> > Let me rephrase that.
>
> No. It's plainly weaseling.

No, it's me being more specific so that you know
what I mean.

> > I have no way of knowing
> > WHICH farmers do what.
>
> Irrelevant. You know farmers do it, and you know you
> buy from farmers who do it. You aren't doing the best
> you can.

I am too. When are you just going to accept that? Just
by going vegan alone reduces by a huge amount the cds
that you always like to mention. What do you suggest I
do to stop bad farmers?

> > Short of starving
> > myself, eating vegan provides the least
> > accidental deaths.
>
> That's no good. Killing animals is ABSOLUTELY wrong in
> your view, just as broom-****ing children is
> ABSOLUTELY wrong. You DO view killing animals as
> absolutely wrong, and you have no valid rationale for
> stopping at some allegedly reduced amount.

Then, you should be doing more to protect kids
out there. You can't buy anything from anyone
because they may or may not be child abusers.
You're not doing enough since you haven't
researched the neighbourhood for known sex
offenders. You haven't made an anti-rape
website, etc. Is that how the reasoning works?

Did you even read any of the thread on absolute
morality? Collateral deaths in the farming
process is kind of like pollution.

> > My responsibility stops where I no longer have
> > control.
>
> You have control over what you buy. You don't "need"
> to buy anything from anyone.

Well, I guess I could just walk around the city eating
maple trees. All parts are supposed to be edible.
How do I not buy anything from anyone? Get real.

> No, you are NOT. You could EASILY do better.

Tell me this easier way. Also, tell me how to
identify which products are from bad farmers.

> > Who put it there?
>
> You. It's based on YOUR belief that killing animals is
> absolutely wrong, just as you believe broom-****ing
> children is absolutely wrong.

You know you really should read that thread
about moral absolutes. Ron makes a number
of good points.

> > Oh, now you're calling it 'essence'? Earlier you
> > called these things 'implied'.
>
> The essence of your belief is implied by all the things
> you say.

Well, thanks for admitting that I didn't actually say
those things. What you perceive isn't necessarily
the reality.

> > You put it there.
>
> No, YOU put it there. You put it there, and now you
> don't like the implications of what you've done.

When did I put it there? Is this another one of your
implied things?


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>Let me rephrase that.
>>
>>No. It's plainly weaseling.
>
>
> No, it's me being more specific so that you know
> what I mean.

It's weaseling. You're trying to weasel out of
something, and you can't. Your lack of awareness of
which farmers is laughable. You have to assume ALL of
them kill animals.

>
>
>>>I have no way of knowing
>>>WHICH farmers do what.
>>
>>Irrelevant. You know farmers do it, and you know you
>>buy from farmers who do it. You aren't doing the best
>>you can.
>
>
> I am too.

You are not. You could easily do better, if you really
cared. You just don't care.

> When are you just going to accept that?

I'm not.

> Just by going vegan alone reduces by a huge amount the cds
> that you always like to mention.

Not that YOU know. You just want to believe it.

Anyway, you STILL cause LOTS of animal deaths, and as
you believe killing animals is absolutely wrong, you
can't claim to be doing morally bettter at all. You
STILL are in the same position as someone who has
reduced his broom handle sodomization of children from
daily to "only" twice a week. It still is wrong to be
doing ANY of it, in your view.

> What do you suggest I do to stop bad farmers?

Nothing. I suggest you only stop BUYING from any of
them. Your responsibility ends with your purchases.
If you're not buying from ANY death-dealing farmers,
you're in the clear - on food, anyway.

>
>
>>>Short of starving
>>>myself, eating vegan provides the least
>>>accidental deaths.
>>
>>That's no good. Killing animals is ABSOLUTELY wrong in
>>your view, just as broom-****ing children is
>>ABSOLUTELY wrong. You DO view killing animals as
>>absolutely wrong, and you have no valid rationale for
>>stopping at some allegedly reduced amount.
>
>
> Then, you should be doing more to protect kids
> out there.

No, we've been throught that. ALL we're talking about
is whether or not I participate in the absolutely wrong
activity. It isn't my responsibility personally to
stop others; it is only my responsibility not to
participate myself. I don't.

> You can't buy anything from anyone
> because they may or may not be child abusers.

No, we're not talking about what someone does WITH the
money you give him. We're talking about your
acquisition of responsibility for the death lurking
behind what he produces.

>
>>>My responsibility stops where I no longer have
>>>control.
>>
>>You have control over what you buy. You don't "need"
>>to buy anything from anyone.
>
>
> Well, I guess I could just walk around the city eating
> maple trees.

No, you could get your LAZY ****ING ASS out to a farm
and grow your own food, ensuring you don't kill any
animals. If you can't find the money to do that by
yourself, you can enlist all the other
self-congratulatory, DO-NOTHING "vegans" and form a
collective.

>>No, you are NOT. You could EASILY do better.
>
>
> Tell me this easier way. Also, tell me how to
> identify which products are from bad farmers.

Not my responsibility. I have, already, suggested
something: that you identify the high-CD foods in your
diet, eliminate them, and substitute lower-CD foods in
their place. Are you so ****ING GODDAMNED LAZY that
you're unwilling to do even that little task? It's
clear: you are not doing the best you can. You're
just too ****ING LAZY to make any additional effort.

>
>
>>>Who put it there?
>>
>>You. It's based on YOUR belief that killing animals is
>>absolutely wrong, just as you believe broom-****ing
>>children is absolutely wrong.
>
>
> You know you really should read that thread
> about moral absolutes. Ron makes a number
> of good points.

He doesn't. He's a ****-ant sophist who doesn't
believe a word he says. He's just a squirrelly little
homo who likes to play at being a philosopher, and he
doesn't convince anyone.

>
>
>>>Oh, now you're calling it 'essence'? Earlier you
>>>called these things 'implied'.
>>
>>The essence of your belief is implied by all the things
>>you say.
>
>
> Well, thanks for admitting that I didn't actually say
> those things.

They are all implied by what you did say. They are there.

>
>
>>>You put it there.
>>
>>No, YOU put it there. You put it there, and now you
>>don't like the implications of what you've done.
>
>
> When did I put it there?

The whole time you've been posting here.

"John Deere" > wrote

[..]
>> In the process, she has revealed the fatal flaw in
>> "veganism" and, necessarily, in "vegans" themselves:
>> they don't really believe their absolute claim that
>> killing animals is wrong. Once that claim is
>> effectively abandoned, as this reveals it must be, we
>> see that "veganism" isn't about ethics at all.
>
> You are putting forth a very contrived logical position.

What is contrived about counting the deaths of animals killed in the
production of food? That is essentially the vegan complaint against
meat-eaters

> It's possible that every time I drive north in the night, the
> light from my headlights ultimately ends up proving
> fatal to certain life-forms on an alien planet.
> That does not make me a killer.

Talk about contrived logical positions!

> Even if more
> of these life-forms die than an axe-wielding
> murderer kills, still the axe-wielding murderer
> is a killer, and I am not. If you don't see the
> logic of that, you have no fundamental concept
> of justice. I doubt that, though -- I think you
> do have the necessary fundamental concepts, you
> simply choose to hide them from yourself.

Right back atacha on that one skipper. You cannot explain rationally why I
should count myself responsible for a steer killed so I can eat a hamburger
yet not count myself responsible for a mouse killed so I can eat a
soyburger.

> There is no "logic" in your position, it's merely
> an extremely convoluted self-justification.

Yea, you keeping saying that, but that doesn't make it so.

> Moreover,
> it's clear that your position is deriving from your
> desire to eat meat and reconcile yourself with
> the guilt you feel about it.

That's not clear to me at all. I think he is trying to disabuse vegans of a
false sense of moral superiority.

> Your position is
> not deriving from pure unbiased thought/logic.

Oh yes it is, you are simply incapable of seeing it. People do not
relinquish cherished fantasies easily.

> Pretending strenuously is not going to make
> it so. Sorry.

You should be sorry, you have proclaimed his argument as illogical and
nothing but self-justification, but have not attempted to refute it with any
logic of your own. Contrived stories about aliens and axe-murders won't do.

Begin by explaining why you think it is wrong to kill an animal then eat the
dead body, yet you place no moral weight on killing an animal then letting
it rot in a field.

> > Just by going vegan alone reduces by a huge amount the cds
> > that you always like to mention.
>
> Not that YOU know. You just want to believe it.
>
> Anyway, you STILL cause LOTS of animal deaths, and as
> you believe killing animals is absolutely wrong, you
> can't claim to be doing morally bettter at all. You
> STILL are in the same position as someone who has
> reduced his broom handle sodomization of children from
> daily to "only" twice a week. It still is wrong to be
> doing ANY of it, in your view.

Nonsense, I'm in the position of not killing
any animals myself, but not knowing
which farmers out there kill animals during
farming practices. Just like I'm in the position
of not abusing children myself, I can't magicly
know who out there is doing it though.

> > What do you suggest I do to stop bad farmers?
>
> Nothing. I suggest you only stop BUYING from any of
> them. Your responsibility ends with your purchases.
> If you're not buying from ANY death-dealing farmers,
> you're in the clear - on food, anyway.

I have no way of knowing which farmers are bad,
just as you don't know whether any of the retailers
you support engage in child abuse.

> >>>Short of starving
> >>>myself, eating vegan provides the least
> >>>accidental deaths.
> >>
> >>That's no good. Killing animals is ABSOLUTELY wrong in
> >>your view, just as broom-****ing children is
> >>ABSOLUTELY wrong. You DO view killing animals as
> >>absolutely wrong, and you have no valid rationale for
> >>stopping at some allegedly reduced amount.

There you go forcing the word absolutely at me
again. Killing animals is wrong. I don't say
absolutely. If an alligator attacked me and my
only choice was to die or snap its neck, then
obviously I would kill it. So stop trying to
enforce a state of absoluteness. on this
discussion.

> > Then, you should be doing more to protect kids
> > out there.
>
> No, we've been throught that. ALL we're talking about
> is whether or not I participate in the absolutely wrong
> activity. It isn't my responsibility personally to
> stop others; it is only my responsibility not to
> participate myself. I don't.

Just as I don't kill any animals myself (except that
pesky alligator!). It isn't my responsibility personally
to stop others; it is only my responsibility not to
participate myself. I don't. Sound familiar?

> > You can't buy anything from anyone
> > because they may or may not be child abusers.
>
> No, we're not talking about what someone does WITH the
> money you give him. We're talking about your
> acquisition of responsibility for the death lurking
> behind what he produces.

I don't acquire that responsibility. As such, my
reduction in cds is good enough for me. I'd be
living a fantasy if I thought I could eliminate all
farming deaths, so of course, doing the best
one can is quite good.

> No, you could get your LAZY ****ING ASS out to a farm
> and grow your own food, ensuring you don't kill any
> animals. If you can't find the money to do that by
> yourself, you can enlist all the other
> self-congratulatory, DO-NOTHING "vegans" and form a
> collective.

You sure do resort to a lot of swearing in place
of discussion. Moving to a farm is not currently
possible for me. Someday. Meanwhile you'll
just have to be content with me being content!

> > Tell me this easier way. Also, tell me how to
> > identify which products are from bad farmers.
>
> Not my responsibility. I have, already, suggested
> something: that you identify the high-CD foods in your
> diet, eliminate them, and substitute lower-CD foods in
> their place. Are you so ****ING GODDAMNED LAZY that
> you're unwilling to do even that little task? It's
> clear: you are not doing the best you can. You're
> just too ****ING LAZY to make any additional effort.

Gee, you weren't lazy. You wrote a whole paragraph
without answering my questions. I thought it was
supposed to be easy. Which are the high cd foods
and which are the low ones. Please provide proof
links. Also, tell me how to identify which products
are from bad farmers.

> > You know you really should read that thread
> > about moral absolutes. Ron makes a number
> > of good points.
>
> He doesn't. He's a ****-ant sophist who doesn't
> believe a word he says. He's just a squirrelly little
> homo who likes to play at being a philosopher, and he
> doesn't convince anyone.

Actually, he makes a lot of sense, and he doesn't
resort to meanness like you do.

> > Well, thanks for admitting that I didn't actually say
> > those things.
>
> They are all implied by what you did say. They are there.

The voices in your head are not in mine. Due to
your constant mixing up of what I mean, I suggest
that you take me more literally, and not believe
things you think are implied.

> > When did I put it there?
>
> The whole time you've been posting here.

Again, thanks for admitting that I never actually
said it at all. You think it's 'implied' from my
various posts.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>Just by going vegan alone reduces by a huge amount the cds
>>>that you always like to mention.
>>
>>Not that YOU know. You just want to believe it.
>>
>>Anyway, you STILL cause LOTS of animal deaths, and as
>>you believe killing animals is absolutely wrong, you
>>can't claim to be doing morally bettter at all. You
>>STILL are in the same position as someone who has
>>reduced his broom handle sodomization of children from
>>daily to "only" twice a week. It still is wrong to be
>>doing ANY of it, in your view.
>
>
> Nonsense, I'm in the position of not killing
> any animals myself,

I never said you were killing any yourself.

> but not knowing
> which farmers out there kill animals during
> farming practices.

It doesn't matter. As I said, you have to assume they
ALL do it.


>
>>>What do you suggest I do to stop bad farmers?
>>
>>Nothing. I suggest you only stop BUYING from any of
>>them. Your responsibility ends with your purchases.
>>If you're not buying from ANY death-dealing farmers,
>>you're in the clear - on food, anyway.
>
>
> I have no way of knowing which farmers are bad,

You have to assume they all are, until you do some
research. The choice facing you is clear: grow all
your own food, so you don't have to waste time checking
out other farmres; or, IMMEDIATELY find some who don't
kill animals, and only buy from them.

You claim to have some intelligence. See if you can
figure it out on your own.

> just as you don't know whether any of the retailers
> you support engage in child abuse.

You and that idiot Ron keep trying to make the consumer
responsible for what the producer does with the money
AFTER the consumer pays for the products, and it just
won't fly. I only deal with producers in their
capacity as producers. I am only responsible for any
moral taint in the PRODUCTS I buy, not in what the
producer does with the money after I give it to him.


>>>>>Short of starving
>>>>>myself, eating vegan provides the least
>>>>>accidental deaths.
>>>>
>>>>That's no good. Killing animals is ABSOLUTELY wrong in
>>>>your view, just as broom-****ing children is
>>>>ABSOLUTELY wrong. You DO view killing animals as
>>>>absolutely wrong, and you have no valid rationale for
>>>>stopping at some allegedly reduced amount.
>
>
> There you go forcing the word absolutely at me
> again.

No, YOU force it on yourself. You HAVE to believe it's
absolute.

> Killing animals is wrong.

Without any modifier, the correct presumption is you
believe it is ABSOLUTELY wrong.

> I don't say absolutely.

You don't need to say it. It's right there in plain sight.

> If an alligator attacked me and my
> only choice was to die or snap its neck, then
> obviously I would kill it.

I already made the self-defense exemption explicit.
We're very clearly talking ONLY about non-self-defense
killing, for example, what the producers of the rice
you eat do to animals in rice paddies.

>>Then, you should be doing more to protect kids
>>>out there.
>>
>>No, we've been throught that. ALL we're talking about
>>is whether or not I participate in the absolutely wrong
>>activity. It isn't my responsibility personally to
>>stop others; it is only my responsibility not to
>>participate myself. I don't.
>
>
> Just as I don't kill any animals myself (except that
> pesky alligator!). It isn't my responsibility personally
> to stop others; it is only my responsibility not to
> participate myself. I don't.

Yes, you DO: through your fully aware market activity
with the hands-on killers. You KNOW they kill in the
course of producing the food you eat, and you buy from
them anyway. That makes you morally complicit.

>
>
>>>You can't buy anything from anyone
>>>because they may or may not be child abusers.
>>
>>No, we're not talking about what someone does WITH the
>>money you give him. We're talking about your
>>acquisition of responsibility for the death lurking
>>behind what he produces.
>
>
> I don't acquire that responsibility.

Yes, you do. You most certainly do, exactly as meat
eaters acquire responsibility for the deaths of the
animals they eat. Remember: meat eaters
overwhelmingly do not personally kill the animals whose
bodies they eat. If not being the hands-on killer is
enough to get you off the hook - it isn't - then it
would have to be enough to get meat eaters off the
hook, too.



> As such, my
> reduction in cds is good enough for me.

No, it isn't. You're still complicit in the
non-self-defense deaths of animals, which you claim is
wrong. Absolutely wrong.

> so of course, doing the best
> one can is quite good.

You are NOT doing the best you can. You could easily
do better...if you cared to do good at all, which you
plainly don't. You just want to think well of
yourself, the cheaper the better.

>
>
>>No, you could get your LAZY ****ING ASS out to a farm
>>and grow your own food, ensuring you don't kill any
>>animals. If you can't find the money to do that by
>>yourself, you can enlist all the other
>>self-congratulatory, DO-NOTHING "vegans" and form a
>>collective.
>
>
> You sure do resort to a lot of swearing in place
> of discussion. Moving to a farm is not currently
> possible for me.

Of course it is possible, you ****ing liar.


>
>>>Tell me this easier way. Also, tell me how to
>>>identify which products are from bad farmers.
>>
>>Not my responsibility. I have, already, suggested
>>something: that you identify the high-CD foods in your
>>diet, eliminate them, and substitute lower-CD foods in
>>their place. Are you so ****ING GODDAMNED LAZY that
>>you're unwilling to do even that little task? It's
>>clear: you are not doing the best you can. You're
>>just too ****ING LAZY to make any additional effort.
>
>
> Gee, you weren't lazy. You wrote a whole paragraph
> without answering my questions. I thought it was
> supposed to be easy. Which are the high cd foods
> and which are the low ones.

It's not my responsibility to tell you. It's your
responsibility to find out.

>
>>>You know you really should read that thread
>>>about moral absolutes. Ron makes a number
>>>of good points.
>>
>>He doesn't. He's a ****-ant sophist who doesn't
>>believe a word he says. He's just a squirrelly little
>>homo who likes to play at being a philosopher, and he
>>doesn't convince anyone.
>
>
> Actually, he makes a lot of sense

He makes zero sense. He's a ****-ant pretend
philosopher, and a sophist. I realize you don't know
what sophist means; look it up.

>
>
>>>Well, thanks for admitting that I didn't actually say
>>>those things.
>>
>>They are all implied by what you did say. They are there.
>
>
> The voices in your head are not in mine.

No voices. I read what you write. What you write
says, implicitly, that you belief it is ABSOLUTELY
wrong to kill animals other than in self defense. YOU
participate, through your purchases, in processes that
lead to the non-self-defense killing of animals, which
killing you believe to be absolutely wrong. THEREFORE,
you have no basis for your contentment.

>
>>>When did I put it there?
>>
>>The whole time you've been posting here.

> I never said you were killing any yourself.

You're holding me responsible though.

> > but not knowing
> > which farmers out there kill animals during
> > farming practices.
>
> It doesn't matter. As I said, you have to assume they
> ALL do it.

Why assume they all do? Do you just assume all
people other than yourself are child abusers?

> >>>What do you suggest I do to stop bad farmers?
> >>
> >>Nothing. I suggest you only stop BUYING from any of
> >>them. Your responsibility ends with your purchases.
> >>If you're not buying from ANY death-dealing farmers,
> >>you're in the clear - on food, anyway.

Gee, I guess when you become vegan, you can
do it your way. I'll do it mine. If you think I should
do more, who cares? You're just a troll trying to
shit disturb. I'm not actually going to take any of
your advise or comments seriously.

> > I have no way of knowing which farmers are bad,
>
> You have to assume they all are, until you do some
> research. The choice facing you is clear: grow all
> your own food, so you don't have to waste time checking
> out other farmres; or, IMMEDIATELY find some who don't
> kill animals, and only buy from them.

Nonsense. I can only do the best I can. The research
you suggest is beyond my means and just ridiculous.
As more and more veganically grown food becomes
availlable, I shall of course focus my buying there.
Meanwhile, I do the best I can and that's that.

> > just as you don't know whether any of the retailers
> > you support engage in child abuse.
>
> You and that idiot Ron keep trying to make the consumer
> responsible for what the producer does with the money
> AFTER the consumer pays for the products, and it just
> won't fly. I only deal with producers in their
> capacity as producers. I am only responsible for any
> moral taint in the PRODUCTS I buy, not in what the
> producer does with the money after I give it to him.

He uses it for making kiddie porn. Following your
logic, we must assume ALL retailers are child
abusers and you don't do all you can do.

> > There you go forcing the word absolutely at me
> > again.
>
> No, YOU force it on yourself. You HAVE to believe it's
> absolute.

Say it all you want, you're not going to talk me into
believing that. Just fess up. The word absolute
was introduced by you.

> > Killing animals is wrong.
>
> Without any modifier, the correct presumption is you
> believe it is ABSOLUTELY wrong.
>
> > I don't say absolutely.
>
> You don't need to say it. It's right there in plain sight.

The only way it could be in plain sight would
be if I actually said it, which I didn't.

> > As such, my
> > reduction in cds is good enough for me.
>
> No, it isn't. You're still complicit in the
> non-self-defense deaths of animals, which you claim is
> wrong. Absolutely wrong.

No. Just wrong. Not to the point of absoluteness
that requires the boycott of all food you suggested.

> > You sure do resort to a lot of swearing in place
> > of discussion. Moving to a farm is not currently
> > possible for me.
>
> Of course it is possible, you ****ing liar.

No. I'm not lying. It's not currently possible
for me.

> > Gee, you weren't lazy. You wrote a whole paragraph
> > without answering my questions. I thought it was
> > supposed to be easy. Which are the high cd foods
> > and which are the low ones.
>
> It's not my responsibility to tell you. It's your
> responsibility to find out.

You don't know which are the high and low cd food.
You don't know how to tell the good farmers from
the bad ones.

> > The voices in your head are not in mine.
>
> No voices. I read what you write. What you write
> says, implicitly, that you belief it is ABSOLUTELY
> wrong to kill animals other than in self defense. YOU
> participate, through your purchases, in processes that
> lead to the non-self-defense killing of animals, which
> killing you believe to be absolutely wrong. THEREFORE,
> you have no basis for your contentment.

What sentences implied it? I've not implied
the absolute part at all. You really should
watch out with things you think are implied.
They aren't always what you think they are.




--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>I never said you were killing any yourself.
>
>
> You're holding me responsible though.

You DO share moral responsibility for the deaths. They
occur in the course of satisfying your food demand, and
you KNOW they occur, and you do NOT NEED to
participate. By knowing about the deaths and
voluntarily participating, you share in the
responsibility for the deaths that you believe to be
not just wrong, but ABSOLUTELY wrong.

>
>
>>>but not knowing
>>>which farmers out there kill animals during
>>>farming practices.
>>
>>It doesn't matter. As I said, you have to assume they
>>ALL do it.
>
>
> Why assume they all do?

They all do.

>
>
>>>>>What do you suggest I do to stop bad farmers?
>>>>
>>>>Nothing. I suggest you only stop BUYING from any of
>>>>them. Your responsibility ends with your purchases.
>>>>If you're not buying from ANY death-dealing farmers,
>>>>you're in the clear - on food, anyway.
>
>
> Gee, I guess when you become vegan, you can
> do it your way. I'll do it mine.

You are not doing anything morally significant. You
are not entitled to feel "good" about yourself, because
you aren't doing anything good. You're still very much
participating in something you believe to be ABSOLUTELY
wrong.


>>>I have no way of knowing which farmers are bad,
>>
>>You have to assume they all are, until you do some
>>research. The choice facing you is clear: grow all
>>your own food, so you don't have to waste time checking
>>out other farmres; or, IMMEDIATELY find some who don't
>>kill animals, and only buy from them.
>
>
> Nonsense. I can only do the best I can.

You are NOT DOING the best you can. Not even close.

> The research
> you suggest is beyond my means and just ridiculous.

No it's not, you lazy pothead skank. You just don't
WANT to do it. You'd rather smoke pot and continue to
let animals die so you can eat.


>
>>>just as you don't know whether any of the retailers
>>>you support engage in child abuse.
>>
>>You and that idiot Ron keep trying to make the consumer
>>responsible for what the producer does with the money
>>AFTER the consumer pays for the products, and it just
>>won't fly. I only deal with producers in their
>>capacity as producers. I am only responsible for any
>>moral taint in the PRODUCTS I buy, not in what the
>>producer does with the money after I give it to him.
>
>
> He uses it for making kiddie porn.

No, he may BUY kiddie porn, but that's none of my
business insofar as my commercial transactions with him
are concerned.

>
>>>There you go forcing the word absolutely at me
>>>again.
>>
>>No, YOU force it on yourself. You HAVE to believe it's
>>absolute.
>
>
> Say it all you want

No, YOU'RE the one saying it:

Killing animals is wrong.
Skanky Carpetmuncher - 31 Dec 2004, 4:06PM PST

You cannot coherently explain how it is you believe
killing animals (not in self defense) to be absolutely
wrong, yet you voluntarily and knowingly participate in
a process that kills animals (not in self defense).

You're just hosed.

>
>
>>>Killing animals is wrong.
>>
>>Without any modifier, the correct presumption is you
>>believe it is ABSOLUTELY wrong.
>>
>>
>>>I don't say absolutely.
>>
>>You don't need to say it. It's right there in plain sight.
>
>
> The only way it could be in plain sight

It's in plain sight. One can plainly see that you
don't modify the sentence at all: "Killing animals is
wrong."

>>>As such, my
>>>reduction in cds is good enough for me.
>>
>>No, it isn't. You're still complicit in the
>>non-self-defense deaths of animals, which you claim is
>>wrong. Absolutely wrong.
>
>
> No. Just wrong

ABOLUTELY wrong. It's necessarily implied by all the
rest of your writing.

>>>You sure do resort to a lot of swearing in place
>>>of discussion. Moving to a farm is not currently
>>>possible for me.
>>
>>Of course it is possible, you ****ing liar.
>
>
> No. I'm not lying. It's not currently possible
> for me.

You ARE lying. You could move to a farm. There is no
one with a gun telling you "If you try to move to a
farm, I'll shoot you dead." Stop LYING, bitch - you
could move to a farm if you REALLY wanted to. You
don't WANT to. You like your life of urban
cluelessness too much.

>
>
>>>Gee, you weren't lazy. You wrote a whole paragraph
>>>without answering my questions. I thought it was
>>>supposed to be easy. Which are the high cd foods
>>>and which are the low ones.
>>
>>It's not my responsibility to tell you. It's your
>>responsibility to find out.
>
>
> You don't know which are the high and low cd food.

It's not my responsibility to know - I'm not the one
claiming "killing animals is wrong." YOU are.

> You don't know how to tell the good farmers from
> the bad ones.

Not my responsibility. YOU'RE the one who painted
yourself into a moral corner; YOU get yourself out, if
you can. You can't do it simply by declaring yourself
"content" with the non-zero level of absolutely wrong
animal killing in which you are complicit.

>
>
>>>The voices in your head are not in mine.
>>
>>No voices. I read what you write. What you write
>>says, implicitly, that you belief it is ABSOLUTELY
>>wrong to kill animals other than in self defense. YOU
>>participate, through your purchases, in processes that
>>lead to the non-self-defense killing of animals, which
>>killing you believe to be absolutely wrong. THEREFORE,
>>you have no basis for your contentment.
>
>
> What sentences implied it?

All of them.

> > You're holding me responsible though.
>
> You DO share moral responsibility for the deaths. They
> occur in the course of satisfying your food demand, and
> you KNOW they occur, and you do NOT NEED to
> participate. By knowing about the deaths and
> voluntarily participating, you share in the
> responsibility for the deaths that you believe to be
> not just wrong, but ABSOLUTELY wrong.

Nope. They're just wrong. Not absolutely.

> >>>but not knowing
> >>>which farmers out there kill animals during
> >>>farming practices.
> >>
> >>It doesn't matter. As I said, you have to assume they
> >>ALL do it.
> >
> > Why assume they all do?
>
> They all do.

So you would have me boycott all foods? I would
starve, silly person.

> > Gee, I guess when you become vegan, you can
> > do it your way. I'll do it mine.
>
> You are not doing anything morally significant. You
> are not entitled to feel "good" about yourself, because
> you aren't doing anything good. You're still very much
> participating in something you believe to be ABSOLUTELY
> wrong.

Nope. It's just wrong, not absolutely. Guess what?
I feel good about myself. What are you going to
do to stop me. Nothing.

> > The research
> > you suggest is beyond my means and just ridiculous.
>
> No it's not, you lazy pothead skank. You just don't
> WANT to do it. You'd rather smoke pot and continue to
> let animals die so you can eat.

How dare I not want to starve! Oh the shame.

> >>>There you go forcing the word absolutely at me
> >>>again.
> >>
> >>No, YOU force it on yourself. You HAVE to believe it's
> >>absolute.
> >
> >
> > Say it all you want
>
> No, YOU'RE the one saying it:
>
> Killing animals is wrong.
> Skanky Carpetmuncher - 31 Dec 2004, 4:06PM PST

You know, when you're quoting someone to make
a point, that's not the best time to mangle their name.
You've got to deal with your anger issues.

As far as the quote goes, I just said killing animals
is wrong. I didn't use the word absolute. That's
your doing. Read the actual words, not implied
nonsense.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

>
> You cannot coherently explain how it is you believe
> killing animals (not in self defense) to be absolutely
> wrong, yet you voluntarily and knowingly participate in
> a process that kills animals (not in self defense).
>
> You're just hosed.
>
> >
> >
> >>>Killing animals is wrong.
> >>
> >>Without any modifier, the correct presumption is you
> >>believe it is ABSOLUTELY wrong.
> >>
> >>
> >>>I don't say absolutely.
> >>
> >>You don't need to say it. It's right there in plain sight.
> >
> >
> > The only way it could be in plain sight
>
> It's in plain sight. One can plainly see that you
> don't modify the sentence at all: "Killing animals is
> wrong."
>
> >>>As such, my
> >>>reduction in cds is good enough for me.
> >>
> >>No, it isn't. You're still complicit in the
> >>non-self-defense deaths of animals, which you claim is
> >>wrong. Absolutely wrong.
> >
> >
> > No. Just wrong
>
> ABOLUTELY wrong. It's necessarily implied by all the
> rest of your writing.
>
> >>>You sure do resort to a lot of swearing in place
> >>>of discussion. Moving to a farm is not currently
> >>>possible for me.
> >>
> >>Of course it is possible, you ****ing liar.
> >
> >
> > No. I'm not lying. It's not currently possible
> > for me.
>
> You ARE lying. You could move to a farm. There is no
> one with a gun telling you "If you try to move to a
> farm, I'll shoot you dead." Stop LYING, bitch - you
> could move to a farm if you REALLY wanted to. You
> don't WANT to. You like your life of urban
> cluelessness too much.
>
> >
> >
> >>>Gee, you weren't lazy. You wrote a whole paragraph
> >>>without answering my questions. I thought it was
> >>>supposed to be easy. Which are the high cd foods
> >>>and which are the low ones.
> >>
> >>It's not my responsibility to tell you. It's your
> >>responsibility to find out.
> >
> >
> > You don't know which are the high and low cd food.
>
> It's not my responsibility to know - I'm not the one
> claiming "killing animals is wrong." YOU are.
>
> > You don't know how to tell the good farmers from
> > the bad ones.
>
> Not my responsibility. YOU'RE the one who painted
> yourself into a moral corner; YOU get yourself out, if
> you can. You can't do it simply by declaring yourself
> "content" with the non-zero level of absolutely wrong
> animal killing in which you are complicit.
>
> >
> >
> >>>The voices in your head are not in mine.
> >>
> >>No voices. I read what you write. What you write
> >>says, implicitly, that you belief it is ABSOLUTELY
> >>wrong to kill animals other than in self defense. YOU
> >>participate, through your purchases, in processes that
> >>lead to the non-self-defense killing of animals, which
> >>killing you believe to be absolutely wrong. THEREFORE,
> >>you have no basis for your contentment.
> >
> >
> > What sentences implied it?
>
> All of them.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>You're holding me responsible though.
>>
>>You DO share moral responsibility for the deaths. They
>>occur in the course of satisfying your food demand, and
>>you KNOW they occur, and you do NOT NEED to
>>participate. By knowing about the deaths and
>>voluntarily participating, you share in the
>>responsibility for the deaths that you believe to be
>>not just wrong, but ABSOLUTELY wrong.
>
>
> Nope. They're just wrong. Not absolutely.

They're ABSOLUTELY wrong, in your view. They have to be.

>
>>>>>but not knowing
>>>>>which farmers out there kill animals during
>>>>>farming practices.
>>>>
>>>>It doesn't matter. As I said, you have to assume they
>>>>ALL do it.
>>>
>>>Why assume they all do?
>>
>>They all do.
>
>
> So you would have me boycott all foods?

No. I'd have you grow your own.


>
>
>>>Gee, I guess when you become vegan, you can
>>>do it your way. I'll do it mine.
>>
>>You are not doing anything morally significant. You
>>are not entitled to feel "good" about yourself, because
>>you aren't doing anything good. You're still very much
>>participating in something you believe to be ABSOLUTELY
>>wrong.
>
>
> Nope. It's just wrong, not absolutely.

It's absolutely wrong, in your view. There's no
alternative.

> I feel good about myself.

Your good feelings are unjustified and pathetic. You
have not made any moral improvement.

>>>The research
>>>you suggest is beyond my means and just ridiculous.
>>
>>No it's not, you lazy pothead skank. You just don't
>>WANT to do it. You'd rather smoke pot and continue to
>>let animals die so you can eat.
>
>
> How dare I not want to starve!

No one said anything about starving.

>
>
>>>>>There you go forcing the word absolutely at me
>>>>>again.
>>>>
>>>>No, YOU force it on yourself. You HAVE to believe it's
>>>>absolute.
>>>
>>>
>>>Say it all you want
>>
>>No, YOU'RE the one saying it:
>>
>> Killing animals is wrong.
>> Skanky Carpetmuncher - 31 Dec 2004, 4:06PM PST
>
>
> You know, when you're quoting someone to make
> a point

I quote her accurately. Always.

>
> As far as the quote goes, I just said killing animals
> is wrong. I didn't use the word absolute.

It's implied by the absence of any modifier. You can't
possibly spin it as being "a little bit" wrong, or
wrong "some of the time". You just said it is wrong,
period. That MEANS absolutely wrong, no ifs, ands or buts.

Why are you voluntarily and knowingly participating in
something that you believe is wrong?

> > Nope. They're just wrong. Not absolutely.
>
> They're ABSOLUTELY wrong, in your view. They have to be.

They don't have to be.

> > So you would have me boycott all foods?
>
> No. I'd have you grow your own.

Me too. But short of winning the lottery, that
won't happen until I retire and even then, not
to the extent that I could grow ALL my own.

> > Nope. It's just wrong, not absolutely.
>
> It's absolutely wrong, in your view. There's no
> alternative.

Maybe for you there are no alternatives, but to
my thinking there are.

> > I feel good about myself.
>
> Your good feelings are unjustified and pathetic. You
> have not made any moral improvement.

I get to feel good about myself for what *I* decide
is important or moral or anything else.

> >> Skanky Carpetmuncher - 31 Dec 2004, 4:06PM PST
> >
> >
> > You know, when you're quoting someone to make
> > a point
>
> I quote her accurately. Always.

Even her name?

> > As far as the quote goes, I just said killing animals
> > is wrong. I didn't use the word absolute.
>
> It's implied by the absence of any modifier. You can't
> possibly spin it as being "a little bit" wrong, or
> wrong "some of the time". You just said it is wrong,
> period. That MEANS absolutely wrong, no ifs, ands or buts.
>
> Why are you voluntarily and knowingly participating in
> something that you believe is wrong?

Let's see now, there's no choice, and it's just a bit
wrong when compared to the animal based industry
as a whole, which is a lot wrong.

Now, shut up and have a good new year.

--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

Scented Nectar wrote:

>>>Nope. They're just wrong. Not absolutely.
>>
>>They're ABSOLUTELY wrong, in your view. They have to be.
>
>
> They don't have to be.

They DO have to be, in your view:

Killing animals is wrong.
S.C. - 31 Dec 2004, 4:06PM PST

>
>
>>>So you would have me boycott all foods?
>>
>>No. I'd have you grow your own.
>
>
> Me too. But short of winning the lottery, that
> won't happen until I retire and even then, not
> to the extent that I could grow ALL my own.

So you rationalize your failure to behave according to
the demands of your belief by your financial status.
That isn't an ethics at all.

>
>>>Nope. It's just wrong, not absolutely.
>>
>>It's absolutely wrong, in your view. There's no
>>alternative.
>
>
> Maybe for you there are no alternatives, but to
> my thinking there are.

No, there's no alternative: you believe killing
animals other than in self defense is ABSOLUTELY wrong:

Killing animals is wrong.
S.C. - 31 Dec 2004, 4:06PM PST

There's no qualification to that, e.g. "usually wrong"
or "a little bit wrong". You just call it "wrong",
period. That's absolute.

>
>
>>>I feel good about myself.
>>
>>Your good feelings are unjustified and pathetic. You
>>have not made any moral improvement.
>
>
> I get to feel good about myself for what *I* decide
> is important or moral or anything else.

Your good feelings are unjustified and disgusting. You
have not made any moral improvement, merely based on
not putting meat in your mouth.

>
>
>>>> Skanky Carpetmuncher - 31 Dec 2004, 4:06PM PST
>>>
>>>
>>>You know, when you're quoting someone to make
>>>a point
>>
>>I quote her accurately. Always.
>
>
> Even her name?

The quote is accurate.

>
>
>>>As far as the quote goes, I just said killing animals
>>>is wrong. I didn't use the word absolute.
>>
>>It's implied by the absence of any modifier. You can't
>>possibly spin it as being "a little bit" wrong, or
>>wrong "some of the time". You just said it is wrong,
>>period. That MEANS absolutely wrong, no ifs, ands or buts.
>>
>>Why are you voluntarily and knowingly participating in
>>something that you believe is wrong?
>
>
> Let's see now, there's no choice,

There IS a choice. You just don't want to exercise it,
because it would be hard and uncomfortable. So,
animals must die so you can enjoy ease and comfort.
That's not an ethics.

> and it's just a bit
> wrong

No, there's no wiggle room. It's wrong, full stop:

Killing animals is wrong.
S.C. - 31 Dec 2004, 4:06PM PST


You are not behaving according to any legitimate ethics.

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ...
<..>
> > >>>but not knowing
> > >>>which farmers out there kill animals during
> > >>>farming practices.
> > >>
> > >>It doesn't matter. As I said, you have to assume they
> > >>ALL do it.
> > >
> > > Why assume they all do?
> >
> > They all do.
>
> So you would have me boycott all foods? I would
> starve, silly person.

There's your "self-defense".

Saying that, consider this little gem from psycho-ball;

"Nutrition is not an absolute need."
-Jonathan Ball ('Jay Santos') 22 Nov 2003




Seriously though, another excellent reason to choose organic
(sustainably farmed) produce (as you probably know)..

'Surveys by the ministry of agriculture and the British Trust
for Ornithology have shown the beneficial effects of organic
farming on wildlife. It's not difficult to see why: the pesticides
used in intensive agriculture kill many soil organisms, insects
and other larger species. They also kill plants considered to
be weeds. That means fewer food sources available for other
animals, birds and beneficial insects and it also destroys many
of their habitats.'
http://www.soilassociation.org/web/s.../benefits.html

'..This comprehensive European-wide literature review provides
evidence on the whole range of environmental benefits of organic
farming. It concludes that, in comparison with non-organic farming,
organic farming tends to support greater biodiversity, conserves
soil fertility and stability better, does not pose any risk of water
pollution from pesticides, results in 40-60% lower carbon dioxide
emissions per hectare, nitrous oxide and ammonia emission
potential appears to be lower, energy consumption is usually lower,
and energy efficiency is usually higher.
...'
http://www.soilassociation.org/sa/sa...Sheets05092001

'The independent research quoted in this report found substantially
greater levels of both abundance and diversity of species on the
organic farms, as outlined below:

Plants: Five times as many wild plants in arable fields, 57% more
species, and several rare and declining wild arable species found
only on organic farms.

Birds: 25% more birds at the field edge, 44% more in-field in
autumn/winter; 2.2 times as many breeding skylarks and higher
skylark breeding rates.

Invertebrates: 1.6 times as many of the arthropods that comprise
bird food; three times as many non-pest butterflies in the crop areas;
one to five times as many spider numbers and one to two times as
many spider species.

Crop pests: Significant decrease in aphid numbers; no change in
numbers of pest butterflies.

Distribution of the biodiversity benefits: Though the field boundaries
had the highest levels of wildlife, the highest increases were found
in the cropped areas of the fields.

Quality of the habitats: Both the field boundary and crop habitats
were more favourable on the organic farms. The field boundaries
had more trees, larger hedges and no spray drift.
...'
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/pn48/pn48p15b.htm


*

Wishing you, S.N, and all the other good folks here,
a very happy, healthy and prosperous 2005.
'pearl'

> > So you would have me boycott all foods? I would
> > starve, silly person.
>
> There's your "self-defense".

Yeah. How dare I want to eat to stay alive.

> Saying that, consider this little gem from psycho-ball;
>
> "Nutrition is not an absolute need."
> -Jonathan Ball ('Jay Santos') 22 Nov 2003

LOL Maybe he thinks it is a sometimes need
or a little bit of a need, or not a need at all.
Maybe he's a breatharian believing he can
live by breathing alone.

> Seriously though, another excellent reason to choose organic
> (sustainably farmed) produce (as you probably know)..

I feel lucky that I'm in a city where there's a good sized
organic availability. The foods contain more nutrients
too.

> 'Surveys by the ministry of agriculture and the British Trust
> for Ornithology have shown the beneficial effects of organic
> farming on wildlife. It's not difficult to see why: the pesticides
> used in intensive agriculture kill many soil organisms, insects
> and other larger species. They also kill plants considered to
> be weeds. That means fewer food sources available for other
> animals, birds and beneficial insects and it also destroys many
> of their habitats.'
> http://www.soilassociation.org/web/s.../benefits.html
>
> '..This comprehensive European-wide literature review provides
> evidence on the whole range of environmental benefits of organic
> farming. It concludes that, in comparison with non-organic farming,
> organic farming tends to support greater biodiversity, conserves
> soil fertility and stability better, does not pose any risk of water
> pollution from pesticides, results in 40-60% lower carbon dioxide
> emissions per hectare, nitrous oxide and ammonia emission
> potential appears to be lower, energy consumption is usually lower,
> and energy efficiency is usually higher.
> ..'
>
http://www.soilassociation.org/sa/sa...Sheets05092001
>
> 'The independent research quoted in this report found substantially
> greater levels of both abundance and diversity of species on the
> organic farms, as outlined below:
>
> Plants: Five times as many wild plants in arable fields, 57% more
> species, and several rare and declining wild arable species found
> only on organic farms.
>
> Birds: 25% more birds at the field edge, 44% more in-field in
> autumn/winter; 2.2 times as many breeding skylarks and higher
> skylark breeding rates.
>
> Invertebrates: 1.6 times as many of the arthropods that comprise
> bird food; three times as many non-pest butterflies in the crop areas;
> one to five times as many spider numbers and one to two times as
> many spider species.
>
> Crop pests: Significant decrease in aphid numbers; no change in
> numbers of pest butterflies.
>
> Distribution of the biodiversity benefits: Though the field boundaries
> had the highest levels of wildlife, the highest increases were found
> in the cropped areas of the fields.
>
> Quality of the habitats: Both the field boundary and crop habitats
> were more favourable on the organic farms. The field boundaries
> had more trees, larger hedges and no spray drift.
> ..'
> http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/pn48/pn48p15b.htm

So organic is already a lot more veganic than I realized.
That's good news.

> Wishing you, S.N, and all the other good folks here,
> a very happy, healthy and prosperous 2005.
>
'pearl'


Thanks, and a very good one to you too.

In article . net>,
Jay Santos > wrote:

> John Deere wrote:
>
> > Jay Santos wrote:
> >
> >>"If the spices I needed were available locally I would
> >>[consume only locally grown produce]."
> >>
> >>- Skanky Carpetmuncher, 27 Dec 2004
> >>
> >>
> >>The issue is why "vegans" don't make more effort not to
> >>cause the death of animals. First we need to recap the
> >>argument.
> >>
> >>All "vegans" begin by following a logical fallacy in
> >>order to arrive at the totality of "veganism": the
> >>rule, Do Not Consume Animal Parts. The fallacy is this:
> >>
> >> If I consume animal parts, I cause the suffering
> >>and death of animals.
> >>
> >> I do not consume animal parts;
> >>
> >> therefore, I do not cause the suffering and death
> >>of animals.
> >>
> >>This argument embodies a classic fallacy, Denying the
> >>Antecedent. A person can cause suffering and death of
> >>animals by means other than consuming things made from
> >>animal parts. The most important way in which this
> >>occurs that is relevant to "vegans" is collateral
> >>animal deaths in agriculture (CDs). The cultivation,
> >>harvest, storage and distrbution of many grain crops in
> >>particular causes suffering and death to animals on a
> >>massive scale. None of the animal slaughter is
> >>"necessary", but it is inevitable given current methods
> >>of farming. "vegans" buy vegetables and fruits without
> >>any consideration whatever about how many animals were
> >>killed in the course of their production.
> >>
> >>When and if they learn about CDs, "vegans" are forced
> >>to acknowledge that they do not live a "cruelty free"
> >>life, merely by following the "vegan" rule of "do not
> >>consume animal parts." The usual course of retreat is
> >>to make an intermediate stop at the false claim, "I am
> >>doing the best I can to reduce animal death." This is
> >>quickly seen to be a false claim: different vegetable
> >>crops cause different numbers of CDs. The production
> >>of rice, for example, is exceptionally lethal to
> >>animals, far more so than other starchy grains. To the
> >>extent the "vegan" eats rice rather than other, less
> >>lethal grains, she is not "doing the best she can" not
> >>to cause animal death.
> >>
> >>Once "vegans" see that their intermediate position is
> >>untenable, they make a second retreat to the weakest
> >>position of all, the one that reveals "veganism" to be
> >>utterly specious as an ethical choice: "At least I'm
> >>doing better than you omnivores." This claim ALSO is
> >>false, as one can easily show that a meat-including
> >>diet can cause fewer deaths than virtually any "vegan"
> >>diet. However, there is no further room for retreat,
> >>so "vegans" simply close their eyes to the obvious, and
> >>either stick with the "I'm doing better than you"
> >>position, which illustrates the utter moral bankruptcy
> >>of "veganism", or attempt to claw their way back to
> >>their intermediate claim of "doing the best I can."
> >>
> >>This position - "doing the best I can" - is the one
> >>Skanky Carpetmuncher is currently trying vainly to
> >>defend, even though she has already abandoned it to
> >>make her second retreat. The quote at the top is her
> >>reply to someone who asked her why she doesn't buy only
> >>locally produced foods and spices (the implication
> >>being that local production somehow necessarily causes
> >>fewer deaths than distant production.) Her answer
> >>implicitly *accepts* that locally produced means fewer
> >>deaths than remotely produced, but we see that she
> >>makes the reduction of animal deaths subordinate to her
> >>aesthetic desire for more flavorful food. She doesn't
> >>NEED spices at all; she merely wants them. How can a
> >>supposedly absolute ethical value - "it is wrong to
> >>kill animals" - take a back seat to her aesthetic wish
> >>for flavor variety, and still be called a valid ethics?
> >>
> >>It can't.
> >>
> >>In my direct reply to Skanky Carpetmuncher, I pointed
> >>out that by subordinating her absolute belief that it
> >>is wrong to kill animals to her wish for flavor variety
> >>in food, she is implicitly admitting, once again, that
> >>she is NOT "doing the best she can" at reducing animal
> >>death. In fact, she is revealing that she does NOT
> >>believe killing animals is wrong. Her reply was very
> >>revealing:
> >>
> >> You can't accept that I find an improvement good
> >>enough.
> >> You want me to strive for a veganic perfection that
> >>only
> >> you [expletive] seems to see. I do MY best which
> >>is good
> >> enough for me to be content.
> >>
> >>There is no question that she is NOT "doing her best",
> >>as she could easily forgo the spices. She has, for the
> >>SECOND time, retreated from the claim "I'm doing the
> >>best I can" to the vastly weaker claim of "I think I'm
> >>doing better than you, which is good enough for me."
> >>
> >>In the process, she has revealed the fatal flaw in
> >>"veganism" and, necessarily, in "vegans" themselves:
> >>they don't really believe their absolute claim that
> >>killing animals is wrong. Once that claim is
> >>effectively abandoned, as this reveals it must be, we
> >>see that "veganism" isn't about ethics at all.
> >
> >
> > You are putting forth a very contrived logical position.
>
> No, it isn't. It's a very well reasoned position, one
> that is essentially accepted even by most "vegans".

Ah, we return to an argument must be right because it common or popular.
So much for "great minds".

"Ron" > wrote

>> >>In the process, she has revealed the fatal flaw in
>> >>"veganism" and, necessarily, in "vegans" themselves:
>> >>they don't really believe their absolute claim that
>> >>killing animals is wrong. Once that claim is
>> >>effectively abandoned, as this reveals it must be, we
>> >>see that "veganism" isn't about ethics at all.
>> >
>> >
>> > You are putting forth a very contrived logical position.
>>
>> No, it isn't. It's a very well reasoned position, one
>> that is essentially accepted even by most "vegans".
>
> Ah, we return to an argument must be right because it common or popular.
> So much for "great minds".

He didn't argue that the logic was right *because* it was essentially
accepted by most vegans, he said it was logical based on it's own merits,
*and* essentially accepted by most vegans.

Ron, honestly, your comprehension skills are sadly lacking.

Dutch wrote:
> "John Deere" > wrote
>
> [..]
> >> In the process, she has revealed the fatal flaw in
> >> "veganism" and, necessarily, in "vegans" themselves:
> >> they don't really believe their absolute claim that
> >> killing animals is wrong. Once that claim is
> >> effectively abandoned, as this reveals it must be, we
> >> see that "veganism" isn't about ethics at all.
> >
> > You are putting forth a very contrived logical position.
>
> What is contrived about counting the deaths of animals killed in the
> production of food? That is essentially the vegan complaint against
> meat-eaters

One is direct killing, one is incidental killing.

Moreover, the original argument is biased nonsense, because
it assumes cattle are raised on water and air.

In fact, every single animal-based meal is derived
from hundreds of "vegan" meals fed to the animal, so
whatever a vegan does, it's multiplied by several
hundred for a non-vegan.

But the point which you had trouble getting,
is all about "intentions". Think about it
a bit, and it might get clear.

> > It's possible that every time I drive north in the night, the
> > light from my headlights ultimately ends up proving
> > fatal to certain life-forms on an alien planet.
> > That does not make me a killer.
>
> Talk about contrived logical positions!

Well, you are certainly getting a bit of it. This was an
example, to show how contrived the original poster's position.
You are absolutely right about it, it's a very
contrived logical position. Good job, now just do
a little more thinking, and the rest might make sense too.

"John Deere" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Dutch wrote:
>> "John Deere" > wrote
>>
>> [..]
>> >> In the process, she has revealed the fatal flaw in
>> >> "veganism" and, necessarily, in "vegans" themselves:
>> >> they don't really believe their absolute claim that
>> >> killing animals is wrong. Once that claim is
>> >> effectively abandoned, as this reveals it must be, we
>> >> see that "veganism" isn't about ethics at all.
>> >
>> > You are putting forth a very contrived logical position.
>>
>> What is contrived about counting the deaths of animals killed in the
>> production of food? That is essentially the vegan complaint against
>> meat-eaters
>
> One is direct killing, one is incidental killing.
==================
And all the animals are still dead. We happen to eat the ones we kill, you
just leave the ones you kill to rot. Quite a compassion thing you got going
there.
Besides, many of the animals kill3d for your veggies are targetted
deliberately for killing. They are in no way accidental.

>
> Moreover, the original argument is biased nonsense, because
> it assumes cattle are raised on water and air.
>
> In fact, every single animal-based meal is derived
> from hundreds of "vegan" meals fed to the animal,
======================
Really? You must eat very very cheaply then, huh? Afterall, alll you have
to do is go out in your yard and start grazing. How many 'vegans' do you
know that like you, eat grass as their entire diet. Now, if they do, I'd be
the first to wish them well in their humaneness and compassion for animals.
Of course, like you, they all eat veggies from mono-culture crops. Crops
that are plowed, seeded, sprayed, harvested, processed, stored and
transported around the world just for your selfish variety.

so
> whatever a vegan does, it's multiplied by several
> hundred for a non-vegan.
================
Nope. try dividing and you'd be alot closer for many meat-included diets.


>
> But the point which you had trouble getting,
> is all about "intentions". Think about it
> a bit, and it might get clear.
==============
Obviously thinking isn't something you do much of, is it?


>
>> > It's possible that every time I drive north in the night, the
>> > light from my headlights ultimately ends up proving
>> > fatal to certain life-forms on an alien planet.
>> > That does not make me a killer.
>>
>> Talk about contrived logical positions!
>
> Well, you are certainly getting a bit of it. This was an
> example, to show how contrived the original poster's position.
> You are absolutely right about it, it's a very
> contrived logical position. Good job, now just do
> a little more thinking, and the rest might make sense too.
================
Analogies are realy hard for you, aren't they? There is no comparision to
your delusions and the direct and deliberate killing done to keep your
veggies clean and cheap. That you are willing to ignore the facts says all
we need to know about how deeply the religion has hold of you.

>

"John Deere" > wrote
> Dutch wrote:
>> "John Deere" > wrote
>>
>> [..]
>> >> In the process, she has revealed the fatal flaw in
>> >> "veganism" and, necessarily, in "vegans" themselves:
>> >> they don't really believe their absolute claim that
>> >> killing animals is wrong. Once that claim is
>> >> effectively abandoned, as this reveals it must be, we
>> >> see that "veganism" isn't about ethics at all.
>> >
>> > You are putting forth a very contrived logical position.
>>
>> What is contrived about counting the deaths of animals killed in the
>> production of food? That is essentially the vegan complaint against
>> meat-eaters
>
> One is direct killing, one is incidental killing.

False, both are killed as a direct result of the production of food.

> Moreover, the original argument is biased nonsense, because
> it assumes cattle are raised on water and air.

It assumes no such thing.

> In fact, every single animal-based meal is derived
> from hundreds of "vegan" meals fed to the animal,

Can you eat grass, silage, waste and by-products? Every pound of meat
produced from those plentiful sources is food that would be unavailable
otherwise. That food would likely be replaced by commercially produced,
inferior tofu/rice/vegetable substitutes causing the deaths of yet more
animals.

> so
> whatever a vegan does, it's multiplied by several
> hundred for a non-vegan.

If I catch one salmon I can replace the protein content of a large amount of
commercially produced alternative such as tofu burgers, which resulted in an
unknown but considerable amount of animal harm.

> But the point which you had trouble getting,
> is all about "intentions". Think about it
> a bit, and it might get clear.

OK, my intention is to nourish myself, the vegan's intention is to nourish
himself. What am I missing?

>> > It's possible that every time I drive north in the night, the
>> > light from my headlights ultimately ends up proving
>> > fatal to certain life-forms on an alien planet.
>> > That does not make me a killer.
>>
>> Talk about contrived logical positions!
>
> Well, you are certainly getting a bit of it. This was an
> example, to show how contrived the original poster's position.

It fails to address the original poster's points in any way.

> You are absolutely right about it, it's a very
> contrived logical position.

Then you should stick to substance instead of inventing fantasies about
aliens.

> Good job, now just do
> a little more thinking, and the rest might make sense too.

Right now I am noticing your snipping of so many of my comments without
noting or responding. Could it be that you feel hopelessly stuck defending
an indefensible position?

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
>
> >> >>In the process, she has revealed the fatal flaw in
> >> >>"veganism" and, necessarily, in "vegans" themselves:
> >> >>they don't really believe their absolute claim that
> >> >>killing animals is wrong. Once that claim is
> >> >>effectively abandoned, as this reveals it must be, we
> >> >>see that "veganism" isn't about ethics at all.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > You are putting forth a very contrived logical position.
> >>
> >> No, it isn't. It's a very well reasoned position, one
> >> that is essentially accepted even by most "vegans".
> >
> > Ah, we return to an argument must be right because it common or popular.
> > So much for "great minds".
>
> He didn't argue that the logic was right *because* it was essentially
> accepted by most vegans, he said it was logical based on it's own merits,
> *and* essentially accepted by most vegans.
>
> Ron, honestly, your comprehension skills are sadly lacking.

"Essentially argued even by most...." is exactly what he wrote.

Dutch wrote:
> Can you eat grass, silage, waste and by-products? Every pound of meat

> produced from those plentiful sources is food that would be
unavailable
> otherwise. That food would likely be replaced by commercially
produced,
> inferior tofu/rice/vegetable substitutes causing the deaths of yet
more
> animals.

But you didn't address the point -- any effects of vegan meals
are multiplied hundreds of times in meat meals.

> > so
> > whatever a vegan does, it's multiplied by several
> > hundred for a non-vegan.
>
> If I catch one salmon I can replace the protein content of a large
amount of
> commercially produced alternative such as tofu burgers, which
resulted in an
> unknown but considerable amount of animal harm.

But you are actively killing the salmon.

> OK, my intention is to nourish myself, the vegan's intention is to
nourish
> himself. What am I missing?

You are missing the obvious (of course) difference -- your intention is
to
nourish yourself even if you have to kill, the vegan's intention
is to get nourished with a preference for avoiding killing.

> It fails to address the original poster's points in any way.
>
> > You are absolutely right about it, it's a very
> > contrived logical position.
>
> Then you should stick to substance instead of inventing fantasies
about
> aliens.

Ok, maybe this was too hard. Try this -- according to chaos theory,
a butterfly's wing-flap in Peking could cause a hurricane in US.

So potentially, a little old grandmother sneezing in Kansas could
cause a Tsunami in Asia.

Now if you were to hold the grandmother culpable in the same
way that a mass murderer is culpable, I would have to say

a) You have very limited understanding and reasoning powers, or
b) You are lying to yourself for some twisted reason.

In your case, (a) may be valid, though the original proponent
of your argument appears to be more of a strong (b) situation.

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>>This position - "doing the best I can" - is the one
>>>>Skanky Carpetmuncher is currently trying vainly to
>>>>defend, even though she has already abandoned it to
>>>>make her second retreat. The quote at the top is her
>>>>reply to someone who asked her why she doesn't buy only
>>>>locally produced foods and spices (the implication
>>>>being that local production somehow necessarily causes
>>>>fewer deaths than distant production.) Her answer
>>>>implicitly *accepts* that locally produced means fewer
>>>>deaths than remotely produced, but we see that she
>>>>makes the reduction of animal deaths subordinate to her
>>>>aesthetic desire for more flavorful food. She doesn't
>>>>NEED spices at all; she merely wants them. How can a
>>>>supposedly absolute ethical value - "it is wrong to
>>>>kill animals" - take a back seat to her aesthetic wish
>>>>for flavor variety, and still be called a valid ethics?
>
> I have no way of knowing what farmers do what.

Stop feigning ignorance and innocence. You know they intentionally
poison them and less intentionally run over and flood them.

> I'm not responsible for any deaths personally.

You are when you purchase their crops.

> You are trying
> to put an 'absoluteness' on the whole thing,

That's what VEGANS do. You claim it's wrong to kill animals, and when
shown that your diet causes more animals to be killed, you say it's
wrong to eat them.

> when in
> fact you know full well that I am content with the death
> reductions I have made

You haven't reduced animal deaths through your consumption. You're
engaging in a perverse tautology in which you say something is wrong but
that you're not responsible.

> (knowing that it's currently
> impossible to do better).

Only because you're the classically clueless urbanite. You've been told
how it's possible to cause much fewer animal deaths, but you object when
some of the options include eating certain kinds of meat; you've also
suggested -- LAMELY -- that only wealthy landowners can afford to grow
crops "veganically."

> You say I'm not allowed to
> feel content, something you have no say in. I am
> doing the best I can and I'm happy with that.

You're not doing a ****ing thing that minimizes harm to animals. You
still consume commercially-grown crops and overprocessed foods like Yves
fake meat (why do you want the taste of something you find offensive?).

> I have
> seen no indications that foreign grown foods cause
> more deaths than local ones, by the way.

Additional storage and transportation, for starters. Rick also gave you
links to articles about how environmentally damaging banana and plantain
crops are in Central America. Environmental damage from monocropped
bananas and plantains means harm to animals through decreased habitat,
pollution, etc.

>>>>In my direct reply to Skanky Carpetmuncher, I pointed
>>>>out that by subordinating her absolute belief that it
>>>>is wrong to kill animals to her wish for flavor variety
>>>>in food, she is implicitly admitting, once again, that
>>>>she is NOT "doing the best she can" at reducing animal
>>>>death. In fact, she is revealing that she does NOT
>>>>believe killing animals is wrong. Her reply was very
>>>>revealing:
>
> You're the one putting absolute in there. I do indeed
> believe that killing animals is wrong

Wrong? Isn't that an absolute?

> and I find some
> farmers like Lundbergs commendable for reducing
> accidental deaths.

Of migratory birds, not of other species. Your consumption of Lundberg
rice doesn't lead to decreased animal casualties, it still increases it.
Maybe not as much as other kinds of rice, but it's still a net increase
over other crops.

> As for other commercial foods,
> I'm content know there's less deaths from vegan foods

You don't know that, you just keep repeating it.

> than in the meat and dairy industry as a whole due to
> cds in crop/feed growing.

Your attempt to put all meat and dairy production in the same basket
avoids the fact that not all meat or dairy is produced the same. You've
been informed of low-CD products like grass-fed beef, bison, hand-caught
fish, wild game, etc.

<...>
>>>>In the process, she has revealed the fatal flaw in
>>>>"veganism" and, necessarily, in "vegans" themselves:
>>>>they don't really believe their absolute claim that
>>>>killing animals is wrong. Once that claim is
>>>>effectively abandoned, as this reveals it must be, we
>>>>see that "veganism" isn't about ethics at all.
>
> Stop forcing the word absolute into the above and
> into your expectations of vegans.

He'll probably stop once you start honestly answering questions instead
of tap dancing.

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>Just by going vegan alone reduces by a huge amount the cds
>>>that you always like to mention.
>>
>>Not that YOU know. You just want to believe it.
>>
>>Anyway, you STILL cause LOTS of animal deaths, and as
>>you believe killing animals is absolutely wrong, you
>>can't claim to be doing morally bettter at all. You
>>STILL are in the same position as someone who has
>>reduced his broom handle sodomization of children from
>>daily to "only" twice a week. It still is wrong to be
>>doing ANY of it, in your view.
>
> Nonsense, I'm in the position of not killing
> any animals myself, but not knowing
> which farmers out there kill animals during
> farming practices.

Hint: they all do. They use pesticides. So do the warehouses and grocery
stores where the food goes before you buy it.

<...>
> There you go forcing the word absolutely at me
> again. Killing animals is wrong. I don't say
> absolutely. If an alligator attacked me and my
> only choice was to die or snap its neck, then
> obviously I would kill it.

I know you're from Toronto and alligators aren't native there, but your
best bet *isn't* to try to "snap its neck" if you're ever in that
situation. Your best bet is to hold its jaws tightly closed (do NOT let
him open his jaws), move ashore or as close to land as possible, stay on
top, and scream for help. You're very unlikely to ever break its neck.
Its jaw muscles are much, much stronger contracting than opening --
you're lunch if he opens his mouth or if he can roll you beneath the
water, which is probably the next thing he'll try after being unable to
open his mouth.

<....>

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>Just by going vegan alone reduces by a huge amount the cds
>>>that you always like to mention.
>>
>>Not that YOU know. You just want to believe it.
>>
>>Anyway, you STILL cause LOTS of animal deaths, and as
>>you believe killing animals is absolutely wrong, you
>>can't claim to be doing morally bettter at all. You
>>STILL are in the same position as someone who has
>>reduced his broom handle sodomization of children from
>>daily to "only" twice a week. It still is wrong to be
>>doing ANY of it, in your view.
>
> Nonsense, I'm in the position of not killing
> any animals myself, but not knowing
> which farmers out there kill animals during
> farming practices.

Hint: they all do. They use pesticides. So do the warehouses and grocery
stores where the food goes before you buy it.

<...>
> There you go forcing the word absolutely at me
> again. Killing animals is wrong. I don't say
> absolutely. If an alligator attacked me and my
> only choice was to die or snap its neck, then
> obviously I would kill it.

I know you're from Toronto and alligators aren't native there, but your
best bet *isn't* to try to "snap its neck" if you're ever in that
situation. Your best bet is to hold its jaws tightly closed (do NOT let
him open his jaws), move ashore or as close to land as possible, stay on
top, and scream for help. You're very unlikely to ever break its neck.
Its jaw muscles are much, much stronger contracting than opening --
you're lunch if he opens his mouth or if he can roll you beneath the
water, which is probably the next thing he'll try after being unable to
open his mouth.

<....>

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>>
>> >> >>In the process, she has revealed the fatal flaw in
>> >> >>"veganism" and, necessarily, in "vegans" themselves:
>> >> >>they don't really believe their absolute claim that
>> >> >>killing animals is wrong. Once that claim is
>> >> >>effectively abandoned, as this reveals it must be, we
>> >> >>see that "veganism" isn't about ethics at all.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > You are putting forth a very contrived logical position.
>> >>
>> >> No, it isn't. It's a very well reasoned position, one
>> >> that is essentially accepted even by most "vegans".
>> >
>> > Ah, we return to an argument must be right because it common or
>> > popular.
>> > So much for "great minds".
>>
>> He didn't argue that the logic was right *because* it was essentially
>> accepted by most vegans, he said it was logical based on it's own merits,
>> *and* essentially accepted by most vegans.
>>
>> Ron, honestly, your comprehension skills are sadly lacking.
>
> "Essentially argued even by most...." is exactly what he wrote.

Read it again, "essentially ***accepted*** even by most "vegans".

You appear to be attempting to allege an "argumentum ad populum" fallacy
where none exists. He is not using vegan arguments to support his case, they
would not do so, since vegan *arguments* indicate that killing animals is
wrong. He is using the fact that their actions implicitly support his
argument as part of his *conclusion*. Vegans do not "argue" that killing
animals is not wrong, Jay Santos was not saying they did, in fact they at
least implicitly argue that it IS wrong. He revealed through his reasoning
that by their *actions* they implicitly "accept" that it is NOT wrong. I
apologize if that is hard to understand, but you have to have a basic grasp
of the subject matter to begin with.

"John Deere" > wrote

> Dutch wrote:
>> Can you eat grass, silage, waste and by-products? Every pound of meat
>
>> produced from those plentiful sources is food that would be
> unavailable
>> otherwise. That food would likely be replaced by commercially
> produced,
>> inferior tofu/rice/vegetable substitutes causing the deaths of yet
> more
>> animals.
>
> But you didn't address the point -- any effects of vegan meals
> are multiplied hundreds of times in meat meals.

Not so in the case of pastured animals or hunted meat, fish and fowl. That
argument only applies to livestock raised on planted, harvested feed. Also,
you only assert this "multiplied hundreds of times" estimate, you have never
and will never attempt to support it.

>> > so
>> > whatever a vegan does, it's multiplied by several
>> > hundred for a non-vegan.
>>
>> If I catch one salmon I can replace the protein content of a large
> amount of
>> commercially produced alternative such as tofu burgers, which
> resulted in an
>> unknown but considerable amount of animal harm.
>
> But you are actively killing the salmon.

Or a fisherman may have done it for me... your point is?

>> OK, my intention is to nourish myself, the vegan's intention is to
> nourish
>> himself. What am I missing?
>
> You are missing the obvious (of course) difference -- your intention is
> to
> nourish yourself even if you have to kill, the vegan's intention
> is to get nourished with a preference for avoiding killing.

The vegan's "preference for avoiding killing" is a fantasy. If vegans truly
had such a preference they would not eagerly patronize commerical
agriculture with it's large scale mechanized operations and use of
herbicides and pesticides, all of which results in countless animal deaths.
Don't bother mentioning "organic" either, because organic farming also uses
poisons and machinery.

>> It fails to address the original poster's points in any way.
>>
>> > You are absolutely right about it, it's a very
>> > contrived logical position.
>>
>> Then you should stick to substance instead of inventing fantasies
> about
>> aliens.
>
> Ok, maybe this was too hard. Try this -- according to chaos theory,
> a butterfly's wing-flap in Peking could cause a hurricane in US.
>
> So potentially, a little old grandmother sneezing in Kansas could
> cause a Tsunami in Asia.

Your demand for cheap, convenient food *directly* subsidizes farmers who
produce it in ways that harms animals, which makes you THE driving force in
the commerce of industialized agriculture.. No butterflies, no grandmothers
in Kansas, just vegans eagerly supporting the killing of animals in rice
paddies, grain fields, orchards, and vegetable fields.

Why do you think it is wrong to kill an animal then eat the
dead body, yet you place no moral weight on killing an animal then letting
it rot in a field.

> Now if you were to hold the grandmother culpable in the same
> way that a mass murderer is culpable, I would have to say
>
> a) You have very limited understanding and reasoning powers, or
> b) You are lying to yourself for some twisted reason.
>
> In your case, (a) may be valid, though the original proponent
> of your argument appears to be more of a strong (b) situation.

Thank you very much again for making my points..

a) vegans can only argue with absurdities, and

b) vegans snip hard questions without responding

"John Deere" > wrote

> Dutch wrote:
>> Can you eat grass, silage, waste and by-products? Every pound of meat
>
>> produced from those plentiful sources is food that would be
> unavailable
>> otherwise. That food would likely be replaced by commercially
> produced,
>> inferior tofu/rice/vegetable substitutes causing the deaths of yet
> more
>> animals.
>
> But you didn't address the point -- any effects of vegan meals
> are multiplied hundreds of times in meat meals.

Not so in the case of pastured animals or hunted meat, fish and fowl. That
argument only applies to livestock raised on planted, harvested feed. Also,
you only assert this "multiplied hundreds of times" estimate, you have never
and will never attempt to support it.

>> > so
>> > whatever a vegan does, it's multiplied by several
>> > hundred for a non-vegan.
>>
>> If I catch one salmon I can replace the protein content of a large
> amount of
>> commercially produced alternative such as tofu burgers, which
> resulted in an
>> unknown but considerable amount of animal harm.
>
> But you are actively killing the salmon.

Or a fisherman may have done it for me... your point is?

>> OK, my intention is to nourish myself, the vegan's intention is to
> nourish
>> himself. What am I missing?
>
> You are missing the obvious (of course) difference -- your intention is
> to
> nourish yourself even if you have to kill, the vegan's intention
> is to get nourished with a preference for avoiding killing.

The vegan's "preference for avoiding killing" is a fantasy. If vegans truly
had such a preference they would not eagerly patronize commerical
agriculture with it's large scale mechanized operations and use of
herbicides and pesticides, all of which results in countless animal deaths.
Don't bother mentioning "organic" either, because organic farming also uses
poisons and machinery.

>> It fails to address the original poster's points in any way.
>>
>> > You are absolutely right about it, it's a very
>> > contrived logical position.
>>
>> Then you should stick to substance instead of inventing fantasies
> about
>> aliens.
>
> Ok, maybe this was too hard. Try this -- according to chaos theory,
> a butterfly's wing-flap in Peking could cause a hurricane in US.
>
> So potentially, a little old grandmother sneezing in Kansas could
> cause a Tsunami in Asia.

Your demand for cheap, convenient food *directly* subsidizes farmers who
produce it in ways that harms animals, which makes you THE driving force in
the commerce of industialized agriculture.. No butterflies, no grandmothers
in Kansas, just vegans eagerly supporting the killing of animals in rice
paddies, grain fields, orchards, and vegetable fields.

Why do you think it is wrong to kill an animal then eat the
dead body, yet you place no moral weight on killing an animal then letting
it rot in a field.

> Now if you were to hold the grandmother culpable in the same
> way that a mass murderer is culpable, I would have to say
>
> a) You have very limited understanding and reasoning powers, or
> b) You are lying to yourself for some twisted reason.
>
> In your case, (a) may be valid, though the original proponent
> of your argument appears to be more of a strong (b) situation.

Thank you very much again for making my points..

a) vegans can only argue with absurdities, and

b) vegans snip hard questions without responding

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> "Ron" > wrote
> >>
> >> >> >>In the process, she has revealed the fatal flaw in
> >> >> >>"veganism" and, necessarily, in "vegans" themselves:
> >> >> >>they don't really believe their absolute claim that
> >> >> >>killing animals is wrong. Once that claim is
> >> >> >>effectively abandoned, as this reveals it must be, we
> >> >> >>see that "veganism" isn't about ethics at all.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > You are putting forth a very contrived logical position.
> >> >>
> >> >> No, it isn't. It's a very well reasoned position, one
> >> >> that is essentially accepted even by most "vegans".
> >> >
> >> > Ah, we return to an argument must be right because it common or
> >> > popular.
> >> > So much for "great minds".
> >>
> >> He didn't argue that the logic was right *because* it was essentially
> >> accepted by most vegans, he said it was logical based on it's own merits,
> >> *and* essentially accepted by most vegans.
> >>
> >> Ron, honestly, your comprehension skills are sadly lacking.
> >
> > "Essentially argued even by most...." is exactly what he wrote.
>
> Read it again, "essentially ***accepted*** even by most "vegans".
>
> You appear to be attempting to allege an "argumentum ad populum" fallacy
> where none exists. He is not using vegan arguments to support his case, they
> would not do so, since vegan *arguments* indicate that killing animals is
> wrong. He is using the fact that their actions implicitly support his
> argument as part of his *conclusion*. Vegans do not "argue" that killing
> animals is not wrong, Jay Santos was not saying they did, in fact they at
> least implicitly argue that it IS wrong. He revealed through his reasoning
> that by their *actions* they implicitly "accept" that it is NOT wrong. I
> apologize if that is hard to understand, but you have to have a basic grasp
> of the subject matter to begin with.

Could you please clarify "not wrong". I find you more confusing than
ever. There are a variety of possibilities such as wrong, neutral or
right. I imagine with could anything across a spectrum from almost right
to not quite wrong.

Please clarify what you mean by "not wrong."

For example, is paying my taxes "not wrong"?

> > I have no way of knowing what farmers do what.
>
> Stop feigning ignorance and innocence. You know they intentionally
> poison them and less intentionally run over and flood them.

I don't know which do this, if they really do. Given that
I have no choice other than to starve, what do you
suppose that I do.

> > You are trying
> > to put an 'absoluteness' on the whole thing,
>
> That's what VEGANS do. You claim it's wrong to kill animals, and when
> shown that your diet causes more animals to be killed, you say it's
> wrong to eat them.

Never mind other vegans and what you think of them.
Don't use the word absolute thrown in.

> > when in
> > fact you know full well that I am content with the death
> > reductions I have made
>
> You haven't reduced animal deaths through your consumption. You're
> engaging in a perverse tautology in which you say something is wrong
but
> that you're not responsible.

I'm doing the best I can for both my health and the
animals.

> > (knowing that it's currently
> > impossible to do better).
>
> Only because you're the classically clueless urbanite. You've been
told
> how it's possible to cause much fewer animal deaths, but you object
when
> some of the options include eating certain kinds of meat; you've also
> suggested -- LAMELY -- that only wealthy landowners can afford to grow
> crops "veganically."

Only someone with very few braincells would suggest to a
vegetarian or vegan that they eat meat. The id is not
acceptable.

If they did though, then how would they reduce the cds in all
the other foods they eat?

> > I have
> > seen no indications that foreign grown foods cause
> > more deaths than local ones, by the way.
>
> Additional storage and transportation, for starters. Rick also gave
you
> links to articles about how environmentally damaging banana and
plantain
> crops are in Central America. Environmental damage from monocropped
> bananas and plantains means harm to animals through decreased habitat,
> pollution, etc.

That's barely different than crops grown here.

> >>>>In my direct reply to Skanky Carpetmuncher, I pointed
> >>>>out that by subordinating her absolute belief that it
> >>>>is wrong to kill animals to her wish for flavor variety
> >>>>in food, she is implicitly admitting, once again, that
> >>>>she is NOT "doing the best she can" at reducing animal
> >>>>death. In fact, she is revealing that she does NOT
> >>>>believe killing animals is wrong. Her reply was very
> >>>>revealing:
> >
> > You're the one putting absolute in there. I do indeed
> > believe that killing animals is wrong
>
> Wrong? Isn't that an absolute?

No. If it was, I would have said absolutely wrong.




--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

> > I have no way of knowing what farmers do what.
>
> Stop feigning ignorance and innocence. You know they intentionally
> poison them and less intentionally run over and flood them.

I don't know which do this, if they really do. Given that
I have no choice other than to starve, what do you
suppose that I do.

> > You are trying
> > to put an 'absoluteness' on the whole thing,
>
> That's what VEGANS do. You claim it's wrong to kill animals, and when
> shown that your diet causes more animals to be killed, you say it's
> wrong to eat them.

Never mind other vegans and what you think of them.
Don't use the word absolute thrown in.

> > when in
> > fact you know full well that I am content with the death
> > reductions I have made
>
> You haven't reduced animal deaths through your consumption. You're
> engaging in a perverse tautology in which you say something is wrong
but
> that you're not responsible.

I'm doing the best I can for both my health and the
animals.

> > (knowing that it's currently
> > impossible to do better).
>
> Only because you're the classically clueless urbanite. You've been
told
> how it's possible to cause much fewer animal deaths, but you object
when
> some of the options include eating certain kinds of meat; you've also
> suggested -- LAMELY -- that only wealthy landowners can afford to grow
> crops "veganically."

Only someone with very few braincells would suggest to a
vegetarian or vegan that they eat meat. The id is not
acceptable.

If they did though, then how would they reduce the cds in all
the other foods they eat?

> > I have
> > seen no indications that foreign grown foods cause
> > more deaths than local ones, by the way.
>
> Additional storage and transportation, for starters. Rick also gave
you
> links to articles about how environmentally damaging banana and
plantain
> crops are in Central America. Environmental damage from monocropped
> bananas and plantains means harm to animals through decreased habitat,
> pollution, etc.

That's barely different than crops grown here.

> >>>>In my direct reply to Skanky Carpetmuncher, I pointed
> >>>>out that by subordinating her absolute belief that it
> >>>>is wrong to kill animals to her wish for flavor variety
> >>>>in food, she is implicitly admitting, once again, that
> >>>>she is NOT "doing the best she can" at reducing animal
> >>>>death. In fact, she is revealing that she does NOT
> >>>>believe killing animals is wrong. Her reply was very
> >>>>revealing:
> >
> > You're the one putting absolute in there. I do indeed
> > believe that killing animals is wrong
>
> Wrong? Isn't that an absolute?

No. If it was, I would have said absolutely wrong.




--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

"John Deere" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Dutch wrote:
>> Can you eat grass, silage, waste and by-products? Every pound of meat
>
>> produced from those plentiful sources is food that would be
> unavailable
>> otherwise. That food would likely be replaced by commercially
> produced,
>> inferior tofu/rice/vegetable substitutes causing the deaths of yet
> more
>> animals.
>
> But you didn't address the point -- any effects of vegan meals
> are multiplied hundreds of times in meat meals.
==================
Nope. Again you have it backwards. Ir is far to easy to show meat-included
diets that are better than your vegan diet, killer.


>
>> > so
>> > whatever a vegan does, it's multiplied by several
>> > hundred for a non-vegan.
>>
>> If I catch one salmon I can replace the protein content of a large
> amount of
>> commercially produced alternative such as tofu burgers, which
> resulted in an
>> unknown but considerable amount of animal harm.
>
> But you are actively killing the salmon.
==================
As you are activly killing mammals, birds, reptiles, fish and amphibians for
your clean, cheap veggies...


>
>> OK, my intention is to nourish myself, the vegan's intention is to
> nourish
>> himself. What am I missing?
>
> You are missing the obvious (of course) difference -- your intention is
> to
> nourish yourself even if you have to kill, the vegan's intention
> is to get nourished with a preference for avoiding killing.
=================
Yet you fail miserably at it, hypocrite. You prove with each inane post
that avoiding unnecessesary animal deaths is no concern to you, killer.


>
>> It fails to address the original poster's points in any way.
>>
>> > You are absolutely right about it, it's a very
>> > contrived logical position.
>>
>> Then you should stick to substance instead of inventing fantasies
> about
>> aliens.
>
> Ok, maybe this was too hard. Try this -- according to chaos theory,
> a butterfly's wing-flap in Peking could cause a hurricane in US.
>
> So potentially, a little old grandmother sneezing in Kansas could
> cause a Tsunami in Asia.
>
> Now if you were to hold the grandmother culpable in the same
> way that a mass murderer is culpable, I would have to say
>
> a) You have very limited understanding and reasoning powers, or
> b) You are lying to yourself for some twisted reason.
>
> In your case, (a) may be valid, though the original proponent
> of your argument appears to be more of a strong (b) situation.
====================
Logic doesn't come easy for you, does it? Must be the diet....

>

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>I have no way of knowing what farmers do what.
>>
>>Stop feigning ignorance and innocence. You know they intentionally
>>poison them and less intentionally run over and flood them.
>
> I don't know which do this, if they really do.

Bullshit. You know that most farmers don't employ the tactics of the
Lundbergs to clear the fields of migratory birds (but not rodents,
amphibians, etc.). You know that the use of pesticides kills a variety
of non-targeted species. You know that storage facilities like granaries
and warehouses pro-actively employ pest control measures in accordance
with health agency requirements.

> Given that
> I have no choice other than to starve, what do you
> suppose that I do.

You have three different options. Put your money where your big mouth is
and actually garden in a manner consistent with your dubious
"principles." Recommend legitimate, widely-available products which
minimize CDs; those include certain kinds of meat, but NOT mechanically
planted or harvested produce. Or, best of all, you can stop making false
claims, moral and otherwise, about food choices.

>>>You are trying
>>>to put an 'absoluteness' on the whole thing,
>>
>>That's what VEGANS do. You claim it's wrong to kill animals, and when
>>shown that your diet causes more animals to be killed, you say it's
>>wrong to eat them.
>
> Never mind other vegans and what you think of them.
> Don't use the word absolute thrown in.

You said killing animals is wrong. You left yourself an out of
self-defense. I want you to explain why it's wrong for me to eat part of
one dead tuna but not wrong for you to consume produce grown with many
dead fish (fish emulsion, fish meal, not to mention all the other dead
animal parts used in *organic* crop production or CDs resulting from the
same).

>>>when in
>>>fact you know full well that I am content with the death
>>>reductions I have made
>>
>>You haven't reduced animal deaths through your consumption. You're
>>engaging in a perverse tautology in which you say something is wrong
>>but that you're not responsible.
>
> I'm doing the best I can for both my health

Bullshit. First, you willfully inhale toxins to get a buzz off marijuana
-- not good for your health, especially for your lungs. Smokers have a
far greater incidence of cancer of the lungs, larynx, pharynx,
esophagus, mouth, colon and breast than non-smokers. Marijuana contains
more tar than cigarettes. Marijuana is also inhaled very deeply and the
smoke is held in the lungs for a long time. Marijuana is smoked all the
way to the end where tar content is the highest. Many of the
cancer-causing substances in tobacco are also found in marijuana. It
also affects your central nervous system in an adverse manner. There are
few if any positive effects of marijuana use.

Second, you fail to distinguish between good and bad plant-based foods,
a la your boneheaded defense of eating hemp seeds and recommending
higher intake of omega-6 FAs despite information that lipids from other
plant sources provide enough and that one should focus on omega-3 FAs
intake to maintain a proper, healthier ratio. You make poor
generalizations about meat, saying ALL meat is bad despite the evidence
presented that the meat of game, grass-fed ruminants, and fish is very
healthful, high in omega-3 FAs, and LOW in saturated fats.

Finally, you've failed at every instance to note that nutritional
experts qualify their support for vegetarian diets because you parrot
only the activist websites rather than experts.
It is the position of the American Dietetic Association and
Dietitians of Canada that *APPROPRIATELY PLANNED* vegetarian
diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provide health
benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.
[my emphasis]
http://www.eatright.org/Public/Gover...s/92_17084.cfm

> and the animals.

You've already been shown many times that you're not doing a damn thing
to benefit animals, particularly since your diet is based on imported
tropical foods and highly processed protein isolates from mechanically
harvested products like soy and wheat (e.g., Yves phony sausage) that's
shipped all the way across your country. You'd take a positive step if
you'd just consume local produce, much less grow your own produce, but
you've refused to take any positive steps and instead choose to repeat
your lie that you're making a difference.

>>>(knowing that it's currently
>>>impossible to do better).
>>
>>Only because you're the classically clueless urbanite. You've been
>>told how it's possible to cause much fewer animal deaths, but you object
>>when some of the options include eating certain kinds of meat; you've also
>>suggested -- LAMELY -- that only wealthy landowners can afford to grow
>>crops "veganically."
>
> Only someone with very few braincells would suggest to a
> vegetarian or vegan that they eat meat.

Nobody ever said they had to eat meat. Their unwillingness to admit that
a diet containing certain kinds of no- or low-CD meat is better for
animals in the aggregate, though, shows that they're dogmatic,
inflexible hypocrites whose agenda ("don't eat animal parts") matters
more than pragmatic attempts to minimize harm to animals.

> The id is not acceptable.

But ALL the CDs are? What kind of philosophy is that?

> If they did though, then how would they reduce the cds in all
> the other foods they eat?

Per Professor Davis' thesis, they would consume locally grown produce
and grazed ruminants. That would minimize harm to animals which occurs
in the course of grain and legume production, transportation, and
storage. That's the great irony -- you're rejecting the deaths of
animals people eat and recommending instead they consume crops which
have the highest CD rates.

>>>I have
>>>seen no indications that foreign grown foods cause
>>>more deaths than local ones, by the way.
>>
>>Additional storage and transportation, for starters. Rick also gave
>>you links to articles about how environmentally damaging banana and
>>plantain crops are in Central America. Environmental damage from monocropped
>>bananas and plantains means harm to animals through decreased habitat,
>>pollution, etc.
>
> That's barely different than crops grown here.

Ipse dixit, and what a pathetic little shit you are for bitching about
one kind of local production and then participating in it on a more
global scale.

>>>>>>In my direct reply to Skanky Carpetmuncher, I pointed
>>>>>>out that by subordinating her absolute belief that it
>>>>>>is wrong to kill animals to her wish for flavor variety
>>>>>>in food, she is implicitly admitting, once again, that
>>>>>>she is NOT "doing the best she can" at reducing animal
>>>>>>death. In fact, she is revealing that she does NOT
>>>>>>believe killing animals is wrong. Her reply was very
>>>>>>revealing:
>>>
>>>You're the one putting absolute in there. I do indeed
>>>believe that killing animals is wrong
>>
>>Wrong? Isn't that an absolute?
>
> No. If it was, I would have said absolutely wrong.

Is it wrong to eat animals? If so, why?

> > Given that
> > I have no choice other than to starve, what do you
> > suppose that I do.
>
> You have three different options. Put your money where your big mouth
is
> and actually garden in a manner consistent with your dubious
> "principles." Recommend legitimate, widely-available products which
> minimize CDs; those include certain kinds of meat, but NOT
mechanically
> planted or harvested produce. Or, best of all, you can stop making
false
> claims, moral and otherwise, about food choices.

Buying a farm is not an option for me, unless you are
gifting me one or something. You say "widely available
products...those include certain kinds of meat" What
non-meat products do you refer to that lower cds? Brand
names please so we can all do the best we can.

By the way, it's just ridiculous to suggest to a
vegatarian or vegan that they eat meat. The
intentional death is both more in-your-face and
the health risks are unacceptable

> > I'm doing the best I can for both my health
>
> Bullshit. First, you willfully inhale toxins to get a buzz off
marijuana
> -- not good for your health, especially for your lungs. Smokers have a
> far greater incidence of cancer of the lungs, larynx, pharynx,
> esophagus, mouth, colon and breast than non-smokers. Marijuana
contains
> more tar than cigarettes. Marijuana is also inhaled very deeply and
the
> smoke is held in the lungs for a long time. Marijuana is smoked all
the
> way to the end where tar content is the highest. Many of the
> cancer-causing substances in tobacco are also found in marijuana. It
> also affects your central nervous system in an adverse manner. There
are
> few if any positive effects of marijuana use.

Ew, there's that evil, evil weed again. Reefer Madness
anyone?

> Second, you fail to distinguish between good and bad plant-based
foods,
> a la your boneheaded defense of eating hemp seeds and recommending
> higher intake of omega-6 FAs despite information that lipids from
other
> plant sources provide enough and that one should focus on omega-3 FAs
> intake to maintain a proper, healthier ratio. You make poor
> generalizations about meat, saying ALL meat is bad despite the
evidence
> presented that the meat of game, grass-fed ruminants, and fish is very
> healthful, high in omega-3 FAs, and LOW in saturated fats.

Get it right. I mentioned that hempseed oil contains omegas 3, 6 and 9.
You trolls jumped on and exaggerated my including of 6 in there.

If every meateater switched to your 'better' meats, and did not
reduce their consumption, then the above game would go extinct
and the 'grassfed' herds would barely supply anyone else. Face
it, the commercial meat industry supplies most meat eaters, and
as far as the cds you're fond of mentioning, the amount is many,
many timesfold.

> It is the position of the American Dietetic Association and
> Dietitians of Canada that *APPROPRIATELY PLANNED* vegetarian
> diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provide health
> benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.
> [my emphasis]
> http://www.eatright.org/Public/Gover...s/92_17084.cfm

What's your point? That vegans should balance their meals?
Well, meateaters have to do that too, so what's your point?

> > That's barely different than crops grown here.
>
> Ipse dixit, and what a pathetic little shit you are for bitching about
> one kind of local production and then participating in it on a more
> global scale.

Ooo, a little mad are you? Stop telling vegans what they should
be doing. You're no expert. You're not even vegan, so what
are you doing?!?!




--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>Given that
>>>I have no choice other than to starve, what do you
>>>suppose that I do.
>>
>>You have three different options. Put your money where your big mouth
>>is and actually garden in a manner consistent with your dubious
>>"principles." Recommend legitimate, widely-available products which
>>minimize CDs; those include certain kinds of meat, but NOT
>>mechanically planted or harvested produce. Or, best of all, you can stop making
>>false claims, moral and otherwise, about food choices.
>
> Buying a farm is not an option for me,

I know, you slacker.

> unless you are gifting me one or something.

Don't hold your breath.

> You say "widely available
> products...those include certain kinds of meat" What
> non-meat products do you refer to that lower cds?

Locally grown produce and grains. Grow your own -- check out some of
those community garden links I gave you a few weeks ago.

> Brand names please so we can all do the best we can.

Clueless ****ing urbanite. That's your problem -- you prate about
"veganic" produce and then want brand names. Your affinity for branding
is what causes you to kill more animals with your consumption. Look for
local foods, refuse to buy anything grown more than 200 miles away from
your front door.

> By the way, it's just ridiculous to suggest to a
> vegatarian or vegan that they eat meat.

I didn't recommend you do that, Skunky. I suggested you recommend those
who eat meat to eat those kinds.

> The intentional death is both more in-your-face

In your face as opposed to burying your head about CDs?

> and the health risks are unacceptable

There are no adverse health risks. If anything, it's better for you
because you're not consuming a marginal diet that has only qualified
support from the major dietetic organizations.

>>>I'm doing the best I can for both my health
>>
>>Bullshit. First, you willfully inhale toxins to get a buzz off
>>marijuana -- not good for your health, especially for your lungs. Smokers have a
>>far greater incidence of cancer of the lungs, larynx, pharynx,
>>esophagus, mouth, colon and breast than non-smokers. Marijuana
>>contains more tar than cigarettes. Marijuana is also inhaled very deeply and
>>the smoke is held in the lungs for a long time. Marijuana is smoked all
>>the way to the end where tar content is the highest. Many of the
>>cancer-causing substances in tobacco are also found in marijuana. It
>>also affects your central nervous system in an adverse manner. There
>>are few if any positive effects of marijuana use.
>
> Ew, there's that evil, evil weed again. Reefer Madness
> anyone?

Your childish sarcasm does nothing to address the fact that you
willfully and frequently consume something which is bad for you on many
levels despite your claims to be interested in good health. You're a
charlatan.

>>Second, you fail to distinguish between good and bad plant-based
>>foods, a la your boneheaded defense of eating hemp seeds and recommending
>>higher intake of omega-6 FAs despite information that lipids from
>>other plant sources provide enough and that one should focus on omega-3 FAs
>>intake to maintain a proper, healthier ratio. You make poor
>>generalizations about meat, saying ALL meat is bad despite the
>>evidence presented that the meat of game, grass-fed ruminants, and fish is very
>>healthful, high in omega-3 FAs, and LOW in saturated fats.
>
> Get it right. I mentioned that hempseed oil contains omegas 3, 6 and 9.

You said it was a good thing. You had no ****ing clue what you were
saying, you just wanted to repeat something you read on a pro-pot
website because you thought it was valid.

> You trolls jumped on and exaggerated my including of 6 in there.

No, I demonstrated that you're a mindless **** who mindlessly repeats
bullshit found on activist websites as though she the disinformation
she's peddling is the fruit of her "research."

> If every meateater switched to your 'better' meats, and did not
> reduce their consumption, then the above game would go extinct

Bullshit. I've asked you to prove this claim, and I've also shared with
you population numbers between people and deer in Texas alone. Deer are
NOT an endangered species. Eating more of them would benefit deer in the
aggregate because of their overpopulation in most regions of the US (and
probably Canada, too).

> and the 'grassfed' herds would barely supply anyone else.

Nonsense.

> Face
> it, the commercial meat industry supplies most meat eaters,

Consumers drive demand, commercial supply doesn't drive demand.

> and as far as the cds you're fond of mentioning, the amount is many,
> many timesfold.

That's not an issue except for the fact that you keep wanting to compare
apples to oranges.

>>It is the position of the American Dietetic Association and
>>Dietitians of Canada that *APPROPRIATELY PLANNED* vegetarian
>>diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provide health
>>benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.
>>[my emphasis]
>> http://www.eatright.org/Public/Gover...s/92_17084.cfm
>
> What's your point? That vegans should balance their meals?

Definitely. It takes more planning on a vegetarian diet.

> Well, meateaters have to do that too, so what's your point?

Not as diligently.

>>>That's barely different than crops grown here.
>>
>>Ipse dixit, and what a pathetic little shit you are for bitching about
>>one kind of local production and then participating in it on a more
>>global scale.
>
> Ooo, a little mad are you?

Not mad at all. Just pointing out your rank hypocrisy.

> Stop telling vegans what they should be doing.

As long as you make categorical claims about things being right or
wrong, or nutritious or not, I will be here to correct you. Don't be
such a ****ing ingrate that I'm willing to volunteer such assistance.

> You're no expert.

I know a lot more than you about nutritional science, health, and
wellness than you ever will. I also know a lot more than you about
veganism and why it's a worse solution than the problems it seeks to
correct.

> You're not even vegan,

Hurray! You finally admit it.

> so what are you doing?!?!

Generously helping you with my accumulated knowledge. You don't realize
how lucky you are that kind strangers are so willing to freely assist
you in making wiser, more thoughtful, more conscientious decisions.

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>Given that
>>>I have no choice other than to starve, what do you
>>>suppose that I do.
>>
>>You have three different options. Put your money where your big mouth
>>is and actually garden in a manner consistent with your dubious
>>"principles." Recommend legitimate, widely-available products which
>>minimize CDs; those include certain kinds of meat, but NOT
>>mechanically planted or harvested produce. Or, best of all, you can stop making
>>false claims, moral and otherwise, about food choices.
>
> Buying a farm is not an option for me,

I know, you slacker.

> unless you are gifting me one or something.

Don't hold your breath.

> You say "widely available
> products...those include certain kinds of meat" What
> non-meat products do you refer to that lower cds?

Locally grown produce and grains. Grow your own -- check out some of
those community garden links I gave you a few weeks ago.

> Brand names please so we can all do the best we can.

Clueless ****ing urbanite. That's your problem -- you prate about
"veganic" produce and then want brand names. Your affinity for branding
is what causes you to kill more animals with your consumption. Look for
local foods, refuse to buy anything grown more than 200 miles away from
your front door.

> By the way, it's just ridiculous to suggest to a
> vegatarian or vegan that they eat meat.

I didn't recommend you do that, Skunky. I suggested you recommend those
who eat meat to eat those kinds.

> The intentional death is both more in-your-face

In your face as opposed to burying your head about CDs?

> and the health risks are unacceptable

There are no adverse health risks. If anything, it's better for you
because you're not consuming a marginal diet that has only qualified
support from the major dietetic organizations.

>>>I'm doing the best I can for both my health
>>
>>Bullshit. First, you willfully inhale toxins to get a buzz off
>>marijuana -- not good for your health, especially for your lungs. Smokers have a
>>far greater incidence of cancer of the lungs, larynx, pharynx,
>>esophagus, mouth, colon and breast than non-smokers. Marijuana
>>contains more tar than cigarettes. Marijuana is also inhaled very deeply and
>>the smoke is held in the lungs for a long time. Marijuana is smoked all
>>the way to the end where tar content is the highest. Many of the
>>cancer-causing substances in tobacco are also found in marijuana. It
>>also affects your central nervous system in an adverse manner. There
>>are few if any positive effects of marijuana use.
>
> Ew, there's that evil, evil weed again. Reefer Madness
> anyone?

Your childish sarcasm does nothing to address the fact that you
willfully and frequently consume something which is bad for you on many
levels despite your claims to be interested in good health. You're a
charlatan.

>>Second, you fail to distinguish between good and bad plant-based
>>foods, a la your boneheaded defense of eating hemp seeds and recommending
>>higher intake of omega-6 FAs despite information that lipids from
>>other plant sources provide enough and that one should focus on omega-3 FAs
>>intake to maintain a proper, healthier ratio. You make poor
>>generalizations about meat, saying ALL meat is bad despite the
>>evidence presented that the meat of game, grass-fed ruminants, and fish is very
>>healthful, high in omega-3 FAs, and LOW in saturated fats.
>
> Get it right. I mentioned that hempseed oil contains omegas 3, 6 and 9.

You said it was a good thing. You had no ****ing clue what you were
saying, you just wanted to repeat something you read on a pro-pot
website because you thought it was valid.

> You trolls jumped on and exaggerated my including of 6 in there.

No, I demonstrated that you're a mindless **** who mindlessly repeats
bullshit found on activist websites as though she the disinformation
she's peddling is the fruit of her "research."

> If every meateater switched to your 'better' meats, and did not
> reduce their consumption, then the above game would go extinct

Bullshit. I've asked you to prove this claim, and I've also shared with
you population numbers between people and deer in Texas alone. Deer are
NOT an endangered species. Eating more of them would benefit deer in the
aggregate because of their overpopulation in most regions of the US (and
probably Canada, too).

> and the 'grassfed' herds would barely supply anyone else.

Nonsense.

> Face
> it, the commercial meat industry supplies most meat eaters,

Consumers drive demand, commercial supply doesn't drive demand.

> and as far as the cds you're fond of mentioning, the amount is many,
> many timesfold.

That's not an issue except for the fact that you keep wanting to compare
apples to oranges.

>>It is the position of the American Dietetic Association and
>>Dietitians of Canada that *APPROPRIATELY PLANNED* vegetarian
>>diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provide health
>>benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.
>>[my emphasis]
>> http://www.eatright.org/Public/Gover...s/92_17084.cfm
>
> What's your point? That vegans should balance their meals?

Definitely. It takes more planning on a vegetarian diet.

> Well, meateaters have to do that too, so what's your point?

Not as diligently.

>>>That's barely different than crops grown here.
>>
>>Ipse dixit, and what a pathetic little shit you are for bitching about
>>one kind of local production and then participating in it on a more
>>global scale.
>
> Ooo, a little mad are you?

Not mad at all. Just pointing out your rank hypocrisy.

> Stop telling vegans what they should be doing.

As long as you make categorical claims about things being right or
wrong, or nutritious or not, I will be here to correct you. Don't be
such a ****ing ingrate that I'm willing to volunteer such assistance.

> You're no expert.

I know a lot more than you about nutritional science, health, and
wellness than you ever will. I also know a lot more than you about
veganism and why it's a worse solution than the problems it seeks to
correct.

> You're not even vegan,

Hurray! You finally admit it.

> so what are you doing?!?!

Generously helping you with my accumulated knowledge. You don't realize
how lucky you are that kind strangers are so willing to freely assist
you in making wiser, more thoughtful, more conscientious decisions.

In article et>,
"rick etter" > wrote:

> "John Deere" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > Dutch wrote:
> >> Can you eat grass, silage, waste and by-products? Every pound of meat
> >
> >> produced from those plentiful sources is food that would be
> > unavailable
> >> otherwise. That food would likely be replaced by commercially
> > produced,
> >> inferior tofu/rice/vegetable substitutes causing the deaths of yet
> > more
> >> animals.
> >
> > But you didn't address the point -- any effects of vegan meals
> > are multiplied hundreds of times in meat meals.
> ==================
> Nope. Again you have it backwards. Ir is far to easy to show meat-included
> diets that are better than your vegan diet, killer.

Please do.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>,
> "rick etter" > wrote:
>
>> "John Deere" > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> > Dutch wrote:
>> >> Can you eat grass, silage, waste and by-products? Every pound of meat
>> >
>> >> produced from those plentiful sources is food that would be
>> > unavailable
>> >> otherwise. That food would likely be replaced by commercially
>> > produced,
>> >> inferior tofu/rice/vegetable substitutes causing the deaths of yet
>> > more
>> >> animals.
>> >
>> > But you didn't address the point -- any effects of vegan meals
>> > are multiplied hundreds of times in meat meals.
>> ==================
>> Nope. Again you have it backwards. Ir is far to easy to show
>> meat-included
>> diets that are better than your vegan diet, killer.
>
> Please do.
====================
Then learn to use your computer and read them, pansie.

In article >,
usual suspect > wrote:

> Scented Nectar wrote:
> >>>I have no way of knowing what farmers do what.
> >>
> >>Stop feigning ignorance and innocence. You know they intentionally
> >>poison them and less intentionally run over and flood them.
> >
> > I don't know which do this, if they really do.
>
> Bullshit. You know that most farmers don't employ the tactics of the
> Lundbergs to clear the fields of migratory birds (but not rodents,
> amphibians, etc.). You know that the use of pesticides kills a variety
> of non-targeted species. You know that storage facilities like granaries
> and warehouses pro-actively employ pest control measures in accordance
> with health agency requirements.

Well then, any educated fool can see the difficulty is not in veganism
but in the whores who are the growers and farmers.

> > Given that
> > I have no choice other than to starve, what do you
> > suppose that I do.
>
> You have three different options. Put your money where your big mouth is
> and actually garden in a manner consistent with your dubious
> "principles." Recommend legitimate, widely-available products which
> minimize CDs; those include certain kinds of meat, but NOT mechanically
> planted or harvested produce. Or, best of all, you can stop making false
> claims, moral and otherwise, about food choices.

Daddy!

Do as I say!

You may find this surprising but no one is required to live by your
standard. She can live just as she pleases.

> >>>You are trying
> >>>to put an 'absoluteness' on the whole thing,
> >>
> >>That's what VEGANS do. You claim it's wrong to kill animals, and when
> >>shown that your diet causes more animals to be killed, you say it's
> >>wrong to eat them.
> >
> > Never mind other vegans and what you think of them.
> > Don't use the word absolute thrown in.
>
> You said killing animals is wrong. You left yourself an out of
> self-defense.

You killed Flipper and his Buds. Shame on you.

Fudge-packed Ron wrote:
>>>>>I have no way of knowing what farmers do what.
>>>>
>>>>Stop feigning ignorance and innocence. You know they intentionally
>>>>poison them and less intentionally run over and flood them.
>>>
>>>I don't know which do this, if they really do.
>>
>>Bullshit. You know that most farmers don't employ the tactics of the
>>Lundbergs to clear the fields of migratory birds (but not rodents,
>>amphibians, etc.). You know that the use of pesticides kills a variety
>>of non-targeted species. You know that storage facilities like granaries
>>and warehouses pro-actively employ pest control measures in accordance
>>with health agency requirements.
>
> Well then, any educated fool

Glad you're here to speak for the educated fool community.

> can see the difficulty is not in veganism

It *is*, but an educated fool is still a fool.

> but in the whores who are the growers and farmers.

Whores who cut certain corners to fulfill even *more whorish* consumer
demand for the least expensive products possible. Most consumers care
nothing about dead mice or rats or frogs, they just want their food.
Vegans, who brazenly lie about the impact their diet has on animals,
have failed to address the issue of alternative production which might
actually help their consumption match their rhetoric. They're hypocrites
of the grandest magnitude.

<...>

In article >,
usual suspect > wrote:

> Fudge-packed Ron wrote:
> >>>>>I have no way of knowing what farmers do what.
> >>>>
> >>>>Stop feigning ignorance and innocence. You know they intentionally
> >>>>poison them and less intentionally run over and flood them.
> >>>
> >>>I don't know which do this, if they really do.
> >>
> >>Bullshit. You know that most farmers don't employ the tactics of the
> >>Lundbergs to clear the fields of migratory birds (but not rodents,
> >>amphibians, etc.). You know that the use of pesticides kills a variety
> >>of non-targeted species. You know that storage facilities like granaries
> >>and warehouses pro-actively employ pest control measures in accordance
> >>with health agency requirements.
> >
> > Well then, any educated fool
>
> Glad you're here to speak for the educated fool community.
>
> > can see the difficulty is not in veganism
>
> It *is*, but an educated fool is still a fool.
>
> > but in the whores who are the growers and farmers.
>
> Whores who cut certain corners to fulfill even *more whorish* consumer
> demand for the least expensive products possible. Most consumers care
> nothing about dead mice or rats or frogs, they just want their food.
> Vegans, who brazenly lie about the impact their diet has on animals,
> have failed to address the issue of alternative production which might
> actually help their consumption match their rhetoric. They're hypocrites
> of the grandest magnitude.

You still suffer the delusion that other must follow your standards. The
vegan is free to make a logical argument to support animal rights and to
operate as a human within a human world.

There is a name for such a logical fallacy, but I'm not that interested
in remembering or looking it up at the moment.

"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:

>> >> >> >>In the process, she has revealed the fatal flaw in
>> >> >> >>"veganism" and, necessarily, in "vegans" themselves:
>> >> >> >>they don't really believe their absolute claim that
>> >> >> >>killing animals is wrong. Once that claim is
>> >> >> >>effectively abandoned, as this reveals it must be, we
>> >> >> >>see that "veganism" isn't about ethics at all.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > You are putting forth a very contrived logical position.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No, it isn't. It's a very well reasoned position, one
>> >> >> that is essentially accepted even by most "vegans".
>> >> >
>> >> > Ah, we return to an argument must be right because it common or
>> >> > popular.
>> >> > So much for "great minds".
>> >>
>> >> He didn't argue that the logic was right *because* it was essentially
>> >> accepted by most vegans, he said it was logical based on it's own
>> >> merits,
>> >> *and* essentially accepted by most vegans.
>> >>
>> >> Ron, honestly, your comprehension skills are sadly lacking.
>> >
>> > "Essentially argued even by most...." is exactly what he wrote.
>>
>> Read it again, "essentially ***accepted*** even by most "vegans".
>>
>> You appear to be attempting to allege an "argumentum ad populum" fallacy
>> where none exists. He is not using vegan arguments to support his case,
>> they
>> would not do so, since vegan *arguments* indicate that killing animals is
>> wrong. He is using the fact that their actions implicitly support his
>> argument as part of his *conclusion*. Vegans do not "argue" that killing
>> animals is not wrong, Jay Santos was not saying they did, in fact they at
>> least implicitly argue that it IS wrong. He revealed through his
>> reasoning
>> that by their *actions* they implicitly "accept" that it is NOT wrong. I
>> apologize if that is hard to understand, but you have to have a basic
>> grasp
>> of the subject matter to begin with.
>
> Could you please clarify "not wrong".

Could you please clarify what you mean by "please clarify "not wrong"?

Cute little game you have going.. continuously making objections and probing
for clarifications, never making a point of your own.

> I find you more confusing than
> ever.

Maybe your game isn't so functional as you wish it were. If your objections
and requests for clarification game was working you should be in a better
position to understand my position.

> There are a variety of possibilities such as wrong, neutral or
> right. I imagine with could anything across a spectrum from almost right
> to not quite wrong.

You are decribing the moral ambiguity of veganism. I think you should
address the question to them.

> Please clarify what you mean by "not wrong."
> For example, is paying my taxes "not wrong"?

For the most part, yes, of course. I can see nothing wrong in paying one's
taxes. What do *you* think?