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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #81 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,rec.food.veg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 315
Default Subway Veggie Burger Nutrition Information.


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






http://www.cgfi.org/materials/key_pu...oxic_Tools.pdf
>



  #82 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,rec.food.veg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 163
Default Subway Veggie Burger Nutrition Information.


rick wrote:
> "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.


Either can be made into reality if we collectively choose to do so.
One who eliminates their contribution to demand from products
produced in ways they can not condone is doing their bit.

  #83 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,rec.food.veg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 163
Default Subway Veggie Burger Nutrition Information.


rick wrote:
> "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.


We've been here. I am not the one being pig-headed about this.
>
>
>
> >


  #84 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,rec.food.veg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 163
Default Subway Veggie Burger Nutrition Information.


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

>
> http://www.cgfi.org/materials/key_pu...oxic_Tools.pdf


That site certainly provides food for thought although it is worth
noting that, like most sources including many that I quote, the
CGFI does have an agenda. The claims made against organic
agriculture are worth looking into. In the meanwhile here is another
quote, admittedly from a source with a very strong agenda.

"The use of these pesticides is not widespread and they
are only applied to a narrow range of crops, mainly top
fruit and potatoes. Almost all other organic arable farming
in the UK has no need, and no possibility, of using pesticides.
No herbicides are permitted. They are used in small
quantities on Soil Association farms and accounted for
0.4 per cent of total UK pesticide in 2003."
http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/848d689047cb466780256a6b00298980/ff83a83e9c9e75ea80256e3600609101!OpenDocument

It occured to me that this statistic was meaningless without
reference to the per cent total of UK crop production that
organic production accounted for so I did a quick google and
found an article on the BBC website that said less than 3
per cent of agricultural production in the UK was organic.
The implication is that at least in the UK organic uses less
pesticides on average. It seems reasonable to suppose
that the organic movement is tainted by a prejudice against
the synthetic but my current impression remains favourable
overall, pending further research.

  #85 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,rec.food.veg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 315
Default Subway Veggie Burger Nutrition Information.


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

>
> Either can be made into reality if we collectively choose to do
> so.
> One who eliminates their contribution to demand from products
> produced in ways they can not condone is doing their bit.

==============================
No, 'collectively' you will never eliminate the demand for eggs,
or beef, or 'insert hated meat product here.'
You know that and i know that. So, the remaining option is to
change the method of prodution you dislike.
Buying an alternativly produced egg is the ONLY way you will
effect that change. Thanks for proving
you'd rather keep your head buried deep in those pipe dreams than
really DO something to make a change
in what you claim to dislike.



>





  #86 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,rec.food.veg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 315
Default Subway Veggie Burger Nutrition Information.


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

>
> We've been here. I am not the one being pig-headed about this.

=====================
Yes, you are.


>>
>>
>>
>> >

>



  #87 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,rec.food.veg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 315
Default Subway Veggie Burger Nutrition Information.


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

>>
>> http://www.cgfi.org/materials/key_pu...oxic_Tools.pdf

>
> That site certainly provides food for thought although it is
> worth
> noting that, like most sources including many that I quote, the
> CGFI does have an agenda. The claims made against organic
> agriculture are worth looking into. In the meanwhile here is
> another
> quote, admittedly from a source with a very strong agenda.
>
> "The use of these pesticides is not widespread and they
> are only applied to a narrow range of crops, mainly top
> fruit and potatoes. Almost all other organic arable farming
> in the UK has no need, and no possibility, of using pesticides.
> No herbicides are permitted. They are used in small
> quantities on Soil Association farms and accounted for
> 0.4 per cent of total UK pesticide in 2003."
> http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/848d689047cb466780256a6b00298980/ff83a83e9c9e75ea80256e3600609101!OpenDocument
>
> It occured to me that this statistic was meaningless without
> reference to the per cent total of UK crop production that
> organic production accounted for so I did a quick google and
> found an article on the BBC website that said less than 3
> per cent of agricultural production in the UK was organic.
> The implication is that at least in the UK organic uses less
> pesticides on average. It seems reasonable to suppose
> that the organic movement is tainted by a prejudice against
> the synthetic but my current impression remains favourable
> overall, pending further research.
>



  #88 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,rec.food.veg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 315
Default Subway Veggie Burger Nutrition Information.


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

>>
>> http://www.cgfi.org/materials/key_pu...oxic_Tools.pdf

>
> That site certainly provides food for thought although it is
> worth
> noting that, like most sources including many that I quote, the
> CGFI does have an agenda. The claims made against organic
> agriculture are worth looking into. In the meanwhile here is
> another
> quote, admittedly from a source with a very strong agenda.
>
> "The use of these pesticides is not widespread and they
> are only applied to a narrow range of crops, mainly top
> fruit and potatoes. Almost all other organic arable farming
> in the UK has no need, and no possibility, of using pesticides.
> No herbicides are permitted. They are used in small
> quantities on Soil Association farms and accounted for
> 0.4 per cent of total UK pesticide in 2003."
> http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/848d689047cb466780256a6b00298980/ff83a83e9c9e75ea80256e3600609101!OpenDocument
>
> It occured to me that this statistic was meaningless without
> reference to the per cent total of UK crop production that
> organic production accounted for so I did a quick google and
> found an article on the BBC website that said less than 3
> per cent of agricultural production in the UK was organic.
> The implication is that at least in the UK organic uses less
> pesticides on average. It seems reasonable to suppose
> that the organic movement is tainted by a prejudice against
> the synthetic but my current impression remains favourable
> overall, pending further research.

===============================
Then you weren't reading for comprehension. Organic farms use
more pesticides
per operations than farmes that use synthetic ones. If all
sythetics were eliminated
the increase in pesticides used would be massive. In place of
one or two sprays using
amsll amounts per acre, you'd end up with 5 to 8 sprays of up to
10-20 times more
pesticide amounts.



>



  #89 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,rec.food.veg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 163
Default Subway Veggie Burger Nutrition Information.


rick wrote:
> "Dave" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > rick wrote:
> >> "Dave" > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > 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?
> >>
> >> http://www.cgfi.org/materials/key_pu...oxic_Tools.pdf

> >
> > That site certainly provides food for thought although it is
> > worth
> > noting that, like most sources including many that I quote, the
> > CGFI does have an agenda. The claims made against organic
> > agriculture are worth looking into. In the meanwhile here is
> > another
> > quote, admittedly from a source with a very strong agenda.
> >
> > "The use of these pesticides is not widespread and they
> > are only applied to a narrow range of crops, mainly top
> > fruit and potatoes. Almost all other organic arable farming
> > in the UK has no need, and no possibility, of using pesticides.
> > No herbicides are permitted. They are used in small
> > quantities on Soil Association farms and accounted for
> > 0.4 per cent of total UK pesticide in 2003."
> > http://www.soilassociation.org/web/sa/saweb.nsf/848d689047cb466780256a6b00298980/ff83a83e9c9e75ea80256e3600609101!OpenDocument
> >
> > It occured to me that this statistic was meaningless without
> > reference to the per cent total of UK crop production that
> > organic production accounted for so I did a quick google and
> > found an article on the BBC website that said less than 3
> > per cent of agricultural production in the UK was organic.
> > The implication is that at least in the UK organic uses less
> > pesticides on average. It seems reasonable to suppose
> > that the organic movement is tainted by a prejudice against
> > the synthetic but my current impression remains favourable
> > overall, pending further research.

> ===============================
> Then you weren't reading for comprehension. Organic farms use
> more pesticides
> per operations than farmes that use synthetic ones. If all
> sythetics were eliminated
> the increase in pesticides used would be massive. In place of
> one or two sprays using
> amsll amounts per acre, you'd end up with 5 to 8 sprays of up to
> 10-20 times more
> pesticide amounts.


Although your site acknowledged that certain organic methods
reduced the needs for crops it dismissed them as not very
effective and proceeded to ignore them in favour of making
the simplistic assumption that in switching to organic farming
farmers would simply replace synthetic *cides with organic
cides. The statistics I found on the website of the Soil Association,
a certification body for organic farming in the UK, are at odds
with this analysis.

"They are used in small quantities on Soil Association farms
and accounted for 0.4 per cent of total UK pesticide in 2003"

Yes, my source has an agenda and should be read sceptically
but so does yours!

  #90 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,rec.food.veg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 163
Default Subway Veggie Burger Nutrition Information.


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

> >
> > Either can be made into reality if we collectively choose to do
> > so.
> > One who eliminates their contribution to demand from products
> > produced in ways they can not condone is doing their bit.

> ==============================
> No, 'collectively' you will never eliminate the demand for eggs,
> or beef, or 'insert hated meat product here.'


Individually I can eliminate my contribution to the demand for eggs,
or beef, or 'insert hated meat product here' thereby reducing the
total demand.

> You know that and i know that. So, the remaining option is to
> change the method of prodution you dislike.


Individually I have as much power to eliminate production as I do
to change method.

> Buying an alternativly produced egg is the ONLY way you will
> effect that change.
>Thanks for proving
> you'd rather keep your head buried deep in those pipe dreams than
> really DO something to make a change
> in what you claim to dislike.


You just don't get it.



  #91 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,rec.food.veg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21
Default Subway Veggie Burger Nutrition Information.

Anon wrote:

> 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,


I just did, and you, true to form, decided to tuck your tail and run away.
You think you're enlightened and spiritual, but you've only betrayed
yourself as the kind of immature weakling I suggested you were.
  #92 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21
Default Subway Veggie Burger Nutrition Information.

Talbot wrote:

> 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?


Distinguish between SALT content and SODIUM content. Your question about
equivalence is apropos, but read the ingredients again and note ingredients
associated with high amounts of sodium (and/or salt). Most vegetables
contain sodium. Production processes can add sodium as well, such as in
making soy sauce or in canning things like black olives and water
chestnuts.
  #93 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,rec.food.veg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21
Default Subway Veggie Burger Nutrition Information.

Plandor wrote:

> "usual suspect" > wrote in message:
>
>>........ (edited)...... No religious scripture commands or commends
>>abstinence of anything.

>
> and, from another one of your posts:
>
>>....... (edited)...... there are no prohibitions against meat consumption
>>in Buddhism

> ===================
>
> I don't think those statements are entirely accurate.


http://buddhism.about.com/cs/ethics/a/Food_2.htm
http://hinduwebsite.com/buddhism/vegetarianism.htm
Etc.

<...>
> Yes, there are other Buddhist scriptures that allow for meat eating


The vast majority of them.

<...>
  #94 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,rec.food.veg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21
Default Subway Veggie Burger Nutrition Information.

Dave wrote:

>
> usual suspect wrote:
>> Dave wrote:
>> >>>>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.

>
> It isn't a set of easily identified black and white values, more an
> idea
> that when buying a product I like to consider not just the quality and
> the cost of a product but the effect the manufacture of that product
> had on humans, animals and the environment.


Do you drink coffee or consume chocolate?

>> >>>>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

>
> Sure. Have you stopped to consider the extra costs required to achieve
> top-notch condition for all their "goods".


The "extra costs" are marginal (when considering the scale) and superceded
by the increased profitability of running a "clean" operation. What part of
"more profitable" do you not comprehend? Fortunately, farmers get it even
if disinformed consumers like you don't.

>>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.

>
> I do not pay attention to animal rights propaganda videos. My
> judgements
> have been formed mainly from sources that you probably wouldn't accept
> (eg Animal welfare advocacy organisations)


I.e., propaganda videos and literature from AR groups. I rest my case.

> Visiting a farm and seeing what
> the owners of that farm decide to show you would not reveal all the
> welfare issues mentioned in the sources.


Why the hell not? Your eyes, ears, and nose won't lie. AR morons -- with
their radical agenda -- do.

> It would be a good idea though. I should do it sometime.


Especially if you're going to base your diet and nutrition on the claims of
radical ARAs.

>> 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

>
> Industry sources like the above suffer from the same problem as
> animal rights organisations. They're kind of biased.


They also have their own pics to show farm conditions. You can look at their
recent pics, or look at the same old black and white ones your AR groups
have been showing for the last 30-40 years.

>> 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.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >


  #95 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Subway Veggie Burger Nutrition Information.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Plandor wrote:
>
>> "usual suspect" > wrote in message:
>>
>>>........ (edited)...... No religious scripture commands or commends
>>>abstinence of anything.

>>
>> and, from another one of your posts:
>>
>>>....... (edited)...... there are no prohibitions against meat consumption
>>>in Buddhism

>> ===================
>>
>> I don't think those statements are entirely accurate.

>
> http://buddhism.about.com/cs/ethics/a/Food_2.htm
> http://hinduwebsite.com/buddhism/vegetarianism.htm
> Etc.

============================

Perhaps we should look at an actual Buddhist scripture, containing words
attributed to the Buddha to best determine the accuracy of your earlier
statements (since they involve the scriptures). Here are some of the final
words of the Buddha regarding meat-eating as stated in the Mahaparinirvana
Sutra (shortly before his death):
-------
[The Buddha replied:] .......... "Noble son, henceforth I do not permit my
sravakas [disciples] to eat meat." .......

http://www.nirvanasutra.org.uk/mpnsvegetarianism.htm

So that sentence proves your statements - "No religious scripture commands
or commends abstinence of anything" and "...there are no prohibitions
against meat consumption in Buddhism" are both false. Yes, other Buddhist
scriptures (from an earlier period) do allow meat-eating as discussed in the
websites you provided links to above, but the Buddha changed those rules in
the Mahaparinirvana Sutra, just before his death. You can see from the
above quote attributed to the Buddha that the "blanket" statement you made -
"...there are no prohibitions against meat consumption in Buddhism" is
clearly wrong.


> <...>
>> Yes, there are other Buddhist scriptures that allow for meat eating

>
> The vast majority of them.

=======================

And again, right before his death, in the Mahaparinirvana Sutra the Buddha
discarded the rules in all of the older scriptures which had (previously)
allowed meat eating, as his final word on the matter:
-------
[The Buddha replied:] .......... "Noble son, henceforth I do not permit my
sravakas [disciples] to eat meat." .......

[Maha-Kasyapaika-gotra asked:] "Blessed One, why did you permit the eating
of meat that was blameless in three respects?"

[The Buddha replied:] "Because I stipulated these three types of blameless
as a provisional basis of training; I now discard them. ........ I
stipulate that you should not even eat meat blameless in the three respects.
Even those meats other than the ten [previously forbidden] kinds should be
abandoned. The meat of corpses should also be abandoned.".......

[Maha-Kasyapaika-gotra asked:] "Blessed One, what should be done by monks,
nuns, upasakas [male lay followers of Buddhism] and upasikas [female lay
followers of Buddhism], who depend upon what is offered to them, to purify
alms-food that contains meat in such places where the food has not been
verified?"

[The Buddha replied:] "Noble son, I have taught that it does not contradict
the vinaya in any way if they wash it [i.e. the non-meat food] with water
and then eat it. If it appears that the food in such places contains a lot
of prepared meat, it should be rejected. There is no fault if one vessel
touches another but the food is not actually mixed together. I say that even
meat, fish, game, dried hooves and scraps of meat left over by others
constitute an infraction. Previously, I taught this in cases arising from
the needs of the situation. Now, on this occasion, I teach the harm arising
from meat-eating. Being the time when I shall pass into Parinirvana, this is
a comprehensive declaration."

http://www.nirvanasutra.org.uk/mpnsvegetarianism.htm

-Plandor




  #96 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21
Default Subway Veggie Burger Nutrition Information.

Plandor wrote:

> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Plandor wrote:
>>
>>> "usual suspect" > wrote in message:
>>>
>>>>........ (edited)...... No religious scripture commands or commends
>>>>abstinence of anything.
>>>
>>> and, from another one of your posts:
>>>
>>>>....... (edited)...... there are no prohibitions against meat
>>>>consumption in Buddhism
>>> ===================
>>>
>>> I don't think those statements are entirely accurate.

>>
>> http://buddhism.about.com/cs/ethics/a/Food_2.htm
>> http://hinduwebsite.com/buddhism/vegetarianism.htm
>> Etc.

> ============================
>
> Perhaps


No, definitely.

> ...Yes, other Buddhist
> scriptures (from an earlier period) do allow meat-eating as discussed in
> the websites you provided links to above, but the Buddha changed those
> rules


No, and I find it amusing that someone who probably has a problem with the
historicity of certain other religious scriptures (e.g., do you vouch for
the historicity of and take everything in the Bible literally?) would take
a document written in the 2nd or 3rd century and claim it's (a)
historically accurate, (b) properly quotes the Buddha, and (c) properly
hands down the Buddha's teachings on any and all matters. Moreover and just
like the Bible, said document has undergone various textual revisions over
time and as it spread geographically. So why do you propose a literal
interpretation of what is commanded or forbidden when elsewhere the Buddha
is said to have expressly FORBIDDEN VEGETARIANISM in Sangha when Devadatta
asked him to institute it? You're offering an example of a kind of
"fundamentalist Buddhism" -- oxymoronic -- which is bound to happen when
self-serving Westerners embrace that which they don't understand because
they think it teaches something that it doesn't!
  #97 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Subway Veggie Burger Nutrition Information.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Plandor wrote:
>
>> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Plandor wrote:
>>>
>>>> "usual suspect" > wrote in message:
>>>>
>>>>>........ (edited)...... No religious scripture commands or commends
>>>>>abstinence of anything.
>>>>
>>>> and, from another one of your posts:
>>>>
>>>>>....... (edited)...... there are no prohibitions against meat
>>>>>consumption in Buddhism
>>>> ===================
>>>>
>>>> I don't think those statements are entirely accurate.
>>>
>>> http://buddhism.about.com/cs/ethics/a/Food_2.htm
>>> http://hinduwebsite.com/buddhism/vegetarianism.htm
>>> Etc.

>> ============================
>>
>> Perhaps

>
> No, definitely.
>
>> ...Yes, other Buddhist
>> scriptures (from an earlier period) do allow meat-eating as discussed in
>> the websites you provided links to above, but the Buddha changed those
>> rules

>
> No, and I find it amusing that someone who probably has a problem with the
> historicity of certain other religious scriptures (e.g., do you vouch for
> the historicity of and take everything in the Bible literally?) would take
> a document written in the 2nd or 3rd century and claim it's (a)
> historically accurate, (b) properly quotes the Buddha, and (c) properly
> hands down the Buddha's teachings on any and all matters. Moreover and
> just
> like the Bible, said document has undergone various textual revisions over
> time and as it spread geographically. So why do you propose a literal
> interpretation of what is commanded or forbidden when elsewhere the Buddha
> is said to have expressly FORBIDDEN VEGETARIANISM in Sangha when Devadatta
> asked him to institute it? You're offering an example of a kind of
> "fundamentalist Buddhism" -- oxymoronic -- which is bound to happen when
> self-serving Westerners embrace that which they don't understand because
> they think it teaches something that it doesn't!

=============================

So then are you still standing by your earlier statements - "No religious
scripture commands or commends abstinence of anything" and "...there are no
prohibitions against meat consumption in Buddhism"? Do you still claim them
to be true? If so, then don't you consider the Mahaparinirvana Sutra to be
a Buddhist scripture?

-Plandor
reference:
http://www.nirvanasutra.org.uk/mpnsvegetarianism.htm


  #98 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21
Default Subway Veggie Burger Nutrition Information.

Plandor wrote:

> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Plandor wrote:
>>
>>> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Plandor wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "usual suspect" > wrote in message:
>>>>>
>>>>>>........ (edited)...... No religious scripture commands or commends
>>>>>>abstinence of anything.
>>>>>
>>>>> and, from another one of your posts:
>>>>>
>>>>>>....... (edited)...... there are no prohibitions against meat
>>>>>>consumption in Buddhism
>>>>> ===================
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think those statements are entirely accurate.
>>>>
>>>> http://buddhism.about.com/cs/ethics/a/Food_2.htm
>>>> http://hinduwebsite.com/buddhism/vegetarianism.htm
>>>> Etc.
>>> ============================
>>>
>>> Perhaps

>>
>> No, definitely.
>>
>>> ...Yes, other Buddhist
>>> scriptures (from an earlier period) do allow meat-eating as discussed in
>>> the websites you provided links to above, but the Buddha changed those
>>> rules

>>
>> No, and I find it amusing that someone who probably has a problem with
>> the historicity of certain other religious scriptures (e.g., do you vouch
>> for the historicity of and take everything in the Bible literally?) would
>> take a document written in the 2nd or 3rd century and claim it's (a)
>> historically accurate, (b) properly quotes the Buddha, and (c) properly
>> hands down the Buddha's teachings on any and all matters. Moreover and
>> just
>> like the Bible, said document has undergone various textual revisions
>> over time and as it spread geographically. So why do you propose a
>> literal interpretation of what is commanded or forbidden when elsewhere
>> the Buddha is said to have expressly FORBIDDEN VEGETARIANISM in Sangha
>> when Devadatta asked him to institute it? You're offering an example of a
>> kind of "fundamentalist Buddhism" -- oxymoronic -- which is bound to
>> happen when self-serving Westerners embrace that which they don't
>> understand because they think it teaches something that it doesn't!

> =============================
>
> So then are you still standing by your earlier statements - "No
> religious scripture commands or commends abstinence of anything" and
> "...there are no prohibitions against meat consumption in Buddhism"?


Only self-imposed prohibitions by navel-gazing nihilists who take peculiar
"comfort" in denying themselves the very things they enjoy.

> Do you still claim themto be true? If so, then don't you consider the
> Mahaparinirvana Sutra to be a Buddhist scripture?


Your literalist zealotry is at odds with the precepts of Buddhism. Buddha
says *MONKS* can eat meat, Buddha says *MONKS* can't eat meat. If you
embrace the Mahaparinirvana Sutra and accept its teachings *literally* and
you are a Buddhist *MONK*, then perhaps you should avoid consuming meat if
it burdens your own conscience; however, no Buddhist monk or anyone else
has a right to suggest that Buddhism forbids the eating of meat. It does
not. It fully allows for it (even for monks).
  #99 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,rec.food.veg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default Subway Veggie Burger Nutrition Information.

> You aren't happy. The first step
> in the process of acheiving happiness is to admit to yourself that you
> aren't happy.


Why is it that people who believe in god constantly refuse to believe that
those of us who may not believe spiritually the same way as they do aren't
happy? Maybe the only way they can continue to believe in their god is to
believe in this ludicrous bit of babble but I for one am sick of hearing it.
How presumptuous of you.


  #100 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,rec.food.veg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default Subway Veggie Burger Nutrition Information.

"Anon" > wrote in message
...
>
> >
> > 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


Then what do you practice? Please explain your lacto-vegitarian diet and why
you have chosen to practice it so that I can more fully understand.


>
> > 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.






--
Wealth is in the imagination,
riches are in the heart and
magic resides in the soul.




  #101 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,rec.food.veg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18
Default Subway Veggie Burger Nutrition Information.

Isabeau wrote
--
Wealth is in the imagination,
riches are in the heart and
magic resides in the soul.

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



The last veal barn I visited did not exactly portray the type of environment
that you quote above and would have your readers believe. This particular
barn had 350 calves in it each individually caged with pipe to the length
and width of the calf only. They cannot interact with their neighbors for if
they are allowed to they may get sick from sucking or licking on their
neighbors and it will also distract them from their bottles or buckets of
milk. Each calf had a chain around it's neck that kept it facing towards the
center isle, the chain was just long enough to allow the calf to lie down
but not long enough to allow it to actually put it's head on the ground.
Each calf can stand, shift it's feet or partially lie down but only in the
one direction, they are unable to walk, jump, groom themselves or even turn
around, they are able to lie down but never in any comfort. Constantly fed,
their climate controlled environment. They are never fed anything but milk
or milk substitutes as anything else will make the meat dark and veal meat
must be light in color. When a few months of age they are whisked off to the
packing house where they are butchered. Veal is after all baby beef. Those
that are sick and not likely to get well quickly are dumped into a truck and
some while still alive stuffed into rendering barrels to await the rendering
truck at the packing house. Sick calves don't grow and they take up space
and time that healthy calves need. It's all about the buck. It's all about
the money. Do not believe for a minute that it's anything else. I myself do
not particularly like veal........it doesn't have very much flavor.


>
> 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.
> >>>
> >>>

> >



Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Veggie-burger thoughts Pete C. General Cooking 23 09-06-2011 05:29 AM
Veggie-burger thoughts Michel Boucher[_3_] General Cooking 0 08-06-2011 05:49 PM
Vegetarian nutrition: want to be a veggie again Nikitta Riber Vegetarian cooking 9 25-09-2004 04:49 PM
The BK veggie burger Susie Q Vegetarian cooking 28 24-04-2004 08:19 AM
Nutrition Information Mike Vegan 8 09-11-2003 11:16 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:47 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"