's rounded too far, even with your inflated assumptions about cattle
and grains -- 3500/3 is much closer to 1200 than 2000.

and would require little more than 1 acre of land (3.5/3).
The life of the steer got lost in the rounding! :^)


Doesn't matter since your bushel-a-day diet would cause it to explode
before it ever reached slaughter.

I have to say that I'm a little surprised by my own calculations. I had read
somewhere that it takes something on the order of 50 times the grain to feed
cattle compared to that which would be required to feed people.


Which is bullshit. Very few mammals require more than three pounds of
feed to gain a pound of weight -- the exceptions have very fast
metabolism, which rules out cattle. I've addressed this issue repeatedly
when others have trotted out John Robbins' exaggerated claims. The ~3:1
ratio is valid for cattle, goats, rabbits, poultry, people, etc.

CATTLE:

The length of time that cattle spend in feedlots on high grain
diets is variable. A calf typically starts life in March to May
and remains with the cow on pasture or range until October or
November. The calf may then be moved to a feedlot or may be
maintained on a forage feeding program until a year later when
it is moved to a feedlot as a yearling. Thus, beef cattle
generally enter feedlots at weights of 450 to 650 pounds
(calves), or 650 to 900 pounds (yearlings). For example, calves
may enter the feedlot at 500 pounds and be marketed at about
1,100 pounds. Yearlings may enter the feedlot at 750 pounds and
be marketed at about 1,200 pounds, while heavy yearlings enter
at about 900 pounds and are marketed at about 1,200 pounds.

How much grain and protein supplement are required to produce a
pound of retail beef?

* 1,200-pound beef cows marketed at 7 years of age have
consumed a total of 840 pounds of protein supplement (120
pounds per year).
* 500-pound feedlot calves fed to 1,100 pounds consume 6.5
pounds of total feed (80 percent grain and protein supplement)
per pound of gain.
* 750-pound feedlot yearlings fed to 1,200 pounds consume
7.2 pounds of total feed (90 percent grain and protein
supplement) per pound of gain.
* Yield of retail beef per pound of live weight is .45
pound (.35 pound for cows).

Thus, it takes 2 pounds of grain and protein supplement to
produce a pound of retail beef from beef cows and 3.6 pounds
for heavy yearlings. For lighter weight yearlings and calves,
the figures are 5.4 pounds and 6.3 pounds. These calculations do
not consider the fertilizer value of the manure and urine
provided by cattle during grazing and finishing.

Contrary to some published claims, it does not take 16 pounds
of grain to produce a pound of beef (Robbins 1987). Since beef
cows are a major source of ground beef, a value between 3 and 4
pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of
ground beef would be appropriate. Only by assuming that beef
animals are fed diets composed largely of grains from birth to
market weight could a value as great as 16 pounds be obtained.
Those familiar with the beef industry know that this does not
occur. In fact, cattle do not require any grain for the
production of meat; the microbes in the rumen manufacture
high-quality protein from nonprotein nitrogen.
http://tinyurl.com/93mwm

GOATS:
A superior feeding strategy would be based on body condition
scoring (Table 8). Low scoring goats (1 - 2.5) receive grain
supplementation at 2.5 lb grain :1 lb milk ratio, while the
higher scoring goats (3.0 - 5.0) are fed at a feed:milk ratio of
3:1.
http://www.goatworld.com/articles/feedinggoats.shtml

RABBITS:
Growing rabbits eat about 3 pounds of feed for a pound of gain
http://tinyurl.com/5zl6s

TURKEYS:
You could consider just growing all tom turkeys as you can cut '
down on feed costs because of the factor involving the feed
conversion factor. A tom of up to eighteen pounds requires forty
two pounds of feed.
(Appears to be from a school paper. Still, less than 2.5 pounds
of feed per pound of bird.)
http://tinyurl.com/57n47

CHICKENS:
It will take about 5 pounds of feed to age 6 weeks and 8-9
pounds to 8 weeks for the commercial strains.
(So about 14 pounds of feed to finish a 4 pound chicken --
again, about three pounds of feed to pound of meat.)
http://tinyurl.com/5z65c

Etc.

My number was about 3 times.


Which is much more reasonable and biologically-consistent.

Still, when you consider how many steers there are the
numbers become staggering.


Thanks to your little exercise, we now know the inflated numbers of CDs
associated with overfeeding a steer with corn or other grains. Now how
many CDs will accrue from months of pasture grazing or grazing on
scrubland out west and finishing rations that include ~2-4 pounds of
grain and legume feed per day for a few more months?

In a sense, too, the veg-ns are objecting to the consumption of mere
*fractions* of an animal death. I think the scales should account for
that, but the illustration sufficiently shows the moral relativism of
vegans.

Fuller explanation of Objecting to the 1001st Death:
http://tinyurl.com/dkgtb


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.


You're overlooking the issue at hand while basically re-stating *my* point
with these examples. Your disagreement isn't with me, but with veganism.
Veganism's sense of ethics IS an absolute. Vegans don't distinguish
between acceptable and unacceptable deaths, or cruel or non-cruel
treatement. They say *ALL* animal deaths are unacceptable, and that just
about everything in a human:animal context is exploitation of the latter
by the former. They call for an end to *all* fishing, *all* hunting, *all*
animal research, *all* fur and leather production, *all* livestock
production, and even use of honey. Many of them go even further and want
an end to humans having pets.


I disagree with both of you! I have shown you above what I mean by the so
called "counting game" and how eliminating beef would reduce the number of
collateral deaths.


Your example seems to assume that calves are born at 0 pounds and gain
weight exclusively from grains. That isn't reality. They're born
weighing under 100 pounds. They feed off their mothers (milk), and after
weaning they graze for a half year. By this point, they weigh about 500
pounds.

http://www.watersheds.org/farm/beef.htm

Although my numbers may not be completely accurate,


They're not even in the ballpark.

I think they at least make a very clear point.


I think a clearer point is made when you consider the ~600-700 pounds of
weight gain with respect to ~3-4 pounds of grain per day rather than a
full bushel (which is ~14-18+ times as much as they actually consume) as
your example used.

I disagree with vegans because
they usually don't consider collateral deaths at all, hence ignorance.


Even among those who are aware of CDs persists the notions that "animals
don't have to die" and other attempts to pass the buck from themselves
for their own consumption onto farmers for not employing vegan-friendly
techniques.

I also disagree with vegan's wish to end all hunting, etc. because somebody
has to replace the predators that we have all but eliminated.


The question you should be asking yourself about this is, Why do vegans
object categorically to hunting? Keep in mind that, in these groups,
they find it more preferable for habitat to be destroyed even when it's
shared by endangered species, for animals to die from increased disease
and decreased food sources, for people to run into deer and other large
game (and thus endangering humans), etc., than to be hunted.

The natural
balance of nature is out of whack and it would only be worse if we
eliminated hunting. Many vegans also don't consider other things that effect
the lives of animals: development and the fragmenation of habitat, pesticide
and fertilizer runoff from producing food, and the ever increasing human
population among other things.


Some of those "other things" also include the increased amount of green
space in large cities, where animals enjoy nearly predator-free environs
and plenty of food. Deer also find silly humans who think of them as
"pets" (or who stupidly feed them). We have a tremendous issue with
urban deer in and around Austin, and the problem isn't simply an issue
of sprawl. I can show you large herds of deer within sight of downtown
and in areas that were already part of Austin 100 years ago. Parts of
Austin, especially near greenbelts and protected preserves (set aside
for endangered birds like the black cap vireo and golden-cheeked
warbler), are over-grazed by deer. We also have seen a resurgence of
coyotes in well-established neighborhoods (i.e., with 50-100 year-old
homes).

And in many cases their alternatives to the above produce worse conditions
for animals. They suggest replacing meat with proteins from soy and
grains, like tofu and seitan or even beans and rice; these alternatives to
meat do nothing to decrease the number of animal deaths caused by one's
diet and may in fact increase animal deaths. They likewise recommend
synthetic furs and leather even though these are made from petrochemicals
which cause immense pollution and environmental harm during drilling and
refining, all of which harms people and many more animals than it would
take to make a fur or leather jacket or a pair of leather shoes. And
natural fibers like cotton and hemp are no safer for animals than is the
abattoir -- they're no different from grain crops with respect to
collateral deaths, and in many regards they're worse since crops like
cotton are heavily treated with pesticides and defoliants (at harvest)
which are highly toxic for non-target species. See Rick's links.


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?


I don't think meat-eaters, farmers, ranchers, researchers, etc., are
washing their hands; they fully accept that animals die in the course of
their consumption and/or work.


Most meat-eaters also have no clue about collateral deaths,


If they don't already object to eating meat, and since they probably
engage in pest control themselves (including using traps for small
rodents), they probably have no objections to CDs.

and only a vague
clue about fragmentation, runoff, pollution, population, etc. The root
problem is that most people are way too self-centered to worry about those
things.


I disagree that it's a sign of being self-centered.

We want tasty food in our stomaches, warm (or cool) homes,
transportation, nice clothes, and other conveniences without considering the
impact on the earth and on other lives - even the impact on human lives in
other places.


You hit on the operative term for the things you listed -- those people
are convenience-oriented, not self-centered. Convenience isn't "bad" in
and of itself; it can be quite noble to save time and energy for more
important endeavors. One can also be completely self-centered while
shunning all conveniences.

Vegans aren't the only ones guilty of ignorance, and so why
pick on just them?


Vegans set the standards by which they judge others, then they fail
themselves to meet those standards. They should by judged according to
their own standards.

I'll do the same in fairness and objectivity should meat-eaters and
leather-wearers (and by this I am not referring to the fetishists with
whom Karen Winter will no doubt be too familiar) ever set up ethical
standards and judge vegans or anyone else according to them.

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.


Aside from images of isolated cases of wanton animal cruelty which is
already against the law (and, in many instances, the videos and images
have been used to prosecute those particular cases), I've yet to see
credible evidence that research, livestock production, farming, etc., is a
widespread abuse of animals. Those images and videos are of isolated
incidents. I can find many, many more images of prevailing conditions on
various farms that show animals are treated very well.


I think people tend to find what they look for, vegans and anti-vegans
alike.


The question is, Is what ARAs portray as NORMATIVE really the norm or
isolated? If they suggest something is a norm and it isn't at all, then
they're liars. If they suggest certain practices are the normal way
things are done but those practices are in fact much rarer, then the
ARAs are exaggerating (which we consider a form of lying down here). Etc.

This isn't a matter of "you see something, I see something else."
They're making claims of fact. The facts just don't match their claims.

They are liars.

The disagreement that you and


others have with vegans is the attitude of morel superiority


I have nothing against morel or chantrelle superiority.


Then why do you write things like "It's on those who oppose people consuming
meat and who make categorical statements of their own moral superiority."
See above.


Read what you wrote again, then read what I wrote again. Or has it
'shroomed right over your head?

of SOME of them


ALL vegans adopt a shitty, condescending attitude towards others who
consume meat, dairy, and eggs (and wear fur, favor animal research, etc.),
and many also deem those who use honey as reprobates.


I knew this would raise a comment! We will have to agree to disagree on this
issue.


Name a vegan who's open-minded about animal research, consumption of
meat, and apparel made of leather or fur.

and not their wish to minimize animal deaths. AFter all, what's wrong
with trying to minimize animal deaths?


Nothing if THAT's what they're actually doing. Most vegans, though,
prattle incessantly about NOT harming animals at all -- as though they're
causing zero harm by simply not eating them, not wearing their hides or
fur, etc.


At least we both agree that zero harm is unattainable and unrealistic.


We do, vegans don't. See Dreck's posts as "Phil Odox."

The real issue, though, is the result. Are they actually reducing harm to
animals or are they just intending to cause less harm? The end results
show us if they're ethical or not. And in the instances I outlined
above -- objecting only to the 1001st death, recommending high-CD foods in
place of larger ruminants, recommending synthetics (or even natural
fibers) instead of leather or fur, etc. -- the results aren't remarkably
better than the _status quo ante_ of "uninformed" consumption; indeed,
they're probably much worse. Thus, one's intentions don't make one
ethical; one's effects and results do.


Well, if the end result is unattainable then does that make a person
unethical?


The end result, in this instance, is the same as the _status quo ante_:
animals die. Veganism doesn't stop animal deaths. It just continues the
cycle. I do, however, think it's unethical to set such a specious
standard of morality in the first place. Vegans are unethical for
judging others according to diet, research, attire, etc.

Misguided perhaps, but not necessarily unethical.


If it's unethical to kill animals for food, and vegans say it is, then
veganism by their own standard is unethical. I personally don't think
it's unethical to kill animals for food, to wear their hides, or to
perform research on them; thus, I don't think people are ethical or
unethical when they kill animals in those instances.

And if you try
to inform people with extreme negativity then it's no wonder they reject
your information. You alienate them while,


Vegans are already alienated. That's part of the problem. Don't blame
that on me.

...


  #81 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-11-2005, 09:46 PM posted to alt.food.vegan
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

Joe wrote:
The only similarity is that both vegans and the typical Springer guest
are dysfunctional.


Suspect, you have half a brain clearly,



I have a whole brain. You have half a brain. Clearly.


I don't doubt US, in some topics you'd clearly better me and seem to
have double the brain


Wrong, I'm better in *all* topics.

You mentioned once that Rosa
Parks is one of your heroes.


I think you're very confused. I've found only two instances in which
*my* posts have even mentioned her. Both were posts of articles that
mentioned her. In neither post did I state an opinion about her, but I
admit I find her heroic.

BTW, why do you do the very thing you castigate me for doing?
  #82 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-11-2005, 09:53 PM posted to alt.food.vegan
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

Skanky wrote:
The only similarity is that both vegans and the typical Springer
guest are dysfunctional.

Suspect, you have half a brain clearly, but you have the most wretched
social and communication skills possible and if you aren't aware you
come off as the poster pantyboy of Dysfunctional, look at yourself
long and hard in the mirror.

He is clearly intelligent


Thanks for noticing, Bob.

and has incredibly energy to insult people.


Incredible energy, period. I run and ride my bike more than you ever
could've hoped to before you ran out in front of that Mercedes Benz.


What?!?! You're not driving a
car?


I have cars, too. They don't provide me with exercise.

I suspect by his level of obscenities and insults he is potentially
dangerous.


Amazing you suggest that given your own repeated violent threats:
You're simply an asshole who deserves to
get his ass kicked.
-- Violent Bob, 23 July 2005: http://tinyurl.com/9k2ml

Now try to find an instance in which I've *ever* wished harm upon
another person, you candy-assed loser. You can't find one because I'm
not prone to violence like you are.


You prove repeatedly that you
wish people psychological harm.


Liar. I want people to get better. That's why I've encouraged you to
grow or purchase foods consistent with your own beliefs instead of being
a hypocritical animal killer. I've also encouraged you to get help for
your drug addiction and agoraphobia -- two things detrimental to your
immediate and long-term well-being.

You want them to feel bad about
themselves.


You feel bad about yourself because you're a low-grade pothead slacker.

Even in the very
sentences above where you
claim not to wish harm, you call
him a 'candy-assed loser'.


He is one.
  #83 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-11-2005, 10:49 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode


"Scented Nectar" wrote in message
.. .
"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

[-snip-]

===============================
Willful ignorance in action I see. *ALL* beeef cattle are
grass
fed and grazed for most of their lives, fool. And then, only
3/4
of those go to feedlots for the last weeks of their lives.
So,
you start right out with a ly, and the rest of your spew is
mmeaningless, hypocrite.


What's eating those acres of hay
that's grown? Hay is a type of
grass. A LOT of hay is grown for
the feeding of cows. Even the
cows that get to graze during the
summer must be fed hay during
the winter. The growing of hay
has at least as many cds as other
grains. Time to update your
numbers, Ricky. Even cows that
are kept indoors and fed hay all
their lives can be called grass fed.

============================
Still as ignorant as ever I see, fool. Cows are not *kept*
indoors you twit. Maybe you're confusing the beef kind with the
lazy type of cow you are that is 'kept' by the state, eh killer?



[-snip-]


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





  #84 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-11-2005, 10:51 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Glorfindel
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

Dutch wrote:
"Glorfindel" wrote


Aside from the personal attack on me, you are correct. Efforts
should be made to decrease the number of collateral deaths in
large-scale vegetable farming also. Both are a side-effect
of modern technological methods in agriculture.


Yet "veganism" addresses only one of these so-called "problems" while
remaining utterly mute on the other.


Not always true, and irrelevant in any case.

Veganism/vegetarianism addresses a specific issue: the use of
animal products. It is not a complete philosophy of life, and
is not intended to be. Other aspects enter into consumers'
choices in other areas. You might as well attack dentists
for not addressing problems in the production of automobiles.
Those problems they address as individual consumers, but the
problems of production in that area are irrelevant to dentists
as dentists, just as issues of non-animal products are
irrelevant to vegans as vegans.


  #85 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-11-2005, 11:03 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode


"Glorfindel" wrote in message
...
Dutch wrote:
"Glorfindel" wrote


Aside from the personal attack on me, you are correct. Efforts
should be made to decrease the number of collateral deaths in
large-scale vegetable farming also. Both are a side-effect
of modern technological methods in agriculture.


Yet "veganism" addresses only one of these so-called
"problems" while remaining utterly mute on the other.


Not always true, and irrelevant in any case.

Veganism/vegetarianism addresses a specific issue: the use of
animal products. It is not a complete philosophy of life, and
is not intended to be.

=========================
Still lying? Veganism *IS* intended to be a way of life, fool.
It is NOT a diet.
There are *NO* vegans on usenet, just pretend wannabes full of
ignorance and hate.


Other aspects enter into consumers'
choices in other areas. You might as well attack dentists
for not addressing problems in the production of automobiles.
Those problems they address as individual consumers, but the
problems of production in that area are irrelevant to dentists
as dentists, just as issues of non-animal products are
irrelevant to vegans as vegans.

=========================
Analogies are realy really hard for you, aren't they, killer?
Vegans should know how their choices inpoact the animals they
claim to care about. They don't. They have their simple rule
for their simple minds, and that's all, hypocrite.








  #86 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-11-2005, 11:19 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

Karen Winter, who doesn't like her son "as a person," wrote:
Aside from the personal attack on me, you are correct. Efforts
should be made to decrease the number of collateral deaths in
large-scale vegetable farming also. Both are a side-effect
of modern technological methods in agriculture.



Yet "veganism" addresses only one of these so-called "problems" while
remaining utterly mute on the other.


Not always true,


Wrong, it's generally enough true to be a universal truth. There are few
examples of vegans even acknowledging the issue of collateral deaths. I
can think of one off the top of my head -- Slick's recommendation of
hand-harvested wild rice instead of standard farmed rice.

and irrelevant in any case.


It's relevant, Karen. In fact, "don't harm animals" is the foundation of
veganism. We know vegans continue to harm animals through either
ignorant consumption or ambivelant consumption.

Veganism/vegetarianism addresses a specific issue: the use of
animal products.


Veganism doesn't even address that issue. Vegans suggests they're not
harming animals by not eating them, not wearing their hides, not using
products tested on animals, and so on. That's all rhetorical -- in
practice, their consumption continues to harm animals by giving up a
fraction of an animal at a meal and instead causing many more animals to
die from crop production (pesticides, flooding, farm machinery,
predation, field-clearing fires, etc.) and by recommending
petrochemical-based synthetics in place of leather or fur.

It is not a complete philosophy of life,


It's a sham philosophy.

...
  #87 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 20-11-2005, 11:26 PM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Glorfindel
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

usual suspect wrote:



Veganism's sense of ethics IS an absolute.


false.


Ipse dixit.


No more so than your ipse dixit. For one thing, you cannot
speak for all vegans -- nor can I -- and for another, any
reading of major authors who support AR/veganism will show
they mention many areas where ethics cannot be absolute.

You concede below that the list of examples I provided all
constitute "exploitation" even though you suggested wiggle room for
keeping pets.


Yes.


Vegans don't distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable deaths,
or cruel or non-cruel treatement.


Some may not, but most do.


Name one vegan who doesn't.


Me.



They say *ALL* animal deaths are unacceptable,


False.


Let me correct myself: they're hypocrites on that issue.


No, they agree that ethics in the real world cannot always
be absolute. Nor is death always the worst option for an
animal.

Case in point,
the recent discovery of PETA nutjobs taking it upon themselves to kill
cats and dogs intended for adoption programs. Ingrid Newkirk has also
admitted to her own "mercy killings" of animals.


Yes, euthanasia is not prohibited by vegan/AR ethics if it is
genuine mercy killing. The question is whether death is
more just for the animal than not, and if it is done strictly
for the benefit of the animal, not for human convenience or
profit.



For the most part, that is true. There are individual cases where
the institutions which allow exploitation of animals in ways harmful
to them are redeemed by individual human/animal interactions, but
the institutions themselves are indeed exploitative and the animals
have little or no way to defend themselves against human power.


Why do you leave an opening (so to speak) for bestiality, one of the
most egregious of all possible examples of exploitation?


The above quote makes no mention of bestiality.

They call for an end to *all* fishing, *all* hunting, *all* animal
research, *all* fur and leather production, *all* livestock
production, and even use of honey. Many of them go even further and
want an end to humans having pets.


All of which are indeed exploitation of animals. What benefit
is it to the animal involved if a human takes his life for
food or in research or in production of fur and leather?


There are utilitarian arguments for benefits from research. An animal
used in such research may or may not directly benefit from the research,
but other animals can and will. But ARAs oppose *all* animal research
even when it bears fruit:


They apply the same ethical standards as in the case of human
subjects in research. A human cannot ethically be used in
research without his consent, even if the research will benefit
other humans. You know this.


What benefit is it to the bees if humans take their food and wax?


I really haven't spent much time worrying about how bees are affected by
my lifestyle aside from making sure I don't get stung.


But animal rights supporters have.



Not all keeping
of "pets" is exploitation, but it often is. There is no
question that these things *are* exploitation,


I disagree with you -- I don't see these examples as exploiting anything.


So I notice.


Please tell me what you find objectionable or exploitative about the
following "factory" farms,


Shall I post links to some of the examples of serious abuse of
animals in factory farms? They are all over the web and in
many books. Just look.

or how the conditions are inferior or more
inhospitable to what those animals would face in the wild


Which is, again, irrelevant to veganism/AR, which deals with
human treatment of animals only.


The onus isn't on those who eat meat to reduce animal suffering or
death.


Yes, it is.


No, people who eat meat have NO objections to the deaths of animals.


But they often have objections to the *suffering* of animals
in the process.


If it were not for consumers of factory-farmed meat,
there would be no factory-farmed meat.


Consumers don't demand "factory-farmed" meat, _per se_, but rather
demand their meat be as inexpensive as possible. Like any other
business, livestock producers employ various techniques to keep consumer
prices down while still maximizing profits.


Absolutely true. Unfortunately.

You cannot use the
argument only one way. You claim vegans should regard themselves
as responsible for the deaths involved in production of the products
they use.


Because *vegans* are the ones who object to dead animals. Meat eaters
don't have objections to dead animals.


But many of them object to suffering animals.



The onus is on meat-eaters to demand humane conditions.


For those who are concerned about such issues. Most consumers, though,
will instead search for bargains when grocery shopping. They won't care
if their pork chops came from Farmer A or Farmer B unless one costs more
than the other.


Absolutely true. Unfortunately. You make my point for me.


and who make categorical statements of their own moral superiority.


Which all vegans do not do.


You sure as hell do.


I do not.

You wrote in another post this morning,
"Vegetarians and vegans tend to be more aware..."


They do. Unless they were raised by vegan/vegetarian parents,
each has made a decision to avoid at least some animal products
for some reason. That means they are *usually* more aware of
the issues involved than meat-eaters, although not always.

Sometimes you get Rick.



It is not you who define the standard individuals measure themselves
against.


I'm not defining standards. I explained the *vegan* standard.


You do not speak for all vegans, nor can you define "the *vegan*
standard".

I doubt any honest person sees himself as fulfilling his
ethical standards *perfectly* because that is not possible for human
beings. We are all imperfect, and most of us recognize that.


This is irrelevant.


No, of course not.

The issue is whether vegan rhetoric deals in
any meaningful way with reality. It doesn't. In its general terms,
veganism doesn't even address the problem it wishes to solve because it
recommends consumption of that which can cause more of the problem (dead
animals) than existed when one still ate meat.


Can, but does not have to. Veganism addresses the reality of the
specific problem it is intended to address. It is not a complete
philosophy of life.

Is it ethical to wash one's hands of responsibility for the deaths
of living things just because one doesn't claim moral superiority?


I don't think meat-eaters, farmers, ranchers, researchers, etc., are
washing their hands; they fully accept that animals die in the course
of their consumption and/or work.


That does not make their actions right. To accept responsibility
for an action does not justify the action.


It's your task to explain why their actions are "wrong." You've yet to
do that.


According to you. Others may have a different opinion. No
argument any vegan put forth would convince you.



The reasons some laws have been
passed is because the abuses are and were widespread and disgusting.


Ipse dixit. Many laws are changed because of emotive pressure put on
legislators by a very small group of people.


True of many issues. All reform measures begin in this way.

Emotive appeal is also to
blame for what I originally thought was a decent measure in Florida a
few years ago (voter initiative to ban swine gestation pens in that
state). There weren't many pork producers in Florida in the first place
(ranked 30th in pork production in the US), and, perhaps most
importantly, there were only *two* farmers at the time the initiative
passed who actually used those crates.


Then it was good that those producers were eliminated, and
no others encouraged to set up production.


  #88 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-11-2005, 12:04 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

Karen, aka "degeneRAT," wrote:


Veganism's sense of ethics IS an absolute.


false.


Ipse dixit.


No more so than your ipse dixit. For one thing, you cannot
speak for all vegans -- nor can I -- and for another, any
reading of major authors who support AR/veganism will show
they mention many areas where ethics cannot be absolute.


Please give me an instance of a "major AR/vegan author" supporting
animal research, animals for food (generally speaking, not in dire
emergencies), or fur being fashionable.

You concede below that the list of examples I provided all constitute
"exploitation" even though you suggested wiggle room for keeping pets.


Yes.


Then why belabor those points, Karen?



Vegans don't distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable deaths,
or cruel or non-cruel treatement.


Some may not, but most do.


Name one vegan who doesn't.


Me.


Are we talking about the mouse you filleted, drowned, killed; or are we
talking about accepting others' taste for meat, fur, etc.?



They say *ALL* animal deaths are unacceptable,


False.


Let me correct myself: they're hypocrites on that issue.


No...


Yes.

Nor is death always the worst option for an
animal.


It sure as hell wasn't the worst option for the mouse you skinned alive.

Case in point, the recent discovery of PETA nutjobs taking it upon
themselves to kill cats and dogs intended for adoption programs.
Ingrid Newkirk has also admitted to her own "mercy killings" of animals.


Yes, euthanasia is not prohibited by vegan/AR ethics if it is
genuine mercy killing.


Newkirk killed deliberately and without mercy. Dittos for the assholes
in North Carolina who killed adoptable kittens.

The question is whether death is
more just for the animal than not, and if it is done strictly
for the benefit of the animal, not for human convenience or
profit.


PETA's track record shows they kill for convenience.



For the most part, that is true. There are individual cases where
the institutions which allow exploitation of animals in ways harmful
to them are redeemed by individual human/animal interactions, but
the institutions themselves are indeed exploitative and the animals
have little or no way to defend themselves against human power.


Why do you leave an opening (so to speak) for bestiality, one of the
most egregious of all possible examples of exploitation?


The above quote makes no mention of bestiality.


I was asking it with the broader context of knowing your approval of it.
You snipped some of the posts in which you gushed about people and
animals who benefit from trans-species ****ing:

Is it God's moral law, or a misunderstanding
by an ancient culture? Is there any *reason* behind the
prohibition? Is the behavior harmful? Why should it be seen as
wrong? Morality, especially God's morality, is not arbitrary.

...Bestiality is an iffy one for me: I think it is wrong if the
animal is injured, but I think the original prohibition was
based on the same definition of "unnatural" as homosexuality --
a confusion of roles.
-- Karen Winter as "Cynomis," 11 May 2005

Why do we assume children and animals can express willingness or
unwillingness to engage in most other activities, but not decide
what gives them physical pleasure if, and only if, it is
connected with the sex organs of one or the other of the
partners? Why can a seventeen-year-old decide which college he
wants to attend, but not whether he wants a blow job or not?
Why can a dog decide whether he wants to fetch a ball or not,
but not whether or not he enjoys licking a human's penis?
-- Karen Winter as "Rat," 20 June 1999

Since there are no social considerations for the non-humans
involved, it's even easier to offer a rational defense for
responsible zoophilia than for intergenerational sexual
activity, which has a major social stigma attached to it.
Animals don't care if the neighbors talk.
-- Karen Winter as "Rat," 30 April 2003

The animal, like the child, can only tell you whether he/she
enjoys the immediate physical [sexual] activity. You have to be
responsible for the rest.
-- Karen Winter as "Rat," 12 July 1999


Perhaps if you read some accounts by zoophiles, you might see
why some people feel some acts with some animals are not
harmful. You could then decide if you agree or not based on
knowledge. I would then be willing to give your opinion
consideration. One interesting thing is the strong condemnation
some zoophiles have for other zoophiles they think are not being
responsible. Zoophiles do indeed have ethics, and differ among
themselves on them. If you were to read some of those
discussions, you might understand more clearly what the issues
are for those who are actually dealing with them.
Karen Winter as "Rat": http://tinyurl.com/82w8j

Why do you not consider ****ing an animal to be an abusive situation,
but keeping it as a pet to be "complex" or using it to cure AIDS to be
exploitation?

They call for an end to *all* fishing, *all* hunting, *all* animal
research, *all* fur and leather production, *all* livestock
production, and even use of honey. Many of them go even further and
want an end to humans having pets.


All of which are indeed exploitation of animals. What benefit
is it to the animal involved if a human takes his life for
food or in research or in production of fur and leather?


There are utilitarian arguments for benefits from research. An animal
used in such research may or may not directly benefit from the
research, but other animals can and will. But ARAs oppose *all* animal
research even when it bears fruit:


They apply the same ethical standards as in the case of human
subjects in research.


They make anthropomorphic projections and/or engage in sophistry about
moral patients.



What benefit is it to the bees if humans take their food and wax?


I really haven't spent much time worrying about how bees are affected
by my lifestyle aside from making sure I don't get stung.


But animal rights supporters have.


I suspect that extremists turn to animal rights from a lack of
the more worthwhile causes of the past, like nuclear
disarmament.
-- Stephen Hawking


Please tell me what you find objectionable or exploitative about the
following "factory" farms,


Shall I post links to some of the examples of serious abuse of
animals in factory farms? They are all over the web and in
many books. Just look.


I posted links to pics of typical farms. You snipped them and dodged
invitations to respond to what you see. Did you even look, Karen?

or how the conditions are inferior or more inhospitable to what those
animals would face in the wild


Which is, again, irrelevant to veganism/AR, which deals with
human treatment of animals only.


Why should humans respond any differently from any other animal in nature?



The onus isn't on those who eat meat to reduce animal suffering or
death.


Yes, it is.


No, people who eat meat have NO objections to the deaths of animals.


But they often have objections to the *suffering* of animals
in the process.


They put their objections aside when it comes to a good sale price.


If it were not for consumers of factory-farmed meat,
there would be no factory-farmed meat.


Consumers don't demand "factory-farmed" meat, _per se_, but rather
demand their meat be as inexpensive as possible. Like any other
business, livestock producers employ various techniques to keep
consumer prices down while still maximizing profits.


Absolutely true. Unfortunately.


There's nothing unfortunate about it. Why are you so upset about what
other people choose to consume? You haven't done much to better yourself
(washing stray cats, abandoning your family, etc.), so why try to change
others in a most meaningless manner?

You cannot use the
argument only one way. You claim vegans should regard themselves
as responsible for the deaths involved in production of the products
they use.


Because *vegans* are the ones who object to dead animals. Meat eaters
don't have objections to dead animals.


But many of them object to suffering animals.


They put their objections aside when chicken goes on sale.



The onus is on meat-eaters to demand humane conditions.


For those who are concerned about such issues. Most consumers, though,
will instead search for bargains when grocery shopping. They won't
care if their pork chops came from Farmer A or Farmer B unless one
costs more than the other.


Absolutely true. Unfortunately. You make my point for me.


There's nothing unfortunate about it. That serves to show you that
people by and large are unaffected by the things that you've made your
life's cause. That doesn't mean there's anything "wrong" with them --
they just don't share your peculiar priorities.


and who make categorical statements of their own moral superiority.


Which all vegans do not do.


You sure as hell do.


I do not.


You do, too. You have disdain and contempt for those whose values are
different from your own. And your vitriol extends far beyond animal
rights and diet -- you've expressed your hatred for the conservatives in
your church who didn't go looking for a fight (but you did), and you
consider anyone who disagrees with your radical views to be a
fundamentalist (and "fundamentalist Episcopalian" is an oxymoron).

You wrote in another post this morning, "Vegetarians and vegans tend
to be more aware..."


They do.


No. Ipse dixit.

Unless they were raised by vegan/vegetarian parents,
each has made a decision to avoid at least some animal products
for some reason. That means they are *usually* more aware of
the issues involved than meat-eaters, although not always.


No. Non sequitur.



It is not you who define the standard individuals measure themselves
against.


I'm not defining standards. I explained the *vegan* standard.


You do not speak for all vegans, nor can you define "the *vegan*
standard".


I've used their own standard.

I doubt any honest person sees himself as fulfilling his
ethical standards *perfectly* because that is not possible for human
beings. We are all imperfect, and most of us recognize that.


This is irrelevant.


No, of course not.


It is entirely irrelevant. Vegans state their goal -- reducing animal
harm. They engage in certain behavior -- avoiding meat, dairy, eggs,
etc. They disregard the effects of their behavior -- whether or not it
reduces animal suffering or death. It's a pose. That's all.

The issue is whether vegan rhetoric deals in any meaningful way with
reality. It doesn't. In its general terms, veganism doesn't even
address the problem it wishes to solve because it recommends
consumption of that which can cause more of the problem (dead animals)
than existed when one still ate meat.


Can, but does not have to.


It generally DOES cause more deaths. One deer provides many meals. One
bowl of rice and beans causes many more animal deaths.

Veganism addresses the reality


No, veganism is a feeble attempt to avoid reality -- that more animals
die to produce a bowl of rice and beans than die from a successful
hunting trip.

Is it ethical to wash one's hands of responsibility for the deaths
of living things just because one doesn't claim moral superiority?


I don't think meat-eaters, farmers, ranchers, researchers, etc., are
washing their hands; they fully accept that animals die in the
course of their consumption and/or work.


That does not make their actions right. To accept responsibility
for an action does not justify the action.


It's your task to explain why their actions are "wrong." You've yet to
do that.


According to you. Others may have a different opinion. No
argument any vegan put forth would convince you.


You've not explained why anything is wrong, just that it is.



The reasons some laws have been
passed is because the abuses are and were widespread and disgusting.


Ipse dixit. Many laws are changed because of emotive pressure put on
legislators by a very small group of people.


True of many issues. All reform measures begin in this way.


So do repeal measures.

Emotive appeal is also to blame for what I originally thought was a
decent measure in Florida a few years ago (voter initiative to ban
swine gestation pens in that state). There weren't many pork producers
in Florida in the first place (ranked 30th in pork production in the
US), and, perhaps most importantly, there were only *two* farmers at
the time the initiative passed who actually used those crates.


Then it was good that those producers were eliminated, and
no others encouraged to set up production.


They slaughtered even their sows to avoid having to deal with the
amendment when it went into effect. Happy?




You didn't look at the pictures of NORMAL farming conditions, Karen.
Come on, be a big girl. Tell me what you find objectionable about the
following:
http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vetext...AN_PigFarm.gif
http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/undergrad/ag_eng16.jpg
http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/ga...es/hogfarm.jpg
http://www.ams.usda.gov/contracting/contract4.jpg
http://tinyurl.com/be2km
http://tinyurl.com/8vxhd
http://tinyurl.com/95a85
http://tinyurl.com/ayg46
http://tinyurl.com/arxlb
http://tinyurl.com/byac3
  #89 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-11-2005, 12:07 AM posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

"rick" wrote in message
.net...

"Scented Nectar" wrote in message
.. .
"rick" wrote in message
ink.net...

[-snip-]

===============================
Willful ignorance in action I see. *ALL* beeef cattle are
grass
fed and grazed for most of their lives, fool. And then, only
3/4
of those go to feedlots for the last weeks of their lives.
So,
you start right out with a ly, and the rest of your spew is
mmeaningless, hypocrite.


What's eating those acres of hay
that's grown? Hay is a type of
grass. A LOT of hay is grown for
the feeding of cows. Even the
cows that get to graze during the
summer must be fed hay during
the winter. The growing of hay
has at least as many cds as other
grains. Time to update your
numbers, Ricky. Even cows that
are kept indoors and fed hay all
their lives can be called grass fed.

============================
Still as ignorant as ever I see, fool. Cows are not *kept*
indoors you twit. Maybe you're confusing the beef kind with the
lazy type of cow you are that is 'kept' by the state, eh killer?


Ignoring your insult, I'll ask again.
What's eating those tons and tons
of hay?


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



  #90 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 21-11-2005, 12:14 AM posted to alt.food.vegan
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

"usual suspect" wrote in
message ...
Skanky wrote:
The only similarity is that both vegans and the typical Springer
guest are dysfunctional.

Suspect, you have half a brain clearly, but you have the most wretched
social and communication skills possible and if you aren't aware you
come off as the poster pantyboy of Dysfunctional, look at yourself
long and hard in the mirror.

He is clearly intelligent

Thanks for noticing, Bob.

and has incredibly energy to insult people.

Incredible energy, period. I run and ride my bike more than you ever
could've hoped to before you ran out in front of that Mercedes Benz.


What?!?! You're not driving a
car?


I have cars, too. They don't provide me with exercise.


You still haven't been able to show
me why having a car makes one
a better person than not having one.

I suspect by his level of obscenities and insults he is potentially
dangerous.

Amazing you suggest that given your own repeated violent threats:
You're simply an asshole who deserves to
get his ass kicked.
-- Violent Bob, 23 July 2005: http://tinyurl.com/9k2ml

Now try to find an instance in which I've *ever* wished harm upon
another person, you candy-assed loser. You can't find one because I'm
not prone to violence like you are.


You prove repeatedly that you
wish people psychological harm.


Liar. I want people to get better. That's why I've encouraged you to
grow or purchase foods consistent with your own beliefs instead of being
a hypocritical animal killer. I've also encouraged you to get help for
your drug addiction and agoraphobia -- two things detrimental to your
immediate and long-term well-being.


Calling me drug addict is a good
example of your only being here
to insult. You always forget how
transparent you are. Rick has
admitted drinking beer recreationally,
but I don't see you calling him an
alcoholic. Nor do I see you picking
on his overabundant typos, although
you do if the person's vegan.

You want them to feel bad about
themselves.


You feel bad about yourself because you're a low-grade pothead slacker.


Smoking pot recreationally does not
make one into your insults. Have
you ever even tried to be polite? You
would have more real life friends too.

Even in the very
sentences above where you
claim not to wish harm, you call
him a 'candy-assed loser'.


He is one.


Tell me the proof of your insult, or
admit to wanting to harm people
psychologically.


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





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 06:18 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017