My news server didn't post your last message in the "Mayonnaise" thread.
Unfortunately, I don't have the password for my other news server with me,
hence the new thread. It's drifted far away from mayonnaise anyway...

Usual Suspect wrote:

> You're still asking me to dig up the question about WHY you
> disagree with my opinion about how vegans are ethical poseurs.

Forgive me, I lost track of which questions you were accusing me of not
answering in your circle of writings.

> What SPECIFICALLY is wrong with that assessment given the
> fact that vegans do little or nothing -- MOSTLY NOTHING --
> about collateral deaths and casualties from agriculture?

First of all, most vegans outside of this newsgroup probably have never
considered the idea of collateral deaths resulting from agriculture. You
can't expect that they will do something about which they are ignorant. Most
vegans in this category are disgusted with the notion of eating animal
flesh. They feel that animals shouldn't suffer or die as sources of their
food, particularly when they feel there are other more "compassionate"
choices available. Many of them avoid "microparts", or whatever the term is,
as a statement NOT to directly or indirectly support the mistreatment of
animals AS THEY UNDERSTAND IT. You know all of this.

Second, you and Jon Ball and the like (herein collectively referred to as
"you") are so offensive with your assertions and accusations that you put
people on the defensive. You practice exactly what you claim to loathe in
so-called AR vegans - in your face righteousness (spelled
h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e).

Third, collateral deaths result from many other aspects of our existence
than agriculture. It is impossible to eliminate all collateral deaths that
we are directly or indirectly responsible for. So it becomes the "numbers
game" that you so vehemently reject - to MINIMZE the number of collateral
deaths and animal suffering. Despite that you reject the "numbers game", you
claim to win it anyway! :^)

Forth, not all vegans are animal rights activists. But you deny this since
you like to generalize people to make judgements about them.

Lastly, we are left with the group of AR vegans who DO understand and
realize that collateral deaths result from the vegetable products they eat.
Sorry, I can't speak for them. It sounds like they are in transition
somehow, or are in denial, etc.

>>> Not really. Snippy is just an effeminate form of nasty.

>> Yeah, yeah...

> You wear pastels? Do you like musicals?

Are you generalizing that effeminate men (they're probably all liberals
anyway, right?) wear pastels and like musicals, or are you fantasizing about
me?

> Because you don't like someone else's (i.e., other than mine)
> attitude, lol? I don't get what you're bitching about.

You disassembled what I wrote, conveniently removing all the context. Put it
back together and go back and read it. BTW, don't be so quick to exclude
your self from having a bad attitude....

> I asked that question about BK. He repeated it when you
> deliberately didn't answer it. Stop blaming him, stop blaming
> me, and just answer the question.

I did answer the question over and over. I even carefully pointed out your
circular questioning. You just don't like my answer. I haven't eaten at BK,
McDonalds, etc. for at least 20 years. I didn't think their food is healthy
or good then, and I don't see any reason to think it's any different now
despite their introduction of the veggie Whopper. I also haven't eaten fries
or milkshakes in years.

C. James Strutz wrote:
> My news server didn't post your last message in the "Mayonnaise" thread.
> Unfortunately, I don't have the password for my other news server with me,
> hence the new thread. It's drifted far away from mayonnaise anyway...

Your fault.

> Usual Suspect wrote:

Not to be picky, but I don't capitalize.

>>You're still asking me to dig up the question about WHY you
>>disagree with my opinion about how vegans are ethical poseurs.
>
> Forgive me, I lost track of which questions you were accusing me of not
> answering in your circle of writings.

Stop blaming me. You refused to answer questions.

>>What SPECIFICALLY is wrong with that assessment given the
>>fact that vegans do little or nothing -- MOSTLY NOTHING --
>>about collateral deaths and casualties from agriculture?
>
> First of all, most vegans outside of this newsgroup probably have never
> considered the idea of collateral deaths resulting from agriculture.

Most vegans IN this ng haven't considered it, either.

> You
> can't expect that they will do something about which they are ignorant. Most
> vegans in this category are disgusted with the notion of eating animal
> flesh.

But have no qualms about killing animals for some rice and beans.

> They feel that animals shouldn't suffer or die as sources of their
> food,

They don't mind a bit that farmers poison animals and run over them and
shred them and leave them vulnerable to predation.

> particularly when they feel there are other more "compassionate"
> choices available.

What's compassionate about killing thousands of animals for grains and
legumes?

Comparatively speaking, vegans are poseurs and inefficient. They choose
foods causing many animal deaths so they can eat food without any animal
parts, yet they shun and detest the many meals off just one animal death
(comparing traditional vegan fare with grazed ruminants). Turn it all
upside down and they'd show a lot more compassion: eat the one animal
and spare the thousands that are so senselessly slaughtered for seitan
and tofu and other fake meats.

> Many of them avoid "microparts", or whatever the term is,
> as a statement NOT to directly or indirectly support the mistreatment of
> animals AS THEY UNDERSTAND IT. You know all of this.

Thus, they are POSEURS. I stand by ALL my statements.

> Second, you and Jon Ball and the like (herein collectively referred to as
> "you") are so offensive with your assertions and accusations that you put
> people on the defensive. You practice exactly what you claim to loathe in
> so-called AR vegans - in your face righteousness (spelled
> h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e).

I make no claims of righteousness, especially with respect to my diet.
Nor does Jon. See my discussions with Karen (aka Rat) and others about
Christ's and St Paul's admonitions about not judging others on the basis
of diet and that food doesn't defile us.

> Third, collateral deaths result from many other aspects of our existence
> than agriculture. It is impossible to eliminate all collateral deaths that
> we are directly or indirectly responsible for. So it becomes the "numbers
> game" that you so vehemently reject - to MINIMZE the number of collateral
> deaths and animal suffering. Despite that you reject the "numbers game", you
> claim to win it anyway! :^)

I don't even play the numbers game. It isn't about ethics at all.

> Forth,

Fourth.

> not all vegans are animal rights activists. But you deny this since
> you like to generalize people to make judgements about them.

My judgment above is correct, and even after all your bloviations, you
seem to concur -- though you will never come right out and say it --
that vegans are ethical poseurs.

> Lastly, we are left with the group of AR vegans who DO understand and
> realize that collateral deaths result from the vegetable products they eat.

Yes, the group best called "rank hypocrites."

> Sorry, I can't speak for them. It sounds like they are in transition
> somehow, or are in denial, etc.

Yes, denial and passing the buck.

>>>>Not really. Snippy is just an effeminate form of nasty.
>
>>>Yeah, yeah...
>
>>You wear pastels? Do you like musicals?
>
> Are you generalizing that effeminate men (they're probably all liberals
> anyway, right?)

You are liberal.

> wear pastels and like musicals, or are you fantasizing about
> me?

Why on earth would I fantasize about you?

>>Because you don't like someone else's (i.e., other than mine)
>>attitude, lol? I don't get what you're bitching about.
>
> You disassembled what I wrote, conveniently removing all the context. Put it
> back together and go back and read it. BTW, don't be so quick to exclude
> your self from having a bad attitude....

I'm not the snippy one, I'm getting a good chuckle.

>>I asked that question about BK. He repeated it when you
>>deliberately didn't answer it. Stop blaming him, stop blaming
>>me, and just answer the question.
>
> I did answer the question over and over. I even carefully pointed out your
> circular questioning. You just don't like my answer. I haven't eaten at BK,
> McDonalds, etc. for at least 20 years. I didn't think their food is healthy
> or good then, and I don't see any reason to think it's any different now
> despite their introduction of the veggie Whopper. I also haven't eaten fries
> or milkshakes in years.

Why didn't you just say so from the beginning?

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> C. James Strutz wrote:
> > My news server didn't post your last message in the "Mayonnaise" thread.
> > Unfortunately, I don't have the password for my other news server with
me,
> > hence the new thread. It's drifted far away from mayonnaise anyway...
>
> Your fault.

Oh, I didn't realize we were assigning fault.

> > Usual Suspect wrote:
>
> Not to be picky, but I don't capitalize.

Why not?

> >>You're still asking me to dig up the question about WHY you
> >>disagree with my opinion about how vegans are ethical poseurs.
> >
> > Forgive me, I lost track of which questions you were accusing me of not
> > answering in your circle of writings.
>
> Stop blaming me. You refused to answer questions.

No, I didn't.

> >>What SPECIFICALLY is wrong with that assessment given the
> >>fact that vegans do little or nothing -- MOSTLY NOTHING --
> >>about collateral deaths and casualties from agriculture?
> >
> > First of all, most vegans outside of this newsgroup probably have never
> > considered the idea of collateral deaths resulting from agriculture.
>
> Most vegans IN this ng haven't considered it, either.

How could they possibly miss it with all the ranting that goes on here?!

> > You
> > can't expect that they will do something about which they are ignorant.
Most
> > vegans in this category are disgusted with the notion of eating animal
> > flesh.
>
> But have no qualms about killing animals for some rice and beans.

I guess you missed my point about them not associating rice and beans with
collateral animal deaths.

> Comparatively speaking, vegans are poseurs and inefficient. They choose
> foods causing many animal deaths so they can eat food without any animal
> parts, yet they shun and detest the many meals off just one animal death
> (comparing traditional vegan fare with grazed ruminants). Turn it all
> upside down and they'd show a lot more compassion: eat the one animal
> and spare the thousands that are so senselessly slaughtered for seitan
> and tofu and other fake meats.

"Grazed ruminants" don't equal just one animal death. And don't tell me
about grass-fed or wild game. We've been all over that.

> > Second, you and Jon Ball and the like (herein collectively referred to
as
> > "you") are so offensive with your assertions and accusations that you
put
> > people on the defensive. You practice exactly what you claim to loathe
in
> > so-called AR vegans - in your face righteousness (spelled
> > h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e).
>
> I make no claims of righteousness, especially with respect to my diet.
> Nor does Jon. See my discussions with Karen (aka Rat) and others about
> Christ's and St Paul's admonitions about not judging others on the basis
> of diet and that food doesn't defile us.

Maybe I should have used words like 'emphatic' or 'zealous' instead of
righteous. Somehow they just don't seem strong enough. Maybe
'vituperative'...

> > Third, collateral deaths result from many other aspects of our existence
> > than agriculture. It is impossible to eliminate all collateral deaths
that
> > we are directly or indirectly responsible for. So it becomes the
"numbers
> > game" that you so vehemently reject - to MINIMZE the number of
collateral
> > deaths and animal suffering. Despite that you reject the "numbers game",
you
> > claim to win it anyway! :^)
>
> I don't even play the numbers game. It isn't about ethics at all.

Less animal deaths is better than more animal deaths.

> My judgment above is correct, and even after all your bloviations, you
> seem to concur -- though you will never come right out and say it --
> that vegans are ethical poseurs.

I'm willing to give them way more benefit of doubt.

> >>You wear pastels? Do you like musicals?
> >
> > Are you generalizing that effeminate men (they're probably all liberals
> > anyway, right?)
>
> You are liberal.

What makes you think so?

> > wear pastels and like musicals, or are you fantasizing about
> > me?
>
> Why on earth would I fantasize about you?

You tell me. You're the one who brought up pastels, musicals, and effeminate
men.

> > You disassembled what I wrote, conveniently removing all the context.
Put it
> > back together and go back and read it. BTW, don't be so quick to exclude
> > your self from having a bad attitude....
>
> I'm not the snippy one, I'm getting a good chuckle.

Glad you're so amused.

> > I did answer the question over and over. I even carefully pointed out
your
> > circular questioning. You just don't like my answer. I haven't eaten at
BK,
> > McDonalds, etc. for at least 20 years. I didn't think their food is
healthy
> > or good then, and I don't see any reason to think it's any different now
> > despite their introduction of the veggie Whopper. I also haven't eaten
fries
> > or milkshakes in years.
>
> Why didn't you just say so from the beginning?

Sigh, I did...

C. James Strutz wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>C. James Strutz wrote:
>>
>>>My news server didn't post your last message in the "Mayonnaise" thread.
>>>Unfortunately, I don't have the password for my other news server with me,
>>>hence the new thread. It's drifted far away from mayonnaise anyway...
>>
>>Your fault.
>
>
> Oh, I didn't realize we were assigning fault.

You're complaining about the drift of the thread, and
the drift of the thread is your fault.

>
>
>>>Usual Suspect wrote:
>>
>>Not to be picky, but I don't capitalize.
>
>
> Why not?
>
>
>>>>You're still asking me to dig up the question about WHY you
>>>>disagree with my opinion about how vegans are ethical poseurs.
>>>
>>>Forgive me, I lost track of which questions you were accusing me of not
>>>answering in your circle of writings.
>>
>>Stop blaming me. You refused to answer questions.
>
>
> No, I didn't.

Yes, you did. You refused to answer his, and you
refused to answer mine. Try mine again:

SeeJames:
>>> I think it's wrong to take the life of a
>>> sentient being except under [sic]
>>> extenuating circumstances.

Mr. Suspect:
>> Which extenuating circumstances are those?

SeeJames:
> Capital punishment, and in self defense when
> someone's life is threatened are two examples that
> I can think of.

Mr. Ball:
So, the production of your food doesn't qualify, and
the collateral deaths of sentient animals in the
course of that production is, unequivocally in your
view, morally wrong. So, why do you participate in
this orgy of death that you *necessarily* view as
morally wrong?


You NEVER answered that question, SeeJames. You told
Mr. Suspect that you had, but you never did. Try to
answer it now.

Here are a couple of other questions you evaded:

Mr. Suspect:
>>>> Is an egg sentient?

SeeJames:
>>> I don't think so.

Mr. Suspect:
>> When does an egg's contents become sentient?

SeeJames:
> I don't know.

Mr. Ball:
Don't you think you *ought* to know, if you're going
to use sentience as the basis for deciding if it's
right or wrong to kill something?


And this one, SeeJames:

...perhaps I should point out that you are on the
horns of a classic dilemma. Either:

- your willing participation in collateral deaths of
sentient animals means you don't REALLY believe it's
morally wrong, and so you are a liar, which is
evil; or

- your casual participation, a participation that is
ENTIRELY unnecessary, means you're knowingly and thus
voluntarily helping to kill sentient animals in
violation of your moral beliefs, which makes you
evil.


So??? Which is it, SeeJames? Hypocrisy and lying,
which are evil, or deliberate violation, which is
evil?


You never answered any of those three questions,
SeeJames. You said something in reply to the last one:

What is with you? Abusing people for your own cheap
amusement is evil.

but it was non-responsive to the question asked.

Answer the questions, SeeJames. Stop playing games -
you clearly *are* merely playing games, SeeJames - and
answer the questions. They're good questions. They go
right to the heart of "veganism" as any kind of ethical
response to an imagined ethical predicament.

C. James Strutz wrote:
>>>My news server didn't post your last message in the "Mayonnaise" thread.
>>>Unfortunately, I don't have the password for my other news server with
> me,
>>>hence the new thread. It's drifted far away from mayonnaise anyway...
>>
>>Your fault.
>
> Oh, I didn't realize we were assigning fault.

Who caused the thread to swerve "far away from mayonnaise"? You did.

>>>Usual Suspect wrote:
>>
>>Not to be picky, but I don't capitalize.
>
> Why not?

My prerogative.

>>>>You're still asking me to dig up the question about WHY you
>>>>disagree with my opinion about how vegans are ethical poseurs.
>>>
>>>Forgive me, I lost track of which questions you were accusing me of not
>>>answering in your circle of writings.
>>
>>Stop blaming me. You refused to answer questions.
>
> No, I didn't.

Yes, you did. Mr Ball has generously pasted in several questions you
didn't answer.

>>>>What SPECIFICALLY is wrong with that assessment given the
>>>>fact that vegans do little or nothing -- MOSTLY NOTHING --
>>>>about collateral deaths and casualties from agriculture?
>>>
>>>First of all, most vegans outside of this newsgroup probably have never
>>>considered the idea of collateral deaths resulting from agriculture.
>>
>>Most vegans IN this ng haven't considered it, either.
>
> How could they possibly miss it with all the ranting that goes on here?!

It isn't whether they've missed it, it's what they've not done with such
information. They continue making categorical statements of moral
superiority despite the evidence against them.

>>>You
>>>can't expect that they will do something about which they are ignorant.
>
> Most
>>>vegans in this category are disgusted with the notion of eating animal
>>>flesh.
>>
>>But have no qualms about killing animals for some rice and beans.
>
> I guess you missed my point about them not associating rice and beans with
> collateral animal deaths.

Their willful ignorance is their own fault.

>>Comparatively speaking, vegans are poseurs and inefficient. They choose
>>foods causing many animal deaths so they can eat food without any animal
>>parts, yet they shun and detest the many meals off just one animal death
>>(comparing traditional vegan fare with grazed ruminants). Turn it all
>>upside down and they'd show a lot more compassion: eat the one animal
>>and spare the thousands that are so senselessly slaughtered for seitan
>>and tofu and other fake meats.
>
> "Grazed ruminants" don't equal just one animal death.

Care to support this claim?

> And don't tell me
> about grass-fed or wild game. We've been all over that.

Then maybe you need a refresher: grazed ruminants are grass-fed and wild
game.

>>>Second, you and Jon Ball and the like (herein collectively referred to
> as
>>>"you") are so offensive with your assertions and accusations that you
> put
>>>people on the defensive. You practice exactly what you claim to loathe
> in
>>>so-called AR vegans - in your face righteousness (spelled
>>>h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e).
>>
>>I make no claims of righteousness, especially with respect to my diet.
>>Nor does Jon. See my discussions with Karen (aka Rat) and others about
>>Christ's and St Paul's admonitions about not judging others on the basis
>>of diet and that food doesn't defile us.
>
> Maybe I should have used words like 'emphatic' or 'zealous' instead of
> righteous. Somehow they just don't seem strong enough. Maybe
> 'vituperative'...

Snippy versus nasty redux.

>>>Third, collateral deaths result from many other aspects of our existence
>>>than agriculture. It is impossible to eliminate all collateral deaths
> that
>>>we are directly or indirectly responsible for. So it becomes the
> "numbers
>>>game" that you so vehemently reject - to MINIMZE the number of
> collateral
>>>deaths and animal suffering. Despite that you reject the "numbers game",
> you
>>>claim to win it anyway! :^)
>>
>>I don't even play the numbers game. It isn't about ethics at all.
>
> Less animal deaths is better than more animal deaths.

Which diet causes less deaths and suffering? According to Professor
Davis, a diet of grazed ruminants and vegetables will cause less harm to
animals than a vegan diet of grains and legumes. His research may not be
perfect, but it does rely on observation of real agriculture -- not the
Ivory Grocerystore mentality of vegan zealots who assume that the lack
of meat in their diet is automatically virtuous -- and is relevant to
the subject at hand. The number of animals killed and injured in the
production of grains and legumes for one family is much greater than the
one grass-fed cow or grazed deer that can feed an entire family for
months. If your paradigm in the counting game is fewer deaths and
casualties, you should refrain from grains and legumes and consider
eating grazed ruminants.

>>My judgment above is correct, and even after all your bloviations, you
>>seem to concur -- though you will never come right out and say it --
>>that vegans are ethical poseurs.
>
> I'm willing to give them way more benefit of doubt.

On what basis?

>>>>You wear pastels? Do you like musicals?
>>>
>>>Are you generalizing that effeminate men (they're probably all liberals
>>>anyway, right?)
>>
>>You are liberal.
>
> What makes you think so?

Your reflexive and unexplained (even after being asked 20 times)
opposition to my reasonable opinions leads me to believe you're of an
immature political bent; to me, that means you're most likely liberal. I
also recall you've admitted to being a little bit left of center before.

>>>wear pastels and like musicals, or are you fantasizing about
>>>me?
>>
>>Why on earth would I fantasize about you?
>
> You tell me. You're the one who brought up pastels, musicals, and effeminate
> men.

Only in context of your "snippiness."

>>>You disassembled what I wrote, conveniently removing all the context.
>
> Put it
>>>back together and go back and read it. BTW, don't be so quick to exclude
>>>your self from having a bad attitude....
>>
>>I'm not the snippy one, I'm getting a good chuckle.
>
> Glad you're so amused.

So am I. Laughter is the best medicine.

>>>I did answer the question over and over. I even carefully pointed out
> your
>>>circular questioning. You just don't like my answer. I haven't eaten at
> BK,
>>>McDonalds, etc. for at least 20 years. I didn't think their food is
> healthy
>>>or good then, and I don't see any reason to think it's any different now
>>>despite their introduction of the veggie Whopper. I also haven't eaten
> fries
>>>or milkshakes in years.
>>
>>Why didn't you just say so from the beginning?
>
> Sigh, I did...

No, you didn't.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> C. James Strutz wrote:
> > "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> > ...

> Answer the questions, SeeJames. Stop playing games -
> you clearly *are* merely playing games, SeeJames - and
> answer the questions. They're good questions. They go
> right to the heart of "veganism" as any kind of ethical
> response to an imagined ethical predicament.

And why do you care what I think?

"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > C. James Strutz wrote:
> > > "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> > > ...
>
> > Answer the questions, SeeJames. Stop playing games -
> > you clearly *are* merely playing games, SeeJames - and
> > answer the questions. They're good questions. They go
> > right to the heart of "veganism" as any kind of ethical
> > response to an imagined ethical predicament.
>
> And why do you care what I think?

I'm interested in prompting vegans to think more clearly and be more honest
because I believe they do themselves and the rest of the world no good at
all with their narrow-minded attitudes. It's quite harmless to sit at a
computer feverishly typing away, making yourself feel good, but in the hands
of someone influential such as a bureaucrat in the CDC or EPA, the AR
mindset can be downright dangerous.

Jonathan Ball wrote:

> Here are a couple of other questions you evaded:
>
> Mr. Suspect:
> >>>> Is an egg sentient?

Here is simplified version of stupidity. Even though a chicken is raised up in
torment from birth to death, somehow Mr Ball is not able to find the connection
between the consumption of the eggs of the chicken that is tormented and the
torment the chicken is subjected to.

I am not a vegetarian or vegan. I eat meat and chicken. What I do not consume
though, is abuse from assholes like Mr Ball who presumptively live life as though
they are superior in spite of the fact that all feed back to him clearly
indicates he is an inferior idiot.

One need only observe in this one small part of one of his many posts. Mr Ball is
hopeful that he can argue that eating eggs is not a contribution to suffering
(when the chicken is not free-range) of millions of chickens.

In his very limited and simplistic thinking he makes arguments time and again
that are so backwards that his greatest hope is to exhaust is foes patience and
claim that their failure to respond to his pecks is evidence that makes his
argument correct.

What he is not prepared for is people like me that are not here for subject
matter found in the group title but to dine on morsel like him.

FEED ME!

C. James Strutz wrote:
>>Answer the questions, SeeJames. Stop playing games -
>>you clearly *are* merely playing games, SeeJames - and
>>answer the questions. They're good questions. They go
>>right to the heart of "veganism" as any kind of ethical
>>response to an imagined ethical predicament.
>
> And why do you care what I think?

Just answer the &@#$*&@%#$ questions. Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez.

Bald Spot wrote:
> Here is simplified version of stupidity.

I agree.

<snip expanded version of your stupidity>

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> C. James Strutz wrote:
> >>Answer the questions, SeeJames. Stop playing games -
> >>you clearly *are* merely playing games, SeeJames - and
> >>answer the questions. They're good questions. They go
> >>right to the heart of "veganism" as any kind of ethical
> >>response to an imagined ethical predicament.
> >
> > And why do you care what I think?
>
> Just answer the &@#$*&@%#$ questions. Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez.

No. There's no point in answering questions that I've answered in this and
previous threads. You already know my position on vegetarian and related
issues. You and the others gang up on people with circular arguements,
personal attacks, and other tricks designed only to serve as your cheap
entertainment. There's no constructive purpose in it...

C. James Strutz wrote:
>>>>Answer the questions, SeeJames. Stop playing games -
>>>>you clearly *are* merely playing games, SeeJames - and
>>>>answer the questions. They're good questions. They go
>>>>right to the heart of "veganism" as any kind of ethical
>>>>response to an imagined ethical predicament.
>>>
>>>And why do you care what I think?
>>
>>Just answer the &@#$*&@%#$ questions. Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez.
>
> No. There's no point in answering questions that I've answered in this and
> previous threads.

You didn't answer those questions.

> You already know my position on vegetarian and related
> issues.

No, I don't actually. You shrink from questions about your positions.

> You and the others gang up on people with circular arguements,

Our arguments are logical, not circular.

> personal attacks,

When did I last attack you personally?

> and other tricks designed only to serve as your cheap
> entertainment.

Jon has said (in a civil manner!) he was seriously interested in your
answers to those questions. I am, too.

> There's no constructive purpose in it...

Then why did you even interject yourself into the mayonnaise thread?

C. James Strutz wrote:

> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>C. James Strutz wrote:
>>
>>>>Answer the questions, SeeJames. Stop playing games -
>>>>you clearly *are* merely playing games, SeeJames - and
>>>>answer the questions. They're good questions. They go
>>>>right to the heart of "veganism" as any kind of ethical
>>>>response to an imagined ethical predicament.
>>>
>>>And why do you care what I think?
>>
>>Just answer the &@#$*&@%#$ questions. Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez.
>
>
> No. There's no point in answering questions that I've answered in this and
> previous threads.

You didn't answer them, SeeJames. I asked them several
times, and you didn't answer them. Now you're just
playing games: "why do you care what I think?" You've
pretended you're interested in discussing issues like
this, and now you're whiffing off. It's pretty obvious
what's happening: you see that any honest answer puts
you in a hard spot. Although you're not "vegan", you
have leanings towards it: you're largely vegetarian,
and it's for supposed ethical reasons. The questions
make plain that the "ethics" are suspect.

You whine and moan and say the questions are just to
"provoke" and "antagonize", and they're not. You're
more than willing to try to advance the "cause" of your
semi-"veganism", but when challenged in such a way that
you can't give an adequate response to the challenge,
you play games and whiff off.

> You already know my position on vegetarian and related
> issues. You and the others gang up on people with circular arguements,

There are no circular arguments. I've asked some very
good but tough questions, and you've refused to answer
them, because even as unimaginative as you are, you're
at least sharp enough to see where answering the
questions will lead. There isn't a single circular
argument embodied in any of the questions.

> personal attacks, and other tricks designed only to serve as your cheap
> entertainment. There's no constructive purpose in it...

There's a highly constructive purpose in it. That's
what you're afraid of.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> C. James Strutz wrote:
>
> > "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>C. James Strutz wrote:
> >>
> >>>>Answer the questions, SeeJames. Stop playing games -
> >>>>you clearly *are* merely playing games, SeeJames - and
> >>>>answer the questions. They're good questions. They go
> >>>>right to the heart of "veganism" as any kind of ethical
> >>>>response to an imagined ethical predicament.
> >>>
> >>>And why do you care what I think?
> >>
> >>Just answer the &@#$*&@%#$ questions. Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez.
> >
> >
> > No. There's no point in answering questions that I've answered in this
and
> > previous threads.
>
> You didn't answer them, SeeJames. I asked them several
> times, and you didn't answer them. Now you're just
> playing games: "why do you care what I think?" You've
> pretended you're interested in discussing issues like
> this, and now you're whiffing off. It's pretty obvious
> what's happening: you see that any honest answer puts
> you in a hard spot.

There are no hard spots. I have no misgivings about what I eat, don't eat,
and related or unrelated ethics.

> Although you're not "vegan", you
> have leanings towards it: you're largely vegetarian,
> and it's for supposed ethical reasons. The questions
> make plain that the "ethics" are suspect.

Wrong on all counts. You've generalized me wrong, as usual (pun intended!).

> You whine and moan and say the questions are just to
> "provoke" and "antagonize", and they're not. You're
> more than willing to try to advance the "cause" of your
> semi-"veganism", but when challenged in such a way that
> you can't give an adequate response to the challenge,
> you play games and whiff off.

Wrong. Show me where I've EVER tried to advance ANY cause. You make me feel
like a source of cheap entertainment with all of your posturing, leading and
circular questioning, and abusive rhetoric. No more.

> > You already know my position on vegetarian and related
> > issues. You and the others gang up on people with circular arguements,
>
> There are no circular arguments. I've asked some very
> good but tough questions, and you've refused to answer
> them, because even as unimaginative as you are, you're
> at least sharp enough to see where answering the
> questions will lead. There isn't a single circular
> argument embodied in any of the questions.

I clearly pointed out where Usual Suspect tried to lead me in circles. He
learned it from you.

> > personal attacks, and other tricks designed only to serve as your cheap
> > entertainment. There's no constructive purpose in it...
>
> There's a highly constructive purpose in it. That's
> what you're afraid of.

Hardly...

C. James Strutz wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>C. James Strutz wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>C. James Strutz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Answer the questions, SeeJames. Stop playing games -
>>>>>>you clearly *are* merely playing games, SeeJames - and
>>>>>>answer the questions. They're good questions. They go
>>>>>>right to the heart of "veganism" as any kind of ethical
>>>>>>response to an imagined ethical predicament.
>>>>>
>>>>>And why do you care what I think?
>>>>
>>>>Just answer the &@#$*&@%#$ questions. Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez.
>>>
>>>
>>>No. There's no point in answering questions that I've answered in this
>>>and previous threads.
>>
>>You didn't answer them, SeeJames. I asked them several
>>times, and you didn't answer them. Now you're just
>>playing games: "why do you care what I think?" You've
>>pretended you're interested in discussing issues like
>>this, and now you're whiffing off. It's pretty obvious
>>what's happening: you see that any honest answer puts
>>you in a hard spot.
>
>
> There are no hard spots. I have no misgivings about what I eat, don't eat,
> and related or unrelated ethics.

Non sequitur, on two counts. First, it's not about any
problems caused by what you do or don't eat. It's
about your supposed ethical reasoning behind the
choices. Those questions are intended to illustrate
that the reasoning is lousy, and I think you can see
it; that's why you won't answer them.

Second, your answer is also a non sequitur because it
comes in response to my statement that you didn't
answer questions you have claimed to answer. Bluntly,
you are lying: you are claiming repeatedly to have
answered some questions that you have not answered.

Tell us in your own words, SeeJames: Why won't you
answer the questions? Don't tell us it's because you
have already answered them; that's a lie.

>
>
>>Although you're not "vegan", you
>>have leanings towards it: you're largely vegetarian,
>>and it's for supposed ethical reasons. The questions
>>make plain that the "ethics" are suspect.
>
>
> Wrong on all counts. You've generalized me wrong, as usual (pun intended!).

No, I am right, as usual. You've already told us in
the past that you are vegetarian, and you made clear by
implication that it's for quasi-ethical reasons

***My position has always been*** that it's morally
better
to minimize animal suffering and death than to do
nothing at all. I believe that avoiding meat
accomplishes that end to some degree.
SeeJames Strut - November 3, 2003 [emphasis added]
http://tinyurl.com/2kedr


So you LIED, SeeJames; you are vegetarian for
(pseudo)ethical reasons, as I have said and as the
quote makes plain, but you lied above and said "wrong
on all counts" when one of my explicit "counts" is that
you are vegetarian for (pseudo)ethical reasons.

You are establishing a reputation as a liar, SeeJames:
you lie about your motives, and you lie about having
answered questions. Habitual lying works against your
self-portrayal as an "ethical" person, SeeJames.

>
>
>>You whine and moan and say the questions are just to
>>"provoke" and "antagonize", and they're not. You're
>>more than willing to try to advance the "cause" of your
>>semi-"veganism", but when challenged in such a way that
>>you can't give an adequate response to the challenge,
>>you play games and whiff off.
>
>
> Wrong. Show me where I've EVER tried to advance ANY cause.

***My position has always been*** that it's morally
better
to minimize animal suffering and death than to do
nothing at all. I believe that avoiding meat
accomplishes that end to some degree.

That's advancing a cause, SeeJames.

> You make me feel
> like a source of cheap entertainment with all of your posturing, leading and
> circular questioning, and abusive rhetoric. No more.

I already told you there are no circular questions,
SeeJames. Why did you repeat that baseless charge?

Why won't you answer the questions, SeeJames? Stop
with the flimsy lie that it's because it makes you feel
like a source of entertainment; that clearly isn't the
reason. Either answer the questions, or tell us
HONESTLY why you won't. I want to hear it in your words.

>
>
>>>You already know my position on vegetarian and related
>>>issues. You and the others gang up on people with circular arguements,
>>
>>There are no circular arguments. I've asked some very
>>good but tough questions, and you've refused to answer
>>them, because even as unimaginative as you are, you're
>>at least sharp enough to see where answering the
>>questions will lead. There isn't a single circular
>>argument embodied in any of the questions.
>
>
> I clearly pointed out where Usual Suspect tried to lead me in circles.

No, you didn't. Anyway, you were talking about MY
supposedly "circular" questions, and there are none.

> He learned it from you.

He hasn't done it.

>
>
>>>personal attacks, and other tricks designed only to serve as your cheap
>>>entertainment. There's no constructive purpose in it...
>>
>>There's a highly constructive purpose in it. That's
>>what you're afraid of.
>
>
> Hardly...

Very much.

Why won't you answer the questions? You write reams
avoiding them, ****ing away your time and others' time.
Why won't you simply answer the questions? Here they
are again, since you obviously are ignoring the most
recent post that contains them:

My questions, and the dialogue leading to them, is
entirely civil and respectful. Tell me what's uncivil
or disrespectful about the question at the end of this
exchange, a question you have thus far refused to answer:

SeeJames:
>>> I think it's wrong to take the life of a
>>> sentient being except under [sic]
>>> extenuating circumstances.

Mr. Suspect:
>> Which extenuating circumstances are those?

SeeJames:
> Capital punishment, and in self defense when
> someone's life is threatened are two examples that
> I can think of.

Mr. Ball:
So, the production of your food doesn't qualify, and
the collateral deaths of sentient animals in the
course of that production is, unequivocally in your
view, morally wrong. So, why do you participate in
this orgy of death that you *necessarily* view as
morally wrong?


Same with this one:

Mr. Suspect:
>>>> Is an egg sentient?

SeeJames:
>>> I don't think so.

Mr. Suspect:
>> When does an egg's contents become sentient?

SeeJames:
> I don't know.

Mr. Ball:
Don't you think you *ought* to know, if you're going
to use sentience as the basis for deciding if it's
right or wrong to kill something?


And with this one:

...perhaps I should point out that you are on the
horns of a classic dilemma. Either:

- your willing participation in collateral deaths of
sentient animals means you don't REALLY believe it's
morally wrong, and so you are a liar, which is
evil; or

- your casual participation, a participation that is
ENTIRELY unnecessary, means you're knowingly and thus
voluntarily helping to kill sentient animals in
violation of your moral beliefs, which makes you
evil.


So??? Which is it, SeeJames? Hypocrisy and lying,
which are evil, or deliberate violation, which is
evil?

C. James Strutz wrote:
>>>>>>Answer the questions, SeeJames. Stop playing games -
>>>>>>you clearly *are* merely playing games, SeeJames - and
>>>>>>answer the questions. They're good questions. They go
>>>>>>right to the heart of "veganism" as any kind of ethical
>>>>>>response to an imagined ethical predicament.
>>>>>
>>>>>And why do you care what I think?
>>>>
>>>>Just answer the &@#$*&@%#$ questions. Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez.
>>>
>>>
>>>No. There's no point in answering questions that I've answered in this
>
> and
>
>>>previous threads.
>>
>>You didn't answer them, SeeJames. I asked them several
>>times, and you didn't answer them. Now you're just
>>playing games: "why do you care what I think?" You've
>>pretended you're interested in discussing issues like
>>this, and now you're whiffing off. It's pretty obvious
>>what's happening: you see that any honest answer puts
>>you in a hard spot.
>
> There are no hard spots. I have no misgivings about what I eat, don't eat,
> and related or unrelated ethics.
>
>>Although you're not "vegan", you
>>have leanings towards it: you're largely vegetarian,
>>and it's for supposed ethical reasons. The questions
>>make plain that the "ethics" are suspect.
>
> Wrong on all counts. You've generalized me wrong, as usual (pun intended!).
>
>>You whine and moan and say the questions are just to
>>"provoke" and "antagonize", and they're not. You're
>>more than willing to try to advance the "cause" of your
>>semi-"veganism", but when challenged in such a way that
>>you can't give an adequate response to the challenge,
>>you play games and whiff off.
>
> Wrong. Show me where I've EVER tried to advance ANY cause. You make me feel
> like a source of cheap entertainment with all of your posturing, leading and
> circular questioning, and abusive rhetoric. No more.

Those were serious questions. In addition to whiffing on them, you've
still failed to address WHY you jumped into the mayonnaise thread. Since
you did it to assail my opinion without telling me what was wrong with it.

>>>You already know my position on vegetarian and related
>>>issues. You and the others gang up on people with circular arguements,
>>
>>There are no circular arguments. I've asked some very
>>good but tough questions, and you've refused to answer
>>them, because even as unimaginative as you are, you're
>>at least sharp enough to see where answering the
>>questions will lead. There isn't a single circular
>>argument embodied in any of the questions.
>
> I clearly pointed out where Usual Suspect tried to lead me in circles.

I did no such thing.

> He learned it from you.

Why can't you be civil for one thread?

>>>personal attacks, and other tricks designed only to serve as your cheap
>>>entertainment. There's no constructive purpose in it...
>>
>>There's a highly constructive purpose in it. That's
>>what you're afraid of.
>
> Hardly...

When asked -- REPEATEDLY -- to pinpoint your disagreement(s), you've
whiffed and accuse those asking of flawed motives. Your initial entry to
the mayo thread was solely to impugn me and my motives, and that is all
you have done despite honest, fair questions about WHY my motives are
wrong. You won't address the substance. You only assail one poster as
uncivil and me as "zealous" and "vituperative" and "offensive." You've
even asked for the questions to be reasked only to whiff again and
again. So I have to concur with Mr Ball that you appear afraid to
address issues.

usual suspect wrote:

> C. James Strutz wrote:
>
>>>>>>> Answer the questions, SeeJames. Stop playing games -
>>>>>>> you clearly *are* merely playing games, SeeJames - and
>>>>>>> answer the questions. They're good questions. They go
>>>>>>> right to the heart of "veganism" as any kind of ethical
>>>>>>> response to an imagined ethical predicament.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And why do you care what I think?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Just answer the &@#$*&@%#$ questions. Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez.

What's with this guy, anyway? I really don't get it.
He keeps evading the questions, petulantly complaining
about the questions, but keeping the evasion thread
going! On top of that, he complains that the questions
are merely to set him up for cheap entertainment value,
but if he weren't such a dull plodder, I'd possibly
think that's exactly what he's trying to accomplish
with the long-running evasion.

>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No. There's no point in answering questions that I've answered in this
>>
>>
>> and
>>
>>>> previous threads.
>>>
>>>
>>> You didn't answer them, SeeJames. I asked them several
>>> times, and you didn't answer them. Now you're just
>>> playing games: "why do you care what I think?" You've
>>> pretended you're interested in discussing issues like
>>> this, and now you're whiffing off. It's pretty obvious
>>> what's happening: you see that any honest answer puts
>>> you in a hard spot.
>>
>>
>> There are no hard spots. I have no misgivings about what I eat, don't
>> eat,
>> and related or unrelated ethics.
>>
>>> Although you're not "vegan", you
>>> have leanings towards it: you're largely vegetarian,
>>> and it's for supposed ethical reasons. The questions
>>> make plain that the "ethics" are suspect.
>>
>>
>> Wrong on all counts. You've generalized me wrong, as usual (pun
>> intended!).

You've probably seen my response to him on this
specific point. He lied; I'm RIGHT on the count that
he's vegetarian for (pseudo)ethical reasons, and I
supplied a quote from him to prove it. I'm also right
on the fact that he's not "vegan"; he's said so in the
past. So where the **** does he get the gall to say
I'm "wrong on all counts", when there are only two
counts, and I'm absolutely right on both of them?

>>
>>> You whine and moan and say the questions are just to
>>> "provoke" and "antagonize", and they're not. You're
>>> more than willing to try to advance the "cause" of your
>>> semi-"veganism", but when challenged in such a way that
>>> you can't give an adequate response to the challenge,
>>> you play games and whiff off.
>>
>>
>> Wrong. Show me where I've EVER tried to advance ANY cause. You make me
>> feel
>> like a source of cheap entertainment with all of your posturing,
>> leading and
>> circular questioning, and abusive rhetoric. No more.
>
>
> Those were serious questions. In addition to whiffing on them, you've
> still failed to address WHY you jumped into the mayonnaise thread. Since
> you did it to assail my opinion without telling me what was wrong with it.
>
>>>> You already know my position on vegetarian and related
>>>> issues. You and the others gang up on people with circular arguements,
>>>
>>>
>>> There are no circular arguments. I've asked some very
>>> good but tough questions, and you've refused to answer
>>> them, because even as unimaginative as you are, you're
>>> at least sharp enough to see where answering the
>>> questions will lead. There isn't a single circular
>>> argument embodied in any of the questions.
>>
>>
>> I clearly pointed out where Usual Suspect tried to lead me in circles.
>
>
> I did no such thing.
>
>> He learned it from you.
>
>
> Why can't you be civil for one thread?

Amazing, isn't it? This guy whines and moans about
civility, and then is laughably uncivil.

>
>>>> personal attacks, and other tricks designed only to serve as your cheap
>>>> entertainment. There's no constructive purpose in it...
>>>
>>>
>>> There's a highly constructive purpose in it. That's
>>> what you're afraid of.
>>
>>
>> Hardly...
>
>
> When asked -- REPEATEDLY -- to pinpoint your disagreement(s), you've
> whiffed and accuse those asking of flawed motives. Your initial entry to
> the mayo thread was solely to impugn me and my motives, and that is all
> you have done despite honest, fair questions about WHY my motives are
> wrong. You won't address the substance. You only assail one poster as
> uncivil and me as "zealous" and "vituperative" and "offensive." You've
> even asked for the questions to be reasked only to whiff again and
> again. So I have to concur with Mr Ball that you appear afraid to
> address issues.
>

Jonathan Ball wrote:
>>>>>>>> Answer the questions, SeeJames. Stop playing games -
>>>>>>>> you clearly *are* merely playing games, SeeJames - and
>>>>>>>> answer the questions. They're good questions. They go
>>>>>>>> right to the heart of "veganism" as any kind of ethical
>>>>>>>> response to an imagined ethical predicament.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And why do you care what I think?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just answer the &@#$*&@%#$ questions. Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez.
>
> What's with this guy, anyway? I really don't get it.

Neither do I. I'm losing my patience.

> He keeps evading
> the questions, petulantly complaining about the questions, but keeping
> the evasion thread going! On top of that, he complains that the
> questions are merely to set him up for cheap entertainment value, but if
> he weren't such a dull plodder, I'd possibly think that's exactly what
> he's trying to accomplish with the long-running evasion.

The "dull plodding" part certainly diminishes the possibility of that
motive. ;-)

>>>>>
>>>>> No. There's no point in answering questions that I've answered in this
>>> and
>>>>> previous threads.
>>>>
>>>> You didn't answer them, SeeJames. I asked them several
>>>> times, and you didn't answer them. Now you're just
>>>> playing games: "why do you care what I think?" You've
>>>> pretended you're interested in discussing issues like
>>>> this, and now you're whiffing off. It's pretty obvious
>>>> what's happening: you see that any honest answer puts
>>>> you in a hard spot.
>>>
>>> There are no hard spots. I have no misgivings about what I eat, don't
>>> eat,
>>> and related or unrelated ethics.
>>>
>>>> Although you're not "vegan", you
>>>> have leanings towards it: you're largely vegetarian,
>>>> and it's for supposed ethical reasons. The questions
>>>> make plain that the "ethics" are suspect.
>>>
>>> Wrong on all counts. You've generalized me wrong, as usual (pun
>>> intended!).
>
> You've probably seen my response to him on this specific point. He
> lied; I'm RIGHT on the count that he's vegetarian for (pseudo)ethical
> reasons, and I supplied a quote from him to prove it.

Yes, I saw that. I was going to try to look for some of his quotes
later. I still might if I have time.

> I'm also right on
> the fact that he's not "vegan"; he's said so in the past. So where the
> **** does he get the gall to say I'm "wrong on all counts", when there
> are only two counts, and I'm absolutely right on both of them?

The great irony is he interjected because he disagreed with my
generalization, yet he's making them about you and me. And that's ALL
he's done -- no corroboration or explanation.

>>>> You whine and moan and say the questions are just to
>>>> "provoke" and "antagonize", and they're not. You're
>>>> more than willing to try to advance the "cause" of your
>>>> semi-"veganism", but when challenged in such a way that
>>>> you can't give an adequate response to the challenge,
>>>> you play games and whiff off.
>>>
>>> Wrong. Show me where I've EVER tried to advance ANY cause. You make
>>> me feel
>>> like a source of cheap entertainment with all of your posturing,
>>> leading and
>>> circular questioning, and abusive rhetoric. No more.
>>
>> Those were serious questions. In addition to whiffing on them, you've
>> still failed to address WHY you jumped into the mayonnaise thread.
>> Since you did it to assail my opinion without telling me what was
>> wrong with it.
>>
>>>>> You already know my position on vegetarian and related
>>>>> issues. You and the others gang up on people with circular arguements,
>>>>
>>>> There are no circular arguments. I've asked some very
>>>> good but tough questions, and you've refused to answer
>>>> them, because even as unimaginative as you are, you're
>>>> at least sharp enough to see where answering the
>>>> questions will lead. There isn't a single circular
>>>> argument embodied in any of the questions.
>>>
>>> I clearly pointed out where Usual Suspect tried to lead me in circles.
>>
>> I did no such thing.
>>
>>> He learned it from you.
>>
>> Why can't you be civil for one thread?
>
> Amazing, isn't it? This guy whines and moans about civility, and then
> is laughably uncivil.

It's one of his more amusing traits, imho. I wonder if he sees the big
disconnect between what he preaches and what he practices. Nahhh, he can't.

>>>>> personal attacks, and other tricks designed only to serve as your
>>>>> cheap
>>>>> entertainment. There's no constructive purpose in it...
>>>>
>>>> There's a highly constructive purpose in it. That's
>>>> what you're afraid of.
>>>
>>> Hardly...
>>
>> When asked -- REPEATEDLY -- to pinpoint your disagreement(s), you've
>> whiffed and accuse those asking of flawed motives. Your initial entry
>> to the mayo thread was solely to impugn me and my motives, and that is
>> all you have done despite honest, fair questions about WHY my motives
>> are wrong. You won't address the substance. You only assail one poster
>> as uncivil and me as "zealous" and "vituperative" and "offensive."
>> You've even asked for the questions to be reasked only to whiff again
>> and again. So I have to concur with Mr Ball that you appear afraid to
>> address issues.

usual suspect wrote:

> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>> Answer the questions, SeeJames. Stop playing games -
>>>>>>>>> you clearly *are* merely playing games, SeeJames - and
>>>>>>>>> answer the questions. They're good questions. They go
>>>>>>>>> right to the heart of "veganism" as any kind of ethical
>>>>>>>>> response to an imagined ethical predicament.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And why do you care what I think?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just answer the &@#$*&@%#$ questions. Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez.
>>
>>
>> What's with this guy, anyway? I really don't get it.
>
>
> Neither do I. I'm losing my patience.
>
>> He keeps evading the questions, petulantly complaining about the
>> questions, but keeping the evasion thread going! On top of that, he
>> complains that the questions are merely to set him up for cheap
>> entertainment value, but if he weren't such a dull plodder, I'd
>> possibly think that's exactly what he's trying to accomplish with the
>> long-running evasion.
>
>
> The "dull plodding" part certainly diminishes the possibility of that
> motive. ;-)
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No. There's no point in answering questions that I've answered in
>>>>>> this
>>>>
>>>> and
>>>>
>>>>>> previous threads.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You didn't answer them, SeeJames. I asked them several
>>>>> times, and you didn't answer them. Now you're just
>>>>> playing games: "why do you care what I think?" You've
>>>>> pretended you're interested in discussing issues like
>>>>> this, and now you're whiffing off. It's pretty obvious
>>>>> what's happening: you see that any honest answer puts
>>>>> you in a hard spot.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are no hard spots. I have no misgivings about what I eat,
>>>> don't eat,
>>>> and related or unrelated ethics.
>>>>
>>>>> Although you're not "vegan", you
>>>>> have leanings towards it: you're largely vegetarian,
>>>>> and it's for supposed ethical reasons. The questions
>>>>> make plain that the "ethics" are suspect.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wrong on all counts. You've generalized me wrong, as usual (pun
>>>> intended!).
>>
>>
>> You've probably seen my response to him on this specific point. He
>> lied; I'm RIGHT on the count that he's vegetarian for (pseudo)ethical
>> reasons, and I supplied a quote from him to prove it.
>
>
> Yes, I saw that. I was going to try to look for some of his quotes
> later. I still might if I have time.

I already did. Go look in a thread in alt.food.vegan
that began on 10/18/2003, entitled "Want to be a
vegetarian", in which he and you participated (does the
expression "David Gest's bitch wrote" ring a bell? ;-)
). He makes abundantly clear that his vegetarianism
is based, at least in part, on a wish to "miminize"
animal suffering and death; he also brings in some
environmental and health concerns, but the ethical
dimension is right there.

>
>> I'm also right on the fact that he's not "vegan"; he's said so in the
>> past. So where the **** does he get the gall to say I'm "wrong on all
>> counts", when there are only two counts, and I'm absolutely right on
>> both of them?
>
>
> The great irony is he interjected because he disagreed with my
> generalization, yet he's making them about you and me. And that's ALL
> he's done -- no corroboration or explanation.

Yeah, early on in the mayonnaise thread, he got snippy
about generalizations, and proceeded to make one after
another. I had a lot of fun with that; I almost
*always* have fun with people who object to
generalizations per se, as Putz did.

>
>>>>> You whine and moan and say the questions are just to
>>>>> "provoke" and "antagonize", and they're not. You're
>>>>> more than willing to try to advance the "cause" of your
>>>>> semi-"veganism", but when challenged in such a way that
>>>>> you can't give an adequate response to the challenge,
>>>>> you play games and whiff off.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Wrong. Show me where I've EVER tried to advance ANY cause. You make
>>>> me feel
>>>> like a source of cheap entertainment with all of your posturing,
>>>> leading and
>>>> circular questioning, and abusive rhetoric. No more.
>>>
>>>
>>> Those were serious questions. In addition to whiffing on them, you've
>>> still failed to address WHY you jumped into the mayonnaise thread.
>>> Since you did it to assail my opinion without telling me what was
>>> wrong with it.
>>>
>>>>>> You already know my position on vegetarian and related
>>>>>> issues. You and the others gang up on people with circular
>>>>>> arguements,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There are no circular arguments. I've asked some very
>>>>> good but tough questions, and you've refused to answer
>>>>> them, because even as unimaginative as you are, you're
>>>>> at least sharp enough to see where answering the
>>>>> questions will lead. There isn't a single circular
>>>>> argument embodied in any of the questions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I clearly pointed out where Usual Suspect tried to lead me in circles.
>>>
>>>
>>> I did no such thing.
>>>
>>>> He learned it from you.
>>>
>>>
>>> Why can't you be civil for one thread?
>>
>>
>> Amazing, isn't it? This guy whines and moans about civility, and then
>> is laughably uncivil.
>
>
> It's one of his more amusing traits, imho. I wonder if he sees the big
> disconnect between what he preaches and what he practices. Nahhh, he can't.

No effin' way.

>
>>>>>> personal attacks, and other tricks designed only to serve as your
>>>>>> cheap
>>>>>> entertainment. There's no constructive purpose in it...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There's a highly constructive purpose in it. That's
>>>>> what you're afraid of.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hardly...
>>>
>>>
>>> When asked -- REPEATEDLY -- to pinpoint your disagreement(s), you've
>>> whiffed and accuse those asking of flawed motives. Your initial entry
>>> to the mayo thread was solely to impugn me and my motives, and that
>>> is all you have done despite honest, fair questions about WHY my
>>> motives are wrong. You won't address the substance. You only assail
>>> one poster as uncivil and me as "zealous" and "vituperative" and
>>> "offensive." You've even asked for the questions to be reasked only
>>> to whiff again and again. So I have to concur with Mr Ball that you
>>> appear afraid to address issues.
>
>

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> C. James Strutz wrote:
> >>>>>>Answer the questions, SeeJames. Stop playing games -
> >>>>>>you clearly *are* merely playing games, SeeJames - and
> >>>>>>answer the questions. They're good questions. They go
> >>>>>>right to the heart of "veganism" as any kind of ethical
> >>>>>>response to an imagined ethical predicament.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>And why do you care what I think?
> >>>>
> >>>>Just answer the &@#$*&@%#$ questions. Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>No. There's no point in answering questions that I've answered in this
> >
> > and
> >
> >>>previous threads.
> >>
> >>You didn't answer them, SeeJames. I asked them several
> >>times, and you didn't answer them. Now you're just
> >>playing games: "why do you care what I think?" You've
> >>pretended you're interested in discussing issues like
> >>this, and now you're whiffing off. It's pretty obvious
> >>what's happening: you see that any honest answer puts
> >>you in a hard spot.
> >
> > There are no hard spots. I have no misgivings about what I eat, don't
eat,
> > and related or unrelated ethics.
> >
> >>Although you're not "vegan", you
> >>have leanings towards it: you're largely vegetarian,
> >>and it's for supposed ethical reasons. The questions
> >>make plain that the "ethics" are suspect.
> >
> > Wrong on all counts. You've generalized me wrong, as usual (pun
intended!).
> >
> >>You whine and moan and say the questions are just to
> >>"provoke" and "antagonize", and they're not. You're
> >>more than willing to try to advance the "cause" of your
> >>semi-"veganism", but when challenged in such a way that
> >>you can't give an adequate response to the challenge,
> >>you play games and whiff off.
> >
> > Wrong. Show me where I've EVER tried to advance ANY cause. You make me
feel
> > like a source of cheap entertainment with all of your posturing, leading
and
> > circular questioning, and abusive rhetoric. No more.
>
> Those were serious questions. In addition to whiffing on them, you've
> still failed to address WHY you jumped into the mayonnaise thread. Since
> you did it to assail my opinion without telling me what was wrong with it.

If you go back and look at it (http://tinyurl.com/38bk2), I jumped into that
thread: a) to point out that tofu has very little saturated fat, b) to
remind you that people are entitled to their own opinions without being
subjected to political labeling (you had aggressively challenged the
previous poster's aversion to eggs in mayonnaise and accused him of being
politically liberal!), c) I tried to make a joke about taking potato salad
to BK after you had dissed the previous poster's comment connecting
unhealthy food (mayonnaise in potato salad) to BK as "non sequitur" - he was
trying to make a point which you completely ignored - or didn't get, d) and
I asked you to clarify your comment about Erik Marcus liking BK's veggie
burger. I didn't assail you...

> >>>You already know my position on vegetarian and related
> >>>issues. You and the others gang up on people with circular arguements,
> >>
> >>There are no circular arguments. I've asked some very
> >>good but tough questions, and you've refused to answer
> >>them, because even as unimaginative as you are, you're
> >>at least sharp enough to see where answering the
> >>questions will lead. There isn't a single circular
> >>argument embodied in any of the questions.
> >
> > I clearly pointed out where Usual Suspect tried to lead me in circles.
>
> I did no such thing.

I very clearly showed that you did. Now you are lying.

> > He learned it from you.
>
> Why can't you be civil for one thread?

I've tried. Discussions in which you or Jon Ball participate somehow don't
stay civil for very long. I should point out that it's that way with you and
most everyone else on this ng. So the problem's not with me.

> >>There's a highly constructive purpose in it. That's
> >>what you're afraid of.
> >
> > Hardly...
>
> When asked -- REPEATEDLY -- to pinpoint your disagreement(s), you've
> whiffed and accuse those asking of flawed motives. Your initial entry to
> the mayo thread was solely to impugn me and my motives, and that is all
> you have done despite honest, fair questions about WHY my motives are
> wrong. You won't address the substance. You only assail one poster as
> uncivil and me as "zealous" and "vituperative" and "offensive." You've
> even asked for the questions to be reasked only to whiff again and
> again. So I have to concur with Mr Ball that you appear afraid to
> address issues.

I've tried to answer your questions. You have been trying to get me in a
position (based on lies and fallacies) to admit some perceived ethical
dilemma. I don't have an ethical dilemma and you are frustrated with my
answers.

C. James Strutz wrote:

> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>C. James Strutz wrote:
>>
[...]
>>>>>You already know my position on vegetarian and related
>>>>>issues. You and the others gang up on people with circular arguements,
>>>>
>>>>There are no circular arguments. I've asked some very
>>>>good but tough questions, and you've refused to answer
>>>>them, because even as unimaginative as you are, you're
>>>>at least sharp enough to see where answering the
>>>>questions will lead. There isn't a single circular
>>>>argument embodied in any of the questions.
>>>
>>>I clearly pointed out where Usual Suspect tried to lead me in circles.
>>
>>I did no such thing.
>
>
> I very clearly showed that you did. Now you are lying.

No, you did not. Now YOU are lying, twice: in saying
you did something you didn't do, and in accusing him of
lying.

>
>
>>>He learned it from you.
>>
>>Why can't you be civil for one thread?
>
>
> I've tried.

No, you have not. You have *initiated* incivility at
least as often as you've been the recipient of it.

> Discussions in which you or Jon Ball participate somehow don't
> stay civil for very long.

Because you initiate incivility in them.

> I should point out that it's that way with you and
> most everyone else on this ng. So the problem's not with me.

The problem VERY MUCH is with you. To the extent other
"vegans" and quasi-"vegans" have the same problem, it's
because they don't like having their bogus ethics SHOWN
to be bogus.

That's what this is all about, SeeJames: you have
adopted an ethical stance - a pose, really - and you've
been called on it, and you don't like it.

>
>
>>>>There's a highly constructive purpose in it. That's
>>>>what you're afraid of.
>>>
>>>Hardly...
>>
>>When asked -- REPEATEDLY -- to pinpoint your disagreement(s), you've
>>whiffed and accuse those asking of flawed motives. Your initial entry to
>>the mayo thread was solely to impugn me and my motives, and that is all
>>you have done despite honest, fair questions about WHY my motives are
>>wrong. You won't address the substance. You only assail one poster as
>>uncivil and me as "zealous" and "vituperative" and "offensive." You've
>>even asked for the questions to be reasked only to whiff again and
>>again. So I have to concur with Mr Ball that you appear afraid to
>>address issues.
>
>
> I've tried to answer your questions.

You have not even attempted to answer *my* questions,
and they're good questions. Why won't you answer them?

> You have been trying to get me in a
> position (based on lies and fallacies) to admit some perceived ethical
> dilemma. I don't have an ethical dilemma and you are frustrated with my
> answers.

You *do* have an ethical dilemma, SeeJames. You are
vegetarian, quasi-"vegan", for ethical reasons:

***My position has always been*** that it's morally
better
to minimize animal suffering and death than to do
nothing at all. I believe that avoiding meat
accomplishes that end to some degree.
SeeJames Strut - November 3, 2003 [emphasis added]
http://tinyurl.com/2kedr

There is a huge logical problem with being vegetarian
for the pseudo-ethical reason you have given, and I'm
asking questions to get you to acknowledge the problem,
and then to see and acknowledge seeing that your
dietary response does not address the problem.

You've now compounded your ethical problems by lying,
being snippy, being evasive, and lying some more.

Why are you even responding, SeeJames, if your
responses are only going to serve to illustrate that
you are lying and being evasive?

Bald Spot > wrote in message >...
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
> > Here are a couple of other questions you evaded:
> >
> > Mr. Suspect:
> > >>>> Is an egg sentient?
>
> Here is simplified version of stupidity. Even though a chicken is raised up in
> torment from birth to death, somehow Mr Ball is not able to find the connection
> between the consumption of the eggs of the chicken that is tormented and the
> torment the chicken is subjected to.
>
> I am not a vegetarian or vegan. I eat meat and chicken. What I do not consume
> though, is abuse from assholes like Mr Ball who presumptively live life as though
> they are superior in spite of the fact that all feed back to him clearly
> indicates he is an inferior idiot.
>
> One need only observe in this one small part of one of his many posts. Mr Ball is
> hopeful that he can argue that eating eggs is not a contribution to suffering
> (when the chicken is not free-range) of millions of chickens.
>
> In his very limited and simplistic thinking he makes arguments time and again
> that are so backwards that his greatest hope is to exhaust is foes patience and
> claim that their failure to respond to his pecks is evidence that makes his
> argument correct.
>
> What he is not prepared for is people like me that are not here for subject
> matter found in the group title but to dine on morsel like him.
>
> FEED ME!




Even if you hadn't named Ball it would be easy from the description
to tell who you were writing about.

You nailed him exactly!


..

> There is a huge logical problem with being vegetarian
> for the pseudo-ethical reason you have given, and I'm
> asking questions to get you to acknowledge the problem,
> and then to see and acknowledge seeing that your
> dietary response does not address the problem.
>
> You've now compounded your ethical problems by lying,
> being snippy, being evasive, and lying some more.
>
> Why are you even responding, SeeJames, if your
> responses are only going to serve to illustrate that
> you are lying and being evasive?

I'll be glad to offer the information you are so desperately trying to
pry from James.

Let's start with the facts:

The population in the US alone is in excess of 270,000,000. Worldwide,
38,000 children die of starvation each day. If we were to do away with
the meat industry, the US alone would free up enough grains and soy to
feed 1,300,000,000 people. That's more than the entire population of
the US - in fact for the same output of resources, we could feed the
population of this country alone nearly four times over.

But here is your pedestal of sorts:

>>>>>What SPECIFICALLY is wrong with that assessment given the
>>>>>fact that vegans do little or nothing -- MOSTLY NOTHING --
>>>>>about collateral deaths and casualties from agriculture?
>>>>
>>>>First of all, most vegans outside of this newsgroup probably have
never
>>>>considered the idea of collateral deaths resulting from
agriculture.
>>>
>>>Most vegans IN this ng haven't considered it, either.
>>
>> How could they possibly miss it with all the ranting that goes on
here?!

>It isn't whether they've missed it, it's what they've not done with
such
>information. They continue making categorical statements of moral
>superiority despite the evidence against them.

And granted I can't dispute that. No matter how we live we're going to
inadvetantly have an effect of some sort on our surroundings.
Agriculture is no exception even when meat production is not included.
What blows my mind is that you seem to think that the amount of damage
done by a human who consumes only plant matter equals even half that
which is done by the meat industry alone.

Consider this:

- Percentage of corn grown in United States eaten by human beings: 20
- Percentage of corn grown in United States eaten by livestock: 80
- Percentage of soy grown in United States eaten by livestock: 90
- Percentage of oats grown in United States eaten by livestock: 95
- Percentage of protein wasted by cycling grain through livestock: 90
- Percentage of carbohydrate wasted by cycling grain through
livestock: 99
- Percentage of dietary fiber wasted by cycling grain through
livestock: 100
- Pounds of potatoes that can be grown on 1 acre of land: 20,000
- Pounds of beef that can be produced on 1 acre of land: 165
- Percentage of U.S. agricultural land used to produce beef: 56
- Pounds of grain and soybeans needed to produce 1 pound of feedlot
beef: 16
- Pounds of protein fed to chickens to produce 1 pound of protein as
chicken flesh: 5 pounds
- Pounds of protein fed to hogs to produce 1 pound of protein as hog
flesh: 7.5 pounds
- Amount of total U.S. grain production consumed by livestock: 70%
- Amount of U.S. grain exports consumed by livestock: 66%
- Amount of world grain harvest consumed by livestock throughout the
1980s: half
- Number of pure vegetarians (vegans) who can be fed on the amount of
land
needed to feed 1 person consuming meat-based diet: 20
- Number of people who will starve to death this year: 20,000,000
- Number of people who could be adequately fed if Americans reduced
their intake of meat by 10%: 100,000,000
- Amount of increase in global cattle population during the last 40
years: 100%
- Amount of increase in global fowl population during the last 40
years: 200%
- Ratio of livestock to people on Earth: three to one
- Amount of Earth's land mass grazed by livestock: half
- Amount of U.S. cropland producing livestock feed: 64%
- Amount of U.S. cropland producing fruits and vegetables: 2%
- Percentage of original U.S. topsoil lost to date: 75
- Amount of U.S. cropland lost each year to soil erosion: 4,000,000
acres, the size of Connecticut
- Percentage of U.S. topsoil loss directly associated with livestock
raising: 85
- Amount of original U.S. cropland permanently removed from production
due to excessive soil erosion: one-third
- Pounds of topsoil lost in the production of one pound of feedlot
steak: 35
- Current annual topsoil loss on agricultural land in the U.S.: over 5
billion tons
- Current annual topsoil loss on agricultural worldwide: 26 billion
tons
- Time required for nature to form one inch of topsoil: 200 to 1000
years
- Number of acres of U.S. forest which have been cleared to create
cropland to produce a meat- centered diet: 260,000,000
- How often an acre of U.S. trees disappears: Every 8 seconds
- Amount of trees spared per year by each individual who switches to a
pure vegetarian diet: 1 acre
- Estimated area of rainforest destroyed annually: 125,000 square
miles
- The driving force behind the destruction of the tropical
rainforests: American meat habit
- Amount of meat imported annually by U.S. from Costa Rica, El
Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras and Panama: 200,000,000
pounds
- Amount of meat eaten by average person in Costa Rica, El Salvador,
- Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras and Panama:
- Less than the average American housecat
- Current rate of species extinction, largely due to the destruction
of tropical rainforests and related habitats: one every 60 minutes

And while that should certainly be enough, what about the waste that
comes from animals in these factory farms? Here's a few more stats for
educational purposes:

- Sewage systems in U.S. cities: Common
- Sewage systems in U.S. feedlots: Nil
- Amount of waste produced annually by U.S. livestock in confinement
operations which is not recycled: 1 billion tons
- Relative concentration of feedlot wastes compared to raw domestic
sewage: Ten to several hundred times more highly concentrated
- Where feedlot waste often ends up: In our water
- Amount of wells and surface streams in the U.S. contaminated by
agricultural pollutants: half

So laid out in these simplistic terms (and don't worry I won't leave
you hanging to draw these conclusions for yourself) if this entire
country were to switch to a plant-based diet it would not only
significantly cut down the damage to both the land, the waterways, and
the environment as a whole, but farming of plant matter could easily
be cut to nearly half what it is now if it were limited to plants
considered edible by humans.

I'll reiterate a point that Strutz made: There's a certain point where
it comes down to numbers. None of us can, at this point in time
certainly, live a cruelty-free existance. In fact, I'm highly
skeptical of the idea that such a thing would ever be possible. Still
skepticism is my nature and as much as possible I attempt to hope we
will come as close as is possible.

In the meantime, we can choose to take the path less travelled in an
effort to accomplish this goal in the long term. This is the only life
we have so far as we know (unless you think there are golden gates in
the sky - no matter, we're all entitled to our opinions, true?).
Better yet, let me rephrase that: Based on a combination of statistics
and common sense, I and others have made the choice to try to maintain
a sustainable world for the future of all creatures on this planet.
You're under no obligation to follow in my (our) footsteps. If you can
read the facts and still insist that they're not true, I'm not here to
convince you otherwise.

However, if you're interested, Carl Sagan's "Billions and Billions" is
an excellent read and touches on many of the above mentioned issues in
a clear concise manner. But if you dislike Sagan for his liberal
stance hunt down a copy of "World Scientists' Warning To Humanity"
signed in 1993 by over 1,670 scientists, including 104 Nobel laureates
(a majority of the living recipients of the prize in the sciences).
This piece almost made it to mainstream media upon its release in late
1992, but was overshadowed by the big story on one of the Spice Girls
quitting the band (gotta keep our priorities straight, right?). And
last but not least John Robbins' "Food Revolution" is filled with
annotated facts and quotes from both opponents and proponents of the
meat industry including the extensive lists above.

Good luck to you... Oh, and as for the homicidal tendencies? I'd see a
shrink on that one. A good dose of Seroquel should fix you right up.

-Goon

Goonius wrote:

> > There is a huge logical problem with being vegetarian
> > for the pseudo-ethical reason you have given, and I'm
> > asking questions to get you to acknowledge the problem,
> > and then to see and acknowledge seeing that your
> > dietary response does not address the problem.
> >
> > You've now compounded your ethical problems by lying,
> > being snippy, being evasive, and lying some more.
> >
> > Why are you even responding, SeeJames, if your
> > responses are only going to serve to illustrate that
> > you are lying and being evasive?
>
> I'll be glad to offer the information you are so desperately trying to
> pry from James.
>
> Let's start with the facts:
>
> The population in the US alone is in excess of 270,000,000. Worldwide,
> 38,000 children die of starvation each day. If we were to do away with
> the meat industry, the US alone would free up enough grains and soy to
> feed 1,300,000,000 people. That's more than the entire population of
> the US - in fact for the same output of resources, we could feed the
> population of this country alone nearly four times over.
>
> But here is your pedestal of sorts:
>
> >>>>>What SPECIFICALLY is wrong with that assessment given the
> >>>>>fact that vegans do little or nothing -- MOSTLY NOTHING --
> >>>>>about collateral deaths and casualties from agriculture?
> >>>>
> >>>>First of all, most vegans outside of this newsgroup probably have
> never
> >>>>considered the idea of collateral deaths resulting from
> agriculture.
> >>>
> >>>Most vegans IN this ng haven't considered it, either.
> >>
> >> How could they possibly miss it with all the ranting that goes on
> here?!
>
> >It isn't whether they've missed it, it's what they've not done with
> such
> >information. They continue making categorical statements of moral
> >superiority despite the evidence against them.
>
> And granted I can't dispute that. No matter how we live we're going to
> inadvetantly have an effect of some sort on our surroundings.
> Agriculture is no exception even when meat production is not included.
> What blows my mind is that you seem to think that the amount of damage
> done by a human who consumes only plant matter equals even half that
> which is done by the meat industry alone.
>
> Consider this:
>
> - Percentage of corn grown in United States eaten by human beings: 20
> - Percentage of corn grown in United States eaten by livestock: 80
> - Percentage of soy grown in United States eaten by livestock: 90
> - Percentage of oats grown in United States eaten by livestock: 95
> - Percentage of protein wasted by cycling grain through livestock: 90
> - Percentage of carbohydrate wasted by cycling grain through
> livestock: 99
> - Percentage of dietary fiber wasted by cycling grain through
> livestock: 100
> - Pounds of potatoes that can be grown on 1 acre of land: 20,000
> - Pounds of beef that can be produced on 1 acre of land: 165
> - Percentage of U.S. agricultural land used to produce beef: 56
> - Pounds of grain and soybeans needed to produce 1 pound of feedlot
> beef: 16
> - Pounds of protein fed to chickens to produce 1 pound of protein as
> chicken flesh: 5 pounds
> - Pounds of protein fed to hogs to produce 1 pound of protein as hog
> flesh: 7.5 pounds
> - Amount of total U.S. grain production consumed by livestock: 70%
> - Amount of U.S. grain exports consumed by livestock: 66%
> - Amount of world grain harvest consumed by livestock throughout the
> 1980s: half
> - Number of pure vegetarians (vegans) who can be fed on the amount of
> land
> needed to feed 1 person consuming meat-based diet: 20
> - Number of people who will starve to death this year: 20,000,000
> - Number of people who could be adequately fed if Americans reduced
> their intake of meat by 10%: 100,000,000
> - Amount of increase in global cattle population during the last 40
> years: 100%
> - Amount of increase in global fowl population during the last 40
> years: 200%
> - Ratio of livestock to people on Earth: three to one
> - Amount of Earth's land mass grazed by livestock: half
> - Amount of U.S. cropland producing livestock feed: 64%
> - Amount of U.S. cropland producing fruits and vegetables: 2%
> - Percentage of original U.S. topsoil lost to date: 75
> - Amount of U.S. cropland lost each year to soil erosion: 4,000,000
> acres, the size of Connecticut
> - Percentage of U.S. topsoil loss directly associated with livestock
> raising: 85
> - Amount of original U.S. cropland permanently removed from production
> due to excessive soil erosion: one-third
> - Pounds of topsoil lost in the production of one pound of feedlot
> steak: 35
> - Current annual topsoil loss on agricultural land in the U.S.: over 5
> billion tons
> - Current annual topsoil loss on agricultural worldwide: 26 billion
> tons
> - Time required for nature to form one inch of topsoil: 200 to 1000
> years
> - Number of acres of U.S. forest which have been cleared to create
> cropland to produce a meat- centered diet: 260,000,000
> - How often an acre of U.S. trees disappears: Every 8 seconds
> - Amount of trees spared per year by each individual who switches to a
> pure vegetarian diet: 1 acre
> - Estimated area of rainforest destroyed annually: 125,000 square
> miles
> - The driving force behind the destruction of the tropical
> rainforests: American meat habit
> - Amount of meat imported annually by U.S. from Costa Rica, El
> Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras and Panama: 200,000,000
> pounds
> - Amount of meat eaten by average person in Costa Rica, El Salvador,
> - Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras and Panama:
> - Less than the average American housecat
> - Current rate of species extinction, largely due to the destruction
> of tropical rainforests and related habitats: one every 60 minutes
>
> And while that should certainly be enough, what about the waste that
> comes from animals in these factory farms? Here's a few more stats for
> educational purposes:
>
> - Sewage systems in U.S. cities: Common
> - Sewage systems in U.S. feedlots: Nil
> - Amount of waste produced annually by U.S. livestock in confinement
> operations which is not recycled: 1 billion tons
> - Relative concentration of feedlot wastes compared to raw domestic
> sewage: Ten to several hundred times more highly concentrated
> - Where feedlot waste often ends up: In our water
> - Amount of wells and surface streams in the U.S. contaminated by
> agricultural pollutants: half
>
> So laid out in these simplistic terms (and don't worry I won't leave
> you hanging to draw these conclusions for yourself) if this entire
> country were to switch to a plant-based diet it would not only
> significantly cut down the damage to both the land, the waterways, and
> the environment as a whole, but farming of plant matter could easily
> be cut to nearly half what it is now if it were limited to plants
> considered edible by humans.
>
> I'll reiterate a point that Strutz made: There's a certain point where
> it comes down to numbers. None of us can, at this point in time
> certainly, live a cruelty-free existance. In fact, I'm highly
> skeptical of the idea that such a thing would ever be possible. Still
> skepticism is my nature and as much as possible I attempt to hope we
> will come as close as is possible.
>
> In the meantime, we can choose to take the path less travelled in an
> effort to accomplish this goal in the long term. This is the only life
> we have so far as we know (unless you think there are golden gates in
> the sky - no matter, we're all entitled to our opinions, true?).
> Better yet, let me rephrase that: Based on a combination of statistics
> and common sense, I and others have made the choice to try to maintain
> a sustainable world for the future of all creatures on this planet.
> You're under no obligation to follow in my (our) footsteps. If you can
> read the facts and still insist that they're not true, I'm not here to
> convince you otherwise.
>
> However, if you're interested, Carl Sagan's "Billions and Billions" is
> an excellent read and touches on many of the above mentioned issues in
> a clear concise manner. But if you dislike Sagan for his liberal
> stance hunt down a copy of "World Scientists' Warning To Humanity"
> signed in 1993 by over 1,670 scientists, including 104 Nobel laureates
> (a majority of the living recipients of the prize in the sciences).
> This piece almost made it to mainstream media upon its release in late
> 1992, but was overshadowed by the big story on one of the Spice Girls
> quitting the band (gotta keep our priorities straight, right?). And
> last but not least John Robbins' "Food Revolution" is filled with
> annotated facts and quotes from both opponents and proponents of the
> meat industry including the extensive lists above.
>
> Good luck to you... Oh, and as for the homicidal tendencies? I'd see a
> shrink on that one. A good dose of Seroquel should fix you right up.
>
> -Goon

Jonathan Ball(less) will not be able to read this and get a single bit of
information from it. This kind of stuff is what his cowardly person runs
and hides from. Instead he likes to pretend that he alone (christ complex)
is the ultimate authority on this subject simply because he needs an arena
to carry attacks. It is his warring nature that he inherited from the
ghosts of confederate dead that fought and lost a war over their rights to
continue in human trafficking. The dark evil past of America does not die
easily!

Goonius wrote:

>>There is a huge logical problem with being vegetarian
>>for the pseudo-ethical reason you have given, and I'm
>>asking questions to get you to acknowledge the problem,
>>and then to see and acknowledge seeing that your
>>dietary response does not address the problem.
>>
>>You've now compounded your ethical problems by lying,
>>being snippy, being evasive, and lying some more.
>>
>>Why are you even responding, SeeJames, if your
>>responses are only going to serve to illustrate that
>>you are lying and being evasive?
>
>
> I'll be glad to offer the information you are so desperately trying to
> pry from James.

The bullshit you squeeze out below has nothing to do
with what I was asking of James. You're an idiot.

>
> Let's start with the facts:
>
> The population in the US alone is in excess of 270,000,000. Worldwide,
> 38,000 children die of starvation each day. If we were to do away with
> the meat industry, the US alone would free up enough grains and soy to
> feed 1,300,000,000 people. That's more than the entire population of
> the US - in fact for the same output of resources, we could feed the
> population of this country alone nearly four times over.

Sorry; not facts. Not even close to facts. You
exhibit the typical appalling ignorance of world hunger
that most "vegans" do. I'm not surprised

First, the grain fed to livestock is generally not
considered edible by humans. Cattle, the biggest
consumers, are fed something called "dent" corn. You
wouldn't eat it, ever. It's true that the resources
used to produce the feed grain would be freed up, but
that's different from what you wrote. What you wrote
is false, period.

Second, there is more than enough "surplus" human
edible vegetable material availabe in the developed
world, mainly the European Union and North America, to
feed the "starving" of the world right now. The food
isn't going to them. Why not? The answer has nothing
whatever to do with grain being fed to livestock in the
U.S. Feeding grain to meat animals in the U.S. is not
"causing" starvataion in the world in any way whatever.

>
> But here is your pedestal of sorts:
>
>
>>>>>>What SPECIFICALLY is wrong with that assessment given the
>>>>>>fact that vegans do little or nothing -- MOSTLY NOTHING --
>>>>>>about collateral deaths and casualties from agriculture?
>>>>>
>>>>>First of all, most vegans outside of this newsgroup probably have
>>>>>never considered the idea of collateral deaths resulting from
>>>>>agriculture.
>
>>>>Most vegans IN this ng haven't considered it, either.
>>>
>>>How could they possibly miss it with all the ranting that goes on here?!
>>
>>It isn't whether they've missed it, it's what they've not done with
>>such information. They continue making categorical statements of moral
>>superiority despite the evidence against them.
>
>
> And granted I can't dispute that.

Then you're finished. Well, I see you're going to try
to explain it away; I suppose civility demands I read
it, but I know I'm not going to learn anything.

> No matter how we live we're going to
> inadvetantly have an effect of some sort on our surroundings.
> Agriculture is no exception even when meat production is not included.
> What blows my mind is that you seem to think that the amount of damage
> done by a human who consumes only plant matter equals even half that
> which is done by the meat industry alone.

A meat consumer need not eat any commercially produced
meat. Remember what it is we're addressing; you seem
to have forgotten. We're addressing the "vegan's"
****witted belief that excluding meat from his diet,
all by itself, is *necessarily* going to mean he's
doing more to reduce animal death and suffering than
ANYONE who consumes a meat-included diet.

Remember: we're not playing a counting game. The
"vegan" says he's (in order of the lies they tell):

a. not causing any animal death and suffering;
b. "minimizing" animal death and suffering;
c. "reducing" animal death and suffering.

Each claim is weaker than the one that precedes it, and
all are false.

>
> Consider this:
>
> - Percentage of corn grown in United States eaten by human beings: 20
> - Percentage of corn grown in United States eaten by livestock: 80

Not the same corn.

> - Percentage of soy grown in United States eaten by livestock: 90

So?

> - Percentage of oats grown in United States eaten by livestock: 95

So?

> - Percentage of protein wasted by cycling grain through livestock: 90

It isn't wasted. It's an input used to produce an
output that people want to buy and consume.

> - Percentage of carbohydrate wasted by cycling grain through
> livestock: 99

Same.

> - Percentage of dietary fiber wasted by cycling grain through
> livestock: 100

Same.

> - Pounds of potatoes that can be grown on 1 acre of land: 20,000

Irrelevant. There's plenty of land to grow potatoes in
addition to the grain fed to livestock. Why aren't
potatoes being grown and shipped to starving people
today, presumably for free?

[snip remaining meaningless and irrelevant
"statistics", many of which are bogus, but leave:]

> - The driving force behind the destruction of the tropical
> rainforests: American meat habit

Bullshit. Do some real research. All you've done is
read some bullshit off a webpage, which copied it from
another webpage, which copied it... It's all crap
spewed by ignorant activists, and it's all shit.

> - Amount of meat imported annually by U.S. from Costa Rica, El
> Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras and Panama: 200,000,000
> pounds

You're a ****ing liar. Look at the official charts, up
through 2002:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/cattle/Trade.htm.
Look at the chart "U.S. beef imports", about halfway
down the page. A precise number isn't given, but it is
perfectly obvious that the amount of beef imported from
Central America doesn't amount even to 100 million
pounds. Meanwhile, beef imports from Australia and
Canada *each* are over 1 BILLION pounds, and another
600 million from New Zealand.

Furthermore, NO fresh beef is imported from Central
America, as foot-and-mouth disease is rampant.

Now look at the similar chart for pork, at
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Hogs/trade.htm. In
2001, the latest year for which data are available,
"all others", which would include Central America,
didn't even amount to 50 million pounds of imports.

Now look at the page for poultry, at
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Poultry/trade.htm.
Again, the last year for which data are available is
2001. We see that the U.S. imported negligible amounts
of poultry meat: 14 million pounds of broiler chicken
products, and about 1 million pounds of turkey
products, almost all of the latter from Canada.

This is what's wrong with this forum. A lying
cocksucker like you can spew out completely bogus
"data", and it takes a responsible, honest person like
me 20-30 minutes to dig up the facts to refute your
bullshit. In a fair world, you'd have to pay me
something for correcting your bullshit. I don't
suppose an apology for lying will be forthcoming, either.

> - Amount of meat eaten by average person in Costa Rica, El Salvador,
> - Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras and Panama:
> - Less than the average American housecat

Bullshit. You're a liar.

[snip additional inflammatory bullshit]


> So laid out in these simplistic terms

Laid out in these simplistic, SIMPLE-MINDED terms, we
see that you are a polemical liar.

> (and don't worry I won't leave
> you hanging to draw these conclusions for yourself) if this entire
> country were to switch to a plant-based diet it would not only
> significantly cut down the damage to both the land, the waterways, and
> the environment as a whole, but farming of plant matter could easily
> be cut to nearly half what it is now if it were limited to plants
> considered edible by humans.
>
> I'll reiterate a point that Strutz made: There's a certain point where
> it comes down to numbers.

No, it emphatically does not. Not when we're
considering the bullshit ethical claims of "vegans",
which are predicated on a complete ABSENCE of any numbers.

> None of us can, at this point in time
> certainly, live a cruelty-free existance.

Any *given* person at this point in time can clearly
and even relatively easily do much, much better than he
is. Only "vegans" are under any burden to do so,
because they alone have made stupid, false claims about
"minimizing" and so on.

> In fact, I'm highly
> skeptical of the idea that such a thing would ever be possible. Still
> skepticism is my nature

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! After that credulous posting
of extremist bullshit above?!

> and as much as possible I attempt to hope we
> will come as close as is possible.

You aren't even trying.

[...]

Jonathan Ball wrote:
<"First, the grain fed to livestock is generally not considered edible by
humans. "

I personally have explained to Mr Ball 3 times now that resources invested in
grains that cattle consume is resources wasted that could have been used to
grow human consumable grain. For some odd reason (he can't stand to lose and
argument) this simple concept just won't sink in!

The guy is hopelessly unable to learn new things. If when you are wrong and
unable to see it then you are hopelessly stupid. This guy is a trip! I am
laughing outloud at this ass what a jerk!

"Goonius" > wrote in message
...
> > There is a huge logical problem with being vegetarian
> > for the pseudo-ethical reason you have given, and I'm
> > asking questions to get you to acknowledge the problem,
> > and then to see and acknowledge seeing that your
> > dietary response does not address the problem.
> >
> > You've now compounded your ethical problems by lying,
> > being snippy, being evasive, and lying some more.
> >
> > Why are you even responding, SeeJames, if your
> > responses are only going to serve to illustrate that
> > you are lying and being evasive?
>
> I'll be glad to offer the information you are so desperately trying to
> pry from James.
>
> Let's start with the facts:
>
> The population in the US alone is in excess of 270,000,000. Worldwide,
> 38,000 children die of starvation each day.
===========
There is already an excess of food in the world. starvattionis not a
production issue.

If we were to do away with
> the meat industry, the US alone would free up enough grains and soy to
> feed 1,300,000,000 people.
===============
And the same numbers would still starve...


That's more than the entire population of
> the US - in fact for the same output of resources, we could feed the
> population of this country alone nearly four times over.
======================
Production isn't the problem. Despots, like vegans, who wish to rule the
world are the problem.

>
> But here is your pedestal of sorts:
>
> >>>>>What SPECIFICALLY is wrong with that assessment given the
> >>>>>fact that vegans do little or nothing -- MOSTLY NOTHING --
> >>>>>about collateral deaths and casualties from agriculture?
> >>>>
> >>>>First of all, most vegans outside of this newsgroup probably have
> never
> >>>>considered the idea of collateral deaths resulting from
> agriculture.
> >>>
> >>>Most vegans IN this ng haven't considered it, either.
> >>
> >> How could they possibly miss it with all the ranting that goes on
> here?!
>
> >It isn't whether they've missed it, it's what they've not done with
> such
> >information. They continue making categorical statements of moral
> >superiority despite the evidence against them.
>
> And granted I can't dispute that. No matter how we live we're going to
> inadvetantly have an effect of some sort on our surroundings.
> Agriculture is no exception even when meat production is not included.
> What blows my mind is that you seem to think that the amount of damage
> done by a human who consumes only plant matter equals even half that
> which is done by the meat industry alone.
=======================
We're not talking about what an "industry" can do, we're talking about what
an individual vegan can do. ou remember them don't you? their the ones
that claims to be living in a way that supoosedly saves animals.


>
> Consider this:

snippage of facts that have no bearing on what a vegan can do to improve
their bloody footprints.
Of course, they don't really want to do anything, as long as they can focus
on what they think others are doing...

>
> So laid out in these simplistic terms (and don't worry I won't leave
> you hanging to draw these conclusions for yourself) if this entire
> country were to switch to a plant-based diet it would not only
> significantly cut down the damage to both the land, the waterways, and
> the environment as a whole, but farming of plant matter could easily
> be cut to nearly half what it is now if it were limited to plants
> considered edible by humans.
=======================
No, your conclusions are false. All you need to do is switch production
methods, for meat and veggies...

>
> I'll reiterate a point that Strutz made: There's a certain point where
> it comes down to numbers. None of us can, at this point in time
> certainly, live a cruelty-free existance.
=====================
Yet you could do better. The problem is, you prove with each post that you
don't really want to.


In fact, I'm highly
> skeptical of the idea that such a thing would ever be possible. Still
> skepticism is my nature and as much as possible I attempt to hope we
> will come as close as is possible.
>
> In the meantime, we can choose to take the path less travelled in an
> effort to accomplish this goal in the long term.
=====================
But you aren't accomplishing anything. That's the point. You have no idea
of your impact before, or after. therefore you cannot claim an improvment.


This is the only life
> we have so far as we know (unless you think there are golden gates in
> the sky - no matter, we're all entitled to our opinions, true?).
> Better yet, let me rephrase that: Based on a combination of statistics
> and common sense, I and others have made the choice to try to maintain
> a sustainable world for the future of all creatures on this planet.
> You're under no obligation to follow in my (our) footsteps. If you can
> read the facts and still insist that they're not true, I'm not here to
> convince you otherwise.
===========================
Of course you are. You need to convenice others so that you delusions work
for you and make you 'feel' good. Otherwise they're just a spew that means
nothing, which of course is what it is.


>
> However, if you're interested, Carl Sagan's "Billions and Billions" is
> an excellent read and touches on many of the above mentioned issues in
> a clear concise manner. But if you dislike Sagan for his liberal
> stance hunt down a copy of "World Scientists' Warning To Humanity"
> signed in 1993 by over 1,670 scientists, including 104 Nobel laureates
> (a majority of the living recipients of the prize in the sciences).
> This piece almost made it to mainstream media upon its release in late
> 1992, but was overshadowed by the big story on one of the Spice Girls
> quitting the band (gotta keep our priorities straight, right?). And
> last but not least John Robbins' "Food Revolution" is filled with
> annotated facts and quotes from both opponents and proponents of the
> meat industry including the extensive lists above.
>
> Good luck to you... Oh, and as for the homicidal tendencies? I'd see a
> shrink on that one. A good dose of Seroquel should fix you right up.
================
More vegan relience on a chemical industry to suppliment their failed diiet?
Typical...


>
> -Goon

"Buba Ball" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
> <"First, the grain fed to livestock is generally not considered edible by
> humans. "
>
> I personally have explained to Mr Ball 3 times now that resources invested
in
> grains that cattle consume is resources wasted that could have been used
to
> grow human consumable grain. For some odd reason (he can't stand to lose
and
> argument) this simple concept just won't sink in!
==================
No, in the argument about veganism, tyou lose. There is no requirment to
feed grain to cattle.


>
> The guy is hopelessly unable to learn new things. If when you are wrong
and
> unable to see it then you are hopelessly stupid. This guy is a trip! I am
> laughing outloud at this ass what a jerk!
====================
Yes, vegans are a hopeless lot. Full of hate, lys, and delusions.
>

"Jahnu" wrote:

>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
> <"First, the grain fed to livestock is generally not considered edible by
> humans. "
>
> I personally have explained to Mr Ball 3 times now that resources invested in
> grains that cattle consume is resources wasted that could have been used to
> grow human consumable grain. For some odd reason (he can't stand to lose and
> argument) this simple concept just won't sink in!

Finally, you drift slightly away from the pure personal
invective, and at least attempt to address some
substance. Unfortunately, you get it utterly wrong.

First of all, *I* am the one who explained that it is
the resources used to grow the grain for cattle that
are important, not the grain itself. Not you, blowjob;
I explained it.

Secondly, you haven't explained WHY those resources
were used to grow cattle feed, rather than human food.
Why do you suppose that is, blowjob?

Third, you haven't explained how it is that there
ALREADY are massive surpluses of human edible grains
and other food, in Europe and North America, and yet
still there are "starving" people in the world. How is
that, blowjob?

You don't know economics and politics, blowjob; I do.
The issue of "starving" people in the world has NOTHING
to do with the production of livestock feed, blowjob;
nothing whatever to do with it.

Get your ignorant pimply ass into a good community
college somewhere, blowjob.

You still haven't explained why you've switched from
"Jahnu" through at least half a dozen other ****witted
pseudonyms in the last two weeks, blowjob.

Jonathan Ball wrote:

> "Jahnu" wrote:
>
> >
> > Jonathan Ball wrote:
> > <"First, the grain fed to livestock is generally not considered edible by
> > humans. "
> >
> > I personally have explained to Mr Ball 3 times now that resources invested in
> > grains that cattle consume is resources wasted that could have been used to
> > grow human consumable grain. For some odd reason (he can't stand to lose and
> > argument) this simple concept just won't sink in!
>
> Finally, you drift slightly away from the pure personal
> invective, and at least attempt to address some
> substance. Unfortunately, you get it utterly wrong.
>
> First of all, *I* am the one who explained that it is
> the resources used to grow the grain for cattle that
> are important, not the grain itself. Not you, blowjob;
> I explained it.
>
> Secondly, you haven't explained WHY those resources
> were used to grow cattle feed, rather than human food.
> Why do you suppose that is, blowjob?
>
> Third, you haven't explained how it is that there
> ALREADY are massive surpluses of human edible grains
> and other food, in Europe and North America, and yet
> still there are "starving" people in the world. How is
> that, blowjob?
>
> You don't know economics and politics, blowjob; I do.
> The issue of "starving" people in the world has NOTHING
> to do with the production of livestock feed, blowjob;
> nothing whatever to do with it.
>
> Get your ignorant pimply ass into a good community
> college somewhere, blowjob.
>
> You still haven't explained why you've switched from
> "Jahnu" through at least half a dozen other ****witted
> pseudonyms in the last two weeks, blowjob.

What you've done here is identical to the arguments found in the bible newsgroups.
You simply make claims and outright lies and submit it as a response when you are
hopelessly making an ass out of yourself. You consistently argue that grain fed to
live stock is not fit for human consumption and I keep telling you that the point
of argument is that resources used to grow grain for cattle can at any time be
stopped and switched to human use grain. You never pointed this out and I challenge
you to show where (it will not happen).

Starving people is not the point, the point is what is the most efficient way to
feed 6 billion plus human beings? Meat or plant? You are not sufficiently educated
to be in this argument and are here only (as you have confessed) to deal with
sanctimonious educated liberals that want to force you to wear motorcycle a helmet
and make you pay your own medical bills when you get lung cancer from smoking. I
imagine you feel like you are the voice of every backwater Bubba that didn't trash
pick a computer and get online for himself! You are joke!

Doctor Balz wrote:

>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
>
>>"Jahnu" wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Jonathan Ball wrote:
>>><"First, the grain fed to livestock is generally not considered edible by
>>>humans. "
>>>
>>>I personally have explained to Mr Ball 3 times now that resources invested in
>>>grains that cattle consume is resources wasted that could have been used to
>>>grow human consumable grain. For some odd reason (he can't stand to lose and
>>>argument) this simple concept just won't sink in!
>>
>>Finally, you drift slightly away from the pure personal
>>invective, and at least attempt to address some
>>substance. Unfortunately, you get it utterly wrong.
>>
>>First of all, *I* am the one who explained that it is
>>the resources used to grow the grain for cattle that
>>are important, not the grain itself. Not you, blowjob;
>>I explained it.
>>
>>Secondly, you haven't explained WHY those resources
>>were used to grow cattle feed, rather than human food.
>> Why do you suppose that is, blowjob?
>>
>>Third, you haven't explained how it is that there
>>ALREADY are massive surpluses of human edible grains
>>and other food, in Europe and North America, and yet
>>still there are "starving" people in the world. How is
>>that, blowjob?
>>
>>You don't know economics and politics, blowjob; I do.
>>The issue of "starving" people in the world has NOTHING
>>to do with the production of livestock feed, blowjob;
>>nothing whatever to do with it.
>>
>>Get your ignorant pimply ass into a good community
>>college somewhere, blowjob.
>>
>>You still haven't explained why you've switched from
>>"Jahnu" through at least half a dozen other ****witted
>>pseudonyms in the last two weeks, blowjob.
>
>
> What you've done here is identical to the arguments found in the bible newsgroups.

I doubt it. What you've done is avoid explaining why
you've been nymshifting like 29-personality
schizophrenic. What you've also done is avoid
answering the logical critique of your ignorance-driven
hysterical misanalysis of world hunger.

> You simply make claims and outright lies and submit it as a response when you are
> hopelessly making an ass out of yourself.

Neither: what I'm writing is correct, and I'm not
making an ass out of myself at all. You've cornered
the market on that.

> You consistently argue that grain fed to
> live stock is not fit for human consumption

It isn't.

> and I keep telling you that the point
> of argument is that resources used to grow grain for cattle can at any time be
> stopped and switched to human use grain. You never pointed this out and I challenge
> you to show where (it will not happen).

No, punk. *I* am the one who told YOU about that.
Never forget that. I am the one with economics
training here; you are the fatuous sophomore.

>
> Starving people is not the point, the point is what is the most efficient way to
> feed 6 billion plus human beings?

No, that isn't the point at all. Thanks for
illustrating that you have never opened an economics
textbook or sat in an economics class in your life.
Economics is the relevant discipline here, and I know
it; you do not.

You have misdefined efficiency.

> Meat or plant? You are not sufficiently educated

I am vastly more educated than you, and far more than
sufficiently educated to perform the correct analysis
here. I'm terribly sorry; you're simply wrong, and far
out of your depth.

> to be in this argument and are here only (as you have confessed)

False. I never "confessed" anything.

> to deal with
> sanctimonious educated liberals that want to force you to wear motorcycle a helmet
> and make you pay your own medical bills when you get lung cancer from smoking. I
> imagine you feel like you are the voice of every backwater Bubba that didn't trash
> pick a computer and get online for himself! You are joke!

"You are joke!" Nice. May I refer you to some links
on the use of the indefinite article, "a"?

---------------------------------------------

You are henceforth going to be talking to yourself, and
not for very long, unless you identify yourself. You
may or may not be the saffron-robed cocksucker "Jahnu",
who disappeared almost exactly on the same day you
first appeared, but it's still the likeliest call. I'm
very familiar with your type. You'll quickly get bored
and run away if you don't get replies. You want
replies - that is, if there's any meaningful point to
your participation - then you identify yourself, even
if it's only what other ****witted pseudonym you used
to use. I'm not playing your game.

Goon wrote:

>>There is a huge logical problem with being vegetarian
>>for the pseudo-ethical reason you have given, and I'm
>>asking questions to get you to acknowledge the problem,
>>and then to see and acknowledge seeing that your
>>dietary response does not address the problem.
>>
>>You've now compounded your ethical problems by lying,
>>being snippy, being evasive, and lying some more.
>>
>>Why are you even responding, SeeJames, if your
>>responses are only going to serve to illustrate that
>>you are lying and being evasive?
>
>
> I'll be glad to offer the information you are so desperately trying to
> pry from James.
>
> Let's start with the facts:

Are these facts? What's your source?

> The population in the US alone is in excess of 270,000,000. Worldwide,
> 38,000 children die of starvation each day.

According to whom?

> If we were to do away with
> the meat industry, the US alone would free up enough grains and soy to
> feed 1,300,000,000 people.

Ipse dixit. Two things wrong with your suggestion. First, most of the
grain and soy fed to livestock are unfit for human consumption. Second,
we alreay have enough grain and soy to feed the world. The problem isn't
on the agriculture side, it's the political side. You need to figure out
how to break down the political barriers so food can be distributed, not
how to kill humans *and* animals.

> That's more than the entire population of
> the US - in fact for the same output of resources, we could feed the
> population of this country alone nearly four times over.

Ipse dixit.

> But here is your pedestal of sorts:

Huh?!

>>>>>>What SPECIFICALLY is wrong with that assessment given the
>>>>>>fact that vegans do little or nothing -- MOSTLY NOTHING --
>>>>>>about collateral deaths and casualties from agriculture?
>>>>>
>>>>>First of all, most vegans outside of this newsgroup probably have
>
> never
>
>>>>>considered the idea of collateral deaths resulting from
>
> agriculture.
>
>>>>Most vegans IN this ng haven't considered it, either.
>>>
>>>How could they possibly miss it with all the ranting that goes on
>
> here?!
>
>
>>It isn't whether they've missed it, it's what they've not done with
>
> such
>
>>information. They continue making categorical statements of moral
>>superiority despite the evidence against them.
>
>
> And granted I can't dispute that.

No shit, Sherlock.

> No matter how we live we're going to
> inadvetantly have an effect of some sort on our surroundings.

Thanks for your honesty.

> Agriculture is no exception even when meat production is not included.
> What blows my mind is that you seem to think that the amount of damage
> done by a human who consumes only plant matter equals even half that
> which is done by the meat industry alone.

You're comparing apples and oranges. A diet of grazed ruminants doesn't
require grain production, so collateral deaths are minimized. Add
locally-grown or home-grown vegetables and you minimize animal
casualties even further.

<snip BS list from Robbins>

> So laid out in these simplistic terms (and don't worry I won't leave
> you hanging to draw these conclusions for yourself) if this entire
> country were to switch to a plant-based diet it would not only
> significantly cut down the damage to both the land, the waterways, and
> the environment as a whole, but farming of plant matter could easily
> be cut to nearly half what it is now if it were limited to plants
> considered edible by humans.

That's only if we assume that all land is equal. One reason most of the
grains and soy we grow are categorized as "unfit for human consumption"
is because of the land quality. How much do you really understand about
agriculture anyway?

> I'll reiterate a point that Strutz made: There's a certain point where
> it comes down to numbers. None of us can, at this point in time
> certainly, live a cruelty-free existance.

I appreciate your honesty. Have you tried to get PETA to stop making
such claims on their websites?

<snip rest of boring prattle>

"Goonius" > wrote in message
...>


snippage...


> - Estimated area of rainforest destroyed annually: 125,000 square
> miles
> - The driving force behind the destruction of the tropical
> rainforests: American meat habit
> - Amount of meat imported annually by U.S. from Costa Rica, El
> Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras and Panama: 200,000,000
> pounds
==================
Here. I'll help you with a little real comparisons, the total amount is far
more than that...

the US imports 2.5 billion pounds of beef That's alot, right?

we also import 2.9 billion pounds of coffee. ummmm

so, beef imports accounts for only a small percentage of beef in the US, but
coffeee imports are almost 100%.

Guess you'd better revist your ignorant spew, and start looking at the total
picture, eh killer?

Here's another little rainforest country tidbit from Argentina.
beef exports, 800,000 tons.
soy oil exports 3.5 million tons

better get back to the books and read instead of spew the typical lys and
delusions...



snippage....

Jonathan Ball > wrote in message ink.net>...
>
> The bullshit you squeeze out below has nothing to do
> with what I was asking of James. You're an idiot.

Amount of bullshit you squeeze out that pollutes the usenet per year:
3.4 metric tons.

Sorry, I can't compare to those stats Jonny.

But really, idiot? Couldn't you have come up with something more
colorful? After all, you seem to have blown quite a few brain cells on
this post....

> Sorry; not facts. Not even close to facts. You
> exhibit the typical appalling ignorance of world hunger
> that most "vegans" do. I'm not surprised

I'm perfectly aware that veganism won't solve world hunger. I regret
leaving you to draw your own moronic conclusions here. The point was
inefficiency. Next time I'll try to spell it out more clearly for
those lacking in the logical skills that might fall into the category
of common sense, as I tend to forget it's far less common than the
term might suggest.

> First, the grain fed to livestock is generally not
> considered edible by humans. Cattle, the biggest
> consumers, are fed something called "dent" corn.

Who says? I'm eating a big bowl of "dent" corn and soymilk right now!
(Mmmm, yummy!)

> You
> wouldn't eat it, ever. It's true that the resources
> used to produce the feed grain would be freed up, but
> that's different from what you wrote.

Apparently you must have expended your daily allotment of brain cells
by the time you reached the end of my post. Why am I not surprised?

> What you wrote
> is false, period.

Hmmm... uhm, no. But opinions are indeed like assholes. Continue to
dwell in your fantasy world if it suits you.


> Second, there is more than enough "surplus" human
> edible vegetable material availabe in the developed
> world, mainly the European Union and North America, to
> feed the "starving" of the world right now. The food
> isn't going to them. Why not? The answer has nothing
> whatever to do with grain being fed to livestock in the
> U.S. Feeding grain to meat animals in the U.S. is not
> "causing" starvataion in the world in any way whatever.

See above answer about inefficiency. Look up the definition of
inefficiency if you must, but try not to let that small mind of yours
interfere with interpretation of words again. K? It's truly annoying
to have to repeat myself countless times, ya know?

> > And granted I can't dispute that.
>
> Then you're finished. Well, I see you're going to try
> to explain it away; I suppose civility demands I read
> it, but I know I'm not going to learn anything.

Well, there's your confessional at least... Not only were you unable
to learn, you also seemed unable to use reasoning in an intelligent
capacity, and hell - you didn't even read it all, or I'd not be here
repeating myself.

> > No matter how we live we're going to
> > inadvetantly have an effect of some sort on our surroundings.
> > Agriculture is no exception even when meat production is not included.
> > What blows my mind is that you seem to think that the amount of damage
> > done by a human who consumes only plant matter equals even half that
> > which is done by the meat industry alone.
>
> A meat consumer need not eat any commercially produced
> meat. Remember what it is we're addressing; you seem
> to have forgotten. We're addressing the "vegan's"
> ****witted belief that excluding meat from his diet,
> all by itself, is *necessarily* going to mean he's
> doing more to reduce animal death and suffering than
> ANYONE who consumes a meat-included diet.

Sorry, I know plenty of deer/duck hunters - things of that sort. I
live in the South, after all - I'm surrounded by them. None of them
have a diet that primarily consists of wild "game". If indeed there
are still people who do this, I've not met them, and it is,
nonetheless entirely irrelevant to my point, not that I'm surprised
you'd choose to stray from the subject at hand.

> Remember: we're not playing a counting game. The
> "vegan" says he's (in order of the lies they tell):
>
> a. not causing any animal death and suffering;
> b. "minimizing" animal death and suffering;
> c. "reducing" animal death and suffering.

Didn't realize all vegans were males, but whatever - your ignorance is
boundless. Again, not surprised.
I never claimed to "not cause any animal death and suffering." In
fact, I try to avoid it. But call me a liar if it boosts your moral
standing. *shrug*

> Each claim is weaker than the one that precedes it, and
> all are false.

Yea, you keep saying that. A little like a broken record aren't you?

> >
> > Consider this:
> >
> > - Percentage of corn grown in United States eaten by human beings: 20
> > - Percentage of corn grown in United States eaten by livestock: 80
>
> Not the same corn.

Oh really? I'd never have guessed!


> > - Percentage of soy grown in United States eaten by livestock: 90
>
> So?

Wait, weren't you going to say that's *different* soy than what humans
eat? Maybe the livestock only eat "dent" soy. Or "bump" soy or
something like that right?

> > - Percentage of oats grown in United States eaten by livestock: 95
>
> So?

Here you go again, on and on like a broken record...

> > - Percentage of protein wasted by cycling grain through livestock: 90
>
> It isn't wasted. It's an input used to produce an
> output that people want to buy and consume.

Yea, more meat to create more big fat-ass Americans so they can go on
Dr. Phil and say "Oh shit, how'd I end up weighing 700lbs?"

> > - Percentage of carbohydrate wasted by cycling grain through
> > livestock: 99
>
> Same.

Round and round we go...

> > - Percentage of dietary fiber wasted by cycling grain through
> > livestock: 100
>
> Same.

Where the broken record stops, nobody knows....

> > - Pounds of potatoes that can be grown on 1 acre of land: 20,000
>
> Irrelevant. There's plenty of land to grow potatoes in
> addition to the grain fed to livestock. Why aren't
> potatoes being grown and shipped to starving people
> today, presumably for free?

Poor people don't like potatoes.

> [snip remaining meaningless and irrelevant
> "statistics", many of which are bogus, but leave:]

Yea, you do that... wouldn't want to have to say "So?" about 500,000
times over... then that would be rather repetitive.

> > - The driving force behind the destruction of the tropical
> > rainforests: American meat habit
>
> Bullshit. Do some real research. All you've done is
> read some bullshit off a webpage, which copied it from
> another webpage, which copied it... It's all crap
> spewed by ignorant activists, and it's all shit.

Actually I cited my source at the bottom of my post - that was about
the time you were struck with that huge brain fart, remember?

> > - Amount of meat imported annually by U.S. from Costa Rica, El
> > Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras and Panama: 200,000,000
> > pounds
>
> You're a ****ing liar.

Well when you put ****ing in front of liar, it does seem awfully
convincing...

> Look at the official charts, up
> through 2002:
> http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/cattle/Trade.htm.
> Look at the chart "U.S. beef imports", about halfway
> down the page. A precise number isn't given, but it is
> perfectly obvious that the amount of beef imported from
> Central America doesn't amount even to 100 million
> pounds. Meanwhile, beef imports from Australia and
> Canada *each* are over 1 BILLION pounds, and another
> 600 million from New Zealand.

Wait, I thought we were ****ed at Canada because you know - they have
that scary Mad Cow disease, and well - things like that don't happen
to us fat-ass Americans, right?


> Furthermore, NO fresh beef is imported from Central
> America, as foot-and-mouth disease is rampant.

Possible, perhaps because of rampant disease jumping from country to
country my facts are a bit outdated.

> Now look at the similar chart for pork, at
> http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Hogs/trade.htm. In
> 2001, the latest year for which data are available,
> "all others", which would include Central America,
> didn't even amount to 50 million pounds of imports.

So?

> Now look at the page for poultry, at
> http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Poultry/trade.htm.
> Again, the last year for which data are available is
> 2001. We see that the U.S. imported negligible amounts
> of poultry meat: 14 million pounds of broiler chicken
> products, and about 1 million pounds of turkey
> products, almost all of the latter from Canada.

So?

> This is what's wrong with this forum. A lying
> cocksucker like you can spew out completely bogus
> "data", and it takes a responsible, honest person like
> me 20-30 minutes to dig up the facts to refute your
> bullshit.

When did you do this? My cats dig up more turds in their litter box
than you have facts on this newsgroup. Dig on, brother.

> In a fair world, you'd have to pay me
> something for correcting your bullshit.

Yeah, life's pretty unfair eh? Well, at least in this unfair world we
can preceed every other word with "****ing" and that counts for
something.

> I don't
> suppose an apology for lying will be forthcoming, either.

Nah, but I'll FedEx you some cat turds if you like.


> > - Amount of meat eaten by average person in Costa Rica, El Salvador,
> > - Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras and Panama:
> > - Less than the average American housecat
>
> Bullshit. You're a liar.
>
> [snip additional inflammatory bullshit]

Is this the part where you were sitting on the john... cause uh, I
really don't need to know about you snipping your inflamed excrement.


> > So laid out in these simplistic terms
>
> Laid out in these simplistic, SIMPLE-MINDED terms, we
> see that you are a polemical liar.

And that you have inflamed bowels. No wonder you're so testy. Did I
say Seroquel? I meant Gas-X.

> > (and don't worry I won't leave
> > you hanging to draw these conclusions for yourself) if this entire
> > country were to switch to a plant-based diet it would not only
> > significantly cut down the damage to both the land, the waterways, and
> > the environment as a whole, but farming of plant matter could easily
> > be cut to nearly half what it is now if it were limited to plants
> > considered edible by humans.
> >
> > I'll reiterate a point that Strutz made: There's a certain point where
> > it comes down to numbers.
>
> No, it emphatically does not. Not when we're
> considering the bullshit ethical claims of "vegans",
> which are predicated on a complete ABSENCE of any numbers.
>
> > None of us can, at this point in time
> > certainly, live a cruelty-free existance.
>
> Any *given* person at this point in time can clearly
> and even relatively easily do much, much better than he
> is. Only "vegans" are under any burden to do so,
> because they alone have made stupid, false claims about
> "minimizing" and so on.
>
> > In fact, I'm highly
> > skeptical of the idea that such a thing would ever be possible. Still
> > skepticism is my nature
>
> HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Didn't you mean blah blah blah? You're beginning to bore me....

> After that credulous posting
> of extremist bullshit above?!
>
> > and as much as possible I attempt to hope we
> > will come as close as is possible.
>
> You aren't even trying.

ZZZZzzzzZZZZzzzzZZZZzzzZZZZ

> [...]

Go snip another turd. I'm sure you'll feel much better. And no, a
reply post doesn't count.

"rick etter" > wrote in message >...
> "Buba Ball" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Jonathan Ball wrote:
> > <"First, the grain fed to livestock is generally not considered edible by
> > humans. "
> >
> > I personally have explained to Mr Ball 3 times now that resources invested
> in
> > grains that cattle consume is resources wasted that could have been used
> to
> > grow human consumable grain. For some odd reason (he can't stand to lose
> and
> > argument) this simple concept just won't sink in!
> ==================
> No, in the argument about veganism, tyou lose. There is no requirment to
> feed grain to cattle.
>
>
> >
> > The guy is hopelessly unable to learn new things. If when you are wrong
> and
> > unable to see it then you are hopelessly stupid. This guy is a trip! I am
> > laughing outloud at this ass what a jerk!
> ====================
> Yes, vegans are a hopeless lot. Full of hate, lys, and delusions.
> >

What's a lys?

Doctor Balz > wrote in message >...
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
> > "Jahnu" wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Jonathan Ball wrote:
> > > <"First, the grain fed to livestock is generally not considered edible by
> > > humans. "
> > >
> > > I personally have explained to Mr Ball 3 times now that resources invested in
> > > grains that cattle consume is resources wasted that could have been used to
> > > grow human consumable grain. For some odd reason (he can't stand to lose and
> > > argument) this simple concept just won't sink in!
> >
> > Finally, you drift slightly away from the pure personal
> > invective, and at least attempt to address some
> > substance. Unfortunately, you get it utterly wrong.
> >
> > First of all, *I* am the one who explained that it is
> > the resources used to grow the grain for cattle that
> > are important, not the grain itself. Not you, blowjob;
> > I explained it.
> >
> > Secondly, you haven't explained WHY those resources
> > were used to grow cattle feed, rather than human food.
> > Why do you suppose that is, blowjob?
> >
> > Third, you haven't explained how it is that there
> > ALREADY are massive surpluses of human edible grains
> > and other food, in Europe and North America, and yet
> > still there are "starving" people in the world. How is
> > that, blowjob?
> >
> > You don't know economics and politics, blowjob; I do.
> > The issue of "starving" people in the world has NOTHING
> > to do with the production of livestock feed, blowjob;
> > nothing whatever to do with it.
> >
> > Get your ignorant pimply ass into a good community
> > college somewhere, blowjob.
> >
> > You still haven't explained why you've switched from
> > "Jahnu" through at least half a dozen other ****witted
> > pseudonyms in the last two weeks, blowjob.
>
> What you've done here is identical to the arguments found in the bible newsgroups.
> You simply make claims and outright lies and submit it as a response when you are
> hopelessly making an ass out of yourself. You consistently argue that grain fed to
> live stock is not fit for human consumption and I keep telling you that the point
> of argument is that resources used to grow grain for cattle can at any time be
> stopped and switched to human use grain. You never pointed this out and I challenge
> you to show where (it will not happen).
>
> Starving people is not the point, the point is what is the most efficient way to
> feed 6 billion plus human beings? Meat or plant? You are not sufficiently educated
> to be in this argument and are here only (as you have confessed) to deal with
> sanctimonious educated liberals that want to force you to wear motorcycle a helmet
> and make you pay your own medical bills when you get lung cancer from smoking. I
> imagine you feel like you are the voice of every backwater Bubba that didn't trash
> pick a computer and get online for himself! You are joke!


Thank you - maybe after explaining this simple point to him a couple
hundred times he'll get it... Nah, I won't hold my breath.

The ordinary idiot bumbles about and manages to spew forth:

> Are these facts? What's your source?

Perhaps you should read the entire post before replying, no?

> > The population in the US alone is in excess of 270,000,000. Worldwide,
> > 38,000 children die of starvation each day.
>
> According to whom?

Hello? Anybody in there? Refer to to bludering question #1.

> > If we were to do away with
> > the meat industry, the US alone would free up enough grains and soy to
> > feed 1,300,000,000 people.
>
> Ipse dixit. Two things wrong with your suggestion. First, most of the
> grain and soy fed to livestock are unfit for human consumption. Second,
> we alreay have enough grain and soy to feed the world. The problem isn't
> on the agriculture side, it's the political side. You need to figure out
> how to break down the political barriers so food can be distributed, not
> how to kill humans *and* animals.

Uhm, no shit. Did you have a point, cause uhm, much like your
brainless buddy, you seemed to have missed mine entirely.

ordinary idiot----> : > ) * whoosh* <----- point being made by
the goon

> > That's more than the entire population of
> > the US - in fact for the same output of resources, we could feed the
> > population of this country alone nearly four times over.
>
> Ipse dixit.
>
> > But here is your pedestal of sorts:
>
> Huh?!

What's confusing you? Pedestal? I believe you could find the
definition in Merriam Webster, you know....

< snipped prior goon talk, and worn-out cliched response from ordinary
idiot>

> > No matter how we live we're going to
> > inadvetantly have an effect of some sort on our surroundings.
>
> Thanks for your honesty.

You're welcome. I love to be thanked for stating the obvious.

> > Agriculture is no exception even when meat production is not included.
> > What blows my mind is that you seem to think that the amount of damage
> > done by a human who consumes only plant matter equals even half that
> > which is done by the meat industry alone.
>
> You're comparing apples and oranges. A diet of grazed ruminants doesn't
> require grain production, so collateral deaths are minimized. Add
> locally-grown or home-grown vegetables and you minimize animal
> casualties even further.
> <snip BS list from Robbins>

Perhaps reading "BS list from Robbins" would have given you insight
into why grazed ruminants can be as damaging to the environment as
grain-fed. Oh, wait, but that would have made your point empty right.
Better to just call it BS and be done with it.


> > So laid out in these simplistic terms (and don't worry I won't leave
> > you hanging to draw these conclusions for yourself) if this entire
> > country were to switch to a plant-based diet it would not only
> > significantly cut down the damage to both the land, the waterways, and
> > the environment as a whole, but farming of plant matter could easily
> > be cut to nearly half what it is now if it were limited to plants
> > considered edible by humans.
>
> That's only if we assume that all land is equal. One reason most of the
> grains and soy we grow are categorized as "unfit for human consumption"
> is because of the land quality. How much do you really understand about
> agriculture anyway?

Considering that the majority of the food I ate growing up came from
the family farm - plenty. Down the street they grow feed corn - the
land hardly varies from that which we grow the family vegetables on.

> > I'll reiterate a point that Strutz made: There's a certain point where
> > it comes down to numbers. None of us can, at this point in time
> > certainly, live a cruelty-free existance.
>
> I appreciate your honesty. Have you tried to get PETA to stop making
> such claims on their websites?

Honesty when it suits you. The rest is just:

> <snip rest of boring prattle>

to an ordinary idiot. Or so I'm told.

Jonathan Ball > wrote:

> First, the grain fed to livestock is generally not
> considered edible by humans.

Babe, they're selling cow brains in *cans* at your local grocery
store. How are you going to tell somebody that low-quality corn isn't
considered edible?


> Second, there is more than enough "surplus" human
> edible vegetable material availabe in the developed
> world, mainly the European Union and North America, to
> feed the "starving" of the world right now. The food
> isn't going to them. Why not? The answer has nothing
> whatever to do with grain being fed to livestock in the
> U.S. Feeding grain to meat animals in the U.S. is not
> "causing" starvataion in the world in any way whatever.

If it were just individual farmers feeding enormous amounts of grain
to billions of cows, that would be true. Instead, we're looking at
agribusiness, which exerts vast political power, which determines
foreign policy, which keeps cruel leaders in power, which keeps food
out of people's mouths.

It's not so different from the way American energy interests have a
deleterious effect on people elsewhere in the world.


> We're addressing the "vegan's"
> ****witted belief that excluding meat from his diet,
> all by itself, is *necessarily* going to mean he's
> doing more to reduce animal death and suffering than
> ANYONE who consumes a meat-included diet.

Which vegans? (I'm brand new here, so maybe there's this huge
contingent of people with no idea of moral subtlety that I haven't met
yet, or perhaps the "vegan" in quotes is a specific person.)

If the belief you outline were held generally by vegans, sure, yes,
****witted. But if instead you create the old straw man (perhaps out
of dent cornstalks!), then how can the argument proceed?


> Remember: we're not playing a counting game. The
> "vegan" says he's (in order of the lies they tell):
>
> a. not causing any animal death and suffering;
> b. "minimizing" animal death and suffering;
> c. "reducing" animal death and suffering.
>
> Each claim is weaker than the one that precedes it, and
> all are false.

Obviously (a) is false. But is the idea of reduction so unrealistic?
The individual consumer makes microscopic, almost--almost--negligible
change. But put enough consumers together, and you have a market
force; weak, surely, but able to grow. This may not make the vegan
consumer eligible for immediate sainthood, but certainly it entitles
one to saying he is reducing (even if mostly in future subjunctive!)
animal death and suffering.


> Irrelevant. There's plenty of land to grow potatoes in
> addition to the grain fed to livestock. Why aren't
> potatoes being grown and shipped to starving people
> today, presumably for free?

They'd certainly taste better than that horrible cheese the government
hands out.


> Any *given* person at this point in time can clearly
> and even relatively easily do much, much better than he
> is. Only "vegans" are under any burden to do so,
> because they alone have made stupid, false claims about
> "minimizing" and so on.

Isn't everyone under the burden to do so, the old moral imperative and
all? And isn't there something sociopathic about industries trying to
make us forget about this burden? To have the most basic choices--to
kill or not to kill--hidden away behind colorful menus and food
pyramids, to pour billions into making the consumption of mistreated
animals seem a god-given right, to gloss over the environmental burden
caused by the mass-produced animal; how can we live comfortably with
this industry bleeding all over us?

-atax

"Goonius" > wrote in message
...
> "rick etter" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Buba Ball" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > >
> > > Jonathan Ball wrote:
> > > <"First, the grain fed to livestock is generally not considered edible
by
> > > humans. "
> > >
> > > I personally have explained to Mr Ball 3 times now that resources
invested
> > in
> > > grains that cattle consume is resources wasted that could have been
used
> > to
> > > grow human consumable grain. For some odd reason (he can't stand to
lose
> > and
> > > argument) this simple concept just won't sink in!
> > ==================
> > No, in the argument about veganism, tyou lose. There is no requirment
to
> > feed grain to cattle.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > The guy is hopelessly unable to learn new things. If when you are
wrong
> > and
> > > unable to see it then you are hopelessly stupid. This guy is a trip! I
am
> > > laughing outloud at this ass what a jerk!
> > ====================
> > Yes, vegans are a hopeless lot. Full of hate, lys, and delusions.
> > >
>
> What's a lys?
=====================
Sound it out. Even a goof like you should be able to tell.

Jonathan Ball wrote:

> Doctor Balz wrote:
>
> >
> > Jonathan Ball wrote:
> >
> >
> >>"Jahnu" wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Jonathan Ball wrote:
> >>><"First, the grain fed to livestock is generally not considered edible by
> >>>humans. "
> >>>
> >>>I personally have explained to Mr Ball 3 times now that resources invested in
> >>>grains that cattle consume is resources wasted that could have been used to
> >>>grow human consumable grain. For some odd reason (he can't stand to lose and
> >>>argument) this simple concept just won't sink in!
> >>
> >>Finally, you drift slightly away from the pure personal
> >>invective, and at least attempt to address some
> >>substance. Unfortunately, you get it utterly wrong.
> >>
> >>First of all, *I* am the one who explained that it is
> >>the resources used to grow the grain for cattle that
> >>are important, not the grain itself. Not you, blowjob;
> >>I explained it.
> >>
> >>Secondly, you haven't explained WHY those resources
> >>were used to grow cattle feed, rather than human food.
> >> Why do you suppose that is, blowjob?
> >>
> >>Third, you haven't explained how it is that there
> >>ALREADY are massive surpluses of human edible grains
> >>and other food, in Europe and North America, and yet
> >>still there are "starving" people in the world. How is
> >>that, blowjob?
> >>
> >>You don't know economics and politics, blowjob; I do.
> >>The issue of "starving" people in the world has NOTHING
> >>to do with the production of livestock feed, blowjob;
> >>nothing whatever to do with it.
> >>
> >>Get your ignorant pimply ass into a good community
> >>college somewhere, blowjob.
> >>
> >>You still haven't explained why you've switched from
> >>"Jahnu" through at least half a dozen other ****witted
> >>pseudonyms in the last two weeks, blowjob.
> >
> >
> > What you've done here is identical to the arguments found in the bible newsgroups.
>
> I doubt it. What you've done is avoid explaining why
> you've been nymshifting like 29-personality
> schizophrenic. What you've also done is avoid
> answering the logical critique of your ignorance-driven
> hysterical misanalysis of world hunger.
>
> > You simply make claims and outright lies and submit it as a response when you are
> > hopelessly making an ass out of yourself.
>
> Neither: what I'm writing is correct, and I'm not
> making an ass out of myself at all. You've cornered
> the market on that.
>
> > You consistently argue that grain fed to
> > live stock is not fit for human consumption
>
> It isn't.
>
> > and I keep telling you that the point
> > of argument is that resources used to grow grain for cattle can at any time be
> > stopped and switched to human use grain. You never pointed this out and I challenge
> > you to show where (it will not happen).
>
> No, punk. *I* am the one who told YOU about that.
> Never forget that. I am the one with economics
> training here; you are the fatuous sophomore.
>
> >
> > Starving people is not the point, the point is what is the most efficient way to
> > feed 6 billion plus human beings?
>
> No, that isn't the point at all. Thanks for
> illustrating that you have never opened an economics
> textbook or sat in an economics class in your life.
> Economics is the relevant discipline here, and I know
> it; you do not.
>
> You have misdefined efficiency.
>
> > Meat or plant? You are not sufficiently educated
>
> I am vastly more educated than you, and far more than
> sufficiently educated to perform the correct analysis
> here. I'm terribly sorry; you're simply wrong, and far
> out of your depth.
>
> > to be in this argument and are here only (as you have confessed)
>
> False. I never "confessed" anything.
>
> > to deal with
> > sanctimonious educated liberals that want to force you to wear motorcycle a helmet
> > and make you pay your own medical bills when you get lung cancer from smoking. I
> > imagine you feel like you are the voice of every backwater Bubba that didn't trash
> > pick a computer and get online for himself! You are joke!
>
> "You are joke!" Nice. May I refer you to some links
> on the use of the indefinite article, "a"?
>
> ---------------------------------------------
>
> You are henceforth going to be talking to yourself, and
> not for very long, unless you identify yourself. You
> may or may not be the saffron-robed cocksucker "Jahnu",
> who disappeared almost exactly on the same day you
> first appeared, but it's still the likeliest call. I'm
> very familiar with your type. You'll quickly get bored
> and run away if you don't get replies. You want
> replies - that is, if there's any meaningful point to
> your participation - then you identify yourself, even
> if it's only what other ****witted pseudonym you used
> to use. I'm not playing your game.

Jesus H christ just look at all the bit-by-bit response this horribly frustrated man has
written above. He replies to each and every part of his own shit thrown right back at
him. The guy acts as if he is on a mission from god. He makes up facts and statistics
that is nothing more than a Rush Limbalm disciple trying to start his own ass backward
show!

Mr Ball you will have to do better than a Shawn Hannity and Fox News mentality. To
suggest that your claims about economics reflects an accuracy on your made up statistics
about the medical costs of tobacco and motor cycle helmets does not jive. I challenge you
to link a single page that backs any of the many spontaneously made up far out claims
that you spew like shit from a kicked possum!

Your barn yard education will get you no respect from me. You are going to have to do a
lot better than crying like widdle baby! I think you are just sexually frustrated. You
should see a doctor they have pills for what you suffer from.