Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
|
|||
|
|||
What to consider?
dh@. wrote:
> > On Wed, 10 May 2006 06:05:32 GMT, Joseph Littleshoes > wrote: > > >"And the lion shall lay down with the lamb" > > While he finishes eating it. There's plenty of room in this world for animals.....right next to the mashed potatoes. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
|
|||
|
|||
How absurd IS this Goober?
****wit David Harrison, lying IMMATURE cracker who
projects his wishes onto animals, blabbered: > On Wed, 10 May 2006, Leif Erikson *AGAIN* showed ****wit David Harrison to be the ignorant, deluded cracker that he is: > > >>When considering your food choices ethically, assign >>ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to >>eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence. > > > Well Leif, if you argee with yourself about that, and if > you also agree with yourself that: > > "NO animals benefit from farming" - Leif True statement. When you, ****wit, write "benefit from farming", what you MEAN, ****wit, is "benefit from coming into existence." And no animals "benefit" from coming into existence. > [snip ****wit's unethically and dishonestly edited pseudo-quotes] > > Then exactly how do you think you disagree with yourself that: > > "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing > of the animals erases all of it." I didn't write that. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
|
|||
|
|||
How absurd IS this Goober?
****wit David Harrison, lying IMMATURE cracker who
projects his wishes onto animals, blabbered: > On Wed, 10 May 2006, Leif Erikson *AGAIN* showed ****wit David Harrison to be the ignorant, deluded cracker that he is: > > >>When considering your food choices ethically, assign >>ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to >>eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence. > > > Well Leif, if you argee with yourself about that, and if > you also agree with yourself that: > > "NO animals benefit from farming" - Leif True statement. When you, ****wit, write "benefit from farming", what you MEAN, ****wit, is "benefit from coming into existence." And no animals "benefit" from coming into existence. > [snip ****wit's unethically and dishonestly edited pseudo-quotes] > > Then exactly how do you think you disagree with yourself that: > > "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing > of the animals erases all of it." I didn't write that. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
|
|||
|
|||
What to consider?
<dh@.> wrote in message ... > On Tue, 9 May 2006 21:35:14 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> >><dh@.> wrote in message ... >>> On Mon, 8 May 2006 23:40:32 -0700, "Isabeau" > >>> wrote: >>> >>>>"nyx" > wrote in message >>> >>>>> These people only know what bits and pieces they >>>>> read, and then you must be careful of the agenda's from who wrote >>>>> them. >>>>> It is by testimonials like yours (and my own experience) by which I >>>>> am >>>>> a beleiver. >>>> >>>> >>>>I understand exactly what you are saying I was actually expecting the >>>>same. >>>>Positive like minded people interested in helping each other and sharing >>>>information on veganism, health, food and common interests. >>> >>> I've got you all beat :-) Before I got involved, I thought that >>> people >>> would be discussing ways to contribute to better lives for livestock >>> with their lifestyle, and other things that would actually help animals. >>> What a hoot that is! Instead I've spent the past seven years (or >>> whatever) having people *oppose* the suggestion any way they >>> can, quite often lying about me and what I'm suggesting. >> >>You're suggesting that people help animals by consuming animal products >>instead of being vegan, right? > > By consuming products which they feel contribute to lives of positive > value for farm animals. What if they feel that no animal products do that to their satisfaction? Wouldn't it then be more ethical of them to be vegans? Would they not be more consistent with their ideals than say people who claim to care about animals, then consume animal products with little regard for the value of the animals' lives? {..} |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
|
|||
|
|||
What to consider?
dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 10 May 2006 06:05:32 GMT, Joseph Littleshoes > wrote: > > >>"And the lion shall lay down with the lamb" > > > While he finishes eating it. My point exactly, perhaps i should have been a bit more sarcastic. I do not believe humans are some special animal blessed (or cursed depending on your point of view) by some deity to follow some esoteric moral code. We are animals, and how is any individual to say which diet is right for the lion and which is right for the horse. It amazes me how people can get so upset about animals while there is so much human suffering going on. Perhaps if we were better to each other we would be better to other animals. --- JL |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
|
|||
|
|||
What to consider?
On Thu, 11 May 2006 22:15:23 GMT, Joseph Littleshoes > wrote:
>dh@. wrote: > >> On Wed, 10 May 2006 06:05:32 GMT, Joseph Littleshoes > wrote: >> >> >>>"And the lion shall lay down with the lamb" >> >> >> While he finishes eating it. > > >My point exactly, perhaps i should have been a bit more sarcastic. > >I do not believe humans are some special animal blessed (or cursed >depending on your point of view) by some deity How did you decide what you want to believe? >to follow some esoteric >moral code. We are animals, and how is any individual to say which diet >is right for the lion and which is right for the horse. The horse's diet could not sustain the lion. What does that have to do with what an individual said or says? >It amazes me how people can get so upset about animals while there is so >much human suffering going on. Then you should avoid things that are concerned with animals. Duh. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
|
|||
|
|||
What to consider?
On Wed, 10 May 2006 23:02:08 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote in message ... >> On Tue, 9 May 2006 21:35:14 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >> >>> >>><dh@.> wrote in message ... >>>> On Mon, 8 May 2006 23:40:32 -0700, "Isabeau" > >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>>"nyx" > wrote in message >>>> >>>>>> These people only know what bits and pieces they >>>>>> read, and then you must be careful of the agenda's from who wrote >>>>>> them. >>>>>> It is by testimonials like yours (and my own experience) by which I >>>>>> am >>>>>> a beleiver. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I understand exactly what you are saying I was actually expecting the >>>>>same. >>>>>Positive like minded people interested in helping each other and sharing >>>>>information on veganism, health, food and common interests. >>>> >>>> I've got you all beat :-) Before I got involved, I thought that >>>> people >>>> would be discussing ways to contribute to better lives for livestock >>>> with their lifestyle, and other things that would actually help animals. >>>> What a hoot that is! Instead I've spent the past seven years (or >>>> whatever) having people *oppose* the suggestion any way they >>>> can, quite often lying about me and what I'm suggesting. >>> >>>You're suggesting that people help animals by consuming animal products >>>instead of being vegan, right? >> >> By consuming products which they feel contribute to lives of positive >> value for farm animals. > >What if they feel that no animal products do that to their satisfaction? Then they can't deliberately contribute to anything good for farm animals, even though other people can. >Wouldn't it then be more ethical of them to be vegans? Would they not be >more consistent with their ideals than say people who claim to care about >animals, then consume animal products with little regard for the value of >the animals' lives? I'll say that I don't think any less of people who just admit that they don't care, than I do of people who want to claim some credit for supporting the rights of animals they would prevent from ever existing. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
|
|||
|
|||
What to consider?
<dh@.> wrote > "Dutch" > wrote: [..] >>>>You're suggesting that people help animals by consuming animal products >>>>instead of being vegan, right? >>> >>> By consuming products which they feel contribute to lives of positive >>> value for farm animals. >> >>What if they feel that no animal products do that to their satisfaction? > > Then they can't deliberately contribute to anything good for farm > animals, > even though other people can. That's not true, many vegetarians deliberately contribute time and money towards promoting good for farm animals. >>Wouldn't it then be more ethical of them to be vegans? Would they not be >>more consistent with their ideals than say people who claim to care about >>animals, then consume animal products with little regard for the value of >>the animals' lives? > > I'll say that I don't think any less of people who just admit that they > don't care, That's not what I asked. I said people who "claim to care about animals", as many people do, yet simply consume animal products with no regard for the animals. That seems hypocritical. > than I do of people who want to claim some credit for supporting > the rights of animals they would prevent from ever existing. Where's the harm in preventing livestock from ever existing? |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
|
|||
|
|||
What to consider? - gasoline
Dutch wrote:
> <dh@.> wrote > >>"Dutch" > wrote: > > > [..] > > Isn't gasoline an 'animal product"? remains of very old animals but still... >>>>>You're suggesting that people help animals by consuming animal products >>>>>instead of being vegan, right? >>>> >>>> By consuming products which they feel contribute to lives of positive >>>>value for farm animals. >>> >>>What if they feel that no animal products do that to their satisfaction? >> >> Then they can't deliberately contribute to anything good for farm >>animals, >>even though other people can. > > > That's not true, many vegetarians deliberately contribute time and money > towards promoting good for farm animals. > > >>>Wouldn't it then be more ethical of them to be vegans? Would they not be >>>more consistent with their ideals than say people who claim to care about >>>animals, then consume animal products with little regard for the value of >>>the animals' lives? >> >> I'll say that I don't think any less of people who just admit that they >>don't care, > > > That's not what I asked. I said people who "claim to care about animals", as > many people do, yet simply consume animal products with no regard for the > animals. That seems hypocritical. > > >>than I do of people who want to claim some credit for supporting >>the rights of animals they would prevent from ever existing. > > > Where's the harm in preventing livestock from ever existing? > > |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
|
|||
|
|||
What to consider? - gasoline
"Joseph Littleshoes" > wrote > Isn't gasoline an 'animal product"? No, not per se, but production of petroleum products exacts a hefty toll on animal populations. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
|
|||
|
|||
What to consider?
On Sat, 13 May 2006 12:06:45 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote >> "Dutch" > wrote: > >[..] > >>>>>You're suggesting that people help animals by consuming animal products >>>>>instead of being vegan, right? >>>> >>>> By consuming products which they feel contribute to lives of positive >>>> value for farm animals. >>> >>>What if they feel that no animal products do that to their satisfaction? >> >> Then they can't deliberately contribute to anything good for farm >> animals, >> even though other people can. > >That's not true, many vegetarians deliberately contribute time and money >towards promoting good for farm animals. Why do you think it's good that they do it with time and money but not with their consumption of products? Why are you opposed to seeing anyone do it by consumption of products? |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
|
|||
|
|||
How absurd IS this Goober?
On Wed, 10 May 2006, Goo desperately/hilariously lied:
>dh asked an inept Goober: > >> Then exactly how do you think you disagree with yourself that: >> >> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing >> of the animals erases all of it." > >I didn't write that. You sure did Goo. Then later you said that you disagree with yourself about it, but of course are too inept to explain how. And now you're hilariously trying to deny that you even wrote it, because you're still too inept to explain how you disagree with yourself. LOL!!! Let's go over it again Goober: You were explaining why it is that YOU "don't want people to consider contributing to decent lives for livestock over the elimination objective", and one of the reasons you don't is because of what you made a point of explaining that you yourself consider to be "real complaints": "3. Because you have not addressed the real complaints of "vegans" regarding human use of animals: .... b. no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing of the animals erases all of it." - Goo So how, now, are you claiming to disagree with yourself, you confused, inept, maundering Goober? |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
|
|||
|
|||
How absurd IS this Goober?
****wit David Harrison, ignorant cracker, lied:
> On Wed, 10 May 2006, Leif Erikson humiliated ****wit David Harrison again: > > >****wit David Harrison, ignorant cracker, lied: > > > >> Then exactly how do you think you disagree with yourself that: > >> > >> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing > >> of the animals erases all of it." > > > >I didn't write that. > > You sure did I didn't write what you posted. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
|
|||
|
|||
What to consider? - gasoline
Dutch wrote:
> "Joseph Littleshoes" > wrote > > >>Isn't gasoline an 'animal product"? > > > No, not per se, but production of petroleum products exacts a hefty toll on > animal populations. > > I thought the oil in the ground was the remains of dead dinosaurs or other animals? --- JL |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
|
|||
|
|||
What to consider? - gasoline
Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
> Dutch wrote: > >> "Joseph Littleshoes" > wrote >> >> >>> Isn't gasoline an 'animal product"? >> >> >> >> No, not per se, but production of petroleum products exacts a hefty >> toll on animal populations. >> >> > I thought the oil in the ground was the remains of dead dinosaurs or > other animals? That's a fantasy of Sinclair Oil's. (Remember Dino the dinosaur?) Petroleum, like coal, seems to be of plant origin. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
|
|||
|
|||
What to consider? - gasoline
Jerry Avins wrote:
> Joseph Littleshoes wrote: > > >>Dutch wrote: >> >> >>>"Joseph Littleshoes" > wrote >>> >>> >>> >>>>Isn't gasoline an 'animal product"? >>> >>> >>> >>>No, not per se, but production of petroleum products exacts a hefty >>>toll on animal populations. >>> >>> >> >>I thought the oil in the ground was the remains of dead dinosaurs or >>other animals? > > > That's a fantasy of Sinclair Oil's. (Remember Dino the dinosaur?) > Petroleum, like coal, seems to be of plant origin. > > Jerry Im almost relieved, as i was typing the above i thought "this cant be right" plant origin makes more sense. Unfortunately on an abstract level plants are living things also and we just remove one item from a diet that still exploits living things, apparently a design flaw. Animal based oils i suppose are no longer used in the modern west except for cooking. Though there was a time when whale oil played an important part. Even though i still think there are more important things to devout oneself to than veganism or any of its variations, everyone makes there own choices. I can respect 'living lightly' even if i don't feel a particular need to embrace the life style, "apres moi l'deluge." --- JL |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
|
|||
|
|||
What to consider? - gasoline
Jerry Avins wrote:
> > Joseph Littleshoes wrote: > > > Dutch wrote: > > > >> "Joseph Littleshoes" > wrote > >> > >> > >>> Isn't gasoline an 'animal product"? > >> > >> > >> > >> No, not per se, but production of petroleum products exacts a hefty > >> toll on animal populations. > >> > >> > > I thought the oil in the ground was the remains of dead dinosaurs or > > other animals? > > That's a fantasy of Sinclair Oil's. (Remember Dino the dinosaur?) > Petroleum, like coal, seems to be of plant origin. I actually looked this up several months ago while wondering why Alaska's North Slope is so rich in petroleum. As you said, coal is mostly of plant origin (ancient forests). The bulk of petroleum reserves however come from sea life - mainly plankton and algae. That's the common theory, at least. Do a google search for petroleum origin and read a few of the results. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
|
|||
|
|||
What to consider? - gasoline
Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
> Dutch wrote: > >> "Joseph Littleshoes" > wrote >> >> >>> Isn't gasoline an 'animal product"? >> >> >> >> No, not per se, but production of petroleum products exacts a hefty >> toll on animal populations. >> >> > I thought the oil in the ground was the remains of dead dinosaurs or > other animals? Cute, but irrelevant. "Animal product" means something humans directly obtain from animals: meat, dairy, eggs, honey, fur, wool, blood, etc. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
|
|||
|
|||
What to consider? - gasoline
"Joseph Littleshoes" > wrote in message t... > Dutch wrote: > >> "Joseph Littleshoes" > wrote >> >> >>>Isn't gasoline an 'animal product"? >> >> >> No, not per se, but production of petroleum products exacts a hefty toll >> on animal populations. >> >> > I thought the oil in the ground was the remains of dead dinosaurs or other > animals? Don't be silly. The term "animal products" implies the use of products from animals that were raised and killed for that purpose. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
|
|||
|
|||
What to consider? - gasoline
Dutch wrote:
> "Joseph Littleshoes" > wrote in message > t... > >>Dutch wrote: >> >> >>>"Joseph Littleshoes" > wrote >>> >>> >>> >>>>Isn't gasoline an 'animal product"? >>> >>> >>>No, not per se, but production of petroleum products exacts a hefty toll >>>on animal populations. >>> >>> >> >>I thought the oil in the ground was the remains of dead dinosaurs or other >>animals? > > > Don't be silly. The term "animal products" implies the use of products from > animals that were raised and killed for that purpose. Me careful how you define things. If I were to shoot a wild doe because she was eating my tulips, then butcher her so as not to be wasteful, the venison would not be an animal product? Eggs taken from a wild duck's nest are not animal products? Milk from cows who are given a decent burial when they die of old age is not an animal product? Way to go! Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
|
|||
|
|||
What to consider? - gasoline
Dutch wrote:
>> "Joseph Littleshoes" > wrote in message >> t... >> > >>>>Dutch wrote: >>>> >>>> >> >>>>>>"Joseph Littleshoes" > wrote >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> >>>>>>>>Isn't gasoline an 'animal product"? >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>No, not per se, but production of petroleum products exacts a hefty toll >>>>>>on animal populations. >>>>>> >>>>>> >> >>>> >>>>I thought the oil in the ground was the remains of dead dinosaurs or other >>>>animals? > >> >> >> Don't be silly. The term "animal products" implies the use of products from >> animals that were raised and killed for that purpose. Be careful how you define things. If I were to shoot a wild doe because she was eating my tulips, then butcher her so as not to be wasteful, the venison would not be an animal product? Eggs taken from a wild duck's nest are not animal products? Milk from cows who are given a decent burial when they die of old age is not an animal product? Way to go! Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
How absurd IS this Goober?
On 15 May 2006, a shamed and desperate Goober dishonestly maundered:
>dh pointed out: >> On Wed, 10 May 2006, Goo again made a fool of himself by lying: >> >> >Mr Harrison asked: >> > >> >> Then exactly how do you think you disagree with yourself that: >> >> >> >> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing >> >> of the animals erases all of it." >> > >> >I didn't write that. >> >> You sure did > >I didn't write what you posted. __________________________________________________ _______ From: Goo Message-ID: . net> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 20:33:13 GMT dh wrote: > You obviously don't want people to consider contributing > to decent lives for livestock over the elimination objective .. . . 3. Because you have not addressed the real complaints of "vegans" regarding human use of animals: .. . . b. no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing of the animals erases all of it. ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ And hilariously you STILL can't even explain how you think you disagree with yourself, Goo! You really do suck at this. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
|
|||
|
|||
What to consider? - gasoline
"Jerry Avins" > wrote in message ... > Dutch wrote: > >> "Joseph Littleshoes" > wrote in message >> t... >> >>>Dutch wrote: >>> >>> >>>>"Joseph Littleshoes" > wrote >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Isn't gasoline an 'animal product"? >>>> >>>> >>>>No, not per se, but production of petroleum products exacts a hefty toll >>>>on animal populations. >>>> >>>> >>> >>>I thought the oil in the ground was the remains of dead dinosaurs or >>>other >>>animals? >> >> >> Don't be silly. The term "animal products" implies the use of products >> from >> animals that were raised and killed for that purpose. > > Me careful how you define things. If I were to shoot a wild doe because > she was eating my tulips, then butcher her so as not to be wasteful, the > venison would not be an animal product? Eggs taken from a wild duck's > nest are not animal products? Milk from cows who are given a decent > burial when they die of old age is not an animal product? Way to go! No they're not, those examples fall outside the parameters of this discussion, like road kill. You are missing an important element of the term, the "product" part. And old cows are used, i.e for pet food, not "given decent burials". Maybe you should state your point. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
|
|||
|
|||
What to consider? - gasoline
Dutch wrote:
... > No they're not, those examples fall outside the parameters of this > discussion, like road kill. You are missing an important element of the > term, the "product" part. And old cows are used, i.e for pet food, not > "given decent burials". Maybe you should state your point. Making the point explicit is always a good idea. The point is this: using terms that make sense only within a special context without qualifying them as such tends to detract from the validity of whatever point they were intended to illustrate. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
|
|||
|
|||
What to consider? - gasoline
Jerry Avins wrote:
> Dutch wrote: > > ... > > >>No they're not, those examples fall outside the parameters of this >>discussion, like road kill. You are missing an important element of the >>term, the "product" part. And old cows are used, i.e for pet food, not >>"given decent burials". Maybe you should state your point. > > > Making the point explicit is always a good idea. The point is this: > using terms that make sense only within a special context without > qualifying them as such tends to detract from the validity of whatever > point they were intended to illustrate. Generally, making the point explicit is a good idea. This little sub-thread, however, is about nitpicking. In a newsgroup called alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, where this thread originated (despite the cross-posting), it is clear that "animal products" means products obtained by humans from contemporaneously living animals, either from the bodies of the animals themselves (meat, fur, wool, leather, etc.) or from things the animals secrete (eggs, milk, honey, etc.) Petroleum products (if they come from animal remains) unambiguously are not "animal products", because of the intervening time. I predict you'll find more nits to pick with this. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
|
|||
|
|||
What to consider? - gasoline
Leif Erikson wrote:
> Jerry Avins wrote: > >> Dutch wrote: >> >> ... >> >> >>> No they're not, those examples fall outside the parameters of this >>> discussion, like road kill. You are missing an important element of >>> the term, the "product" part. And old cows are used, i.e for pet >>> food, not "given decent burials". Maybe you should state your point. >> >> >> >> Making the point explicit is always a good idea. The point is this: >> using terms that make sense only within a special context without >> qualifying them as such tends to detract from the validity of whatever >> point they were intended to illustrate. > > > Generally, making the point explicit is a good idea. This little > sub-thread, however, is about nitpicking. In a newsgroup called > alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, where this thread originated (despite the > cross-posting), it is clear that "animal products" means products > obtained by humans from contemporaneously living animals, either from > the bodies of the animals themselves (meat, fur, wool, leather, etc.) or > from things the animals secrete (eggs, milk, honey, etc.) Petroleum > products (if they come from animal remains) unambiguously are not > "animal products", because of the intervening time. > > I predict you'll find more nits to pick with this. I don't live in your niche. I read and write from alt.cooking-chat. I'm chatting. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
|
|||
|
|||
What to consider? - gasoline
"Jerry Avins" > wrote > Leif Erikson wrote: > >> Jerry Avins wrote: >> >>> Dutch wrote: >>> >>> ... >>> >>> >>>> No they're not, those examples fall outside the parameters of this >>>> discussion, like road kill. You are missing an important element of >>>> the term, the "product" part. And old cows are used, i.e for pet >>>> food, not "given decent burials". Maybe you should state your point. >>> >>> >>> >>> Making the point explicit is always a good idea. The point is this: >>> using terms that make sense only within a special context without >>> qualifying them as such tends to detract from the validity of whatever >>> point they were intended to illustrate. >> >> >> Generally, making the point explicit is a good idea. This little >> sub-thread, however, is about nitpicking. In a newsgroup called >> alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, where this thread originated (despite the >> cross-posting), it is clear that "animal products" means products >> obtained by humans from contemporaneously living animals, either from >> the bodies of the animals themselves (meat, fur, wool, leather, etc.) or >> from things the animals secrete (eggs, milk, honey, etc.) Petroleum >> products (if they come from animal remains) unambiguously are not >> "animal products", because of the intervening time. >> >> I predict you'll find more nits to pick with this. > > I don't live in your niche. I read and write from alt.cooking-chat. I'm > chatting. That might explain some of the confusion. Your point is acknowledged, animal remains are part of the formation of petroleum products, however the question under discussion here was as follows... <------------------------------> When considering ethically between tofu and grass raised beef, rice milk and grass raised dairy, etc, should we not also consider whether we'd rather be humanely slaughtered by a professional, or crushed, chopped, sliced, ripped, poisoned, drowned, smothered, dehydrated, killed by predators, injured to the point of immobility and eaten by ants, or another of the many ways that soy and rice production kill wildlife instead? <----------------------------> Both *live*stock, and wild*life* are *alive*, those are the animals directly and indirectly impacted by agriculture. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
The ineptitude...the absurdity...the maundering...the bewilderment...the stupidity...the dishonesty...
On 17 May 2006, Goo hilariously continues insisting that he disagrees with himself:
>****wit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing lying cracker, lied: >> On 15 May 2006, Goo hilariously continues insisting that he disagrees with himself: >> >> >****wit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing lying cracker, lied: >> >> On Wed, 10 May 2006, Goo hilariously continues insisting that he disagrees with himself: >> >> >> >> >****wit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing lying cracker, lied: >> >> > >> >> >> Then exactly how do you think you disagree with yourself that: >> >> >> >> >> >> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing >> >> >> of the animals erases all of it." >> >> > >> >> >I didn't write that. >> >> >> >> You sure did >> > >> >I didn't write what you posted. >> __________________________________________________ _______ >> From: Goo > >No such poster. LOL! Goo hilariously claims that he doesn't exist. >No one wrote what you claimed someone wrote. You made it up. Post the >complete, unedited and IN-CONTEXT quote of what someone wrote Here it is again Goo: __________________________________________________ _______ From: Goo Message-ID: . net> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 20:33:13 GMT dh wrote: > You obviously don't want people to consider contributing > to decent lives for livestock over the elimination objective .... 3. Because you have not addressed the real complaints of "vegans" regarding human use of animals: .... b. no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing of the animals erases all of it. ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ Why are you ashamed of what you wrote, and how are you now claiming to disagree with yourself, if you think you do? Remember Goober that WHEN you AGAIN fail to explain how you disagree with yourself, it will again be convincing evidence that you don't. If you simply deny writing what you wrote again, it will be yet more convincing evidence that you're totally inept AND that you don't disagree with yourself. You REALLY do suck at this, Goo. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
|
|||
|
|||
What to consider? - gasoline
Dutch wrote:
> "Jerry Avins" > wrote > >>Leif Erikson wrote: >> >> >>>Jerry Avins wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Dutch wrote: >>>> >>>> ... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>No they're not, those examples fall outside the parameters of this >>>>>discussion, like road kill. You are missing an important element of >>>>>the term, the "product" part. And old cows are used, i.e for pet >>>>>food, not "given decent burials". Maybe you should state your point. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Making the point explicit is always a good idea. The point is this: >>>>using terms that make sense only within a special context without >>>>qualifying them as such tends to detract from the validity of whatever >>>>point they were intended to illustrate. >>> >>> >>>Generally, making the point explicit is a good idea. This little >>>sub-thread, however, is about nitpicking. In a newsgroup called >>>alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, where this thread originated (despite the >>>cross-posting), it is clear that "animal products" means products >>>obtained by humans from contemporaneously living animals, either from >>>the bodies of the animals themselves (meat, fur, wool, leather, etc.) or >>>from things the animals secrete (eggs, milk, honey, etc.) Petroleum >>>products (if they come from animal remains) unambiguously are not >>>"animal products", because of the intervening time. Specious logic. They ARE animal products even if you exclude them from your working definition because of the passage of time (the PLO would agree with you though, im sure, in regards the Hebrew occupation of Palestine I wrote a rather whimsical account of the idea of raising food animals on idyllic nature preserves where other predators than ourselves would be eliminated, and only harvesting these food animals upon their natural demise. But i decided to save it to file rather than post it. I also am reading this thread from the cooking group so you all can easily imagine my position. (Vegan recipes upon request, i am a big fan of Elizabeth Moore Lape, diet for a small planet & etc.) I have been told by people who should know, that an old animal can make a very tasty stock after much simmering, though most people prefer a young flesh, old flesh has aficionados also. Perhaps some fava beans and a nice Chianti? --- JL >>> >>>I predict you'll find more nits to pick with this. >> >>I don't live in your niche. I read and write from alt.cooking-chat. I'm >>chatting. > > > That might explain some of the confusion. Your point is acknowledged, animal > remains are part of the formation of > petroleum products, however the question under discussion here was as > follows... > > <------------------------------> > When considering ethically between tofu and grass raised beef, > rice milk and grass raised dairy, etc, should we not also consider > whether we'd rather be humanely slaughtered by a professional, > or crushed, chopped, sliced, ripped, poisoned, drowned, smothered, > dehydrated, killed by predators, injured to the point of immobility > and eaten by ants, or another of the many ways that soy and > rice production kill wildlife instead? > <----------------------------> > > Both *live*stock, and wild*life* are *alive*, those are the animals directly > and indirectly impacted by agriculture. > > > > |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
|
|||
|
|||
What to consider? - gasoline
Joseph Littleshoes wrote:
> Dutch wrote: > > "Jerry Avins" > wrote > > > >>Leif Erikson wrote: > >> > >> > >>>Jerry Avins wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>Dutch wrote: > >>>> > >>>> ... > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>No they're not, those examples fall outside the parameters of this > >>>>>discussion, like road kill. You are missing an important element of > >>>>>the term, the "product" part. And old cows are used, i.e for pet > >>>>>food, not "given decent burials". Maybe you should state your point. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>Making the point explicit is always a good idea. The point is this: > >>>>using terms that make sense only within a special context without > >>>>qualifying them as such tends to detract from the validity of whatever > >>>>point they were intended to illustrate. > >>> > >>> > >>>Generally, making the point explicit is a good idea. This little > >>>sub-thread, however, is about nitpicking. In a newsgroup called > >>>alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, where this thread originated (despite the > >>>cross-posting), it is clear that "animal products" means products > >>>obtained by humans from contemporaneously living animals, either from > >>>the bodies of the animals themselves (meat, fur, wool, leather, etc.) or > >>>from things the animals secrete (eggs, milk, honey, etc.) Petroleum > >>>products (if they come from animal remains) unambiguously are not > >>>"animal products", because of the intervening time. > > Specious logic. They ARE animal products even if No. They are *not* animal products in the very clear context in which the discussion has been occurring. They may not be animal products in any context, as a claim has been posted that petroleum does not come from animal remains. Even if petroleum does come from animal remains, it is not an animal product in the unambiguous context of the thread. I was wrong about, and owe an apology to, Jerry Avins. You, not he, are the one who stubbornly wants to nitpick. |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
|
|||
|
|||
What to consider? - gasoline
Leif Erikson wrote:
> > I was wrong about, and owe an apology to, Jerry Avins. You, not he, > are the one who stubbornly wants to nitpick. > Actually i would prefer to trade recipes rather than discuss life styles. --- JL |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan,alt.food,alt.cooking-chat
|
|||
|
|||
What to consider? - gasoline
Leif Erikson wrote:
... > I was wrong about, and owe an apology to, Jerry Avins. ... I don't see what for. Jerry -- Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get. ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ |
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,misc.rural,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
The ineptitude...the absurdity...the maundering...the bewilderment...the stupidity...the dishonesty...
On Fri, 19 May 2006 14:14:51 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>On 17 May 2006, Goo hilariously continues insisting that he disagrees with himself: > >>****wit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing lying cracker, lied: >>> On 15 May 2006, Goo hilariously continues insisting that he disagrees with himself: >>> >>> >****wit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing lying cracker, lied: >>> >> On Wed, 10 May 2006, Goo hilariously continues insisting that he disagrees with himself: >>> >> >>> >> >****wit David Harrison, ignorant dog-sodomizing lying cracker, lied: >>> >> > >>> >> >> Then exactly how do you think you disagree with yourself that: >>> >> >> >>> >> >> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing >>> >> >> of the animals erases all of it." >>> >> > >>> >> >I didn't write that. >>> >> >>> >> You sure did >>> > >>> >I didn't write what you posted. >>> __________________________________________________ _______ >>> From: Goo >> >>No such poster. > > LOL! Goo hilariously claims that he doesn't exist. > >>No one wrote what you claimed someone wrote. You made it up. Post the >>complete, unedited and IN-CONTEXT quote of what someone wrote > >Here it is again Goo: >_________________________________________________ ________ >From: Goo >Message-ID: . net> >Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 20:33:13 GMT > >dh wrote: > >> You obviously don't want people to consider contributing >> to decent lives for livestock over the elimination objective >... > >3. Because you have not addressed the real complaints > of "vegans" regarding human use of animals: >... > > b. no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the > deliberate killing of the animals erases all of it. >ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ >Why are you ashamed of what you wrote, and how are you now claiming to >disagree with yourself, if you think you do? Goo? Why??? >Remember Goober that WHEN >you AGAIN fail to explain how you disagree with yourself, it will again >be convincing evidence that you don't. If you simply deny writing what >you wrote again, it will be yet more convincing evidence that you're totally > inept AND that you don't disagree with yourself. You REALLY do suck at this, >Goo. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|