>>
>> Rick,
>>
>> Take it up with God, not me.
>
> Which god forbids eating meat or allows believers to judge themselves or
> others according to diet?


I did not make any judgements, and if I did I was wrong to do so. God
does not forbid eating meat. God doesn't forbid anything. He gives you
what you want. We do not eat meat in order to please God, not to obey
rules.

"Anon" > wrote in message
...
>
>>>
>>> Rick,
>>>
>>> Take it up with God, not me.
>>
>> Which god forbids eating meat or allows believers to judge
>> themselves or others according to diet?
>
>
> I did not make any judgements, and if I did I was wrong to do
> so. God does not forbid eating meat. God doesn't forbid
> anything. He gives you what you want. We do not eat meat in
> order to please God, not to obey rules.
=========================
Again, like you were asked, which god then 'prefers' you not eat
meat?
Then tell us which god prefers you kill more animals just so you
can
'please' him by not eating one?

You really are just too stupid for this, killer. As usual, you
have no thought out
ideology, just a simple rule for your simple mind...

>
> From your hyper-defensive reaction to my post, I would have to guess
> you're vegan. So you "practice" a marginal extremist politic which
> hypocritically judges people by what they eat, not by what they do,
> without any consideration for what your consumption actually does. In
> short, you attribute virtue to yourself for not eating meat even though
> your diet and lifestyle cause many animals to die. This makes you a
> hypocrite.
>

I felt that I was being attacked and responded appropriately. Once
again I will repeat: You do not know me and you do not know what I
practice. I am not vegan. I eat a lacto-vegetarian diet which is the diet

> Your hypocrisy is exacerbated the moment you distinguish it as a virtue
> by comparing yourself to others, particularly with regard to
> spirituality. Vegans are charlatans, and that especially seems to be the
> case when "veganism" is trumped as a sign of one's spirituality: the
> Eastern religions adopted by Western vegans tend to allow for
> consumption of meat.

Please show me where I indicated that I was more virtuous than someone
else because of my diet.. or for any reason. If you can show me that
I've done that then I will apologize.

In reagrds to Eastern religions allowing for consumption of meat.. you
are assuming that religion is a static, rigid entity that allows or
forbids certain behaviors. This is simply not the case. There are
factions within each religious movement that practice different things,
condsider certain texts more important, etc. Religion cannot allow or
disallow anything. I was never talking about religion anyway (in the
sense that most people understand it)

>
> Buddha ate meat; there are no prohibitions against meat consumption in
> Buddhism, nor is there a sliding scale of virtue in Buddhism based upon
> diet -- quite the opposite. Meat is also allowed in Hinduism, Islam, and
> Judaism; there are adherents of each of those religions who will ascribe
> abstinence of meat as a virtue, but it's not universally held in those
> religions. Jesus said that it isn't what goes into one's mouth that
> makes him or her holy, and St Paul wrote that people shouldn't judge one
> another according to whether or not they eat meat.
>

I am well aware of the various practices amoung traditions. Once again,
I am not talking about religion. Anyone can claim to be anything and do
anything. That does not make it spiritual and that does not make it
true. It would be a waste of time to get into the various reasons why
certain "Hindu" (although this term is EXTREMELY problematic) do not eat
meat or do eat meat or believe in God or are atheistic or wear certian
clothes or wear no clothes at all. This would be absurd.

Also, different traditions will say different things. Some will say
that the Buddha ate meat because they eat meat. Others will say that he
did not becuase they do not. This kind of discussion is pointless.
Neither one of us knows for sure if the Buddha ate meat or not. Period.


> Ultimately, though, veganism is misanthropic. Vegans oppose the world
> around them and feebly try to isolate themselves from it. It's an
> attempt -- a feeble one given that, when counting deaths of animals,
> veganism is shown to be an empty gesture -- by immature Western
> urbanites to cope with failure in other, significant areas of their
> lives. They're openly hostile and antagonistic towards their surrounding
> cultures. Veganism has less to do with animals and compassion than
> rejecting the values of one's culture. That gets us right back to what
> I've already written, that veganism then becomes the shoddy, false
> standard by which morally feeble people like you judge yourself and others.
>

It must be nice to be able to place entire groups of people into a
simple ideological box. I cannot help but remember that we are all
individuals with individual choices based on individual experiences.


> Finally, you presume that veganism is about diet. That's wrong. Veganism
> is political and pseudo-philosophical. It has nothing to do with what
> people eat than their phony gestures to the sham ideal that "if I don't
> eat animals, no animals die." And that matter has been dealt with
> exhaustively in AFV.

I am not vegan. I realize that you say that it's political and
pseudo-philosophical, but that tells me absolutely nothing.

rick wrote:
> "Dave" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > usual suspect wrote:
> >> Dave wrote:
> >> > usual suspect wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>Dave wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>Anon wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>Dave wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>>Lady Muck wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>>rick wrote:
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>"Fred" > wrote in message
> >> rnet.com...
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>Well, I wasn't trying to prove anything except that a
> >> >>>>>>>>non-vegan
> >> >>>>>>>>recipe
> >> >>>>>>>>is Off Topic on a group called alt.food.*vegan*.
> >> >>>>>>>>How about some posts about vegan food!
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>=======================
> >> >>>>>>>That's my point. There are no real vegan foods when
> >> >>>>>>>they come
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>from massive mono-culture crop operations and/or are
> >> >>>>>>>imported
> >> >>>>>>>from all around the world. They are all tainted with
> >> >>>>>>>massive
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>amounts of animals death and suffering. Why is it that
> >> >>>>>>>vegans
> >> >>>>>>>have no problem killing animals and leaving them to
> >> >>>>>>>rot, but spew
> >> >>>>>>>their hatred of those that at least put dead animals to
> >> >>>>>>>good use?
> >> >>>>>>>And, to top it off, posting them to usenet contributes
> >> >>>>>>>to the
> >> >>>>>>>death and suffering of many more animals.
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>In article
> >> hlink.net>,
> >> says...
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>>Thanks for again proving that causing less suffering
> >> >>>>>>>>>to
> >> >>>>>>>>>animals
> >> >>>>>>>>>is not a vegan concern. All they follow is a simple
> >> >>>>>>>>>rule for
> >> >>>>>>>>>their simple minds, 'eat no meat,' regardless of the
> >> >>>>>>>>>consequences..
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>Rick - sweetie. I haven't posted to you for a LONG
> >> >>>>>>time.Oh well, your
> >> >>>>>>luck is IN today!
> >> >>>>>>I would be more concerned that the servers wear those
> >> >>>>>>dreadful gloves
> >> >>>>>>and put their hands all over meat products then grab and
> >> >>>>>>shove the
> >> >>>>>>vegetarian products with the SAME gloves. Even if I ask
> >> >>>>>>for a change of
> >> >>>>>>gloves it's TOO LATE, the veggie grub has been
> >> >>>>>>contaminated already.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>One thing I have never understood is why veggies make
> >> >>>>>such a big deal
> >> >>>>>of things like this. The microscopic traces of meat that
> >> >>>>>may
> >> >>>>>contaminate your
> >> >>>>>veggie food is not going to make the blindest bit of
> >> >>>>>difference to your
> >> >>>>>health
> >> >>>>>and you are not condoning or financially supporting the
> >> >>>>>meat industry
> >> >>>>>in any way by accepting the product. Apart from
> >> >>>>>inconviniencing the
> >> >>>>>staff
> >> >>>>>and making vegetarians appear petty what do you hope to
> >> >>>>>achieve by
> >> >>>>>objecting to it?
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>>Not that I'd mind grabbing YOUR little bit of meat,
> >> >>>>>>gloves or no gloves.
> >> >>>>>>X
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>Dave,
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>It's easier to understand once you go veggie. Your
> >> >>>>perception of meat
> >> >>>>begins to change and after a while, even the idea of
> >> >>>>eating meat is
> >> >>>>unappetizing. For me, the reasons go beyond that. I have
> >> >>>>spiritual
> >> >>>>reasons for not eating meat which I've elaborated on in
> >> >>>>the past.
> >> >>>>Basically animals, even the ones that we eat, are God's
> >> >>>>children. I
> >> >>>>offer all of my food to God before i eat it and I would
> >> >>>>not want to
> >> >>>>offer God anything that contained even the slightest trace
> >> >>>>of the body
> >> >>>>of his other children. it would be disrespectful. I will
> >> >>>>not even eat
> >> >>>>cheese made with animal rennet even though the rennet is a
> >> >>>>product only
> >> >>>>derived from animals.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>It may be hard to understand this if you could care less
> >> >>>>whether or not
> >> >>>>animal products or flesh were in your food, but to someone
> >> >>>>who on a
> >> >>>>daily basis must inconveience him or herself to live a
> >> >>>>life style that
> >> >>>>they feel is a moral or spiritual must, the idea of even a
> >> >>>>little bit of
> >> >>>>meat is disturbing. I, and many other veggies, don't even
> >> >>>>like to smell
> >> >>>>meat.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Although not strict veggie as such I'd hardly describe
> >> >>>myself as
> >> >>>someone
> >> >>>who couldn't care less what is in my food. I abhor modern
> >> >>>methods of
> >> >>>factory farming and try to avoid any products that offer
> >> >>>financial
> >> >>>support
> >> >>>to such methods.
> >> >>
> >> >>Do you apply the same standards to other industries, or even
> >> >>other forms
> >> >>of agriculture? For instance, do you refuse to drive
> >> >>vehicles that were
> >> >>built on assembly lines? Do you refuse clothing made with
> >> >>materials
> >> >>derived from industrial processing -- whether synthetics
> >> >>refined from
> >> >>petroleum or natural fibers grown and woven "industrially"?
> >> >
> >> > Nope although where there is a choice I give preference to
> >> > what I
> >> > perceive to be the more ethical option.
> >>
> >> Upon what standard is your sense of ethics based?
> >>
> >> >>What is it about modern methods of farming that makes it
> >> >>different from
> >> >>any other economic activity?
> >> >
> >> > These other forms of economic activity don't involve raising
> >> > animals
> >> > in what I consider to be unacceptable conditions.
> >>
> >> What's unacceptable about it?
> >
> > The welfare needs of the animals are treated as trivial
> > compared
> > with their economic potential.
> >>===============================
> LOL They are still given more consideration than the animals
> that die for your mono-culture crops, dave.
> The animals you rant about are the business of the farmers. They
> aren't going to kill them off prior to reaching
> the point where they make a profit. The ones that die for your
> crops are the ones that are not only treated trivially, but
> aren't even considered except for how to kill as many as possible
> when they become a nuisance.

When you consume meat you also indirectly consume all the plants
the animal happened to eat, eg the mono-culture crops.
>
>
>
> >> >>Humans have always sought to maximize
> >> >>yields from the least amount of inputs -- and farming is one
> >> >>of the
> >> >>industries which was first to do it (farming reduced
> >> >>nomadicism and
> >> >>hunting/gathering).
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>>I willingly endure the inconvinience of having to
> >> >>>avoid
> >> >>>certain products but I have never seen the point of
> >> >>>inconviniencing
> >> >>>myself
> >> >>>further by refusing to eat salad sandwiches from Subway
> >> >>>just because
> >> >>>the
> >> >>>people serving them have recently handled meat. I might
> >> >>>feel
> >> >>>differently
> >> >>>if I had spritual motivations but I don't think most
> >> >>>veggies do.
> >> >>
> >> >>So-called vegans are misanthropic rather than spiritual in
> >> >>their
> >> >>motivations. Don't give them the benefit of the doubt.
> >> >
> >> >
> >

rick wrote:
> "Dave" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > rick wrote:
> >> "Dave" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > usual suspect wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> snip...
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Do you apply the same standards to other industries, or
> >> >> even
> >> >> other forms
> >> >> of agriculture? For instance, do you refuse to drive
> >> >> vehicles
> >> >> that were
> >> >> built on assembly lines? Do you refuse clothing made with
> >> >> materials
> >> >> derived from industrial processing -- whether synthetics
> >> >> refined from
> >> >> petroleum or natural fibers grown and woven "industrially"?
> >> >
> >> > Nope although where there is a choice I give preference to
> >> > what
> >> > I
> >> > perceive to be the more ethical option.
> >> >>
> >> >> What is it about modern methods of farming that makes it
> >> >> different from
> >> >> any other economic activity?
> >> >
> >> > These other forms of economic activity don't involve raising
> >> > animals
> >> > in what I consider to be unacceptable conditions.
> >> ===========================
> >> "raising" animals in what way? Monoculture cropping provides
> >> for
> >> the 'raising' of
> >> an unnatural number of animals for a given area, and then most
> >> of
> >> them are "killed off"
> >> when you take your factory farmed veggies away.
> >
> > Yes, they die at the end of their lives and the deaths aren't
> > necessarily
> > humane but they are relatively brief compared with (eg) the
> > cages
> > battery hens are typically kept in for their WHOLE lives.
> > ==============================
> Ummm, I don't see these cages for the chickens that are running
> around my back yard.

Allowing chickens to run around in your back yard is not a modern
method of factory farming. Jeez!

> can you give me a clue where they are? i'm
> sure the chickens would like to know too.
> The 'end of their lives' for many fileds animals is very short.
> Mortality for whole litters is not always very high.
> Your providing for the adult animals to continue to breed in
> unnatural numbers provides for this very short, very inhumane
> life.
>
>
> >> >> Humans have always sought to maximize
> >> >> yields from the least amount of inputs -- and farming is
> >> >> one
> >> >> of the
> >> >> industries which was first to do it (farming reduced
> >> >> nomadicism and
> >> >> hunting/gathering).
> >> >>
> >> >> > I willingly endure the inconvinience of having to
> >> >> > avoid
> >> >> > certain products but I have never seen the point of
> >> >> > inconviniencing
> >> >> > myself
> >> >> > further by refusing to eat salad sandwiches from Subway
> >> >> > just
> >> >> > because
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > people serving them have recently handled meat. I might
> >> >> > feel
> >> >> > differently
> >> >> > if I had spritual motivations but I don't think most
> >> >> > veggies
> >> >> > do.
> >> >>
> >> >> So-called vegans are misanthropic rather than spiritual in
> >> >> their
> >> >> motivations. Don't give them the benefit of the doubt.
> >> >
> >

"Dave" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> rick wrote:
>> "Dave" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > rick wrote:
>> >> "Dave" > wrote in message
>> >> oups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > usual suspect wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> snip...
>> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Do you apply the same standards to other industries, or
>> >> >> even
>> >> >> other forms
>> >> >> of agriculture? For instance, do you refuse to drive
>> >> >> vehicles
>> >> >> that were
>> >> >> built on assembly lines? Do you refuse clothing made
>> >> >> with
>> >> >> materials
>> >> >> derived from industrial processing -- whether synthetics
>> >> >> refined from
>> >> >> petroleum or natural fibers grown and woven
>> >> >> "industrially"?
>> >> >
>> >> > Nope although where there is a choice I give preference
>> >> > to
>> >> > what
>> >> > I
>> >> > perceive to be the more ethical option.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What is it about modern methods of farming that makes it
>> >> >> different from
>> >> >> any other economic activity?
>> >> >
>> >> > These other forms of economic activity don't involve
>> >> > raising
>> >> > animals
>> >> > in what I consider to be unacceptable conditions.
>> >> ===========================
>> >> "raising" animals in what way? Monoculture cropping
>> >> provides
>> >> for
>> >> the 'raising' of
>> >> an unnatural number of animals for a given area, and then
>> >> most
>> >> of
>> >> them are "killed off"
>> >> when you take your factory farmed veggies away.
>> >
>> > Yes, they die at the end of their lives and the deaths
>> > aren't
>> > necessarily
>> > humane but they are relatively brief compared with (eg) the
>> > cages
>> > battery hens are typically kept in for their WHOLE lives.
>> > ==============================
>> Ummm, I don't see these cages for the chickens that are
>> running
>> around my back yard.
>
> Allowing chickens to run around in your back yard is not a
> modern
> method of factory farming. Jeez!
========================
Then why do you talk like those are the only chickens around?
Supporting an alternative is the only way to change what you
don't like.



>
>> can you give me a clue where they are? i'm
>> sure the chickens would like to know too.
>> The 'end of their lives' for many fileds animals is very
>> short.
>> Mortality for whole litters is not always very high.
>> Your providing for the adult animals to continue to breed in
>> unnatural numbers provides for this very short, very inhumane
>> life.
>>
>>
>> >> >> Humans have always sought to maximize
>> >> >> yields from the least amount of inputs -- and farming is
>> >> >> one
>> >> >> of the
>> >> >> industries which was first to do it (farming reduced
>> >> >> nomadicism and
>> >> >> hunting/gathering).
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > I willingly endure the inconvinience of having to
>> >> >> > avoid
>> >> >> > certain products but I have never seen the point of
>> >> >> > inconviniencing
>> >> >> > myself
>> >> >> > further by refusing to eat salad sandwiches from
>> >> >> > Subway
>> >> >> > just
>> >> >> > because
>> >> >> > the
>> >> >> > people serving them have recently handled meat. I
>> >> >> > might
>> >> >> > feel
>> >> >> > differently
>> >> >> > if I had spritual motivations but I don't think most
>> >> >> > veggies
>> >> >> > do.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So-called vegans are misanthropic rather than spiritual
>> >> >> in
>> >> >> their
>> >> >> motivations. Don't give them the benefit of the doubt.
>> >> >
>> >
>

"Dave" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> rick wrote:


snippage...

>> >> > These other forms of economic activity don't involve
>> >> > raising
>> >> > animals
>> >> > in what I consider to be unacceptable conditions.
>> >>
>> >> What's unacceptable about it?
>> >
>> > The welfare needs of the animals are treated as trivial
>> > compared
>> > with their economic potential.
>> >>===============================
>> LOL They are still given more consideration than the animals
>> that die for your mono-culture crops, dave.
>> The animals you rant about are the business of the farmers.
>> They
>> aren't going to kill them off prior to reaching
>> the point where they make a profit. The ones that die for
>> your
>> crops are the ones that are not only treated trivially, but
>> aren't even considered except for how to kill as many as
>> possible
>> when they become a nuisance.
>
> When you consume meat you also indirectly consume all the
> plants
> the animal happened to eat, eg the mono-culture crops.
===========================
No, I don't. The beef I eat consume no crops. Zero, nada,
zilch.
Why is that so hard to understand? It also uses no
pharmaceuticals.
It uses no chemicals, your crops cannot make that claim.


>>
>>
>>
>> >> >>Humans have always sought to maximize
>> >> >>yields from the least amount of inputs -- and farming is
>> >> >>one
>> >> >>of the
>> >> >>industries which was first to do it (farming reduced
>> >> >>nomadicism and
>> >> >>hunting/gathering).
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>I willingly endure the inconvinience of having to
>> >> >>>avoid
>> >> >>>certain products but I have never seen the point of
>> >> >>>inconviniencing
>> >> >>>myself
>> >> >>>further by refusing to eat salad sandwiches from Subway
>> >> >>>just because
>> >> >>>the
>> >> >>>people serving them have recently handled meat. I might
>> >> >>>feel
>> >> >>>differently
>> >> >>>if I had spritual motivations but I don't think most
>> >> >>>veggies do.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>So-called vegans are misanthropic rather than spiritual
>> >> >>in
>> >> >>their
>> >> >>motivations. Don't give them the benefit of the doubt.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>

"Anon" > wrote in message
...
> rick wrote:
>> "Anon" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>>> Rick,
>>>>>
>>>>> Take it up with God, not me.
>>>> Which god forbids eating meat or allows believers to judge
>>>> themselves or others according to diet?
>>>
>>> I did not make any judgements, and if I did I was wrong to do
>>> so. God does not forbid eating meat. God doesn't forbid
>>> anything. He gives you what you want. We do not eat meat in
>>> order to please God, not to obey rules.
>> =========================
>> Again, like you were asked, which god then 'prefers' you not
>> eat meat?
>> Then tell us which god prefers you kill more animals just so
>> you can
>> 'please' him by not eating one?
>>
>> You really are just too stupid for this, killer. As usual,
>> you have no thought out
>> ideology, just a simple rule for your simple mind...
>>
>>
> There can only be one God. I don't know how I can put it more
> plainly.
===========================
When did he tell you that you can only please him by not eating
meat?
Did he not tell you at the same time that it is not nice to kill
animals for your selfish entertainment? If not, why? I'd think
that that would dis-please
him even more, wouldn't you? Do you have selective hearing, or
just a simple rule
for your simple mind?

rick wrote:
> >> Ummm, I don't see these cages for the chickens that are
> >> running
> >> around my back yard.
> >
> > Allowing chickens to run around in your back yard is not a
> > modern
> > method of factory farming. Jeez!
> ========================
> Then why do you talk like those are the only chickens around?

I didn't think I was doing.

> Supporting an alternative is the only way to change what you
> don't like.

The particular methods that I abhor exist because people buy
their products. By refraining from buying the products I avoid
fuelling the demand for them. This holds true whether I buy
(instead of battery eggs) free range eggs or tofu. In principle
consuming either has the same effect on the demand for
battery eggs. In practise there are people who prefer to buy
free range eggs but only if they are sold in their local corner
shop/supermarket so a case could be made for offering those
shops an incentive to stock free range.

rick wrote:
> "Dave" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > rick wrote:
>
>
> snippage...
>
> >> >> > These other forms of economic activity don't involve
> >> >> > raising
> >> >> > animals
> >> >> > in what I consider to be unacceptable conditions.
> >> >>
> >> >> What's unacceptable about it?
> >> >
> >> > The welfare needs of the animals are treated as trivial
> >> > compared
> >> > with their economic potential.
> >> >>===============================
> >> LOL They are still given more consideration than the animals
> >> that die for your mono-culture crops, dave.
> >> The animals you rant about are the business of the farmers.
> >> They
> >> aren't going to kill them off prior to reaching
> >> the point where they make a profit. The ones that die for
> >> your
> >> crops are the ones that are not only treated trivially, but
> >> aren't even considered except for how to kill as many as
> >> possible
> >> when they become a nuisance.
> >
> > When you consume meat you also indirectly consume all the
> > plants
> > the animal happened to eat, eg the mono-culture crops.
> ===========================
> No, I don't. The beef I eat consume no crops.

The beef you eat does not come from cattle that
have been intensively reared using modern factory
farming methods. Jeez!

> Zero, nada, zilch.
> Why is that so hard to understand?

It isn't.

> It also uses no pharmaceuticals.
> It uses no chemicals, your crops cannot make that claim.

How do you know that. Just as it is possible to get hold of
chemical free grass fed beef from local suppliers so it is
also possible to get hold of *cide free veggies.

> >> >> >>Humans have always sought to maximize
> >> >> >>yields from the least amount of inputs -- and farming is
> >> >> >>one
> >> >> >>of the
> >> >> >>industries which was first to do it (farming reduced
> >> >> >>nomadicism and
> >> >> >>hunting/gathering).
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>I willingly endure the inconvinience of having to
> >> >> >>>avoid
> >> >> >>>certain products but I have never seen the point of
> >> >> >>>inconviniencing
> >> >> >>>myself
> >> >> >>>further by refusing to eat salad sandwiches from Subway
> >> >> >>>just because
> >> >> >>>the
> >> >> >>>people serving them have recently handled meat. I might
> >> >> >>>feel
> >> >> >>>differently
> >> >> >>>if I had spritual motivations but I don't think most
> >> >> >>>veggies do.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>So-called vegans are misanthropic rather than spiritual
> >> >> >>in
> >> >> >>their
> >> >> >>motivations. Don't give them the benefit of the doubt.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >
> >

rick wrote:
> "Anon" > wrote in message
> ...
>>>> Rick,
>>>>
>>>> Take it up with God, not me.
>>> Which god forbids eating meat or allows believers to judge
>>> themselves or others according to diet?
>>
>> I did not make any judgements, and if I did I was wrong to do
>> so. God does not forbid eating meat. God doesn't forbid
>> anything. He gives you what you want. We do not eat meat in
>> order to please God, not to obey rules.
> =========================
> Again, like you were asked, which god then 'prefers' you not eat
> meat?
> Then tell us which god prefers you kill more animals just so you
> can
> 'please' him by not eating one?
>
> You really are just too stupid for this, killer. As usual, you
> have no thought out
> ideology, just a simple rule for your simple mind...
>
>
There can only be one God. I don't know how I can put it more plainly.

"Anon" > wrote in message
...
> rick wrote:
>> "Anon" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> rick wrote:
>>>> "Anon" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>>>> Rick,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Take it up with God, not me.
>>>>>> Which god forbids eating meat or allows believers to judge
>>>>>> themselves or others according to diet?
>>>>> I did not make any judgements, and if I did I was wrong to
>>>>> do so. God does not forbid eating meat. God doesn't
>>>>> forbid anything. He gives you what you want. We do not
>>>>> eat meat in order to please God, not to obey rules.
>>>> =========================
>>>> Again, like you were asked, which god then 'prefers' you not
>>>> eat meat?
>>>> Then tell us which god prefers you kill more animals just so
>>>> you can
>>>> 'please' him by not eating one?
>>>>
>>>> You really are just too stupid for this, killer. As usual,
>>>> you have no thought out
>>>> ideology, just a simple rule for your simple mind...
>>>>
>>>>
>>> There can only be one God. I don't know how I can put it
>>> more plainly.
>> ===========================
>> When did he tell you that you can only please him by not
>> eating meat?
>> Did he not tell you at the same time that it is not nice to
>> kill
>> animals for your selfish entertainment? If not, why? I'd
>> think that that would dis-please
>> him even more, wouldn't you? Do you have selective hearing,
>> or just a simple rule
>> for your simple mind?
>>
>
> I think you are only interested in an arguement, but I will
> oblige you this one last time simply because someone else may
> be reading this thread and sincerely want to know the answers
> to the questions that you're asking.
==========================
You're the one that has been avoiding the discussion with you
lame spewing, troll.


>
> God did not tell me anything. He does however have a
> representative on earth who instructs people on how to be
> pleasing to God. One must be very careful in deciding to
> follow a spiritual master. The spiritual master must be
> unattached to the material world. He must constantly be
> remembering God in everything that he does. He teaches nothing
> contrary to scripture and you must check everything that he
> teaches with the lord in the heart. The spiritual master
> desires nothing materially. His only desire is to love and
> serve God. It is his teachings that I try to follow to the
> best of my ability. One of those teachings is to not eat meat
> for a multitude of reasons (only one of which being the
> suffering that it causes).
===============================
LOL In other words, god didn't say it at all. You lied, fool.


>
> There are actions that please God and there are actions that
> displease God. There are not actions that are more displeasing
> or actions that are more pleasing. There is pleasing and there
> is displeasing. God, being your best friend and father,
> desires that you try to please Him. Your attempt to please God
> is pleasing to God. It is the intention of the act which is
> pleasing.
===========================
Then I would think that contributing deliberately to the deaths
of millions and millions of animals for nothing more than your
selfish entertainment would be very displeasing. You don't seem
to care about THOSE animals, just the ones you think everybody
else is killing. Your hypocrisy is very amusing, considering you
have all the words down pat, eh hypocrite?
You have them written on a card for reference or something,
because you keep proving that you don't live them.


>
> My mind is simple and the rules for spiritual life are simple
> as well. Properly applied, they lead to complete bliss and
> inner contentment. Doesn't that sound nice? It's true and you
> can experience it.
>
> That is all that I have to say to you Rick. I've done my duty.
> What you do with the information is up to you and if all that
> you want to do is call me names then that is your decision.
===============================
LOL I do the same with your 'info' as you have done with mine.
Ignore it.
At least what I posted was the truth, not some vague
pseudo-spiritual claptrap...



>
>

rick wrote:
> "Anon" > wrote in message
> ...
>> rick wrote:
>>> "Anon" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>>> Rick,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Take it up with God, not me.
>>>>> Which god forbids eating meat or allows believers to judge
>>>>> themselves or others according to diet?
>>>> I did not make any judgements, and if I did I was wrong to do
>>>> so. God does not forbid eating meat. God doesn't forbid
>>>> anything. He gives you what you want. We do not eat meat in
>>>> order to please God, not to obey rules.
>>> =========================
>>> Again, like you were asked, which god then 'prefers' you not
>>> eat meat?
>>> Then tell us which god prefers you kill more animals just so
>>> you can
>>> 'please' him by not eating one?
>>>
>>> You really are just too stupid for this, killer. As usual,
>>> you have no thought out
>>> ideology, just a simple rule for your simple mind...
>>>
>>>
>> There can only be one God. I don't know how I can put it more
>> plainly.
> ===========================
> When did he tell you that you can only please him by not eating
> meat?
> Did he not tell you at the same time that it is not nice to kill
> animals for your selfish entertainment? If not, why? I'd think
> that that would dis-please
> him even more, wouldn't you? Do you have selective hearing, or
> just a simple rule
> for your simple mind?
>

I think you are only interested in an arguement, but I will oblige you
this one last time simply because someone else may be reading this
thread and sincerely want to know the answers to the questions that
you're asking.

God did not tell me anything. He does however have a representative on
earth who instructs people on how to be pleasing to God. One must be
very careful in deciding to follow a spiritual master. The spiritual
master must be unattached to the material world. He must constantly be
remembering God in everything that he does. He teaches nothing contrary
to scripture and you must check everything that he teaches with the lord
in the heart. The spiritual master desires nothing materially. His
only desire is to love and serve God. It is his teachings that I try to
follow to the best of my ability. One of those teachings is to not eat
meat for a multitude of reasons (only one of which being the suffering
that it causes).

There are actions that please God and there are actions that displease
God. There are not actions that are more displeasing or actions that
are more pleasing. There is pleasing and there is displeasing. God,
being your best friend and father, desires that you try to please Him.
Your attempt to please God is pleasing to God. It is the intention of
the act which is pleasing.

My mind is simple and the rules for spiritual life are simple as well.
Properly applied, they lead to complete bliss and inner contentment.
Doesn't that sound nice? It's true and you can experience it.

That is all that I have to say to you Rick. I've done my duty. What
you do with the information is up to you and if all that you want to do
is call me names then that is your decision.

"Dave" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> rick wrote:
>> >> Ummm, I don't see these cages for the chickens that are
>> >> running
>> >> around my back yard.
>> >
>> > Allowing chickens to run around in your back yard is not a
>> > modern
>> > method of factory farming. Jeez!
>> ========================
>> Then why do you talk like those are the only chickens around?
>
> I didn't think I was doing.
>
>> Supporting an alternative is the only way to change what you
>> don't like.
>
> The particular methods that I abhor exist because people buy
> their products. By refraining from buying the products I avoid
> fuelling the demand for them.
===============================
We've been through this. Not buying a product that you already
don't consume does nothing to stop that production, or change the
methods you abhor. Only by buying an the chickens from a
producers that raises them in a method that you approve will any
change take place.



This holds true whether I buy
> (instead of battery eggs) free range eggs or tofu. In principle
> consuming either has the same effect on the demand for
> battery eggs.
=======================
No, it does not. Your consuption of tofu has no effect on the
methods or numbers of eggs.
Buying the alternative egg producers eggs will. Look at your
store now. Free range eggs and organic beef are
becoming more popular all the time. They aren't being added to
the amount of products overall that is being sold,
it's replacing part of the total that you don't like. You can
only provide the incentive for this change by buying the
alternative, not by not buying a product you don't already buy.


In practise there are people who prefer to buy
> free range eggs but only if they are sold in their local corner
> shop/supermarket so a case could be made for offering those
> shops an incentive to stock free range.
============================
Exactly, and by your purchasing those eggs you are providing the
incentive to stock those eggs instead of the ones you don't like.


>

"Dave" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> rick wrote:
>> "Dave" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > rick wrote:
>>
>>
>> snippage...
>>
>> >> >> > These other forms of economic activity don't involve
>> >> >> > raising
>> >> >> > animals
>> >> >> > in what I consider to be unacceptable conditions.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> What's unacceptable about it?
>> >> >
>> >> > The welfare needs of the animals are treated as trivial
>> >> > compared
>> >> > with their economic potential.
>> >> >>===============================
>> >> LOL They are still given more consideration than the
>> >> animals
>> >> that die for your mono-culture crops, dave.
>> >> The animals you rant about are the business of the farmers.
>> >> They
>> >> aren't going to kill them off prior to reaching
>> >> the point where they make a profit. The ones that die for
>> >> your
>> >> crops are the ones that are not only treated trivially, but
>> >> aren't even considered except for how to kill as many as
>> >> possible
>> >> when they become a nuisance.
>> >
>> > When you consume meat you also indirectly consume all the
>> > plants
>> > the animal happened to eat, eg the mono-culture crops.
>> ===========================
>> No, I don't. The beef I eat consume no crops.
>
> The beef you eat does not come from cattle that
> have been intensively reared using modern factory
> farming methods. Jeez!
=============================
Then why do you keep insisting that they do? Read your statement
above, dave.




>
>> Zero, nada, zilch.
>> Why is that so hard to understand?
>
> It isn't.
=================
Then why do you keep pretending otherwise?


>
>> It also uses no pharmaceuticals.
>> It uses no chemicals, your crops cannot make that claim.
>
> How do you know that. Just as it is possible to get hold of
> chemical free grass fed beef from local suppliers so it is
> also possible to get hold of *cide free veggies.
====================================
How do I know? because I know the farmer that is raising them.
I can drive by and see them in the fields anytime I like. I know
how he raises them.
Not really. Organic does not mean pesticide free dave. I know
no farmers that
use zero chemicals and provide foods for coops or farmers
markets.


>
>> >> >> >>Humans have always sought to maximize
>> >> >> >>yields from the least amount of inputs -- and farming
>> >> >> >>is
>> >> >> >>one
>> >> >> >>of the
>> >> >> >>industries which was first to do it (farming reduced
>> >> >> >>nomadicism and
>> >> >> >>hunting/gathering).
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>I willingly endure the inconvinience of having to
>> >> >> >>>avoid
>> >> >> >>>certain products but I have never seen the point of
>> >> >> >>>inconviniencing
>> >> >> >>>myself
>> >> >> >>>further by refusing to eat salad sandwiches from
>> >> >> >>>Subway
>> >> >> >>>just because
>> >> >> >>>the
>> >> >> >>>people serving them have recently handled meat. I
>> >> >> >>>might
>> >> >> >>>feel
>> >> >> >>>differently
>> >> >> >>>if I had spritual motivations but I don't think most
>> >> >> >>>veggies do.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>So-called vegans are misanthropic rather than
>> >> >> >>spiritual
>> >> >> >>in
>> >> >> >>their
>> >> >> >>motivations. Don't give them the benefit of the doubt.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>

Dave wrote:
> usual suspect wrote:
>
>>Dave wrote:
>>
>>>usual suspect wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dave wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Anon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Dave wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Lady Muck wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>rick wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>"Fred" > wrote in message
ternet.com...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Well, I wasn't trying to prove anything except that a non-vegan
>>>>>>>>>>recipe
>>>>>>>>>>is Off Topic on a group called alt.food.*vegan*.
>>>>>>>>>>How about some posts about vegan food!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>=======================
>>>>>>>>>That's my point. There are no real vegan foods when they come
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>from massive mono-culture crop operations and/or are imported
>>>>>>>>>from all around the world. They are all tainted with massive
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>amounts of animals death and suffering. Why is it that vegans
>>>>>>>>>have no problem killing animals and leaving them to rot, but spew
>>>>>>>>>their hatred of those that at least put dead animals to good use?
>>>>>>>>>And, to top it off, posting them to usenet contributes to the
>>>>>>>>>death and suffering of many more animals.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>In article
rthlink.net>,
says...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Thanks for again proving that causing less suffering to
>>>>>>>>>>>animals
>>>>>>>>>>>is not a vegan concern. All they follow is a simple rule for
>>>>>>>>>>>their simple minds, 'eat no meat,' regardless of the
>>>>>>>>>>>consequences..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Rick - sweetie. I haven't posted to you for a LONG time.Oh well, your
>>>>>>>>luck is IN today!
>>>>>>>>I would be more concerned that the servers wear those dreadful gloves
>>>>>>>>and put their hands all over meat products then grab and shove the
>>>>>>>>vegetarian products with the SAME gloves. Even if I ask for a change of
>>>>>>>>gloves it's TOO LATE, the veggie grub has been contaminated already.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>One thing I have never understood is why veggies make such a big deal
>>>>>>>of things like this. The microscopic traces of meat that may
>>>>>>>contaminate your
>>>>>>>veggie food is not going to make the blindest bit of difference to your
>>>>>>>health
>>>>>>>and you are not condoning or financially supporting the meat industry
>>>>>>>in any way by accepting the product. Apart from inconviniencing the
>>>>>>>staff
>>>>>>>and making vegetarians appear petty what do you hope to achieve by
>>>>>>>objecting to it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Not that I'd mind grabbing YOUR little bit of meat, gloves or no gloves.
>>>>>>>>X
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Dave,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It's easier to understand once you go veggie. Your perception of meat
>>>>>>begins to change and after a while, even the idea of eating meat is
>>>>>>unappetizing. For me, the reasons go beyond that. I have spiritual
>>>>>>reasons for not eating meat which I've elaborated on in the past.
>>>>>>Basically animals, even the ones that we eat, are God's children. I
>>>>>>offer all of my food to God before i eat it and I would not want to
>>>>>>offer God anything that contained even the slightest trace of the body
>>>>>>of his other children. it would be disrespectful. I will not even eat
>>>>>>cheese made with animal rennet even though the rennet is a product only
>>>>>>derived from animals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It may be hard to understand this if you could care less whether or not
>>>>>>animal products or flesh were in your food, but to someone who on a
>>>>>>daily basis must inconveience him or herself to live a life style that
>>>>>>they feel is a moral or spiritual must, the idea of even a little bit of
>>>>>>meat is disturbing. I, and many other veggies, don't even like to smell
>>>>>>meat.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Although not strict veggie as such I'd hardly describe myself as
>>>>>someone
>>>>>who couldn't care less what is in my food. I abhor modern methods of
>>>>>factory farming and try to avoid any products that offer financial
>>>>>support
>>>>>to such methods.
>>>>
>>>>Do you apply the same standards to other industries, or even other forms
>>>>of agriculture? For instance, do you refuse to drive vehicles that were
>>>>built on assembly lines? Do you refuse clothing made with materials
>>>>derived from industrial processing -- whether synthetics refined from
>>>>petroleum or natural fibers grown and woven "industrially"?
>>>
>>>Nope although where there is a choice I give preference to what I
>>>perceive to be the more ethical option.
>>
>>Upon what standard is your sense of ethics based?

Answer the question.

>>>>What is it about modern methods of farming that makes it different from
>>>>any other economic activity?
>>>
>>>These other forms of economic activity don't involve raising animals
>>>in what I consider to be unacceptable conditions.
>>
>>What's unacceptable about it?
>
> The welfare needs of the animals are treated as trivial compared
> with their economic potential.

According to whom? Have you stopped to consider that farmers get more
for their goods when they're in top-notch condition and that animals
raised in clean environs tend to be healthier and thrive, growing faster
and fatter in shorter amounts of time? For once I wish you vegan nitwits
would pull your heads out your asses and visit a farm to see just how
close to the norm all your propaganda videos of abuse really are.

Are veal calves kept in crates?
Far from the four-sided "crate" portrayed by some activist
groups, modern veal stalls are designed to partition the animals
only up to the shoulder level, ensuring calves visual and
physical interaction with their neighbors. Individual housing
allows animals to receive their own feed, individual care and
attention. Most importantly, individual housing stalls have been
shown to help prevent the spread of disease by minimizing
calf-to-calf contact. Calves can comfortably lay in a natural
position, stand up and groom themselves.
http://www.vealusa.com/info/faq.html

Etc., etc., etc.

>>>>Humans have always sought to maximize
>>>>yields from the least amount of inputs -- and farming is one of the
>>>>industries which was first to do it (farming reduced nomadicism and
>>>>hunting/gathering).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I willingly endure the inconvinience of having to
>>>>>avoid
>>>>>certain products but I have never seen the point of inconviniencing
>>>>>myself
>>>>>further by refusing to eat salad sandwiches from Subway just because
>>>>>the
>>>>>people serving them have recently handled meat. I might feel
>>>>>differently
>>>>>if I had spritual motivations but I don't think most veggies do.
>>>>
>>>>So-called vegans are misanthropic rather than spiritual in their
>>>>motivations. Don't give them the benefit of the doubt.
>>>
>>>
>

Dave wrote:
> rick wrote:
>
>>"Dave" > wrote in message
groups.com...
>>
>>>usual suspect wrote:
>>
>>
>>snip...
>>
>>
>>>>Do you apply the same standards to other industries, or even
>>>>other forms
>>>>of agriculture? For instance, do you refuse to drive vehicles
>>>>that were
>>>>built on assembly lines? Do you refuse clothing made with
>>>>materials
>>>>derived from industrial processing -- whether synthetics
>>>>refined from
>>>>petroleum or natural fibers grown and woven "industrially"?
>>>
>>>Nope although where there is a choice I give preference to what
>>>I
>>>perceive to be the more ethical option.
>>>
>>>>What is it about modern methods of farming that makes it
>>>>different from
>>>>any other economic activity?
>>>
>>>These other forms of economic activity don't involve raising
>>>animals
>>>in what I consider to be unacceptable conditions.
>>
>>===========================
>>"raising" animals in what way? Monoculture cropping provides for
>>the 'raising' of
>>an unnatural number of animals for a given area, and then most of
>>them are "killed off"
>>when you take your factory farmed veggies away.
>
>
> Yes, they die at the end of their lives and the deaths aren't
> necessarily
> humane but they are relatively brief compared with (eg) the cages
> battery hens are typically kept in for their WHOLE lives.

You've been watching too much ARA propaganda.

>>>>Humans have always sought to maximize
>>>>yields from the least amount of inputs -- and farming is one
>>>>of the
>>>>industries which was first to do it (farming reduced
>>>>nomadicism and
>>>>hunting/gathering).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I willingly endure the inconvinience of having to
>>>>>avoid
>>>>>certain products but I have never seen the point of
>>>>>inconviniencing
>>>>>myself
>>>>>further by refusing to eat salad sandwiches from Subway just
>>>>>because
>>>>>the
>>>>>people serving them have recently handled meat. I might feel
>>>>>differently
>>>>>if I had spritual motivations but I don't think most veggies
>>>>>do.
>>>>
>>>>So-called vegans are misanthropic rather than spiritual in
>>>>their
>>>>motivations. Don't give them the benefit of the doubt.
>>>
>

Anon wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Rick,
>>>
>>> Take it up with God, not me.
>>
>>
>> Which god forbids eating meat or allows believers to judge themselves
>> or others according to diet?
>
>
>
> I did not make any judgements,

You have by embracing veganism, which is a doctrinaire and dogmatic
system which separates "good" from "bad" on the flimsy basis of what
people choose to eat and why. Veganism is judgmental to its core.

> and if I did I was wrong to do so. God
> does not forbid eating meat.

Yet you choose to live as though he does. Why?

> God doesn't forbid anything.

That isn't quite true. I believe he would forbid veganism because (a) he
gave everything for man to eat and to use for man's welfare, (b) he
commands people to love one another. Veganism is at odds with the former
because it establishes an order of what can and can't be used for man's
welfare on the basis of interest "rights" animals have equal to or above
human rights. Veganism is also antithetical with the latter because
vegans are misanthropes who use their love of and compassion toward
animals to mask a sinister contempt for their fellow man. One cannot
embrace God and veganism; you cannot serve two masters.

> He gives you
> what you want. We do not eat meat in order to please God, not to obey
> rules.

You make your OWN rule at the same time you ignore God's, and then you
have the temerity to suggest this pleases God. How does it do that?

Anon wrote:
>> From your hyper-defensive reaction to my post, I would have to guess
>> you're vegan. So you "practice" a marginal extremist politic which
>> hypocritically judges people by what they eat, not by what they do,
>> without any consideration for what your consumption actually does. In
>> short, you attribute virtue to yourself for not eating meat even
>> though your diet and lifestyle cause many animals to die. This makes
>> you a hypocrite.
>
> I felt that I was being attacked

I responded, iirc, to one of Dave's posts in which he alluded to
veganism in the context of spirituality.

> and responded appropriately.

Inappropriately.

> Once again I will repeat: You do not know me

So the **** what. I'll repeat, too: I didn't know Idi Amin, Ted Bundy,
Jeff Dahmer, or John Wayne Gacy, but I know enough about them to know
they were bad people because of what they did and how they treated their
fellow man.

> and you do not know what I
> practice. I am not vegan. I eat a lacto-vegetarian diet which is the diet

Is the diet, what?

>> Your hypocrisy is exacerbated the moment you distinguish it as a
>> virtue by comparing yourself to others, particularly with regard to
>> spirituality. Vegans are charlatans, and that especially seems to be
>> the case when "veganism" is trumped as a sign of one's spirituality:
>> the Eastern religions adopted by Western vegans tend to allow for
>> consumption of meat.
>
> Please show me where I indicated that I was more virtuous than someone
> else because of my diet.. or for any reason. If you can show me that
> I've done that then I will apologize.

In a post to which I just replied, you suggested that your diet pleases
God because you abstain from meat. Explain why God is happy with your
self-imposed rules instead of the one you admitted he gave us -- that we
can eat whatever he gives us.

> In reagrds to Eastern religions allowing for consumption of meat.. you
> are assuming

**** yourself. When it comes to religion, I don't need someone who
resorts to abstinence of anything -- alcohol, food (including meat),
sex, gambling, ANY THING -- preaching to me. No religious scripture
commands or commends abstinence of anything. Abstinence is the action of
zealots and ascetics -- which are condemned by the very scriptures the
zealots use to justify their abstinence.

> that religion is a static, rigid entity

I never suggested as much. What I stated was that ignorant Western ****s
will shun their own traditions and embrace something foreign because
it's novel and because they are ignorant. Then they'll prattle about
their former traditions and claim the masses misunderstand them because
they don't understand "original" contexts or cultures. Meanwhile, they
have no ****ing clue that their neo-Buddhism or sham-Hinduism allow the
very things they thought were forbidden and thereby drew them to embrace
it. What a bunch of tools.

> that allows or
> forbids certain behaviors. This is simply not the case. There are
> factions within each religious movement that practice different things,
> condsider certain texts more important, etc. Religion cannot allow or
> disallow anything. I was never talking about religion anyway (in the
> sense that most people understand it)

Of course not! See my previous paragraph.

>> Buddha ate meat; there are no prohibitions against meat consumption in
>> Buddhism, nor is there a sliding scale of virtue in Buddhism based
>> upon diet -- quite the opposite. Meat is also allowed in Hinduism,
>> Islam, and Judaism; there are adherents of each of those religions who
>> will ascribe abstinence of meat as a virtue, but it's not universally
>> held in those religions. Jesus said that it isn't what goes into one's
>> mouth that makes him or her holy, and St Paul wrote that people
>> shouldn't judge one another according to whether or not they eat meat.
>
> I am well aware of the various practices amoung traditions. Once again,
> I am not talking about religion. Anyone can claim to be anything and do
> anything. That does not make it spiritual and that does not make it
> true. It would be a waste of time to get into the various reasons why
> certain "Hindu" (although this term is EXTREMELY problematic) do not eat
> meat or do eat meat or believe in God or are atheistic or wear certian
> clothes or wear no clothes at all. This would be absurd.
>
> Also, different traditions will say different things. Some will say
> that the Buddha ate meat because they eat meat. Others will say that he
> did not becuase they do not. This kind of discussion is pointless.
> Neither one of us knows for sure if the Buddha ate meat or not. Period.

Buddhist scripture says he did. Buddhist scholars admit he did, and that
he allowed the monks to eat it. You're the one who seems unclear on the
issue.

>> Ultimately, though, veganism is misanthropic. Vegans oppose the world
>> around them and feebly try to isolate themselves from it. It's an
>> attempt -- a feeble one given that, when counting deaths of animals,
>> veganism is shown to be an empty gesture -- by immature Western
>> urbanites to cope with failure in other, significant areas of their
>> lives. They're openly hostile and antagonistic towards their
>> surrounding cultures. Veganism has less to do with animals and
>> compassion than rejecting the values of one's culture. That gets us
>> right back to what I've already written, that veganism then becomes
>> the shoddy, false standard by which morally feeble people like you
>> judge yourself and others.
>
> It must be nice to be able to place entire groups of people into a
> simple ideological box.

Veganism is a simple ideological box. There is no diversity among
vegans; it is a monolithic pseudo-philosophy based on animal rights.

> I cannot help but remember

yawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn

> that we are all
> individuals with individual choices based on individual experiences.

Then show me the diverse political and philosophical opinions among
vegans -- but spare me the mindless hair-splitting sophistry between
"scholars" like Regan and Singer.

>> Finally, you presume that veganism is about diet. That's wrong.
>> Veganism is political and pseudo-philosophical. It has nothing to do
>> with what people eat than their phony gestures to the sham ideal that
>> "if I don't eat animals, no animals die." And that matter has been
>> dealt with exhaustively in AFV.
>
> I am not vegan. I realize that you say that it's political and
> pseudo-philosophical, but that tells me absolutely nothing.

Your stupidity is your own problem, jackass. Deal with it on your own time.

Dave wrote:
> rick wrote:
>
>>"Dave" > wrote in message
groups.com...
>>
>>>usual suspect wrote:
>>>
>>>>Dave wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>usual suspect wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Dave wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Anon wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Dave wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Lady Muck wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>rick wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>"Fred" > wrote in message
internet.com...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Well, I wasn't trying to prove anything except that a
>>>>>>>>>>>>non-vegan
>>>>>>>>>>>>recipe
>>>>>>>>>>>>is Off Topic on a group called alt.food.*vegan*.
>>>>>>>>>>>>How about some posts about vegan food!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>=======================
>>>>>>>>>>>That's my point. There are no real vegan foods when
>>>>>>>>>>>they come
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>from massive mono-culture crop operations and/or are
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>imported
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>from all around the world. They are all tainted with
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>massive
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>amounts of animals death and suffering. Why is it that
>>>>>>>>>>>vegans
>>>>>>>>>>>have no problem killing animals and leaving them to
>>>>>>>>>>>rot, but spew
>>>>>>>>>>>their hatred of those that at least put dead animals to
>>>>>>>>>>>good use?
>>>>>>>>>>>And, to top it off, posting them to usenet contributes
>>>>>>>>>>>to the
>>>>>>>>>>>death and suffering of many more animals.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>In article
. earthlink.net>,
says...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Thanks for again proving that causing less suffering
>>>>>>>>>>>>>to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>animals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>is not a vegan concern. All they follow is a simple
>>>>>>>>>>>>>rule for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>their simple minds, 'eat no meat,' regardless of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>consequences..
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Rick - sweetie. I haven't posted to you for a LONG
>>>>>>>>>>time.Oh well, your
>>>>>>>>>>luck is IN today!
>>>>>>>>>>I would be more concerned that the servers wear those
>>>>>>>>>>dreadful gloves
>>>>>>>>>>and put their hands all over meat products then grab and
>>>>>>>>>>shove the
>>>>>>>>>>vegetarian products with the SAME gloves. Even if I ask
>>>>>>>>>>for a change of
>>>>>>>>>>gloves it's TOO LATE, the veggie grub has been
>>>>>>>>>>contaminated already.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>One thing I have never understood is why veggies make
>>>>>>>>>such a big deal
>>>>>>>>>of things like this. The microscopic traces of meat that
>>>>>>>>>may
>>>>>>>>>contaminate your
>>>>>>>>>veggie food is not going to make the blindest bit of
>>>>>>>>>difference to your
>>>>>>>>>health
>>>>>>>>>and you are not condoning or financially supporting the
>>>>>>>>>meat industry
>>>>>>>>>in any way by accepting the product. Apart from
>>>>>>>>>inconviniencing the
>>>>>>>>>staff
>>>>>>>>>and making vegetarians appear petty what do you hope to
>>>>>>>>>achieve by
>>>>>>>>>objecting to it?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Not that I'd mind grabbing YOUR little bit of meat,
>>>>>>>>>>gloves or no gloves.
>>>>>>>>>>X
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Dave,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It's easier to understand once you go veggie. Your
>>>>>>>>perception of meat
>>>>>>>>begins to change and after a while, even the idea of
>>>>>>>>eating meat is
>>>>>>>>unappetizing. For me, the reasons go beyond that. I have
>>>>>>>>spiritual
>>>>>>>>reasons for not eating meat which I've elaborated on in
>>>>>>>>the past.
>>>>>>>>Basically animals, even the ones that we eat, are God's
>>>>>>>>children. I
>>>>>>>>offer all of my food to God before i eat it and I would
>>>>>>>>not want to
>>>>>>>>offer God anything that contained even the slightest trace
>>>>>>>>of the body
>>>>>>>>of his other children. it would be disrespectful. I will
>>>>>>>>not even eat
>>>>>>>>cheese made with animal rennet even though the rennet is a
>>>>>>>>product only
>>>>>>>>derived from animals.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It may be hard to understand this if you could care less
>>>>>>>>whether or not
>>>>>>>>animal products or flesh were in your food, but to someone
>>>>>>>>who on a
>>>>>>>>daily basis must inconveience him or herself to live a
>>>>>>>>life style that
>>>>>>>>they feel is a moral or spiritual must, the idea of even a
>>>>>>>>little bit of
>>>>>>>>meat is disturbing. I, and many other veggies, don't even
>>>>>>>>like to smell
>>>>>>>>meat.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Although not strict veggie as such I'd hardly describe
>>>>>>>myself as
>>>>>>>someone
>>>>>>>who couldn't care less what is in my food. I abhor modern
>>>>>>>methods of
>>>>>>>factory farming and try to avoid any products that offer
>>>>>>>financial
>>>>>>>support
>>>>>>>to such methods.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Do you apply the same standards to other industries, or even
>>>>>>other forms
>>>>>>of agriculture? For instance, do you refuse to drive
>>>>>>vehicles that were
>>>>>>built on assembly lines? Do you refuse clothing made with
>>>>>>materials
>>>>>>derived from industrial processing -- whether synthetics
>>>>>>refined from
>>>>>>petroleum or natural fibers grown and woven "industrially"?
>>>>>
>>>>>Nope although where there is a choice I give preference to
>>>>>what I
>>>>>perceive to be the more ethical option.
>>>>
>>>>Upon what standard is your sense of ethics based?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>What is it about modern methods of farming that makes it
>>>>>>different from
>>>>>>any other economic activity?
>>>>>
>>>>>These other forms of economic activity don't involve raising
>>>>>animals
>>>>>in what I consider to be unacceptable conditions.
>>>>
>>>>What's unacceptable about it?
>>>
>>>The welfare needs of the animals are treated as trivial
>>>compared
>>>with their economic potential.
>>>
>>>>===============================
>>
>>LOL They are still given more consideration than the animals
>>that die for your mono-culture crops, dave.
>>The animals you rant about are the business of the farmers. They
>>aren't going to kill them off prior to reaching
>>the point where they make a profit. The ones that die for your
>>crops are the ones that are not only treated trivially, but
>>aren't even considered except for how to kill as many as possible
>>when they become a nuisance.
>
>
> When you consume meat you also indirectly consume all the plants
> the animal happened to eat, eg the mono-culture crops.

What about in the case of game? They may graze on crops when close
enough to fields, but for the most part their diets don't result in
collateral deaths unless you count the other species pushed out of
regions where deer and feral pigs are overpopulated.

>>>>>>Humans have always sought to maximize
>>>>>>yields from the least amount of inputs -- and farming is one
>>>>>>of the
>>>>>>industries which was first to do it (farming reduced
>>>>>>nomadicism and
>>>>>>hunting/gathering).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I willingly endure the inconvinience of having to
>>>>>>>avoid
>>>>>>>certain products but I have never seen the point of
>>>>>>>inconviniencing
>>>>>>>myself
>>>>>>>further by refusing to eat salad sandwiches from Subway
>>>>>>>just because
>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>people serving them have recently handled meat. I might
>>>>>>>feel
>>>>>>>differently
>>>>>>>if I had spritual motivations but I don't think most
>>>>>>>veggies do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So-called vegans are misanthropic rather than spiritual in
>>>>>>their
>>>>>>motivations. Don't give them the benefit of the doubt.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Dave wrote:


snip...


>>>>>What is it about modern methods of farming that makes it
>>>>>different from
>>>>>any other economic activity?
>>>>
>>>>These other forms of economic activity don't involve raising
>>>>animals
>>>>in what I consider to be unacceptable conditions.
>>>
>>>What's unacceptable about it?
>>
>> The welfare needs of the animals are treated as trivial
>> compared
>> with their economic potential.
>
> According to whom? Have you stopped to consider that farmers
> get more for their goods when they're in top-notch condition
> and that animals raised in clean environs tend to be healthier
> and thrive, growing faster and fatter in shorter amounts of
> time? For once I wish you vegan nitwits would pull your heads
> out your asses and visit a farm to see just how close to the
> norm all your propaganda videos of abuse really are.
======================
What, and confuse themselves with the facts? i don't think that
they can handle the truth anymore Usual.
Their brainwashing would turn what few braincells they have left
to mush if they learned any real facts.

Anon wrote:
> rick wrote:
>
>> "Anon" > wrote in message ...
>>
>>> rick wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Anon" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>>>> Rick,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Take it up with God, not me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which god forbids eating meat or allows believers to judge
>>>>>> themselves or others according to diet?
>>>>>
>>>>> I did not make any judgements, and if I did I was wrong to do so.
>>>>> God does not forbid eating meat. God doesn't forbid anything. He
>>>>> gives you what you want. We do not eat meat in order to please
>>>>> God, not to obey rules.
>>>>
>>>> =========================
>>>> Again, like you were asked, which god then 'prefers' you not eat meat?
>>>> Then tell us which god prefers you kill more animals just so you can
>>>> 'please' him by not eating one?
>>>>
>>>> You really are just too stupid for this, killer. As usual, you have
>>>> no thought out
>>>> ideology, just a simple rule for your simple mind...
>>>>
>>>>
>>> There can only be one God. I don't know how I can put it more plainly.
>>
>> ===========================
>> When did he tell you that you can only please him by not eating meat?
>> Did he not tell you at the same time that it is not nice to kill
>> animals for your selfish entertainment? If not, why? I'd think that
>> that would dis-please
>> him even more, wouldn't you? Do you have selective hearing, or just
>> a simple rule
>> for your simple mind?
>>
>
> I think you are only interested in an arguement, but I will oblige you
> this one last time simply because someone else may be reading this
> thread and sincerely want to know the answers to the questions that
> you're asking.
>
> God did not tell me anything.

Whew.

> He does however have a representative on
> earth who instructs people on how to be pleasing to God.

This is even more troubling than the "which god" question. Which
representative is this?

> One must be
> very careful in deciding to follow a spiritual master.

Your individuality expires the moment you even consider following
another in spiritual matters. At least you're admitting that you're a
follower in this world, not exactly a trailblazer.

> The spiritual
> master must be unattached to the material world.

Fat chance of that, putz. The nitwit who preaches to me about how
unattached he is to material pleasures is the one who's undoubtedly
dealing with his issues privately. Look at the Beatles and their little
meeting with Maharishi in India. Look at every kid who's been molested
by a priest (so much for that vow of chastity, eh). Look at every bishop
chauffeurerd around and given all the trappings of a CEO. Look at
Rajneesh's fleet of Bentleys and Rolls-Royces. Look at the
televangelists who preach abstinence and giving but in their private
lives **** every gullible girl they can and spend like drunken sailors.

I'd rather have a "spiritual master" tell me of his attachments to the
material world. At least then I know exactly what I'm dealing with.

> He must constantly be
> remembering God in everything that he does. He teaches nothing contrary
> to scripture and you must check everything that he teaches with the lord
> in the heart. The spiritual master desires nothing materially. His
> only desire is to love and serve God.

IOW, you seek to follow a mentally disturbed homeless guy. Not much
spiritual ambition there, but it's your miserable life.

> It is his teachings that I try to
> follow to the best of my ability. One of those teachings is to not eat
> meat for a multitude of reasons (only one of which being the suffering
> that it causes).

List the other reasons, because I don't buy that one. Eating meat would
reduce a whole lot of suffering in India, but the people go hungry and
let their children starve even though there are cattle wandering the
streets. You have a ****ed-up notion of suffering.

> There are actions that please God and there are actions that displease
> God. There are not actions that are more displeasing or actions that
> are more pleasing. There is pleasing and there is displeasing.

Cut the ****ing psychobabble.

> God, being your best friend and father, desires that you try to please Him.

How is he pleased if I decide to not eat meat? Is he happier with
Catholics on Fridays during Lent?

> Your attempt to please God is pleasing to God. It is the intention of
> the act which is pleasing.

Even if your intention causes more suffering for other people and
creates obstacles for them to try to please God themselves? You're
suggesting means justify ends, and that the ends are irrelevant to the
means. That's a load of steaming horseshit.

> My mind is simple

No kidding.

> and the rules for spiritual life are simple as well.

In another post, you suggested there were no such rules. Are you really
this confused?

> Properly applied, they lead to complete bliss and inner contentment.

Ignorance is bliss. You seem a little too ecstatic. That's not a
compliment, moron.

> Doesn't that sound nice?

Sounds like horseshit to me.

> It's true and you can experience it.

You sound like one of the Mormon zealots who faithfully ring my door
bell at least once every six months. Nice clean fellas, but not the
sharpest tools in the shed.

> That is all that I have to say to you Rick. I've done my duty.

What duty was that? Pontificate about abso****inglutely nothing of
substance? Some duty that is.

> What
> you do with the information is up to you and if all that you want to do
> is call me names then that is your decision.

You didn't exactly give him any information. Loser.

rick wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Dave wrote:
>
>
>
> snip...
>
>
>
>>>>>>What is it about modern methods of farming that makes it
>>>>>>different from
>>>>>>any other economic activity?
>>>>>
>>>>>These other forms of economic activity don't involve raising
>>>>>animals
>>>>>in what I consider to be unacceptable conditions.
>>>>
>>>>What's unacceptable about it?
>>>
>>>The welfare needs of the animals are treated as trivial
>>>compared
>>>with their economic potential.
>>
>>According to whom? Have you stopped to consider that farmers
>>get more for their goods when they're in top-notch condition
>>and that animals raised in clean environs tend to be healthier
>>and thrive, growing faster and fatter in shorter amounts of
>>time? For once I wish you vegan nitwits would pull your heads
>>out your asses and visit a farm to see just how close to the
>>norm all your propaganda videos of abuse really are.
>
> ======================
> What, and confuse themselves with the facts? i don't think that
> they can handle the truth anymore Usual.
> Their brainwashing would turn what few braincells they have left
> to mush if they learned any real facts.

Howdy, Rick. Hope you're well. I know the facts will only confuse them,
but they'd have to consider the facts first in order to get confused. I
have no doubt they're too narrow-minded to give up their simplistic and
dogmatic views that animals are mistreated and PETA has proven it by
still using 20 and 30 year-old videos and pictures of isolated cases of
abject abuse (cases, ironically enough, that usually resulted in
convictions for animal abuse). Nevermind that PETA's treatment of
animals is far more significant in relation to the number of animals
they handle (I mean KILL!) compared to any normal farming operation.

usual suspect wrote:
> Anon wrote:
>>> From your hyper-defensive reaction to my post, I would have to guess
>>> you're vegan. So you "practice" a marginal extremist politic which
>>> hypocritically judges people by what they eat, not by what they do,
>>> without any consideration for what your consumption actually does. In
>>> short, you attribute virtue to yourself for not eating meat even
>>> though your diet and lifestyle cause many animals to die. This makes
>>> you a hypocrite.
>>
>> I felt that I was being attacked
>
> I responded, iirc, to one of Dave's posts in which he alluded to
> veganism in the context of spirituality.
>
>> and responded appropriately.
>
> Inappropriately.
>
>> Once again I will repeat: You do not know me
>
> So the **** what. I'll repeat, too: I didn't know Idi Amin, Ted Bundy,
> Jeff Dahmer, or John Wayne Gacy, but I know enough about them to know
> they were bad people because of what they did and how they treated their
> fellow man.
>
>> and you do not know what I practice. I am not vegan. I eat a
>> lacto-vegetarian diet which is the diet
>
> Is the diet, what?
>
>>> Your hypocrisy is exacerbated the moment you distinguish it as a
>>> virtue by comparing yourself to others, particularly with regard to
>>> spirituality. Vegans are charlatans, and that especially seems to be
>>> the case when "veganism" is trumped as a sign of one's spirituality:
>>> the Eastern religions adopted by Western vegans tend to allow for
>>> consumption of meat.
>>
>> Please show me where I indicated that I was more virtuous than someone
>> else because of my diet.. or for any reason. If you can show me that
>> I've done that then I will apologize.
>
> In a post to which I just replied, you suggested that your diet pleases
> God because you abstain from meat. Explain why God is happy with your
> self-imposed rules instead of the one you admitted he gave us -- that we
> can eat whatever he gives us.
>
>> In reagrds to Eastern religions allowing for consumption of meat..
>> you are assuming
>
> **** yourself. When it comes to religion, I don't need someone who
> resorts to abstinence of anything -- alcohol, food (including meat),
> sex, gambling, ANY THING -- preaching to me. No religious scripture
> commands or commends abstinence of anything. Abstinence is the action of
> zealots and ascetics -- which are condemned by the very scriptures the
> zealots use to justify their abstinence.
>
>> that religion is a static, rigid entity
>
> I never suggested as much. What I stated was that ignorant Western ****s
> will shun their own traditions and embrace something foreign because
> it's novel and because they are ignorant. Then they'll prattle about
> their former traditions and claim the masses misunderstand them because
> they don't understand "original" contexts or cultures. Meanwhile, they
> have no ****ing clue that their neo-Buddhism or sham-Hinduism allow the
> very things they thought were forbidden and thereby drew them to embrace
> it. What a bunch of tools.
>
>> that allows or forbids certain behaviors. This is simply not the
>> case. There are factions within each religious movement that practice
>> different things, condsider certain texts more important, etc.
>> Religion cannot allow or disallow anything. I was never talking about
>> religion anyway (in the sense that most people understand it)
>
> Of course not! See my previous paragraph.
>
>>> Buddha ate meat; there are no prohibitions against meat consumption
>>> in Buddhism, nor is there a sliding scale of virtue in Buddhism based
>>> upon diet -- quite the opposite. Meat is also allowed in Hinduism,
>>> Islam, and Judaism; there are adherents of each of those religions
>>> who will ascribe abstinence of meat as a virtue, but it's not
>>> universally held in those religions. Jesus said that it isn't what
>>> goes into one's mouth that makes him or her holy, and St Paul wrote
>>> that people shouldn't judge one another according to whether or not
>>> they eat meat.
>>
>> I am well aware of the various practices amoung traditions. Once
>> again, I am not talking about religion. Anyone can claim to be
>> anything and do anything. That does not make it spiritual and that
>> does not make it true. It would be a waste of time to get into the
>> various reasons why certain "Hindu" (although this term is EXTREMELY
>> problematic) do not eat meat or do eat meat or believe in God or are
>> atheistic or wear certian clothes or wear no clothes at all. This
>> would be absurd.
>>
>> Also, different traditions will say different things. Some will say
>> that the Buddha ate meat because they eat meat. Others will say that
>> he did not becuase they do not. This kind of discussion is pointless.
>> Neither one of us knows for sure if the Buddha ate meat or not. Period.
>
> Buddhist scripture says he did. Buddhist scholars admit he did, and that
> he allowed the monks to eat it. You're the one who seems unclear on the
> issue.
>
>>> Ultimately, though, veganism is misanthropic. Vegans oppose the world
>>> around them and feebly try to isolate themselves from it. It's an
>>> attempt -- a feeble one given that, when counting deaths of animals,
>>> veganism is shown to be an empty gesture -- by immature Western
>>> urbanites to cope with failure in other, significant areas of their
>>> lives. They're openly hostile and antagonistic towards their
>>> surrounding cultures. Veganism has less to do with animals and
>>> compassion than rejecting the values of one's culture. That gets us
>>> right back to what I've already written, that veganism then becomes
>>> the shoddy, false standard by which morally feeble people like you
>>> judge yourself and others.
>>
>> It must be nice to be able to place entire groups of people into a
>> simple ideological box.
>
> Veganism is a simple ideological box. There is no diversity among
> vegans; it is a monolithic pseudo-philosophy based on animal rights.
>
>> I cannot help but remember
>
> yawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
>
>> that we are all individuals with individual choices based on
>> individual experiences.
>
> Then show me the diverse political and philosophical opinions among
> vegans -- but spare me the mindless hair-splitting sophistry between
> "scholars" like Regan and Singer.
>
>>> Finally, you presume that veganism is about diet. That's wrong.
>>> Veganism is political and pseudo-philosophical. It has nothing to do
>>> with what people eat than their phony gestures to the sham ideal that
>>> "if I don't eat animals, no animals die." And that matter has been
>>> dealt with exhaustively in AFV.
>>
>> I am not vegan. I realize that you say that it's political and
>> pseudo-philosophical, but that tells me absolutely nothing.
>
> Your stupidity is your own problem, jackass. Deal with it on your own time.

Tell me, you have so much insight into religion and seem to be so sure
of yourself... what is the point of life? What does it take to be
happy? Surely you can answer these questions without any difficulty.
And I'm sure that you can do it without calling anyone names.

Steve pretended :
> I had to email away for it this morning, so I thought I would share the
> results. The excerpt from their reply starts below the "====" line:
>
>
> As of 2006 March 10th:
> ================================================== ===
> In response to your question the Ingredients and nutritional
> information for
> the Gardenburger and VegiMax are as follows:
>
> Gardenburger:
>
> Mushrooms, brown rice, onions, rolled oats, part-skim mozzarella,
> cottage
> cheese curd, egg white, cheddar cheese, bulgar wheat, natural
> seasonings and
> spices, autolyzed yeast, sea salt, olive oil, tapioca starch, and
> vegetable
> gum.
>
> Calories 390
> Protein (g) 19
> Carbohydrates (g) 66
> Sugar 6
> Fat (g) 7
> Sat. Fat (g) 2.5
> Cholesterol (mg) 5
> Sodium (mg) 960
> Dietary Fiber (g) 9
>
> VegiMax is as follows:
>
> The ingredients: Vegetables (mushroom, water chestnuts, onions,
> carrots,
> green and red bell peppers, black olives), textured vegetable protein
> (soy
> protein consentrate, wheat gluten), egg whites, cooked brown rice,
> rolled
> oats, corn oil, calcium caseinate, soy sauce (water, soybeans, saly=t,
> wheat) Contains 2% or less of the following: onion powder, cornstarch,
> salt,
> hydrolyzed corn, soy and wheat protein, sucrose, soy protein isolate,
> spices, garlic powder, dextrose, jalapeno pepper powder, celery
> extract.
>
> Calories 390
> Protein (g) 24
> Carbohydrates (g) 56
> Sugar 7
> Fat (g) 8
> Sat. Fat (g) 1.5
> Cholesterol (mg) 10
> Sodium (mg) 1030
> Dietary Fiber (g) 7
>
> The above values include wheat or white bread, a 3.0 oz patty, and all
> the
> standard vegetables. Cheese or other condiments are not included.
>
> The above information is for a 6 inch sub which is a local product.
> However,
> the nutrient value may vary depending on the store's manufacturer.
> Further
> nutritional information on our national products can be fo


Look at the salt content. It seems very high in both
products. I may be wrong, but does that not convert
to equivalent of 2.5 grams of Sodium Chloride?
Andy

rick wrote:
> "Dave" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > rick wrote:
> >> >> Ummm, I don't see these cages for the chickens that are
> >> >> running
> >> >> around my back yard.
> >> >
> >> > Allowing chickens to run around in your back yard is not a
> >> > modern
> >> > method of factory farming. Jeez!
> >> ========================
> >> Then why do you talk like those are the only chickens around?
> >
> > I didn't think I was doing.
> >
> >> Supporting an alternative is the only way to change what you
> >> don't like.
> >
> > The particular methods that I abhor exist because people buy
> > their products. By refraining from buying the products I avoid
> > fuelling the demand for them.
> ===============================
> We've been through this.

Yes. We have already discovered that you have a logical
blindspot in this area.

> Not buying a product that you already
> don't consume does nothing to stop that production,

Correct. In order to reduce the production for that product I would
either need to engage in illegitimate tactics such as vandalism
or intimidation, convince others to also stop buying that product
or persuade the government to pass legislation against it.
On the other hand, if I started consuming that product I
would begin fueling the demand for it.

> or change the
> methods you abhor. Only by buying an the chickens from a
> producers that raises them in a method that you approve will any
> change take place.
>
> This holds true whether I buy
> > (instead of battery eggs) free range eggs or tofu. In principle
> > consuming either has the same effect on the demand for
> > battery eggs.
> =======================
> No, it does not. Your consuption of tofu has no effect on the
> methods or numbers of eggs.

Correct. My consumption of tofu does not fuel the demand for
eggs, just the demand for tofu.

> Buying the alternative egg producers eggs will. Look at your
> store now. Free range eggs and organic beef are
> becoming more popular all the time. They aren't being added to
> the amount of products overall that is being sold,

Nor does tofu!

> it's replacing part of the total that you don't like. You can
> only provide the incentive for this change by buying the
> alternative, not by not buying a product you don't already buy.
>
>
> In practise there are people who prefer to buy
> > free range eggs but only if they are sold in their local corner
> > shop/supermarket so a case could be made for offering those
> > shops an incentive to stock free range.
> ============================
> Exactly, and by your purchasing those eggs you are providing the
> incentive to stock those eggs instead of the ones you don't like.

rick wrote:
> "Dave" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > rick wrote:
> >> "Dave" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > rick wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> snippage...
> >>
> >> >> >> > These other forms of economic activity don't involve
> >> >> >> > raising
> >> >> >> > animals
> >> >> >> > in what I consider to be unacceptable conditions.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> What's unacceptable about it?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The welfare needs of the animals are treated as trivial
> >> >> > compared
> >> >> > with their economic potential.
> >> >> >>===============================
> >> >> LOL They are still given more consideration than the
> >> >> animals
> >> >> that die for your mono-culture crops, dave.
> >> >> The animals you rant about are the business of the farmers.
> >> >> They
> >> >> aren't going to kill them off prior to reaching
> >> >> the point where they make a profit. The ones that die for
> >> >> your
> >> >> crops are the ones that are not only treated trivially, but
> >> >> aren't even considered except for how to kill as many as
> >> >> possible
> >> >> when they become a nuisance.
> >> >
> >> > When you consume meat you also indirectly consume all the
> >> > plants
> >> > the animal happened to eat, eg the mono-culture crops.
> >> ===========================
> >> No, I don't. The beef I eat consume no crops.
> >
> > The beef you eat does not come from cattle that
> > have been intensively reared using modern factory
> > farming methods. Jeez!
> =============================
> Then why do you keep insisting that they do? Read your statement
> above, dave.
>
>
>
>
> >
> >> Zero, nada, zilch.
> >> Why is that so hard to understand?
> >
> > It isn't.
> =================
> Then why do you keep pretending otherwise?
>
>
> >
> >> It also uses no pharmaceuticals.
> >> It uses no chemicals, your crops cannot make that claim.
> >
> > How do you know that. Just as it is possible to get hold of
> > chemical free grass fed beef from local suppliers so it is
> > also possible to get hold of *cide free veggies.
> ====================================
> How do I know? because I know the farmer that is raising them.
> I can drive by and see them in the fields anytime I like. I know
> how he raises them.
> Not really. Organic does not mean pesticide free dave.

No but organic standards do impose restrictions on the range
of chemicals that may be used and also on the circumstances
under which they may be used. Also just because organic does not
mean *cide free and you don't know any farms who grow
*cide free veggies does not mean *cide free veggies do not
exist.

> I know
> no farmers that
> use zero chemicals and provide foods for coops or farmers
> markets.
>
>
> >
> >> >> >> >>Humans have always sought to maximize
> >> >> >> >>yields from the least amount of inputs -- and farming
> >> >> >> >>is
> >> >> >> >>one
> >> >> >> >>of the
> >> >> >> >>industries which was first to do it (farming reduced
> >> >> >> >>nomadicism and
> >> >> >> >>hunting/gathering).
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>>I willingly endure the inconvinience of having to
> >> >> >> >>>avoid
> >> >> >> >>>certain products but I have never seen the point of
> >> >> >> >>>inconviniencing
> >> >> >> >>>myself
> >> >> >> >>>further by refusing to eat salad sandwiches from
> >> >> >> >>>Subway
> >> >> >> >>>just because
> >> >> >> >>>the
> >> >> >> >>>people serving them have recently handled meat. I
> >> >> >> >>>might
> >> >> >> >>>feel
> >> >> >> >>>differently
> >> >> >> >>>if I had spritual motivations but I don't think most
> >> >> >> >>>veggies do.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>So-called vegans are misanthropic rather than
> >> >> >> >>spiritual
> >> >> >> >>in
> >> >> >> >>their
> >> >> >> >>motivations. Don't give them the benefit of the doubt.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >
> >

usual suspect wrote:

> >
> > When you consume meat you also indirectly consume all the plants
> > the animal happened to eat, eg the mono-culture crops.
>
> What about in the case of game?

I have absolutely no problem with game provided the sources are
sustainable and as far as I know sustainability is only a major issue
with fish. Predation is an integral part of natural ecosystems and
I don't think periodic mass starvations should be considered
preferable.
I also don't see why it is better for deer to be eaten by bears or
wolves
than by humans.

> They may graze on crops when close
> enough to fields, but for the most part their diets don't result in
> collateral deaths unless you count the other species pushed out of
> regions where deer and feral pigs are overpopulated.
>

"Dave" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> rick wrote:
>> "Dave" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > rick wrote:
>> >> "Dave" > wrote in message
>> >> oups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > rick wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> snippage...
>> >>
>> >> >> >> > These other forms of economic activity don't
>> >> >> >> > involve
>> >> >> >> > raising
>> >> >> >> > animals
>> >> >> >> > in what I consider to be unacceptable conditions.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> What's unacceptable about it?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > The welfare needs of the animals are treated as
>> >> >> > trivial
>> >> >> > compared
>> >> >> > with their economic potential.
>> >> >> >>===============================
>> >> >> LOL They are still given more consideration than the
>> >> >> animals
>> >> >> that die for your mono-culture crops, dave.
>> >> >> The animals you rant about are the business of the
>> >> >> farmers.
>> >> >> They
>> >> >> aren't going to kill them off prior to reaching
>> >> >> the point where they make a profit. The ones that die
>> >> >> for
>> >> >> your
>> >> >> crops are the ones that are not only treated trivially,
>> >> >> but
>> >> >> aren't even considered except for how to kill as many as
>> >> >> possible
>> >> >> when they become a nuisance.
>> >> >
>> >> > When you consume meat you also indirectly consume all the
>> >> > plants
>> >> > the animal happened to eat, eg the mono-culture crops.
>> >> ===========================
>> >> No, I don't. The beef I eat consume no crops.
>> >
>> > The beef you eat does not come from cattle that
>> > have been intensively reared using modern factory
>> > farming methods. Jeez!
>> =============================
>> Then why do you keep insisting that they do? Read your
>> statement
>> above, dave.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >> Zero, nada, zilch.
>> >> Why is that so hard to understand?
>> >
>> > It isn't.
>> =================
>> Then why do you keep pretending otherwise?
>>
>>
>> >
>> >> It also uses no pharmaceuticals.
>> >> It uses no chemicals, your crops cannot make that claim.
>> >
>> > How do you know that. Just as it is possible to get hold of
>> > chemical free grass fed beef from local suppliers so it is
>> > also possible to get hold of *cide free veggies.
>> ====================================
>> How do I know? because I know the farmer that is raising
>> them.
>> I can drive by and see them in the fields anytime I like. I
>> know
>> how he raises them.
>> Not really. Organic does not mean pesticide free dave.
>
> No but organic standards do impose restrictions on the range
> of chemicals that may be used and also on the circumstances
> under which they may be used. Also just because organic does
> not
> mean *cide free and you don't know any farms who grow
> *cide free veggies does not mean *cide free veggies do not
> exist.
====================
I can assure you they are more rare than grass-fed beef and
free-range eggs.

Organic pesticides are not less toxic, and have fewer
restrictions on them than synthetic ones.



>
>> I know
>> no farmers that
>> use zero chemicals and provide foods for coops or farmers
>> markets.
>>
>>
>> >
>> >> >> >> >>Humans have always sought to maximize
>> >> >> >> >>yields from the least amount of inputs -- and
>> >> >> >> >>farming
>> >> >> >> >>is
>> >> >> >> >>one
>> >> >> >> >>of the
>> >> >> >> >>industries which was first to do it (farming
>> >> >> >> >>reduced
>> >> >> >> >>nomadicism and
>> >> >> >> >>hunting/gathering).
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>>I willingly endure the inconvinience of having to
>> >> >> >> >>>avoid
>> >> >> >> >>>certain products but I have never seen the point
>> >> >> >> >>>of
>> >> >> >> >>>inconviniencing
>> >> >> >> >>>myself
>> >> >> >> >>>further by refusing to eat salad sandwiches from
>> >> >> >> >>>Subway
>> >> >> >> >>>just because
>> >> >> >> >>>the
>> >> >> >> >>>people serving them have recently handled meat. I
>> >> >> >> >>>might
>> >> >> >> >>>feel
>> >> >> >> >>>differently
>> >> >> >> >>>if I had spritual motivations but I don't think
>> >> >> >> >>>most
>> >> >> >> >>>veggies do.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >>So-called vegans are misanthropic rather than
>> >> >> >> >>spiritual
>> >> >> >> >>in
>> >> >> >> >>their
>> >> >> >> >>motivations. Don't give them the benefit of the
>> >> >> >> >>doubt.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>

"Dave" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> rick wrote:
>> "Dave" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > rick wrote:
>> >> >> Ummm, I don't see these cages for the chickens that are
>> >> >> running
>> >> >> around my back yard.
>> >> >
>> >> > Allowing chickens to run around in your back yard is not
>> >> > a
>> >> > modern
>> >> > method of factory farming. Jeez!
>> >> ========================
>> >> Then why do you talk like those are the only chickens
>> >> around?
>> >
>> > I didn't think I was doing.
>> >
>> >> Supporting an alternative is the only way to change what
>> >> you
>> >> don't like.
>> >
>> > The particular methods that I abhor exist because people buy
>> > their products. By refraining from buying the products I
>> > avoid
>> > fuelling the demand for them.
>> ===============================
>> We've been through this.
>
> Yes. We have already discovered that you have a logical
> blindspot in this area.
==================
No, i see the truth.


>
>> Not buying a product that you already
>> don't consume does nothing to stop that production,
>
> Correct. In order to reduce the production for that product I
> would
> either need to engage in illegitimate tactics such as vandalism
> or intimidation, convince others to also stop buying that
> product
> or persuade the government to pass legislation against it.
> On the other hand, if I started consuming that product I
> would begin fueling the demand for it.
==============================
LOL Talk about bad logic. Now, discuss using an alternativly
produced product.
Since the people you want to convince are not those that are not
going to start eating meat
just on your say-so(they already have their simple rule for their
simple minds), Convince those that DO eat meat to purchase the
alternative. Where do you figure that that will increase the
demand for the product
production method you dislike? Now, add your consumption to the
alternative, and you increase the demand for the *alternativly*
produced product even more. That increased demand will be seen
and copied by even more
buyers and producers.



>
>> or change the
>> methods you abhor. Only by buying an the chickens from a
>> producers that raises them in a method that you approve will
>> any
>> change take place.
>>
>> This holds true whether I buy
>> > (instead of battery eggs) free range eggs or tofu. In
>> > principle
>> > consuming either has the same effect on the demand for
>> > battery eggs.
>> =======================
>> No, it does not. Your consuption of tofu has no effect on the
>> methods or numbers of eggs.
>
> Correct. My consumption of tofu does not fuel the demand for
> eggs, just the demand for tofu.
=====================
Then what was you statement about 'instead of battery eggs' for?


>
>> Buying the alternative egg producers eggs will. Look at your
>> store now. Free range eggs and organic beef are
>> becoming more popular all the time. They aren't being added
>> to
>> the amount of products overall that is being sold,
>
> Nor does tofu!
===================
And it still does nothing to effect change in the production of
eggs. Why are you so closed-minded about
this? refraining from a product instead of buying an
alternativly produced product will not make the
method of production you dislike change.


>
>> it's replacing part of the total that you don't like. You can
>> only provide the incentive for this change by buying the
>> alternative, not by not buying a product you don't already
>> buy.
>>
>>
>> In practise there are people who prefer to buy
>> > free range eggs but only if they are sold in their local
>> > corner
>> > shop/supermarket so a case could be made for offering those
>> > shops an incentive to stock free range.
>> ============================
>> Exactly, and by your purchasing those eggs you are providing
>> the
>> incentive to stock those eggs instead of the ones you don't
>> like.
>=====================
You apparently agreed here, eh?

"Dave" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>

Maybe you should watch the meatrix video posted elsewhere in the
group earlier this month.

Like vegans, they are adamantly against 'factory-farms.' Their
solution? Give up?
Nope, eat local, eat alternatives.


They get it, why can't you?

rick wrote:
> "Dave" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > rick wrote:
> >> "Dave" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > rick wrote:
> >> >> >> Ummm, I don't see these cages for the chickens that are
> >> >> >> running
> >> >> >> around my back yard.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Allowing chickens to run around in your back yard is not
> >> >> > a
> >> >> > modern
> >> >> > method of factory farming. Jeez!
> >> >> ========================
> >> >> Then why do you talk like those are the only chickens
> >> >> around?
> >> >
> >> > I didn't think I was doing.
> >> >
> >> >> Supporting an alternative is the only way to change what
> >> >> you
> >> >> don't like.
> >> >
> >> > The particular methods that I abhor exist because people buy
> >> > their products. By refraining from buying the products I
> >> > avoid
> >> > fuelling the demand for them.
> >> ===============================
> >> We've been through this.
> >
> > Yes. We have already discovered that you have a logical
> > blindspot in this area.
> ==================
> No, i see the truth.
>
>
> >
> >> Not buying a product that you already
> >> don't consume does nothing to stop that production,
> >
> > Correct. In order to reduce the production for that product I
> > would
> > either need to engage in illegitimate tactics such as vandalism
> > or intimidation, convince others to also stop buying that
> > product
> > or persuade the government to pass legislation against it.
> > On the other hand, if I started consuming that product I
> > would begin fueling the demand for it.
> ==============================
> LOL Talk about bad logic. Now, discuss using an alternativly
> produced product.

If I consume battery eggs I am supporting the battery egg industry,
If I don't consume battery eggs I am not supporting the battery egg
industry. It's that simple.

> Since the people you want to convince are not those that are not
> going to start eating meat
> just on your say-so(they already have their simple rule for their
> simple minds), Convince those that DO eat meat to purchase the
> alternative. Where do you figure that that will increase the
> demand for the product production method you dislike?

It won't. If I convince people to stop eating the products I dislike
then the demand for those products would be reduced. If I
convince them to eat free range eggs instead of battery eggs
the effect on demand for battery eggs is the same as if I convince
them to eat tofu instead of battery eggs.

> Now, add your consumption to the
> alternative, and you increase the demand for the *alternativly*
> produced product even more. That increased demand will be seen
> and copied by even more
> buyers and producers.

The argument is not exclusive to alternatively produced products. It
applies to any product that may be consumed instead of the products
I dislike.

> >
> >> or change the
> >> methods you abhor. Only by buying an the chickens from a
> >> producers that raises them in a method that you approve will
> >> any
> >> change take place.
> >>
> >> This holds true whether I buy
> >> > (instead of battery eggs) free range eggs or tofu. In
> >> > principle
> >> > consuming either has the same effect on the demand for
> >> > battery eggs.
> >> =======================
> >> No, it does not. Your consuption of tofu has no effect on the
> >> methods or numbers of eggs.
> >
> > Correct. My consumption of tofu does not fuel the demand for
> > eggs, just the demand for tofu.
> =====================
> Then what was you statement about 'instead of battery eggs' for?

A comparable statement about free range eggs would be
"Consumption of free range eggs does not fuel the demand
for battery eggs, just the demand for free range eggs".

> >> Buying the alternative egg producers eggs will. Look at your
> >> store now. Free range eggs and organic beef are
> >> becoming more popular all the time. They aren't being added
> >> to
> >> the amount of products overall that is being sold,
> >
> > Nor does tofu!
> ===================
> And it still does nothing to effect change in the production of
> eggs. Why are you so closed-minded about
> this?

I could ask you the same question. Nonsense is nonsense no
matter how many times you repeat it.

> refraining from a product instead of buying an
> alternativly produced product will not make the
> method of production you dislike change.
>
>
> >
> >> it's replacing part of the total that you don't like. You can
> >> only provide the incentive for this change by buying the
> >> alternative, not by not buying a product you don't already
> >> buy.
> >>
> >>
> >> In practise there are people who prefer to buy
> >> > free range eggs but only if they are sold in their local
> >> > corner
> >> > shop/supermarket so a case could be made for offering those
> >> > shops an incentive to stock free range.
> >> ============================
> >> Exactly, and by your purchasing those eggs you are providing
> >> the
> >> incentive to stock those eggs instead of the ones you don't
> >> like.
> >=====================
> You apparently agreed here, eh?

Sort of. The direct effect one's consumer habits have on the battery
egg
industry is dependent on ONE variable - how many eggs that individual
consumes (with the qualification that egg-containing products found in
garbage bins or equivalent circumstances don't count). There may
however
be secondary, indirect effects based on other people's consumer habits.
There are probably a large number of consumers who will be free range
eggs if readily available and battery eggs if not.

Making sure this free range eggs are available to such consumers does
therefore reduce the demand for battery eggs. However it is difficult
to say
how this is best achieved. By consuming the free range eggs oneself,
one
is encouraging more shops to stock them but otoh it may also make
those shops run out of stock sooner.

rick wrote:
> "Dave" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
>
> Maybe you should watch the meatrix video posted elsewhere in the
> group earlier this month.
>
> Like vegans, they are adamantly against 'factory-farms.' Their
> solution? Give up?
> Nope, eat local, eat alternatives.
>
> They get it, why can't you?

I do get it. eat alternatives is the solution. The alternatives can be
direct alternatives such as your grass fed beef or indirect
alternatives
like nuts and legumes.

rick wrote:
[snip]
> >> How do I know? because I know the farmer that is raising
> >> them.
> >> I can drive by and see them in the fields anytime I like. I
> >> know
> >> how he raises them.
> >> Not really. Organic does not mean pesticide free dave.
> >
> > No but organic standards do impose restrictions on the range
> > of chemicals that may be used and also on the circumstances
> > under which they may be used. Also just because organic does
> > not
> > mean *cide free and you don't know any farms who grow
> > *cide free veggies does not mean *cide free veggies do not
> > exist.
> ====================
> I can assure you they are more rare than grass-fed beef and
> free-range eggs.

Sure, you can get grass fed beef in my country, although a portion
of this is almost certainly hay and sileage since our climate is not
really warm enough for high quality, fresh grass, year round. Also
there is no such thing as a grass fed label. You can not walk down
the meat aisle of any supermarket I am aware of and purchase
beef labelled as grass-fed. You have to purchase direct from the farm.
I don't believe they are any easier to get hold of than *cide free
veggies.

> Organic pesticides are not less toxic, and have fewer
> restrictions on them than synthetic ones.

Who told you that?

"Dave" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> rick wrote:
>> "Dave" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>>
>> Maybe you should watch the meatrix video posted elsewhere in
>> the
>> group earlier this month.
>>
>> Like vegans, they are adamantly against 'factory-farms.'
>> Their
>> solution? Give up?
>> Nope, eat local, eat alternatives.
>>
>> They get it, why can't you?
>
> I do get it. eat alternatives is the solution. The alternatives
> can be
> direct alternatives such as your grass fed beef or indirect
> alternatives
> like nuts and legumes.
=====================
Nope. Those are not alternatives that change the method of
production of meat.


>

"Dave" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> rick wrote:
>> "Dave" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > rick wrote:
>> >> "Dave" > wrote in message
>> >> oups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > rick wrote:
>> >> >> >> Ummm, I don't see these cages for the chickens that
>> >> >> >> are
>> >> >> >> running
>> >> >> >> around my back yard.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Allowing chickens to run around in your back yard is
>> >> >> > not
>> >> >> > a
>> >> >> > modern
>> >> >> > method of factory farming. Jeez!
>> >> >> ========================
>> >> >> Then why do you talk like those are the only chickens
>> >> >> around?
>> >> >
>> >> > I didn't think I was doing.
>> >> >
>> >> >> Supporting an alternative is the only way to change what
>> >> >> you
>> >> >> don't like.
>> >> >
>> >> > The particular methods that I abhor exist because people
>> >> > buy
>> >> > their products. By refraining from buying the products I
>> >> > avoid
>> >> > fuelling the demand for them.
>> >> ===============================
>> >> We've been through this.
>> >
>> > Yes. We have already discovered that you have a logical
>> > blindspot in this area.
>> ==================
>> No, i see the truth.
>>
>>
>> >
>> >> Not buying a product that you already
>> >> don't consume does nothing to stop that production,
>> >
>> > Correct. In order to reduce the production for that product
>> > I
>> > would
>> > either need to engage in illegitimate tactics such as
>> > vandalism
>> > or intimidation, convince others to also stop buying that
>> > product
>> > or persuade the government to pass legislation against it.
>> > On the other hand, if I started consuming that product I
>> > would begin fueling the demand for it.
>> ==============================
>> LOL Talk about bad logic. Now, discuss using an alternativly
>> produced product.
>
> If I consume battery eggs I am supporting the battery egg
> industry,
> If I don't consume battery eggs I am not supporting the battery
> egg
> industry. It's that simple.
=======================
And, it does NOTHING to change the production method. It's that
simple.
You want the method to change, you buy the alternativly produced
eggs.


>
>> Since the people you want to convince are not those that are
>> not
>> going to start eating meat
>> just on your say-so(they already have their simple rule for
>> their
>> simple minds), Convince those that DO eat meat to purchase the
>> alternative. Where do you figure that that will increase the
>> demand for the product production method you dislike?
>
> It won't. If I convince people to stop eating the products I
> dislike
> then the demand for those products would be reduced.
=================================
And the method of production remains unchanged.

If I
> convince them to eat free range eggs instead of battery eggs
> the effect on demand for battery eggs is the same as if I
> convince
> them to eat tofu instead of battery eggs.
=========================
Nope. Because now the production of eggs is still there, but to
supply the "better" ones means that producers have to change
their production methods.


>
>> Now, add your consumption to the
>> alternative, and you increase the demand for the
>> *alternativly*
>> produced product even more. That increased demand will be
>> seen
>> and copied by even more
>> buyers and producers.
>
> The argument is not exclusive to alternatively produced
> products. It
> applies to any product that may be consumed instead of the
> products
> I dislike.
==========================
No, it doesn't. Buying a different product does nothing to
change the meathods of production that you dislike.



>
>> >
>> >> or change the
>> >> methods you abhor. Only by buying an the chickens from a
>> >> producers that raises them in a method that you approve
>> >> will
>> >> any
>> >> change take place.
>> >>
>> >> This holds true whether I buy
>> >> > (instead of battery eggs) free range eggs or tofu. In
>> >> > principle
>> >> > consuming either has the same effect on the demand for
>> >> > battery eggs.
>> >> =======================
>> >> No, it does not. Your consuption of tofu has no effect on
>> >> the
>> >> methods or numbers of eggs.
>> >
>> > Correct. My consumption of tofu does not fuel the demand for
>> > eggs, just the demand for tofu.
>> =====================
>> Then what was you statement about 'instead of battery eggs'
>> for?
>
> A comparable statement about free range eggs would be
> "Consumption of free range eggs does not fuel the demand
> for battery eggs, just the demand for free range eggs".
===========================
It provids incentives for change. the number of eggs produced
dosn't change, just the mathods of production.
That was your argument to begin with, the method of production.


>
>> >> Buying the alternative egg producers eggs will. Look at
>> >> your
>> >> store now. Free range eggs and organic beef are
>> >> becoming more popular all the time. They aren't being
>> >> added
>> >> to
>> >> the amount of products overall that is being sold,
>> >
>> > Nor does tofu!
>> ===================
>> And it still does nothing to effect change in the production
>> of
>> eggs. Why are you so closed-minded about
>> this?
>
> I could ask you the same question. Nonsense is nonsense no
> matter how many times you repeat it.
========================
The truth still remains the same though...


>
>> refraining from a product instead of buying an
>> alternativly produced product will not make the
>> method of production you dislike change.
>>
>>
>> >
>> >> it's replacing part of the total that you don't like. You
>> >> can
>> >> only provide the incentive for this change by buying the
>> >> alternative, not by not buying a product you don't already
>> >> buy.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> In practise there are people who prefer to buy
>> >> > free range eggs but only if they are sold in their local
>> >> > corner
>> >> > shop/supermarket so a case could be made for offering
>> >> > those
>> >> > shops an incentive to stock free range.
>> >> ============================
>> >> Exactly, and by your purchasing those eggs you are
>> >> providing
>> >> the
>> >> incentive to stock those eggs instead of the ones you don't
>> >> like.
>> >=====================
>> You apparently agreed here, eh?
>
> Sort of. The direct effect one's consumer habits have on the
> battery
> egg
> industry is dependent on ONE variable - how many eggs that
> individual
> consumes (with the qualification that egg-containing products
> found in
> garbage bins or equivalent circumstances don't count). There
> may
> however
> be secondary, indirect effects based on other people's consumer
> habits.
> There are probably a large number of consumers who will be free
> range
> eggs if readily available and battery eggs if not.
>
> Making sure this free range eggs are available to such
> consumers does
> therefore reduce the demand for battery eggs. However it is
> difficult
> to say
> how this is best achieved. By consuming the free range eggs
> oneself,
> one
> is encouraging more shops to stock them but otoh it may also
> make
> those shops run out of stock sooner.
==========================
LOL Economics is hard for you, isn't it? There may be a short
run shortage, but the market
will fill the demand very quickly. Avoiding ALL eggs will do
nothing to change the methods of production.
No matter how you tap dance around, that wont change.


>

rick wrote:
> "Dave" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > rick wrote:
> >> "Dave" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >>
> >> Maybe you should watch the meatrix video posted elsewhere in
> >> the
> >> group earlier this month.
> >>
> >> Like vegans, they are adamantly against 'factory-farms.'
> >> Their
> >> solution? Give up?
> >> Nope, eat local, eat alternatives.
> >>
> >> They get it, why can't you?
> >
> > I do get it. eat alternatives is the solution. The alternatives
> > can be
> > direct alternatives such as your grass fed beef or indirect
> > alternatives
> > like nuts and legumes.
> =====================
> Nope. Those are not alternatives that change the method of
> production of meat.

A consumer who buys grass fed beef fuels the demand for
grass fed beef. A consumer who buys nuts and legumes fuels
the demand for nuts and legumes. Neither directly fuels the
demand for feedlot beef. Nuts, legumes and beef are all
food and in the broad sense they are alternatives to each
other.

rick wrote:

> > If I consume battery eggs I am supporting the battery egg
> > industry,
> > If I don't consume battery eggs I am not supporting the battery
> > egg
> > industry. It's that simple.
> =======================
> And, it does NOTHING to change the production method. It's that
> simple.

That is a true statement but one that misses the point. Changing the
method of production is not the end in itself. The goal is to eliminate
certain practices (eg raising laying hens by the battery method) and
this goal can be achieved either by changing the method of
production or by eliminating demand for eggs altogether.

"Dave" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> rick wrote:
>
>> > If I consume battery eggs I am supporting the battery egg
>> > industry,
>> > If I don't consume battery eggs I am not supporting the
>> > battery
>> > egg
>> > industry. It's that simple.
>> =======================
>> And, it does NOTHING to change the production method. It's
>> that
>> simple.
>
> That is a true statement but one that misses the point.
> Changing the
> method of production is not the end in itself. The goal is to
> eliminate
> certain practices (eg raising laying hens by the battery
> method) and
> this goal can be achieved either by changing the method of
> production or by eliminating demand for eggs altogether.
>==================
LOL The only one that can be made a reality is to change the
method.
Eliminating the demand is a pipe dream for fools. But then,
maybe you'd
rather pig-headedly believe in pipe dreams, rather than reality.

"Dave" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> rick wrote:
>> "Dave" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> >
>> > rick wrote:
>> >> "Dave" > wrote in message
>> >> oups.com...
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Maybe you should watch the meatrix video posted elsewhere
>> >> in
>> >> the
>> >> group earlier this month.
>> >>
>> >> Like vegans, they are adamantly against 'factory-farms.'
>> >> Their
>> >> solution? Give up?
>> >> Nope, eat local, eat alternatives.
>> >>
>> >> They get it, why can't you?
>> >
>> > I do get it. eat alternatives is the solution. The
>> > alternatives
>> > can be
>> > direct alternatives such as your grass fed beef or indirect
>> > alternatives
>> > like nuts and legumes.
>> =====================
>> Nope. Those are not alternatives that change the method of
>> production of meat.
>
> A consumer who buys grass fed beef fuels the demand for
> grass fed beef. A consumer who buys nuts and legumes fuels
> the demand for nuts and legumes. Neither directly fuels the
> demand for feedlot beef. Nuts, legumes and beef are all
> food and in the broad sense they are alternatives to each
> other.
===============================
Not in terms of changing the method of beef production that you
claim to dislike.
Thanks for proving you'd rather be pig-headed than rational.
Buying nuts will not
provide for a change in the production methods for beef. Buying
grass-fed beef will.
That is the direct alternative to factory-farmed beef, not nuts
and beans.



>