Hello,

I have a question that I am not sure they can be answered. But I am
going to post it, and hope for the best.

I want to become a vegan, or as close as I can come. However I can not
get away from eating meat. Its like I am addicted or something. It
really bothers me.

I do care about people, the environment, and mostly my health. I have
heart issues, and my blood lipid levels are kind of bad. And I just keep
gaining weight.

But I have having a hard time getting started.

Can any of you all please help me, or give me any positive advise or
suggestions?

Thank you,

Rob

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 02:02:14 -0400, Rob > wrote:

>Hello,
>
>I have a question that I am not sure they can be answered. But I am
>going to post it, and hope for the best.
>
>I want to become a vegan,

You'll never be a vegan while *wanting* to be one. Being
a vegan is just a natural stage of moral development that
comes after realising you are one and can't be anything
but one. It's not a choice.

>or as close as I can come. However I can not
>get away from eating meat. Its like I am addicted or something. It
>really bothers me.
>
>I do care about people, the environment, and mostly my health. I have
>heart issues, and my blood lipid levels are kind of bad. And I just keep
>gaining weight.

You might still gain weight just as rapidly while following
a vegan diet. Abstaining from animal-derived foods won't
automatically make you lose excess weight.

>But I have having a hard time getting started.
>
>Can any of you all please help me, or give me any positive advise or
>suggestions?

Just be yourself, Rob. If, however, you're beginning to
realise you are one and can't be anything else but one,
eat in moderation. Good luck.

>Thank you,
>
>Rob

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:53:18 +0100, Derek > wrote:

>On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 02:02:14 -0400, Rob > wrote:
>
>>Hello,
>>
>>I have a question that I am not sure they can be answered. But I am
>>going to post it, and hope for the best.
>>
>>I want to become a vegan,
>
>You'll never be a vegan while *wanting* to be one. Being
>a vegan is just a natural stage of moral development

· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:

Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides,
Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen,
Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides,
Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings

The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:53:18 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 02:02:14 -0400, Rob > wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I have a question that I am not sure they can be answered. But I am
>>> going to post it, and hope for the best.
>>>
>>> I want to become a vegan,
>> You'll never be a vegan while *wanting* to be one. Being
>> a vegan is just a natural stage of moral development
>
> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
> What they try to avoid are products which provide life
> (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
> to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
> in order to be successful:
>
> Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
> Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides,
> Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen,
> Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides,
> Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
> Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
> Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings
>
> The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
> slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
> as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
> their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
> animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
> ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
> future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
> livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
> consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
> being vegan.
> From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
> derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·


Ummmm, OK.....

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 14:04:34 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:53:18 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>>On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 02:02:14 -0400, Rob > wrote:
>>
>>>Hello,
>>>
>>>I have a question that I am not sure they can be answered. But I am
>>>going to post it, and hope for the best.
>>>
>>>I want to become a vegan,
>>
>>You'll never be a vegan while *wanting* to be one. Being
>>a vegan is just a natural stage of moral development that
>>comes after realising you are one and can't be anything
>>but one. It's not a choice.
>
> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals

And so we should eat meat and contribute to even more?
There's no perfect solution to the problem of collateral
deaths found in agriculture, and the vegan's critic is often
foolishly persuaded to try using this dilemma to his advantage
when he's run out of valid arguments. He argues;

"Abstaining from meat doesn't meet with the vegan's moral
requirement to not kill animals intentionally for food; animals
still die for their food during crop production."

This argument commits The Perfect Solution Fallacy by
assuming a perfect solution exists where no animals are killed
for their food in the practical World, and so their solution to
abide by their stated moral requirement to not kill animals for
food by abstaining from meat doesn't meet that requirement,
and so their solution (veganism) should be rejected because
some part of the problem (CDs) would still exist after it was
implemented.

The Perfect Solution Fallacy.
The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs
when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists
and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part
of the problem would still exist after it was implemented.
Presumably, assuming no solution is perfect then no solution
would last very long politically once it had been implemented.
Still, many people (notably utopians) seem to find the idea of
a perfect solution compelling, perhaps because it is easy to
imagine.

Examples:
(critic)
This "terrorist safety net" is a bad idea. Terrorists will still be
able to get through!
(Rejoinder)
Yes, some terrorists would still be able to get through, but
would it be worth stopping those terrorists that it would stop?
(critic)
These anti-drunk driving ad campaigns are not going to work.
People are still going to drink and drive no matter what.
(Rejoinder)
It may not eliminate 100% of drunk driving, but is the amount
by which it would reduce the total amount of drunk driving
enough to make the policy worthwhile?
(Critic)
Seat belts are a bad idea. People are still going to die in car
wrecks.
(Rejoinder)
It may not save 100% of people involved in car wrecks, but
isn't the number of lives that would be saved enough to make
seat belts worthwhile?

It is common for arguments that commit this fallacy to omit
any specifics about how much the solution is claimed to not
work, but express it only in vague terms. Alternatively, it may
be combined with the fallacy of misleading vividness, when
a specific example of a solution's failing is described in eye-
catching detail and base rates are ignored (see availability
heuristic).
The fallacy is a kind of false dilemma.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 19:50:40 +0100, Derek > wrote:

>On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 14:04:34 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:53:18 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>>>On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 02:02:14 -0400, Rob > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hello,
>>>>
>>>>I have a question that I am not sure they can be answered. But I am
>>>>going to post it, and hope for the best.
>>>>
>>>>I want to become a vegan,
>>>
>>>You'll never be a vegan while *wanting* to be one. Being
>>>a vegan is just a natural stage of moral development that
>>>comes after realising you are one and can't be anything
>>>but one. It's not a choice.
>>
>> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals
>
>And so we should eat meat and contribute to even more?
>There's no perfect solution to the problem of collateral
>deaths found in agriculture, and the vegan's critic is often
>foolishly persuaded to try using this dilemma to his advantage
>when he's run out of valid arguments. He argues;
>
>"Abstaining from meat doesn't meet with the vegan's moral
> requirement to not kill animals intentionally for food; animals
> still die for their food during crop production."
>
>This argument commits The Perfect Solution Fallacy by
>assuming a perfect solution exists where no animals are killed
>for their food in the practical World, and so their solution to
>abide by their stated moral requirement to not kill animals for
>food by abstaining from meat doesn't meet that requirement,
>and so their solution (veganism) should be rejected because
>some part of the problem (CDs) would still exist after it was
>implemented.

· From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

Here we see plowing:
http://tinyurl.com/8fmxe

and here harrowing:
http://tinyurl.com/zqr2v

both of which kill animals by crushing, mutilation, suffocation,
and exposing them to predators. We can see that planting
kills in similar ways:
http://tinyurl.com/k6sku

and death from herbicides and pesticides needs to be
kept in mind:
http://tinyurl.com/ew2j5

Harvesting kills of course by crushing and mutilation, and
it also removes the surviving animals' food, and it exposes
them to predators:
http://tinyurl.com/otp5l

In the case of rice there's additional killing as well caused
by flooding:
http://tinyurl.com/qhqx3

and later by draining and destroying the environment which
developed as the result of the flooding:
http://tinyurl.com/rc9m3

Cattle eating grass rarely if ever cause anywhere near
as much suffering and death. ·
http://tinyurl.com/q7whm

On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 15:26:48 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 19:50:40 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>>On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 14:04:34 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:53:18 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>>>>On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 02:02:14 -0400, Rob > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>>I have a question that I am not sure they can be answered. But I am
>>>>>going to post it, and hope for the best.
>>>>>
>>>>>I want to become a vegan,
>>>>
>>>>You'll never be a vegan while *wanting* to be one. Being
>>>>a vegan is just a natural stage of moral development that
>>>>comes after realising you are one and can't be anything
>>>>but one. It's not a choice.
>>>
>>> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals
>>
>>And so we should eat meat and contribute to even more?
>>There's no perfect solution to the problem of collateral
>>deaths found in agriculture, and the vegan's critic is often
>>foolishly persuaded to try using this dilemma to his advantage
>>when he's run out of valid arguments. He argues;
>>
>>"Abstaining from meat doesn't meet with the vegan's moral
>> requirement to not kill animals intentionally for food; animals
>> still die for their food during crop production."
>>
>>This argument commits The Perfect Solution Fallacy by
>>assuming a perfect solution exists where no animals are killed
>>for their food in the practical World, and so their solution to
>>abide by their stated moral requirement to not kill animals for
>>food by abstaining from meat doesn't meet that requirement,
>>and so their solution (veganism) should be rejected because
>>some part of the problem (CDs) would still exist after it was
>>implemented.
>>
>>The Perfect Solution Fallacy.
>>The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs
>>when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists
>>and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part
>>of the problem would still exist after it was implemented.
>>Presumably, assuming no solution is perfect then no solution
>>would last very long politically once it had been implemented.
>>Still, many people (notably utopians) seem to find the idea of
>>a perfect solution compelling, perhaps because it is easy to
>>imagine.
>>
>>Examples:
>>(critic)
>>This "terrorist safety net" is a bad idea. Terrorists will still be
>>able to get through!
>>(Rejoinder)
>>Yes, some terrorists would still be able to get through, but
>>would it be worth stopping those terrorists that it would stop?
>>(critic)
>>These anti-drunk driving ad campaigns are not going to work.
>>People are still going to drink and drive no matter what.
>>(Rejoinder)
>>It may not eliminate 100% of drunk driving, but is the amount
>>by which it would reduce the total amount of drunk driving
>>enough to make the policy worthwhile?
>>(Critic)
>>Seat belts are a bad idea. People are still going to die in car
>>wrecks.
>>(Rejoinder)
>>It may not save 100% of people involved in car wrecks, but
>>isn't the number of lives that would be saved enough to make
>>seat belts worthwhile?
>>
>>It is common for arguments that commit this fallacy to omit
>>any specifics about how much the solution is claimed to not
>>work, but express it only in vague terms. Alternatively, it may
>>be combined with the fallacy of misleading vividness, when
>>a specific example of a solution's failing is described in eye-
>>catching detail and base rates are ignored (see availability
>>heuristic).
>>The fallacy is a kind of false dilemma.
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy
>
> · From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
>steer

Grass fed steers still accrue collateral deaths.

U.S.D.A. have issued a marketing claims standard
proposal and published it for comment in 2002, and
while this proposal is under review so-called grass
fed beef producers can and have adopted it with
U.S.D.A.'s full seal of approval to offload their
grain-finished beef onto unsuspecting customers as
grass-fed beef.

Here below is that proposed standard.

Claim and Standard:
[sbull] Grass Fed.--Grass, green or range pasture, or
forage shall be 80% or more of the primary energy
source throughout the animal's life cycle.

Dated: December 20, 2002.
A.J. Yates,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 02-32806 Filed 12-27-02; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-02-P]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt

And below is a statement from the same page urging so-
called grass fed beef producers to use those proposed
marketing claims standards while U.S.D.A. prepares to
make them final by publishing them.

"The proposed marketing claim standards may be used in
conjunction with [non]existing regulations or voluntary
USDA grade standards in USDA Certified and USDA
Verified programs." [my edit]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt

When published ALL "New participants in USDA
Certified or USDA Verified programs will be required
to adhere to the United States Standards for Livestock
and Meat Marketing Claims immediately."

"AMS is seeking public comment on the following
proposed United States Standards for Livestock and
Meat Marketing Claims. New participants in USDA
Certified or USDA Verified programs will be required
to adhere to the United States Standards for Livestock
and Meat Marketing Claims immediately."
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt

Grass fed beef, then, is grain finished, just like any other
steer in the feedlot, and U.S.D.A. is about to publish a
claims standard that will allow beef farmers to continue
deceiving their customers. A consumer reports magazine
confirms these concerns as follows;

[The claims “100 percent grass fed” and “grass fed only,”
which may appear on other companies’ packaging, would
be useful if true, but they’re not verified, either.

A proposal by the USDA for an optional verification program
for “process claims,” including feeding methods, would only
add to the confusion. Products that passed an inspection could
carry a “USDA Process Verified” shield next to the label “grass
fed” if as little as 80 percent of the feed were grass, with no
limits on the other 20 percent; “grain fed” could be used with a
diet of as little as 50 percent grain. The agency has delayed
implementation of the rule after protests from farmer and
consumer groups, including Consumers Union, publisher of
Consumer Reports magazine.]
http://tinyurl.com/b63f3

The protests from these farmers and consumer groups can
be found on U.S.D.A.'s web site, and I've included two
here as examples;

[Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the
most commented upon topic in this docket. We
will not belabor all the points of concern which
are addressed but will focus on the areas of
concern to our cooperative of growers. While
Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method
IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS
NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that
you need to define both as what they ARE since
that is what is motivating the consumer.

While the intent of this language would suggest
that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished,
especially in Feedlots, the language as written is
not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing
80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at
the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef
animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for
70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be
fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under
these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with
consumer expectations as is borne out in the
website comments.]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc213.pdf

and

[The proposed definition of the claim ?grass fed,? as it
may appear on future USDA approved beef labels, is
meaningless in the context of the current United States
cattle market and would violate consumer trust if put
into effect.

The huge majority of all beef cattle in the United States
are ?finished? on a grain-based ration in a commercial
feed lot. Even so, virtually all American cattle spend
80% or more of their lives on pasture eating grasses,
legumes and naturally occurring seeds (grain). Calling
these animals ?grass fed,? as proposed in the new label
claim definition, ignores the fact that in most cases their
whole diet for the last few months of their lives contains
no grass at all. Calling these animals ?grass fed? therefore
becomes meaningless since virtually all cattle are grass fed
as in the proposed definition.

However, for the last decade, a small, but growing number
of producers, including ourselves, have been marketing
cattle finished exclusively on pasture and hay without the
use of unnatural levels of grain-based seeds. This grass-
finished beef has been marketed as ?grassfed? or ?grass-
fed?, and these terms have come to be recognized by
millions of consumers. The enormous publicity over the
last year for grassfed meats (following on best-selling
books such as The Omega Diet and Fast Food Nation)
has reinforced the perception that ?grass fed? is
synonymous with grass-finished and, by extension, that no
supplemental grain has been provided to the animals.

So, I feel that to call an animal that has received as much
as 20% of its total nutrition in a grain feeding finishing
program ?grass fed? could be misleading and confusing
to the consumer. Grain finishing of ruminants is an artificial
feeding practice born of our unique circumstances here in
the United States. Grass feeding is the basis for ruminant
health consistent with the genetic structure and nutritional
requirements of the animals. The claim ?grass fed? as used
on a USDA-approved label should mean that a grassfed
animal has received no grain other than that which is naturally
occurring on pasture or in hay feeds.]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc102.txt

Grass fed beef, then, isn't exactly what its name implies, and
has just as much an association with the collateral deaths
found in crop production as from any other steer found in the
feedlot.

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 02:02:14 -0400, Rob > wrote:

>Hello,
>
>I have a question that I am not sure they can be answered. But I am
>going to post it, and hope for the best.
>
>I want to become a vegan,

You'll never be a vegan while *wanting* to be one. Being
a vegan is just a natural stage of moral development that
comes after realising you are one and can't be anything
but one. It's not a choice.

>or as close as I can come. However I can not
>get away from eating meat. Its like I am addicted or something. It
>really bothers me.
>
>I do care about people, the environment, and mostly my health. I have
>heart issues, and my blood lipid levels are kind of bad. And I just keep
>gaining weight.

You might still gain weight just as rapidly while following
a vegan diet. Abstaining from animal-derived foods won't
automatically make you lose excess weight.

>But I have having a hard time getting started.
>
>Can any of you all please help me, or give me any positive advise or
>suggestions?

Just be yourself, Rob. If, however, you're beginning to
realise you are one and can't be anything else but one,
eat in moderation. Good luck.

>Thank you,
>
>Rob

"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 02:02:14 -0400, Rob >
> wrote:
>
>>Hello,
>>
>>I have a question that I am not sure they can be answered. But I am
>>going to post it, and hope for the best.
>>
>>I want to become a vegan,
>
> You'll never be a vegan while *wanting* to be one.

There's no rational reason to want become a vegan.

> Being
> a vegan is just a natural stage of moral development that
> comes after realising you are one and can't be anything
> but one.

Wanting to be a vegan is a sign of moral confusion.

> It's not a choice.

It's a choice to accept the flawed logic that underlies veganism, that
somehow one is purified simply by removing the most obvious evidence of
animal death from one's consumer choices, while ignoring the underlying
death and suffering. It's a choice to act on that logic.


[..]

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:32:20 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 02:02:14 -0400, Rob wrote:
>>
>>>Hello,
>>>
>>>I have a question that I am not sure they can be answered. But I am
>>>going to post it, and hope for the best.
>>>
>>>I want to become a vegan,
>>
>> You'll never be a vegan while *wanting* to be one.
>
>There's no rational reason to want become a vegan.

It's a natural stage in one's moral development that
comes after realising you are one and can't be anything
but one.

>> Being
>> a vegan is just a natural stage of moral development that
>> comes after realising you are one and can't be anything
>> but one.
>
>Wanting to be a vegan is a sign of moral confusion.

It was in your case, but that doesn't mean it's the same
for others.

>> It's not a choice.
>
>It's a choice

No, it's not a choice.

On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 19:55:33 +0100, Derek > wrote:

>On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:32:20 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>"Derek" > wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 02:02:14 -0400, Rob wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hello,
>>>>
>>>>I have a question that I am not sure they can be answered. But I am
>>>>going to post it, and hope for the best.
>>>>
>>>>I want to become a vegan,
>>>
>>> You'll never be a vegan while *wanting* to be one.
>>
>>There's no rational reason to want become a vegan.
>
>It's a natural stage in one's moral development that
>comes after realising you are one and can't be anything
>but one.
>
>>> Being
>>> a vegan is just a natural stage of moral development that
>>> comes after realising you are one and can't be anything
>>> but one.
>>
>>Wanting to be a vegan is a sign of moral confusion.
>
>It was in your case, but that doesn't mean it's the same
>for others.

Have you seen his most recent claim/denial of his belief
in the rights of animals?

"we must have at least the same right as every animal does, which is
to seek to compete successfully, sustain ourselves and thrive." - Dutch

Message-ID: >

<dh@.> wrote
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 19:55:33 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:32:20 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>"Derek" > wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 02:02:14 -0400, Rob wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>>I have a question that I am not sure they can be answered. But I am
>>>>>going to post it, and hope for the best.
>>>>>
>>>>>I want to become a vegan,
>>>>
>>>> You'll never be a vegan while *wanting* to be one.
>>>
>>>There's no rational reason to want become a vegan.
>>
>>It's a natural stage in one's moral development that
>>comes after realising you are one and can't be anything
>>but one.
>>
>>>> Being
>>>> a vegan is just a natural stage of moral development that
>>>> comes after realising you are one and can't be anything
>>>> but one.
>>>
>>>Wanting to be a vegan is a sign of moral confusion.
>>
>>It was in your case, but that doesn't mean it's the same
>>for others.
>
> Have you seen his most recent claim/denial of his belief
> in the rights of animals?
>
> "we must have at least the same right as every animal does, which is
> to seek to compete successfully, sustain ourselves and thrive." - Dutch

Why are you asking him ****wit? Don't you believe that we have the right to
seek to compete successfully, sustain ourselves and thrive? Isn't that the
birthright of every living organism?

Derek wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:32:20 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >"Derek" > wrote:
> >> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 02:02:14 -0400, Rob wrote:
> >>
> >>>Hello,
> >>>
> >>>I have a question that I am not sure they can be answered. But I am
> >>>going to post it, and hope for the best.
> >>>
> >>>I want to become a vegan,
> >>
> >> You'll never be a vegan while *wanting* to be one.
> >
> >There's no rational reason to want become a vegan.
>
> It's a natural stage in one's moral development that
> comes after realising you are one and can't be anything
> but one.
>
> >> Being
> >> a vegan is just a natural stage of moral development that
> >> comes after realising you are one and can't be anything
> >> but one.
> >
> >Wanting to be a vegan is a sign of moral confusion.
>
> It was in your case, but that doesn't mean it's the same
> for others.
>
> >> It's not a choice.
> >
> >It's a choice
>
> No, it's not a choice.

------------------Good guy ratings:
1. Derek
2.Leif Erickson
-----------------------
bad guys
Dutch and finally the lunatic, dh.

On 21 Aug 2006 20:32:07 -0700, "Ronald 'More-More' Moshki" > wrote:
[..]
>------------------Good guy ratings:
>1. Derek

Only occasionally, Ron. ;-)

>2.Leif Erickson

True - once you get to know him, and that can take
several frustrating years.

>-----------------------
>bad guys
>Dutch and finally the lunatic, dh.

You'll get no opposition from me on that.

Dutch wrote:
> "Derek" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 02:02:14 -0400, Rob >
> > wrote:
> >
> >>Hello,
> >>
> >>I have a question that I am not sure they can be answered. But I am
> >>going to post it, and hope for the best.
> >>
> >>I want to become a vegan,
> >
> > You'll never be a vegan while *wanting* to be one.
>
> There's no rational reason to want become a vegan.
>
> > Being
> > a vegan is just a natural stage of moral development that
> > comes after realising you are one and can't be anything
> > but one.
>
> Wanting to be a vegan is a sign of moral confusion.
>
> > It's not a choice.
>
> It's a choice to accept the flawed logic that underlies veganism, that
> somehow one is purified simply by removing the most obvious evidence of
> animal death from one's consumer choices, while ignoring the underlying
> death and suffering. It's a choice to act on that logic.
>
>

Veganism is less cruel than non-veganism.

So Dutch is, in fact, a bad guy compared to Derek.

dh is simply a psychotic.

"Ronald 'More-More' Moshki" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> "Derek" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 02:02:14 -0400, Rob >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>Hello,
>> >>
>> >>I have a question that I am not sure they can be answered. But I am
>> >>going to post it, and hope for the best.
>> >>
>> >>I want to become a vegan,
>> >
>> > You'll never be a vegan while *wanting* to be one.
>>
>> There's no rational reason to want become a vegan.
>>
>> > Being
>> > a vegan is just a natural stage of moral development that
>> > comes after realising you are one and can't be anything
>> > but one.
>>
>> Wanting to be a vegan is a sign of moral confusion.
>>
>> > It's not a choice.
>>
>> It's a choice to accept the flawed logic that underlies veganism, that
>> somehow one is purified simply by removing the most obvious evidence of
>> animal death from one's consumer choices, while ignoring the underlying
>> death and suffering. It's a choice to act on that logic.
>>
>>
>
> Veganism is less cruel than non-veganism.

Too general a statement to be accurate.

> So Dutch is, in fact, a bad guy compared to Derek.

Doesn't follow, in fact.

> dh is simply a psychotic.

Probably some kind mental disorder.

On 21 Aug 2006 20:29:47 -0700, "Ronald 'More-More' Moshki" > wrote:

>Veganism is less cruel than non-veganism.

· From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

Here we see plowing:
http://tinyurl.com/8fmxe

and here harrowing:
http://tinyurl.com/zqr2v

both of which kill animals by crushing, mutilation, suffocation,
and exposing them to predators. We can see that planting
kills in similar ways:
http://tinyurl.com/k6sku

and death from herbicides and pesticides needs to be
kept in mind:
http://tinyurl.com/ew2j5

Harvesting kills of course by crushing and mutilation, and
it also removes the surviving animals' food, and it exposes
them to predators:
http://tinyurl.com/otp5l

In the case of rice there's additional killing as well caused
by flooding:
http://tinyurl.com/qhqx3

and later by draining and destroying the environment which
developed as the result of the flooding:
http://tinyurl.com/rc9m3

Cattle eating grass rarely if ever cause anywhere near
as much suffering and death. ·
http://tinyurl.com/q7whm

This thread is 90% garbage.

Lol.

To the original question - you want to become vegan, then give it a go.

Don't be put off by people with less conviction.

To me eating meat and dairy products today is at best due to ignorance,
and at worst due to delusional gluttony.

Love,

Blueshark ,)


dh@. wrote:
> On 21 Aug 2006 20:29:47 -0700, "Ronald 'More-More' Moshki" > wrote:
>
> >Veganism is less cruel than non-veganism.
>
> · From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
> derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·
>
> Here we see plowing:
> http://tinyurl.com/8fmxe
>
> and here harrowing:
> http://tinyurl.com/zqr2v
>
> both of which kill animals by crushing, mutilation, suffocation,
> and exposing them to predators. We can see that planting
> kills in similar ways:
> http://tinyurl.com/k6sku
>
> and death from herbicides and pesticides needs to be
> kept in mind:
> http://tinyurl.com/ew2j5
>
> Harvesting kills of course by crushing and mutilation, and
> it also removes the surviving animals' food, and it exposes
> them to predators:
> http://tinyurl.com/otp5l
>
> In the case of rice there's additional killing as well caused
> by flooding:
> http://tinyurl.com/qhqx3
>
> and later by draining and destroying the environment which
> developed as the result of the flooding:
> http://tinyurl.com/rc9m3
>
> Cattle eating grass rarely if ever cause anywhere near
> as much suffering and death. ·
> http://tinyurl.com/q7whm