|
"Ron" > wrote in message ... > 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. ===================== LOL You still don't have a clue, do you, fool? It's not 'our' standards that they should follow, it's their own, idiot. The ones they make big pronouncements about and then never even try to live up to! You really are this stupid, aren't you? And all this time I thought you were just playing. One too many packings, eh pansy? 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. |
In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote: > "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. In my view, "not wrong" is an avoidance of stating that killing animals, for example, is right or morally netural. I find that you do that quite often. In all of the discussions thus far, you have avoided stating something as morally neutral or just plain "right". > > 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. I do. You avoid responsibility for actions and you make excuses for others. The person who kills the animal is killing the animal. They do so because they want to, otherwise they wouldn't. Justification and mitigation are just ways the human beast satisfies it sense of guilt and shame at publicly accepted and enforced codes. > > 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. No. I'm addressing your fondness for using "not wrong". Please clarify do you mean right, or morally netural when you use this term, or is there some other explanation that you have for not wrong. > > 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? I think you continue to evade the question. As I've stated the act of giving money is morally neutral. As humans, we attach moral value to the purpose, function, motivation and so on. Paying 10K to the taxman = good. Paying 10 K to a prostitue or drug dealer = bad. The actions involved are the same. What is being "judged" is the motive and intent. |
In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote: > "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. In my view, "not wrong" is an avoidance of stating that killing animals, for example, is right or morally netural. I find that you do that quite often. In all of the discussions thus far, you have avoided stating something as morally neutral or just plain "right". > > 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. I do. You avoid responsibility for actions and you make excuses for others. The person who kills the animal is killing the animal. They do so because they want to, otherwise they wouldn't. Justification and mitigation are just ways the human beast satisfies it sense of guilt and shame at publicly accepted and enforced codes. > > 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. No. I'm addressing your fondness for using "not wrong". Please clarify do you mean right, or morally netural when you use this term, or is there some other explanation that you have for not wrong. > > 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? I think you continue to evade the question. As I've stated the act of giving money is morally neutral. As humans, we attach moral value to the purpose, function, motivation and so on. Paying 10K to the taxman = good. Paying 10 K to a prostitue or drug dealer = bad. The actions involved are the same. What is being "judged" is the motive and intent. |
In article et>,
"rick etter" > wrote: > "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. What has the education of a nation come to when a reasoned response amounts to...google it. Open wide, pansie has something for you. |
In article t>,
"rick etter" > wrote: > "Ron" > wrote in message > ... > > 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. > ===================== > LOL You still don't have a clue, do you, fool? It's not 'our' standards > that they should follow, it's their own, idiot. The ones they make big > pronouncements about and then never even try to live up to! You really are > this stupid, aren't you? And all this time I thought you were just playing. > One too many packings, eh pansy? Ugh. Once again, please enlighten us on the requirements of humans to follow the theoretical construct or logical argument. *awaits the latest google" > 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: [..] >> > 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. > > In my view, "not wrong" is an avoidance of stating that killing animals, > for example, is right or morally netural. I find that you do that quite > often. In all of the discussions thus far, you have avoided stating > something as morally neutral or just plain "right". It's the same thing, just addressed from a slightly different perspective. Killing animals, under the proper circumstances, is "not wrong", "right", "acceptable", "moral", "ethical", "justifiable", "morally neutral", however you want to look at it. This is not an objection with any substance, you're grasping. >> > 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. > > I do. You avoid responsibility for actions and you make excuses for > others. Never. > The person who kills the animal is killing the animal. Tautology. > They do > so because they want to, otherwise they wouldn't. They probably do it because it's the only job they can get and they need the money. > Justification and > mitigation are just ways the human beast satisfies it sense of guilt and > shame at publicly accepted and enforced codes. Hogwash. >> > 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. > > No. I'm addressing your fondness for using "not wrong". Please clarify > do you mean right, or morally netural when you use this term, or is > there some other explanation that you have for not wrong. Nope, all of those terms are synonyms with nearly identical meanings. > >> > 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? > > I think you continue to evade the question. What question? > As I've stated the act of giving money is morally neutral. As humans, we > attach moral value to the purpose, function, motivation and so on. > Paying 10K to the taxman = good. Paying 10 K to a prostitue or drug > dealer = bad. The actions involved are the same. What is being "judged" > is the motive and intent. Yes, combined with the action. Thinking about doing a wrong act is not wrong. Thinking about doing an unselfish act is not commendable. The action is required. The circumstances are also required to assess the morality. |
> > Buying a farm is not an option for me,
> > I know, you slacker. How does that make me a slacker? Just because I'm going to have to wait until retirement doesn't make me a slacker, just lucky or unlucky depending on how you look at it. Lucky for getting there someday, unlucky for it taking years. Slacking has nothing to do with it. > > 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. How are locally grown plants lower in cds than plants from elsewhere? > > 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. And how does one tell them apart from others? The stores don't put the name of the farmers and locations for most foods. > > 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. I'll never recommend wild game. Extinction is permanent. > > The intentional death is both more in-your-face > > In your face as opposed to burying your head about CDs? First of all, I don't believe there's as many deaths from slow moving farm machinery as you trolls would have me think. Secondly, any such deaths are accidental and not as abhorrent as an intentional death. Did you know that a high number of serial killers start out by killing animals intentionally? I'm not saying you're a serial killer, but it says something of the mindset. > > 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. The vegan diet is not marginal. There is quite a lot of variety in the foods. Go check out my recipe directory if you don't believe it. > >>>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. No charlatan. I truly believe that it is good for me on a number of levels. I don't believe your 'facts' about its dangers. Most of what you claim, I've seen later disproven. > > 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. It is a good thing. The body needs all 3 and this oil provides it. It's you trolls who started worrying that it might cause an overdose of omega 6, without even knowing how much is in there and how much the person is getting elsewhere in their diet. > > 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." That's funny, I've been to very few 'activist' websites. I do however go to and subscribe to, many science news sites. > > 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). By admitting that hunting the deer would reverse their overpopulation, you admit that hunting them keeps lowering their amounts. After they are no longer overpopulated, when you keep hunting (the demand for meat doesn't go away you know) their numbers keep going down until they are extinct. > > and the 'grassfed' herds would barely supply anyone else. > > Nonsense. If it could supply everyone, then the grasslands would have to support dozens and dozens, maybe hundreds of times the number of cows. > > Face > > it, the commercial meat industry supplies most meat eaters, > > Consumers drive demand, commercial supply doesn't drive demand. That's right, and your game and grass fed can't feed that 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. Cds are the issue. It's the thing that you trolls keep bringing up. > > What's your point? That vegans should balance their meals? > > Definitely. It takes more planning on a vegetarian diet. Only at first when one is unfamiliar with some of the foods. After that it's as easy as one's previous meat diet. > >>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. If you feel so strongly against the import and export of foods, you must eat very bland meals. I think that the import and export increases the variety of foods availlable and is thus potentially more healthful. > > 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 here to troll. Not to offer assistance. Assistance isn't 'offered' with insults and swearing at people. > > 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. Surely you must know that you're joking. I know what my years of research is, and where it's led me. You know less than nothing about my research. Why would you think that I would go to an insulting, lying troll and ask for advise? And take that advise over my years of research? I don't think so. :) > > You're not even vegan, > > Hurray! You finally admit it. Then why are you still here in alt.food.vegan? Do you now admit to trolling? -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
Fudge-packer 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. I insist others who pontificate about such things make some effort to meet or exceed their own standards. > The vegan is free to make a logical argument to support animal rights and to > operate as a human within a human world. I haven't questioned their freedom (or right) to engage in hypocrisy. I've only called them on it. |
In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote: > "Ron" > wrote > > "Dutch" > wrote: > > [..] > > >> > 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. > > > > In my view, "not wrong" is an avoidance of stating that killing animals, > > for example, is right or morally netural. I find that you do that quite > > often. In all of the discussions thus far, you have avoided stating > > something as morally neutral or just plain "right". > > It's the same thing, just addressed from a slightly different perspective. > Killing animals, under the proper circumstances, is "not wrong", "right", > "acceptable", "moral", "ethical", "justifiable", "morally neutral", however > you want to look at it. This is not an objection with any substance, you're > grasping. Well, let me give you a few examples of what I experience when I read your comments. It's not wrong to get married. It's not wrong to have children. It's not wrong to go to work and be productive in society. How odd is that I would label these acts as not wrong versus labeling them as expected, normal, natural, right, and so on. > >> > 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. > > > > I do. You avoid responsibility for actions and you make excuses for > > others. > > Never. Frequently. You've done it with respect to pot use, veganism, child abuse, and killing in several situations. > > The person who kills the animal is killing the animal. > > Tautology. > > > They do > > so because they want to, otherwise they wouldn't. > > They probably do it because it's the only job they can get and they need the > money. Absolution, forgiveness, excuses, justification, mitigation, etc. The language is filled with words that describe what you accomplished in that sentence. Of course, how could anyone want to hurt an animal? There _must_ be another reason. How could we function as humans to know that we are aggressive animals on this planet with behaviours that span a spectrum from "gentle" to "cruel". How could we maintain a guiding principle of not doing harm unless we created motivation and intent to exhonerate ourselves from our actions. > > Justification and > > mitigation are just ways the human beast satisfies it sense of guilt and > > shame at publicly accepted and enforced codes. > > Hogwash. Are you disputing this? > >> > 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. > > > > No. I'm addressing your fondness for using "not wrong". Please clarify > > do you mean right, or morally netural when you use this term, or is > > there some other explanation that you have for not wrong. > > Nope, all of those terms are synonyms with nearly identical meanings. Agreed. It's not wrong for a married couple to engage in sex for bonding or to procreate. and, it's not wrong to kill humans in some circstances. Does this demonstrate for you how you use the term. > >> > 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? > > > > I think you continue to evade the question. > > What question? You did clarify somewhat. So can we discuss the functional difference between wrong, not wrong, almost right and right or acceptable. > > As I've stated the act of giving money is morally neutral. As humans, we > > attach moral value to the purpose, function, motivation and so on. > > Paying 10K to the taxman = good. Paying 10 K to a prostitue or drug > > dealer = bad. The actions involved are the same. What is being "judged" > > is the motive and intent. > > Yes, combined with the action. Thinking about doing a wrong act is not > wrong. Thinking about doing an unselfish act is not commendable. The action > is required. The circumstances are also required to assess the morality. The the action is not being assessed. A "john" pays a prostitute 10K for a weekend of sex. The general perception is that this is wrong. The prostitute uses the money to feed her child, pay the rent so the child has a safe place to live and then invests 5K in an education fund for the child's future. Her actions are now the same as many parents. Is the act of her prostitution still "wrong"? Her actions have not caused harm, but are beneficial for her child. You've argued that circumstances mitigate morality. Does it? |
In article >,
usual suspect > wrote: > Fudge-packer 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. > > I insist others who pontificate about such things make some effort to > meet or exceed their own standards. I see. So your expectations of others are higher than your own expectations of yourself. What have you done about the moral wrong of sodomizing children and premeditated murder. You were in the chain of those "great minds" who disagreed with these acts as immoral as I recall. > > The vegan is free to make a logical argument to support animal rights and > > to > > operate as a human within a human world. > > I haven't questioned their freedom (or right) to engage in hypocrisy. > I've only called them on it. Hmmmm. |
In article >,
usual suspect > wrote: > Fudge-packer 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. > > I insist others who pontificate about such things make some effort to > meet or exceed their own standards. I see. So your expectations of others are higher than your own expectations of yourself. What have you done about the moral wrong of sodomizing children and premeditated murder. You were in the chain of those "great minds" who disagreed with these acts as immoral as I recall. > > The vegan is free to make a logical argument to support animal rights and > > to > > operate as a human within a human world. > > I haven't questioned their freedom (or right) to engage in hypocrisy. > I've only called them on it. Hmmmm. |
"Ron" > wrote in message ... > In article >, > usual suspect > wrote: > >> Fudge-packer 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. >> >> I insist others who pontificate about such things make some effort to >> meet or exceed their own standards. > > I see. So your expectations of others are higher than your own > expectations of yourself. ===================== Nice strawman, pansy. He never made any such claim. Nice of you to try to project onto others the idiocy you spew though. What have you done about the moral wrong of > sodomizing children and premeditated murder. ======================== Analogies are really really hard for you, aren't they pansy? First and foremost he doesn't participate in the action, unlike the vegan that claims that killing animals is wrong and yet does nothing to alleviate the death and suffering they contribute to. So, he's already far ahead of vegans. Second, the strawman you built gets knocked over easily since he has never claimed to live his life in a way that reduces and'or eliminates child abuse. Again, that's the basis of the vegan religion. You really are too stupid for this, pansy. Maybe you should just hang out with the other pansies in your semi-literate phi. group. You were in the chain of > those "great minds" who disagreed with these acts as immoral as I recall. > >> > The vegan is free to make a logical argument to support animal rights >> > and >> > to >> > operate as a human within a human world. >> >> I haven't questioned their freedom (or right) to engage in hypocrisy. >> I've only called them on it. > > Hmmmm. |
"Ron" > wrote in message ... > In article >, > usual suspect > wrote: > >> Fudge-packer 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. >> >> I insist others who pontificate about such things make some effort to >> meet or exceed their own standards. > > I see. So your expectations of others are higher than your own > expectations of yourself. ===================== Nice strawman, pansy. He never made any such claim. Nice of you to try to project onto others the idiocy you spew though. What have you done about the moral wrong of > sodomizing children and premeditated murder. ======================== Analogies are really really hard for you, aren't they pansy? First and foremost he doesn't participate in the action, unlike the vegan that claims that killing animals is wrong and yet does nothing to alleviate the death and suffering they contribute to. So, he's already far ahead of vegans. Second, the strawman you built gets knocked over easily since he has never claimed to live his life in a way that reduces and'or eliminates child abuse. Again, that's the basis of the vegan religion. You really are too stupid for this, pansy. Maybe you should just hang out with the other pansies in your semi-literate phi. group. You were in the chain of > those "great minds" who disagreed with these acts as immoral as I recall. > >> > The vegan is free to make a logical argument to support animal rights >> > and >> > to >> > operate as a human within a human world. >> >> I haven't questioned their freedom (or right) to engage in hypocrisy. >> I've only called them on it. > > Hmmmm. |
"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ... >> > Buying a farm is not an option for me, >> >> I know, you slacker. > > How does that make me a slacker? ================== It does prove the hypocrisy of the vegan position quite well though. Your convenience comes first. Maybe you just like killing animals, eh? Just because > I'm going to have to wait until retirement doesn't > make me a slacker, just lucky or unlucky depending > on how you look at it. Lucky for getting there > someday, unlucky for it taking years. Slacking > has nothing to do with it. ================== No, lazy hypocrisy says it all, killer. > >> > 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. > > How are locally grown plants lower in cds than plants from > elsewhere? ================== Are you really that stupid, or do you work really really hard at it? Does those imported fruits and veggies just drop out of the sky and land on your plate like manna from heaven? You are so totally ignorant of the impact your life has on animals and the environemnt the world over that it makes my head spin. How can anybody be so willfully stupid? > >> > 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. > > And how does one tell them apart from others? > The stores don't put the name of the farmers and > locations for most foods. ====================== Cluesless urbanite, as was said above. Have you even trid a farmers market? I know for a fact that there are some in Toronto, killer. But no, you haven't. You're too self-absorbed and selfish to actually go out of your way to evn make a tiny effort to live up to your ignorant claims of 'caring.' > >> > 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. > > I'll never recommend wild game. Extinction is permanent. ==================== LOL What a hoot!!! You're killing far more animals with your supermart veggies, hypocrite. > >> > The intentional death is both more in-your-face >> >> In your face as opposed to burying your head about CDs? > > First of all, I don't believe there's as many deaths from > slow moving farm machinery as you trolls would have > me think. ======================== Why not? HJave you seen some of them in action? The size? Of course not. Besides fool, even those that do escape the machine are left without any food and cover, so they die anyway, killer. They die because of your veggies! Their numbers are at unnatural levels for an area because your crops have provided an unnatural amount of easy food and cover. Many animals can breed several times a season, and they offsping can breed several times too. Right when the numbers are at a peak, you take away all the easy food and cover, leaving them to die of starvation and predation. They also cannot just all scurry off into the surrounding areas because those areas will already be at their natural capacity. Secondly, any such deaths are accidental > and not as abhorrent as an intentional death. ============================= Really? Why? They are just a s dead. And, they died in far more brutal, inhumane ways than slaughterhouse animals do. Quite a selective compassion you have there, hypocrite. Did you > know that a high number of serial killers start out by > killing animals intentionally? I'm not saying you're a > serial killer, but it says something of the mindset. ======================== LOL What a hoot! Clueless urbanite... > >> > 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. > > The vegan diet is not marginal. There is quite a lot > of variety in the foods. Go check out my recipe > directory if you don't believe it. ==================== Sure, as long as you spice it up with imported foods from around the world, killer. Those are far from being 'vegan' in terms of the death and suffering surrounding their transport, hypocrite. Besides, it does not naturally provide all the vitamins you need. snips... >> 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. > > No charlatan. I truly believe that it is good for me on a number of > levels. I don't believe your 'facts' about its dangers. Most of what > you claim, I've seen later disproven. ======================= No, you haven't, or you would have posted it all over usenet, killer. > >> > 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. > > It is a good thing. The body needs all 3 and this oil > provides it. It's you trolls who started worrying that > it might cause an overdose of omega 6, without > even knowing how much is in there and how much > the person is getting elsewhere in their diet. > >> > 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." > > That's funny, I've been to very few 'activist' websites. I do > however go to and subscribe to, many science news sites. ======================= LOL Then why are they on your site with links? Anything that proclaims that something is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and then m,akes no mention of the fact hat there are differing opinions is an activist/propagand site looking to scam the rubes. > >> > 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). > > By admitting that hunting the deer would reverse their > overpopulation, you admit that hunting them keeps > lowering their amounts. After they are no longer > overpopulated, when you keep hunting (the demand > for meat doesn't go away you know) their numbers > keep going down until they are extinct. ================== Clueless urbanite. You have no clue as to animals, do you killer? > >> > and the 'grassfed' herds would barely supply anyone else. >> >> Nonsense. > > If it could supply everyone, then the grasslands would have > to support dozens and dozens, maybe hundreds > of times the number of cows. ======================= Hey, clueless urbanite, *ALL* beef cattle are already grass-fed for almost their whole lives. The pasture is already there, dolt. they only spend a feww wekks of their lives in feedlots. You really are a clueless urbanite. > >> > Face >> > it, the commercial meat industry supplies most meat eaters, >> >> Consumers drive demand, commercial supply doesn't drive demand. > > That's right, and your game and grass fed can't feed that demand. ============================ ROTFLMAO And your so-called mythical veganic gardening can? You really are too stupid for words, killer. We aren't talking about the masses, we're talking about what *you* as an individual *could* do to improve your bloody footprints. But, you're too lazy and stupid to do anything real, so you have to focus only on what you think others are doing. Nice strawman, hypocrite, but one that's been knocked down many, many times... > >> > 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. > > Cds are the issue. It's the thing that you trolls keep bringing up. ================== And one that you like to ignore because otherwise your house of cards falls down... > >> > What's your point? That vegans should balance their meals? >> >> Definitely. It takes more planning on a vegetarian diet. > > Only at first when one is unfamiliar with some of the foods. > After that it's as easy as one's previous meat diet. > >> >>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. > > If you feel so strongly against the import and export > of foods, you must eat very bland meals. I think > that the import and export increases the variety > of foods availlable and is thus potentially more > healthful. =========================== Then you admit that a vegan diet is unhealthy without massive importation? Thanks for proving that you diet is filled with death and suffering and hypocrisy, killer. > >> > 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 here to troll. Not to offer assistance. Assistance > isn't 'offered' with insults and swearing at people. ======================= LOL Especially when the idiot getting the advice is willfully and terminally ignorant, right hypocrite? > >> > 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. > > Surely you must know that you're joking. I know what > my years of research is, and where it's led me. ================= LOL You're done no research, killer. You know it, and we know it. You far to stupid in everything discussed here to have researched anything. You > know less than nothing about my research. Why would > you think that I would go to an insulting, lying troll and > ask for advise? And take that advise over my years > of research? I don't think so. :) ================= Of course not, your religion demands otherwise. > >> > You're not even vegan, >> >> Hurray! You finally admit it. > > Then why are you still here in alt.food.vegan? Do > you now admit to trolling? > > > -- > SN > http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ > A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. > Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. > Irony, ignorance and hypocrisy on display... > |
"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ... >> > Buying a farm is not an option for me, >> >> I know, you slacker. > > How does that make me a slacker? ================== It does prove the hypocrisy of the vegan position quite well though. Your convenience comes first. Maybe you just like killing animals, eh? Just because > I'm going to have to wait until retirement doesn't > make me a slacker, just lucky or unlucky depending > on how you look at it. Lucky for getting there > someday, unlucky for it taking years. Slacking > has nothing to do with it. ================== No, lazy hypocrisy says it all, killer. > >> > 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. > > How are locally grown plants lower in cds than plants from > elsewhere? ================== Are you really that stupid, or do you work really really hard at it? Does those imported fruits and veggies just drop out of the sky and land on your plate like manna from heaven? You are so totally ignorant of the impact your life has on animals and the environemnt the world over that it makes my head spin. How can anybody be so willfully stupid? > >> > 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. > > And how does one tell them apart from others? > The stores don't put the name of the farmers and > locations for most foods. ====================== Cluesless urbanite, as was said above. Have you even trid a farmers market? I know for a fact that there are some in Toronto, killer. But no, you haven't. You're too self-absorbed and selfish to actually go out of your way to evn make a tiny effort to live up to your ignorant claims of 'caring.' > >> > 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. > > I'll never recommend wild game. Extinction is permanent. ==================== LOL What a hoot!!! You're killing far more animals with your supermart veggies, hypocrite. > >> > The intentional death is both more in-your-face >> >> In your face as opposed to burying your head about CDs? > > First of all, I don't believe there's as many deaths from > slow moving farm machinery as you trolls would have > me think. ======================== Why not? HJave you seen some of them in action? The size? Of course not. Besides fool, even those that do escape the machine are left without any food and cover, so they die anyway, killer. They die because of your veggies! Their numbers are at unnatural levels for an area because your crops have provided an unnatural amount of easy food and cover. Many animals can breed several times a season, and they offsping can breed several times too. Right when the numbers are at a peak, you take away all the easy food and cover, leaving them to die of starvation and predation. They also cannot just all scurry off into the surrounding areas because those areas will already be at their natural capacity. Secondly, any such deaths are accidental > and not as abhorrent as an intentional death. ============================= Really? Why? They are just a s dead. And, they died in far more brutal, inhumane ways than slaughterhouse animals do. Quite a selective compassion you have there, hypocrite. Did you > know that a high number of serial killers start out by > killing animals intentionally? I'm not saying you're a > serial killer, but it says something of the mindset. ======================== LOL What a hoot! Clueless urbanite... > >> > 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. > > The vegan diet is not marginal. There is quite a lot > of variety in the foods. Go check out my recipe > directory if you don't believe it. ==================== Sure, as long as you spice it up with imported foods from around the world, killer. Those are far from being 'vegan' in terms of the death and suffering surrounding their transport, hypocrite. Besides, it does not naturally provide all the vitamins you need. snips... >> 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. > > No charlatan. I truly believe that it is good for me on a number of > levels. I don't believe your 'facts' about its dangers. Most of what > you claim, I've seen later disproven. ======================= No, you haven't, or you would have posted it all over usenet, killer. > >> > 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. > > It is a good thing. The body needs all 3 and this oil > provides it. It's you trolls who started worrying that > it might cause an overdose of omega 6, without > even knowing how much is in there and how much > the person is getting elsewhere in their diet. > >> > 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." > > That's funny, I've been to very few 'activist' websites. I do > however go to and subscribe to, many science news sites. ======================= LOL Then why are they on your site with links? Anything that proclaims that something is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and then m,akes no mention of the fact hat there are differing opinions is an activist/propagand site looking to scam the rubes. > >> > 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). > > By admitting that hunting the deer would reverse their > overpopulation, you admit that hunting them keeps > lowering their amounts. After they are no longer > overpopulated, when you keep hunting (the demand > for meat doesn't go away you know) their numbers > keep going down until they are extinct. ================== Clueless urbanite. You have no clue as to animals, do you killer? > >> > and the 'grassfed' herds would barely supply anyone else. >> >> Nonsense. > > If it could supply everyone, then the grasslands would have > to support dozens and dozens, maybe hundreds > of times the number of cows. ======================= Hey, clueless urbanite, *ALL* beef cattle are already grass-fed for almost their whole lives. The pasture is already there, dolt. they only spend a feww wekks of their lives in feedlots. You really are a clueless urbanite. > >> > Face >> > it, the commercial meat industry supplies most meat eaters, >> >> Consumers drive demand, commercial supply doesn't drive demand. > > That's right, and your game and grass fed can't feed that demand. ============================ ROTFLMAO And your so-called mythical veganic gardening can? You really are too stupid for words, killer. We aren't talking about the masses, we're talking about what *you* as an individual *could* do to improve your bloody footprints. But, you're too lazy and stupid to do anything real, so you have to focus only on what you think others are doing. Nice strawman, hypocrite, but one that's been knocked down many, many times... > >> > 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. > > Cds are the issue. It's the thing that you trolls keep bringing up. ================== And one that you like to ignore because otherwise your house of cards falls down... > >> > What's your point? That vegans should balance their meals? >> >> Definitely. It takes more planning on a vegetarian diet. > > Only at first when one is unfamiliar with some of the foods. > After that it's as easy as one's previous meat diet. > >> >>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. > > If you feel so strongly against the import and export > of foods, you must eat very bland meals. I think > that the import and export increases the variety > of foods availlable and is thus potentially more > healthful. =========================== Then you admit that a vegan diet is unhealthy without massive importation? Thanks for proving that you diet is filled with death and suffering and hypocrisy, killer. > >> > 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 here to troll. Not to offer assistance. Assistance > isn't 'offered' with insults and swearing at people. ======================= LOL Especially when the idiot getting the advice is willfully and terminally ignorant, right hypocrite? > >> > 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. > > Surely you must know that you're joking. I know what > my years of research is, and where it's led me. ================= LOL You're done no research, killer. You know it, and we know it. You far to stupid in everything discussed here to have researched anything. You > know less than nothing about my research. Why would > you think that I would go to an insulting, lying troll and > ask for advise? And take that advise over my years > of research? I don't think so. :) ================= Of course not, your religion demands otherwise. > >> > You're not even vegan, >> >> Hurray! You finally admit it. > > Then why are you still here in alt.food.vegan? Do > you now admit to trolling? > > > -- > SN > http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ > A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. > Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. > Irony, ignorance and hypocrisy on display... > |
"Ron" > wrote in message ... > In article et>, > "rick etter" > wrote: > >> "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. > > What has the education of a nation come to when a reasoned response > amounts to...google it. > ========================== When the idiot making stupid demands doesn't have the knowledge to find out before hand what they are supposedly spewing about, it tells us the level of *your* education, pansy-boy. Thanks for proving again that you have nothing... > Open wide, pansie has something for you. |
In article et>,
"rick etter" > wrote: > "Ron" > wrote in message > ... > > In article et>, > > "rick etter" > wrote: > > > >> "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. > > > > What has the education of a nation come to when a reasoned response > > amounts to...google it. > > ========================== > When the idiot making stupid demands doesn't have the knowledge to find out > before hand what they are supposedly spewing about, it tells us the level of > *your* education, pansy-boy. Thanks for proving again that you have > nothing... Google us up another load, big boy. I'd appreciate seeing your links that require a human (vegan in this case) conform to a theoretical construct. |
In article et>,
"rick etter" > wrote: > "Ron" > wrote in message > ... > > In article et>, > > "rick etter" > wrote: > > > >> "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. > > > > What has the education of a nation come to when a reasoned response > > amounts to...google it. > > ========================== > When the idiot making stupid demands doesn't have the knowledge to find out > before hand what they are supposedly spewing about, it tells us the level of > *your* education, pansy-boy. Thanks for proving again that you have > nothing... Google us up another load, big boy. I'd appreciate seeing your links that require a human (vegan in this case) conform to a theoretical construct. |
> >> > Buying a farm is not an option for me,
> >> > >> I know, you slacker. > > > > How does that make me a slacker? > ================== > It does prove the hypocrisy of the vegan position quite well though. Your > convenience comes first. Maybe you just like killing animals, eh? So, you're saying that convenience is stopping me from currently getting a farm? You don't make sense tricky ricky. Where's the hypocrasy or do you just see that everywhere due to your paranoia? What led you to suggest I like killing animals? Do you hear voices that tell you what to write/insult here? > Just because > > I'm going to have to wait until retirement doesn't > > make me a slacker, just lucky or unlucky depending > > on how you look at it. Lucky for getting there > > someday, unlucky for it taking years. Slacking > > has nothing to do with it. > ================== > No, lazy hypocrisy says it all, killer. Says what? Explain yourself. Don't just insult without explaining. That makes it nonsense. > >> > 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. > > > > How are locally grown plants lower in cds than plants from > > elsewhere? > ================== > Are you really that stupid, or do you work really really hard at it? Does > those imported fruits and veggies just drop out of the sky and land on your > plate like manna from heaven? You are so totally ignorant of the impact > your life has on animals and the environemnt the world over that it makes my > head spin. How can anybody be so willfully stupid? Well, if you think that the transportation industry is causing deaths speak up ricky. > > And how does one tell them apart from others? > > The stores don't put the name of the farmers and > > locations for most foods. > ====================== > Cluesless urbanite, as was said above. Have you even trid a farmers > market? I know for a fact that there are some in Toronto, killer. But no, > you haven't. You're too self-absorbed and selfish to actually go out of > your way to evn make a tiny effort to live up to your ignorant claims of > 'caring.' I have nothing against imported foods. Farmers markets are fine though limited. I like a mix of local and imported. > >> > The intentional death is both more in-your-face > >> > >> In your face as opposed to burying your head about CDs? > > > > First of all, I don't believe there's as many deaths from > > slow moving farm machinery as you trolls would have > > me think. > ======================== > Why not? HJave you seen some of them in action? The size? Of course not. > Besides fool, even those that do escape the machine are left without any > food and cover, so they die anyway, killer. They die because of your > veggies! Their numbers are at unnatural levels for an area because your > crops have provided an unnatural amount of easy food and cover. Many > animals can breed several times a season, and they offsping can breed > several times too. Right when the numbers are at a peak, you take away > all the easy food and cover, leaving them to die of starvation and > predation. They also cannot just all scurry off into the surrounding areas > because those areas will already be at their natural capacity. If the machine is killing them off in such mass numbers, how is it that they are back again in full force the next year? Many rodents get to know the growing patterns of their food, and will bury and store food during times of plenty for leaner times. > Secondly, any such deaths are accidental > > and not as abhorrent as an intentional death. > ============================= > Really? Why? They are just a s dead. And, they died in far more brutal, > inhumane ways than slaughterhouse animals do. Quite a selective compassion > you have there, hypocrite. You'll never get it rickyboy. You haven't the moral capacity to understand why the intentional death is a more profound one. And whatever you think of that, it's still quite stupid to suggest meat eating to a vegetarian. > Did you > > know that a high number of serial killers start out by > > killing animals intentionally? I'm not saying you're a > > serial killer, but it says something of the mindset. > ======================== > LOL What a hoot! Clueless urbanite... You think it's funny? Did it hit a little too close to home? > > The vegan diet is not marginal. There is quite a lot > > of variety in the foods. Go check out my recipe > > directory if you don't believe it. > ==================== > Sure, as long as you spice it up with imported foods from around the world, > killer. Those are far from being 'vegan' in terms of the death and > suffering surrounding their transport, hypocrite. Besides, it does not > naturally provide all the vitamins you need. The vegan can get all the nutrition needed to be healthy. Buying imported however, means you can suppliment your health in a variety of ways. The spice turmeric, for example, is very healthy and has antibiotic properties. Imported (depending on where you live) cranberry juice is a tonic for the kidneys and has lots of nutrients. You can be healthy as a local vegan, but why not be extra-healthy as an international vegan? > >> 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. > > > > No charlatan. I truly believe that it is good for me on a number of > > levels. I don't believe your 'facts' about its dangers. Most of what > > you claim, I've seen later disproven. > ======================= > No, you haven't, or you would have posted it all over usenet, killer. Nonsense. In case you haven't noticed I rarely post links. I don't save them in hopes of debating them. My books have no bookmarks, tv news goes unvideoed, and webpages unsaved for you. Look it up yourself. There's plenty to refute the claims of danger. > > That's funny, I've been to very few 'activist' websites. I do > > however go to and subscribe to, many science news sites. > ======================= > LOL Then why are they on your site with links? Anything that proclaims > that something is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and then m,akes no > mention of the fact hat there are differing opinions is an > activist/propagand site looking to scam the rubes. On my recipe link site, I state clearly that all views, beliefs, etc are those of the people who made the various recipe sites. You will find activists, health nuts, food enthusiasts, specialty food sites, etc. I go to those websites for recipes. That's where my focus is. For scientific info, I go elsewhere. > > By admitting that hunting the deer would reverse their > > overpopulation, you admit that hunting them keeps > > lowering their amounts. After they are no longer > > overpopulated, when you keep hunting (the demand > > for meat doesn't go away you know) their numbers > > keep going down until they are extinct. > ================== > Clueless urbanite. You have no clue as to animals, do you killer? Try reading my paragraph again. Did you take any rudimentary mathematics when you were a kid? > > If it could supply everyone, then the grasslands would have > > to support dozens and dozens, maybe hundreds > > of times the number of cows. > ======================= > Hey, clueless urbanite, *ALL* beef cattle are already grass-fed for almost > their whole lives. The pasture is already there, dolt. they only spend a > feww wekks of their lives in feedlots. You really are a clueless urbanite. If that were true, then you wouldn't need to specially buy meat marked grass fed, would you? Any old supermarket meat will do. Is it also that way with pork and poultry? > >> > Face > >> > it, the commercial meat industry supplies most meat eaters, > >> > >> Consumers drive demand, commercial supply doesn't drive demand. > > > > That's right, and your game and grass fed can't feed that demand. > ============================ > ROTFLMAO And your so-called mythical veganic gardening can? You really > are too stupid for words, killer. We aren't talking about the masses, we're > talking about what *you* as an individual *could* do to improve your bloody > footprints. But, you're too lazy and stupid to do anything real, so you > have to focus only on what you think others are doing. Nice strawman, > hypocrite, but one that's been knocked down many, many times... You're babbling Ricky. What are you talking about? You know full well that a vegan diet, even a supermarket one, reduces the 'bloody footprint' at least a hundredfold. And we are talking about the masses. > > If you feel so strongly against the import and export > > of foods, you must eat very bland meals. I think > > that the import and export increases the variety > > of foods availlable and is thus potentially more > > healthful. > =========================== > Then you admit that a vegan diet is unhealthy without massive importation? > Thanks for proving that you diet is filled with death and suffering and > hypocrisy, killer. It's quite healthy without importation, but I believe that the variety importation brings can make one a bit healthier yet. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
> >> > Buying a farm is not an option for me,
> >> > >> I know, you slacker. > > > > How does that make me a slacker? > ================== > It does prove the hypocrisy of the vegan position quite well though. Your > convenience comes first. Maybe you just like killing animals, eh? So, you're saying that convenience is stopping me from currently getting a farm? You don't make sense tricky ricky. Where's the hypocrasy or do you just see that everywhere due to your paranoia? What led you to suggest I like killing animals? Do you hear voices that tell you what to write/insult here? > Just because > > I'm going to have to wait until retirement doesn't > > make me a slacker, just lucky or unlucky depending > > on how you look at it. Lucky for getting there > > someday, unlucky for it taking years. Slacking > > has nothing to do with it. > ================== > No, lazy hypocrisy says it all, killer. Says what? Explain yourself. Don't just insult without explaining. That makes it nonsense. > >> > 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. > > > > How are locally grown plants lower in cds than plants from > > elsewhere? > ================== > Are you really that stupid, or do you work really really hard at it? Does > those imported fruits and veggies just drop out of the sky and land on your > plate like manna from heaven? You are so totally ignorant of the impact > your life has on animals and the environemnt the world over that it makes my > head spin. How can anybody be so willfully stupid? Well, if you think that the transportation industry is causing deaths speak up ricky. > > And how does one tell them apart from others? > > The stores don't put the name of the farmers and > > locations for most foods. > ====================== > Cluesless urbanite, as was said above. Have you even trid a farmers > market? I know for a fact that there are some in Toronto, killer. But no, > you haven't. You're too self-absorbed and selfish to actually go out of > your way to evn make a tiny effort to live up to your ignorant claims of > 'caring.' I have nothing against imported foods. Farmers markets are fine though limited. I like a mix of local and imported. > >> > The intentional death is both more in-your-face > >> > >> In your face as opposed to burying your head about CDs? > > > > First of all, I don't believe there's as many deaths from > > slow moving farm machinery as you trolls would have > > me think. > ======================== > Why not? HJave you seen some of them in action? The size? Of course not. > Besides fool, even those that do escape the machine are left without any > food and cover, so they die anyway, killer. They die because of your > veggies! Their numbers are at unnatural levels for an area because your > crops have provided an unnatural amount of easy food and cover. Many > animals can breed several times a season, and they offsping can breed > several times too. Right when the numbers are at a peak, you take away > all the easy food and cover, leaving them to die of starvation and > predation. They also cannot just all scurry off into the surrounding areas > because those areas will already be at their natural capacity. If the machine is killing them off in such mass numbers, how is it that they are back again in full force the next year? Many rodents get to know the growing patterns of their food, and will bury and store food during times of plenty for leaner times. > Secondly, any such deaths are accidental > > and not as abhorrent as an intentional death. > ============================= > Really? Why? They are just a s dead. And, they died in far more brutal, > inhumane ways than slaughterhouse animals do. Quite a selective compassion > you have there, hypocrite. You'll never get it rickyboy. You haven't the moral capacity to understand why the intentional death is a more profound one. And whatever you think of that, it's still quite stupid to suggest meat eating to a vegetarian. > Did you > > know that a high number of serial killers start out by > > killing animals intentionally? I'm not saying you're a > > serial killer, but it says something of the mindset. > ======================== > LOL What a hoot! Clueless urbanite... You think it's funny? Did it hit a little too close to home? > > The vegan diet is not marginal. There is quite a lot > > of variety in the foods. Go check out my recipe > > directory if you don't believe it. > ==================== > Sure, as long as you spice it up with imported foods from around the world, > killer. Those are far from being 'vegan' in terms of the death and > suffering surrounding their transport, hypocrite. Besides, it does not > naturally provide all the vitamins you need. The vegan can get all the nutrition needed to be healthy. Buying imported however, means you can suppliment your health in a variety of ways. The spice turmeric, for example, is very healthy and has antibiotic properties. Imported (depending on where you live) cranberry juice is a tonic for the kidneys and has lots of nutrients. You can be healthy as a local vegan, but why not be extra-healthy as an international vegan? > >> 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. > > > > No charlatan. I truly believe that it is good for me on a number of > > levels. I don't believe your 'facts' about its dangers. Most of what > > you claim, I've seen later disproven. > ======================= > No, you haven't, or you would have posted it all over usenet, killer. Nonsense. In case you haven't noticed I rarely post links. I don't save them in hopes of debating them. My books have no bookmarks, tv news goes unvideoed, and webpages unsaved for you. Look it up yourself. There's plenty to refute the claims of danger. > > That's funny, I've been to very few 'activist' websites. I do > > however go to and subscribe to, many science news sites. > ======================= > LOL Then why are they on your site with links? Anything that proclaims > that something is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and then m,akes no > mention of the fact hat there are differing opinions is an > activist/propagand site looking to scam the rubes. On my recipe link site, I state clearly that all views, beliefs, etc are those of the people who made the various recipe sites. You will find activists, health nuts, food enthusiasts, specialty food sites, etc. I go to those websites for recipes. That's where my focus is. For scientific info, I go elsewhere. > > By admitting that hunting the deer would reverse their > > overpopulation, you admit that hunting them keeps > > lowering their amounts. After they are no longer > > overpopulated, when you keep hunting (the demand > > for meat doesn't go away you know) their numbers > > keep going down until they are extinct. > ================== > Clueless urbanite. You have no clue as to animals, do you killer? Try reading my paragraph again. Did you take any rudimentary mathematics when you were a kid? > > If it could supply everyone, then the grasslands would have > > to support dozens and dozens, maybe hundreds > > of times the number of cows. > ======================= > Hey, clueless urbanite, *ALL* beef cattle are already grass-fed for almost > their whole lives. The pasture is already there, dolt. they only spend a > feww wekks of their lives in feedlots. You really are a clueless urbanite. If that were true, then you wouldn't need to specially buy meat marked grass fed, would you? Any old supermarket meat will do. Is it also that way with pork and poultry? > >> > Face > >> > it, the commercial meat industry supplies most meat eaters, > >> > >> Consumers drive demand, commercial supply doesn't drive demand. > > > > That's right, and your game and grass fed can't feed that demand. > ============================ > ROTFLMAO And your so-called mythical veganic gardening can? You really > are too stupid for words, killer. We aren't talking about the masses, we're > talking about what *you* as an individual *could* do to improve your bloody > footprints. But, you're too lazy and stupid to do anything real, so you > have to focus only on what you think others are doing. Nice strawman, > hypocrite, but one that's been knocked down many, many times... You're babbling Ricky. What are you talking about? You know full well that a vegan diet, even a supermarket one, reduces the 'bloody footprint' at least a hundredfold. And we are talking about the masses. > > If you feel so strongly against the import and export > > of foods, you must eat very bland meals. I think > > that the import and export increases the variety > > of foods availlable and is thus potentially more > > healthful. > =========================== > Then you admit that a vegan diet is unhealthy without massive importation? > Thanks for proving that you diet is filled with death and suffering and > hypocrisy, killer. It's quite healthy without importation, but I believe that the variety importation brings can make one a bit healthier yet. -- 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 in message ...
> > >> > Buying a farm is not an option for me, > > >> > > >> I know, you slacker. > > > > > > How does that make me a slacker? > > ================== > > It does prove the hypocrisy of the vegan position quite well though. Your > > convenience comes first. Maybe you just like killing animals, eh? > > So, you're saying that convenience is stopping me from > currently getting a farm? You don't make sense tricky > ricky. Where's the hypocrasy or do you just see that > everywhere due to your paranoia? What led you to > suggest I like killing animals? Do you hear voices that > tell you what to write/insult here? Tricky Ricky Confined within a closed mind Apparitions roam vicious in intent Making me believe, holding me captive Lys are my truths MY ignorance is taught I don't know the truth I'm not allowed Confined within this narrow mind My world is dark and cold It's always black as night The only light that I see is that which trickles threw the fog of black Cloud I sit on a tree stump and look out into the mist Watching it crate shapes of abominable horrors that Only appear in the darkest reaches of my mind Dead trees surround me Their branches reach for the sky and at me As if seeking salvation from there mere existence * Awful, innit. ;). <..> |
"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ...
> > >> > Buying a farm is not an option for me, > > >> > > >> I know, you slacker. > > > > > > How does that make me a slacker? > > ================== > > It does prove the hypocrisy of the vegan position quite well though. Your > > convenience comes first. Maybe you just like killing animals, eh? > > So, you're saying that convenience is stopping me from > currently getting a farm? You don't make sense tricky > ricky. Where's the hypocrasy or do you just see that > everywhere due to your paranoia? What led you to > suggest I like killing animals? Do you hear voices that > tell you what to write/insult here? Tricky Ricky Confined within a closed mind Apparitions roam vicious in intent Making me believe, holding me captive Lys are my truths MY ignorance is taught I don't know the truth I'm not allowed Confined within this narrow mind My world is dark and cold It's always black as night The only light that I see is that which trickles threw the fog of black Cloud I sit on a tree stump and look out into the mist Watching it crate shapes of abominable horrors that Only appear in the darkest reaches of my mind Dead trees surround me Their branches reach for the sky and at me As if seeking salvation from there mere existence * Awful, innit. ;). <..> |
"Ron" > wrote in message ... > In article et>, > "rick etter" > wrote: > >> "Ron" > wrote in message >> ... >> > In article et>, >> > "rick etter" > wrote: >> > >> >> "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. >> > >> > What has the education of a nation come to when a reasoned response >> > amounts to...google it. >> > ========================== >> When the idiot making stupid demands doesn't have the knowledge to find >> out >> before hand what they are supposedly spewing about, it tells us the level >> of >> *your* education, pansy-boy. Thanks for proving again that you have >> nothing... > > Google us up another load, big boy. > > I'd appreciate seeing your links that require a human (vegan in this > case) conform to a theoretical construct. ================= Thanks for proving you have no idea what you're talking about, pansy-boy. |
"Ron" > wrote in message ... > In article et>, > "rick etter" > wrote: > >> "Ron" > wrote in message >> ... >> > In article et>, >> > "rick etter" > wrote: >> > >> >> "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. >> > >> > What has the education of a nation come to when a reasoned response >> > amounts to...google it. >> > ========================== >> When the idiot making stupid demands doesn't have the knowledge to find >> out >> before hand what they are supposedly spewing about, it tells us the level >> of >> *your* education, pansy-boy. Thanks for proving again that you have >> nothing... > > Google us up another load, big boy. > > I'd appreciate seeing your links that require a human (vegan in this > case) conform to a theoretical construct. ================= Thanks for proving you have no idea what you're talking about, pansy-boy. |
> Tricky Ricky
> > Confined within a closed mind > Apparitions roam vicious in intent > Making me believe, holding me captive > Lys are my truths > MY ignorance is taught > I don't know the truth > I'm not allowed > Confined within this narrow mind > > My world is dark and cold > It's always black as night > The only light that I see is that which > trickles threw the fog of black Cloud > I sit on a tree stump and look out into the mist > Watching it crate shapes of abominable horrors that > Only appear in the darkest reaches of my mind > Dead trees surround me > Their branches reach for the sky and at me > As if seeking salvation from there mere existence > > > * > > Awful, innit. ;). Yeah, but the poem's great! :) Must suck to be Ricky! That soup I was going to post has to wait now till next weekend, as things have gotten too busy, but I haven't forgotten. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
> Tricky Ricky
> > Confined within a closed mind > Apparitions roam vicious in intent > Making me believe, holding me captive > Lys are my truths > MY ignorance is taught > I don't know the truth > I'm not allowed > Confined within this narrow mind > > My world is dark and cold > It's always black as night > The only light that I see is that which > trickles threw the fog of black Cloud > I sit on a tree stump and look out into the mist > Watching it crate shapes of abominable horrors that > Only appear in the darkest reaches of my mind > Dead trees surround me > Their branches reach for the sky and at me > As if seeking salvation from there mere existence > > > * > > Awful, innit. ;). Yeah, but the poem's great! :) Must suck to be Ricky! That soup I was going to post has to wait now till next weekend, as things have gotten too busy, but I haven't forgotten. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
"Ron" > wrote in message ... > In article >, "Dutch" > > wrote: > >> "Ron" > wrote >> > "Dutch" > wrote: >> >> [..] >> >> >> > 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. >> > >> > In my view, "not wrong" is an avoidance of stating that killing >> > animals, >> > for example, is right or morally netural. I find that you do that quite >> > often. In all of the discussions thus far, you have avoided stating >> > something as morally neutral or just plain "right". >> >> It's the same thing, just addressed from a slightly different >> perspective. >> Killing animals, under the proper circumstances, is "not wrong", "right", >> "acceptable", "moral", "ethical", "justifiable", "morally neutral", >> however >> you want to look at it. This is not an objection with any substance, >> you're >> grasping. > > Well, let me give you a few examples of what I experience when I read > your comments. It's not wrong to get married. It's not wrong to have > children. It's not wrong to go to work and be productive in society. How > odd is that I would label these acts as not wrong versus labeling them > as expected, normal, natural, right, and so on. I would not have called those things "not wrong" either because there is no indication to me that anyone would consider them wrong, i.e. there is no harm involved. >> >> > 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. >> > >> > I do. You avoid responsibility for actions and you make excuses for >> > others. >> >> Never. > > Frequently. You've done it with respect to pot use, veganism, child > abuse, and killing in several situations. Wrong. >> > The person who kills the animal is killing the animal. >> >> Tautology. >> >> > They do >> > so because they want to, otherwise they wouldn't. >> >> They probably do it because it's the only job they can get and they need >> the >> money. > > Absolution, forgiveness, excuses, justification, mitigation, etc. The > language is filled with words that describe what you accomplished in > that sentence. Nope, just a fact, they are doing a difficult, unpleasant, low wage job because they need the money. They are not looking for forgiveness. > Of course, how could anyone want to hurt an animal? There _must_ be > another reason. How could we function as humans to know that we are > aggressive animals on this planet with behaviours that span a spectrum > from "gentle" to "cruel". How could we maintain a guiding principle of > not doing harm unless we created motivation and intent to exhonerate > ourselves from our actions. Was that a question? It kinda sounded like a speech, and it didn't make much sense. > >> > Justification and >> > mitigation are just ways the human beast satisfies it sense of guilt >> > and >> > shame at publicly accepted and enforced codes. >> >> Hogwash. > > Are you disputing this? What do YOU think? >> >> > 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. >> > >> > No. I'm addressing your fondness for using "not wrong". Please clarify >> > do you mean right, or morally netural when you use this term, or is >> > there some other explanation that you have for not wrong. >> >> Nope, all of those terms are synonyms with nearly identical meanings. > > Agreed. It's not wrong for a married couple to engage in sex for bonding > or to procreate. and, it's not wrong to kill humans in some circstances. > Does this demonstrate for you how you use the term. Not really. I would never have contemplated that married sex was wrong, it's not a moral issue to me. >> >> > 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? >> > >> > I think you continue to evade the question. >> >> What question? > > You did clarify somewhat. So can we discuss the functional difference > between wrong, not wrong, almost right and right or acceptable. Let's not, you're putting me to sleep. >> > As I've stated the act of giving money is morally neutral. As humans, >> > we >> > attach moral value to the purpose, function, motivation and so on. >> > Paying 10K to the taxman = good. Paying 10 K to a prostitue or drug >> > dealer = bad. The actions involved are the same. What is being "judged" >> > is the motive and intent. >> >> Yes, combined with the action. Thinking about doing a wrong act is not >> wrong. Thinking about doing an unselfish act is not commendable. The >> action >> is required. The circumstances are also required to assess the morality. > > The the action is not being assessed. > > A "john" pays a prostitute 10K for a weekend of sex. The general > perception is that this is wrong. Not really, not if it is mutally agreeable. It's not even illegal in this country. > The prostitute uses the money to feed > her child, pay the rent so the child has a safe place to live and then > invests 5K in an education fund for the child's future. Her actions are > now the same as many parents. Is the act of her prostitution still > "wrong"? Her actions have not caused harm, but are beneficial for her > child. Yea, so? > You've argued that circumstances mitigate morality. Does it? Always. |
"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ... >> >> > Buying a farm is not an option for me, >> >> >> >> I know, you slacker. >> > >> > How does that make me a slacker? >> ================== >> It does prove the hypocrisy of the vegan position quite well though. > Your >> convenience comes first. Maybe you just like killing animals, eh? > > So, you're saying that convenience is stopping me from > currently getting a farm? You don't make sense tricky > ricky. Where's the hypocrasy or do you just see that > everywhere due to your paranoia? What led you to > suggest I like killing animals? Do you hear voices that > tell you what to write/insult here? ================= Nope. Just that you continue to come back here spewing your ignorance for all the world to see, knowing that your participation is contributing to the unnecessary death and suffering of animals. Thanks for more proof of your hypocrisy, killer. > >> Just because >> > I'm going to have to wait until retirement doesn't >> > make me a slacker, just lucky or unlucky depending >> > on how you look at it. Lucky for getting there >> > someday, unlucky for it taking years. Slacking >> > has nothing to do with it. >> ================== >> No, lazy hypocrisy says it all, killer. > > Says what? Explain yourself. Don't just insult > without explaining. That makes it nonsense. ===================== You claimed being a slacker wasn't the reason for your doing *nothing* to save animals right now. I agreed, it's your hypocrisy that stops you from saving animals.... > >> >> > 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. >> > >> > How are locally grown plants lower in cds than plants from >> > elsewhere? >> ================== >> Are you really that stupid, or do you work really really hard at it? > Does >> those imported fruits and veggies just drop out of the sky and land on > your >> plate like manna from heaven? You are so totally ignorant of the > impact >> your life has on animals and the environemnt the world over that it > makes my >> head spin. How can anybody be so willfully stupid? > > Well, if you think that the transportation industry is causing > deaths speak up ricky. ================== And you don't? Like I said, you're just too stupid to have done *any* research into your impact on animals and the environment. > >> > And how does one tell them apart from others? >> > The stores don't put the name of the farmers and >> > locations for most foods. >> ====================== >> Cluesless urbanite, as was said above. Have you even trid a farmers >> market? I know for a fact that there are some in Toronto, killer. > But no, >> you haven't. You're too self-absorbed and selfish to actually go out > of >> your way to evn make a tiny effort to live up to your ignorant claims > of >> 'caring.' > > I have nothing against imported foods. Farmers markets are > fine though limited. I like a mix of local and imported. ================== Why? There is no necessaty to importing foods for your diet. Again, you do it for your selfish reasons. Proving yet again that saving animals is not a real concern to you. > >> >> > The intentional death is both more in-your-face >> >> >> >> In your face as opposed to burying your head about CDs? >> > >> > First of all, I don't believe there's as many deaths from >> > slow moving farm machinery as you trolls would have >> > me think. >> ======================== >> Why not? HJave you seen some of them in action? The size? Of > course not. >> Besides fool, even those that do escape the machine are left without > any >> food and cover, so they die anyway, killer. They die because of your >> veggies! Their numbers are at unnatural levels for an area because > your >> crops have provided an unnatural amount of easy food and cover. Many >> animals can breed several times a season, and they offsping can breed >> several times too. Right when the numbers are at a peak, you take > away >> all the easy food and cover, leaving them to die of starvation and >> predation. They also cannot just all scurry off into the surrounding > areas >> because those areas will already be at their natural capacity. > > If the machine is killing them off in such mass numbers, > how is it that they are back again in full force the next > year? ======================= Because fool, it only takes a few to repopulate an area when their is easy food and cover. Try reading some of the sites I provided for you, killer. Many rodents get to know the growing patterns > of their food, and will bury and store food during times > of plenty for leaner times. ======================== ROTFLMAO What a hoot!!! > >> Secondly, any such deaths are accidental >> > and not as abhorrent as an intentional death. >> ============================= >> Really? Why? They are just a s dead. And, they died in far more > brutal, >> inhumane ways than slaughterhouse animals do. Quite a selective > compassion >> you have there, hypocrite. > > You'll never get it rickyboy. You haven't the moral > capacity to understand why the intentional death > is a more profound one. ======================= And you'll never understand that there is no difference. The deaths you cause are not 'accidental' and many are deliberate and target specific animals, hypocrite. And whatever you think > of that, it's still quite stupid to suggest meat eating > to a vegetarian. ======================= Nope. I never claimed you 'had' to fool. I just provided reasonable, affordable, readily available options for those that are *really* concerned about their bloody footprints. Dogmatic vegan fanatics are too engrossed in the simple rule for their simple minds to understand that though. Pity the animals you kill, hypocrite. > >> Did you >> > know that a high number of serial killers start out by >> > killing animals intentionally? I'm not saying you're a >> > serial killer, but it says something of the mindset. >> ======================== >> LOL What a hoot! Clueless urbanite... > > You think it's funny? Did it hit a little too close to > home? ================= Nope. Because you "kill" animals as much as I do, fool. > >> > The vegan diet is not marginal. There is quite a lot >> > of variety in the foods. Go check out my recipe >> > directory if you don't believe it. >> ==================== >> Sure, as long as you spice it up with imported foods from around the > world, >> killer. Those are far from being 'vegan' in terms of the death and >> suffering surrounding their transport, hypocrite. Besides, it does > not >> naturally provide all the vitamins you need. > > The vegan can get all the nutrition needed to be healthy. ===================== No, they cannot naturally from the foods they eat. Unless of course you like to eat crap.... Buying > imported however, means you can suppliment your health in a > variety of ways. The spice turmeric, for example, is very healthy > and has antibiotic properties. Imported (depending on where > you live) cranberry juice is a tonic for the kidneys and has lots > of nutrients. You can be healthy as a local vegan, but why not > be extra-healthy as an international vegan? ================== LOL Because it kills even more animals than the rst of you're ignorant diet, hypocrite. Remember the animals? They'er the ones you are supposed to be trying to save. > >> >> 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. >> > >> > No charlatan. I truly believe that it is good for me on a number of >> > levels. I don't believe your 'facts' about its dangers. Most of > what >> > you claim, I've seen later disproven. >> ======================= >> No, you haven't, or you would have posted it all over usenet, killer. > > Nonsense. In case you haven't noticed I rarely post links. ======================= Because you have none that back up your so-called research, fool. I don't > save them in hopes of debating them. My books have no bookmarks, > tv news goes unvideoed, and webpages unsaved for you. Look > it up yourself. There's plenty to refute the claims of danger. ========================== LOL I have, unlike you. And I have posted the sites, and guess what, killer? They prove you wrong. > >> > That's funny, I've been to very few 'activist' websites. I do >> > however go to and subscribe to, many science news sites. >> ======================= >> LOL Then why are they on your site with links? Anything that > proclaims >> that something is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and then > m,akes no >> mention of the fact hat there are differing opinions is an >> activist/propagand site looking to scam the rubes. > > On my recipe link site, I state clearly that all views, beliefs, > etc are those of the people who made the various recipe > sites. You will find activists, health nuts, food enthusiasts, > specialty food sites, etc. I go to those websites for recipes. > That's where my focus is. For scientific info, I go elsewhere. =============== Then you lied above, huh? You claimed you didn't go to 'activist' sites, yet you link them from you page. What an ignorant dolt... > >> > By admitting that hunting the deer would reverse their >> > overpopulation, you admit that hunting them keeps >> > lowering their amounts. After they are no longer >> > overpopulated, when you keep hunting (the demand >> > for meat doesn't go away you know) their numbers >> > keep going down until they are extinct. >> ================== >> Clueless urbanite. You have no clue as to animals, do you killer? > > Try reading my paragraph again. Did you take any > rudimentary mathematics when you were a kid? ================== Math has nothing to do with animal numbers fool. Deer are hunted now, and guess what? Their numbers continue to rise, fool. > >> > If it could supply everyone, then the grasslands would have >> > to support dozens and dozens, maybe hundreds >> > of times the number of cows. >> ======================= >> Hey, clueless urbanite, *ALL* beef cattle are already grass-fed for > almost >> their whole lives. The pasture is already there, dolt. they only > spend a >> feww wekks of their lives in feedlots. You really are a clueless > urbanite. > > If that were true, then you wouldn't need to specially > buy meat marked grass fed, would you? ======================== Yes, if you don't want meat that has been fed unnatural foods and chemicals, fool. How they start out isn't what makes the difference. Any old > supermarket meat will do. Is it also that way with > pork and poultry? ================== I see your stupidity is still in full force, eh killer? > >> >> > Face >> >> > it, the commercial meat industry supplies most meat eaters, >> >> >> >> Consumers drive demand, commercial supply doesn't drive demand. >> > >> > That's right, and your game and grass fed can't feed that demand. >> ============================ >> ROTFLMAO And your so-called mythical veganic gardening can? You > really >> are too stupid for words, killer. We aren't talking about the masses, > we're >> talking about what *you* as an individual *could* do to improve your > bloody >> footprints. But, you're too lazy and stupid to do anything real, so > you >> have to focus only on what you think others are doing. Nice strawman, >> hypocrite, but one that's been knocked down many, many times... > > You're babbling Ricky. ===================== It's you that babbles, fool. You make claims that going veganic is the way of the vegan, yet can't bring yourself to actully do it. Not only that, you can't even provide any info that it currently supports any large number of people at all! And then you turn around and claim that grass fed meat and game isn't good because it can't 'feed the world.' You're a mass of quivering apples and oranges, fool. So, like I said, you focus entirely on what 'thers' are doing, just so you can exclude your own hypocritical diet from the discussion, killer. What are you talking about? You know > full well that a vegan diet, even a supermarket one, reduces > the 'bloody footprint' at least a hundredfold. ========================== No, we don't fool. Provide your numbers. And we are talking > about the masses. ================ Only you are, because you cannot defend you diet. The discussion has been about what an indivdual *could* do if they were really interested in saving animals. You have obviously proven that that is not a concern of yours, killer. > >> > If you feel so strongly against the import and export >> > of foods, you must eat very bland meals. I think >> > that the import and export increases the variety >> > of foods availlable and is thus potentially more >> > healthful. >> =========================== >> Then you admit that a vegan diet is unhealthy without massive > importation? >> Thanks for proving that you diet is filled with death and suffering > and >> hypocrisy, killer. > > It's quite healthy without importation, but I believe that the > variety importation brings can make one a bit healthier > yet. ================== And kill even more and more animals, and destroy even more of the world. Both kinda at odds with the real vegan philosophy, hypocrite. > > > > > -- > 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 in message ... >> >> > Buying a farm is not an option for me, >> >> >> >> I know, you slacker. >> > >> > How does that make me a slacker? >> ================== >> It does prove the hypocrisy of the vegan position quite well though. > Your >> convenience comes first. Maybe you just like killing animals, eh? > > So, you're saying that convenience is stopping me from > currently getting a farm? You don't make sense tricky > ricky. Where's the hypocrasy or do you just see that > everywhere due to your paranoia? What led you to > suggest I like killing animals? Do you hear voices that > tell you what to write/insult here? ================= Nope. Just that you continue to come back here spewing your ignorance for all the world to see, knowing that your participation is contributing to the unnecessary death and suffering of animals. Thanks for more proof of your hypocrisy, killer. > >> Just because >> > I'm going to have to wait until retirement doesn't >> > make me a slacker, just lucky or unlucky depending >> > on how you look at it. Lucky for getting there >> > someday, unlucky for it taking years. Slacking >> > has nothing to do with it. >> ================== >> No, lazy hypocrisy says it all, killer. > > Says what? Explain yourself. Don't just insult > without explaining. That makes it nonsense. ===================== You claimed being a slacker wasn't the reason for your doing *nothing* to save animals right now. I agreed, it's your hypocrisy that stops you from saving animals.... > >> >> > 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. >> > >> > How are locally grown plants lower in cds than plants from >> > elsewhere? >> ================== >> Are you really that stupid, or do you work really really hard at it? > Does >> those imported fruits and veggies just drop out of the sky and land on > your >> plate like manna from heaven? You are so totally ignorant of the > impact >> your life has on animals and the environemnt the world over that it > makes my >> head spin. How can anybody be so willfully stupid? > > Well, if you think that the transportation industry is causing > deaths speak up ricky. ================== And you don't? Like I said, you're just too stupid to have done *any* research into your impact on animals and the environment. > >> > And how does one tell them apart from others? >> > The stores don't put the name of the farmers and >> > locations for most foods. >> ====================== >> Cluesless urbanite, as was said above. Have you even trid a farmers >> market? I know for a fact that there are some in Toronto, killer. > But no, >> you haven't. You're too self-absorbed and selfish to actually go out > of >> your way to evn make a tiny effort to live up to your ignorant claims > of >> 'caring.' > > I have nothing against imported foods. Farmers markets are > fine though limited. I like a mix of local and imported. ================== Why? There is no necessaty to importing foods for your diet. Again, you do it for your selfish reasons. Proving yet again that saving animals is not a real concern to you. > >> >> > The intentional death is both more in-your-face >> >> >> >> In your face as opposed to burying your head about CDs? >> > >> > First of all, I don't believe there's as many deaths from >> > slow moving farm machinery as you trolls would have >> > me think. >> ======================== >> Why not? HJave you seen some of them in action? The size? Of > course not. >> Besides fool, even those that do escape the machine are left without > any >> food and cover, so they die anyway, killer. They die because of your >> veggies! Their numbers are at unnatural levels for an area because > your >> crops have provided an unnatural amount of easy food and cover. Many >> animals can breed several times a season, and they offsping can breed >> several times too. Right when the numbers are at a peak, you take > away >> all the easy food and cover, leaving them to die of starvation and >> predation. They also cannot just all scurry off into the surrounding > areas >> because those areas will already be at their natural capacity. > > If the machine is killing them off in such mass numbers, > how is it that they are back again in full force the next > year? ======================= Because fool, it only takes a few to repopulate an area when their is easy food and cover. Try reading some of the sites I provided for you, killer. Many rodents get to know the growing patterns > of their food, and will bury and store food during times > of plenty for leaner times. ======================== ROTFLMAO What a hoot!!! > >> Secondly, any such deaths are accidental >> > and not as abhorrent as an intentional death. >> ============================= >> Really? Why? They are just a s dead. And, they died in far more > brutal, >> inhumane ways than slaughterhouse animals do. Quite a selective > compassion >> you have there, hypocrite. > > You'll never get it rickyboy. You haven't the moral > capacity to understand why the intentional death > is a more profound one. ======================= And you'll never understand that there is no difference. The deaths you cause are not 'accidental' and many are deliberate and target specific animals, hypocrite. And whatever you think > of that, it's still quite stupid to suggest meat eating > to a vegetarian. ======================= Nope. I never claimed you 'had' to fool. I just provided reasonable, affordable, readily available options for those that are *really* concerned about their bloody footprints. Dogmatic vegan fanatics are too engrossed in the simple rule for their simple minds to understand that though. Pity the animals you kill, hypocrite. > >> Did you >> > know that a high number of serial killers start out by >> > killing animals intentionally? I'm not saying you're a >> > serial killer, but it says something of the mindset. >> ======================== >> LOL What a hoot! Clueless urbanite... > > You think it's funny? Did it hit a little too close to > home? ================= Nope. Because you "kill" animals as much as I do, fool. > >> > The vegan diet is not marginal. There is quite a lot >> > of variety in the foods. Go check out my recipe >> > directory if you don't believe it. >> ==================== >> Sure, as long as you spice it up with imported foods from around the > world, >> killer. Those are far from being 'vegan' in terms of the death and >> suffering surrounding their transport, hypocrite. Besides, it does > not >> naturally provide all the vitamins you need. > > The vegan can get all the nutrition needed to be healthy. ===================== No, they cannot naturally from the foods they eat. Unless of course you like to eat crap.... Buying > imported however, means you can suppliment your health in a > variety of ways. The spice turmeric, for example, is very healthy > and has antibiotic properties. Imported (depending on where > you live) cranberry juice is a tonic for the kidneys and has lots > of nutrients. You can be healthy as a local vegan, but why not > be extra-healthy as an international vegan? ================== LOL Because it kills even more animals than the rst of you're ignorant diet, hypocrite. Remember the animals? They'er the ones you are supposed to be trying to save. > >> >> 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. >> > >> > No charlatan. I truly believe that it is good for me on a number of >> > levels. I don't believe your 'facts' about its dangers. Most of > what >> > you claim, I've seen later disproven. >> ======================= >> No, you haven't, or you would have posted it all over usenet, killer. > > Nonsense. In case you haven't noticed I rarely post links. ======================= Because you have none that back up your so-called research, fool. I don't > save them in hopes of debating them. My books have no bookmarks, > tv news goes unvideoed, and webpages unsaved for you. Look > it up yourself. There's plenty to refute the claims of danger. ========================== LOL I have, unlike you. And I have posted the sites, and guess what, killer? They prove you wrong. > >> > That's funny, I've been to very few 'activist' websites. I do >> > however go to and subscribe to, many science news sites. >> ======================= >> LOL Then why are they on your site with links? Anything that > proclaims >> that something is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and then > m,akes no >> mention of the fact hat there are differing opinions is an >> activist/propagand site looking to scam the rubes. > > On my recipe link site, I state clearly that all views, beliefs, > etc are those of the people who made the various recipe > sites. You will find activists, health nuts, food enthusiasts, > specialty food sites, etc. I go to those websites for recipes. > That's where my focus is. For scientific info, I go elsewhere. =============== Then you lied above, huh? You claimed you didn't go to 'activist' sites, yet you link them from you page. What an ignorant dolt... > >> > By admitting that hunting the deer would reverse their >> > overpopulation, you admit that hunting them keeps >> > lowering their amounts. After they are no longer >> > overpopulated, when you keep hunting (the demand >> > for meat doesn't go away you know) their numbers >> > keep going down until they are extinct. >> ================== >> Clueless urbanite. You have no clue as to animals, do you killer? > > Try reading my paragraph again. Did you take any > rudimentary mathematics when you were a kid? ================== Math has nothing to do with animal numbers fool. Deer are hunted now, and guess what? Their numbers continue to rise, fool. > >> > If it could supply everyone, then the grasslands would have >> > to support dozens and dozens, maybe hundreds >> > of times the number of cows. >> ======================= >> Hey, clueless urbanite, *ALL* beef cattle are already grass-fed for > almost >> their whole lives. The pasture is already there, dolt. they only > spend a >> feww wekks of their lives in feedlots. You really are a clueless > urbanite. > > If that were true, then you wouldn't need to specially > buy meat marked grass fed, would you? ======================== Yes, if you don't want meat that has been fed unnatural foods and chemicals, fool. How they start out isn't what makes the difference. Any old > supermarket meat will do. Is it also that way with > pork and poultry? ================== I see your stupidity is still in full force, eh killer? > >> >> > Face >> >> > it, the commercial meat industry supplies most meat eaters, >> >> >> >> Consumers drive demand, commercial supply doesn't drive demand. >> > >> > That's right, and your game and grass fed can't feed that demand. >> ============================ >> ROTFLMAO And your so-called mythical veganic gardening can? You > really >> are too stupid for words, killer. We aren't talking about the masses, > we're >> talking about what *you* as an individual *could* do to improve your > bloody >> footprints. But, you're too lazy and stupid to do anything real, so > you >> have to focus only on what you think others are doing. Nice strawman, >> hypocrite, but one that's been knocked down many, many times... > > You're babbling Ricky. ===================== It's you that babbles, fool. You make claims that going veganic is the way of the vegan, yet can't bring yourself to actully do it. Not only that, you can't even provide any info that it currently supports any large number of people at all! And then you turn around and claim that grass fed meat and game isn't good because it can't 'feed the world.' You're a mass of quivering apples and oranges, fool. So, like I said, you focus entirely on what 'thers' are doing, just so you can exclude your own hypocritical diet from the discussion, killer. What are you talking about? You know > full well that a vegan diet, even a supermarket one, reduces > the 'bloody footprint' at least a hundredfold. ========================== No, we don't fool. Provide your numbers. And we are talking > about the masses. ================ Only you are, because you cannot defend you diet. The discussion has been about what an indivdual *could* do if they were really interested in saving animals. You have obviously proven that that is not a concern of yours, killer. > >> > If you feel so strongly against the import and export >> > of foods, you must eat very bland meals. I think >> > that the import and export increases the variety >> > of foods availlable and is thus potentially more >> > healthful. >> =========================== >> Then you admit that a vegan diet is unhealthy without massive > importation? >> Thanks for proving that you diet is filled with death and suffering > and >> hypocrisy, killer. > > It's quite healthy without importation, but I believe that the > variety importation brings can make one a bit healthier > yet. ================== And kill even more and more animals, and destroy even more of the world. Both kinda at odds with the real vegan philosophy, hypocrite. > > > > > -- > SN > http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ > A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. > Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. > > |
"pearl" > wrote in message ... > "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message > ... >> > >> > Buying a farm is not an option for me, >> > >> >> > >> I know, you slacker. >> > > >> > > How does that make me a slacker? >> > ================== >> > It does prove the hypocrisy of the vegan position quite well though. >> > Your >> > convenience comes first. Maybe you just like killing animals, eh? >> >> So, you're saying that convenience is stopping me from >> currently getting a farm? You don't make sense tricky >> ricky. Where's the hypocrasy or do you just see that >> everywhere due to your paranoia? What led you to >> suggest I like killing animals? Do you hear voices that >> tell you what to write/insult here? > > Tricky Ricky > > Confined within a closed mind ===================== Pearl, aka Lys, as usual, can't defend her diet, or anything else for that matter... snip usual drivel from the queen of lys.... ====================== Where's your proof that organic farming never kills animals? Continued evasion noted. |
"pearl" > wrote in message ... > "Scented Nectar" > wrote in message > ... >> > >> > Buying a farm is not an option for me, >> > >> >> > >> I know, you slacker. >> > > >> > > How does that make me a slacker? >> > ================== >> > It does prove the hypocrisy of the vegan position quite well though. >> > Your >> > convenience comes first. Maybe you just like killing animals, eh? >> >> So, you're saying that convenience is stopping me from >> currently getting a farm? You don't make sense tricky >> ricky. Where's the hypocrasy or do you just see that >> everywhere due to your paranoia? What led you to >> suggest I like killing animals? Do you hear voices that >> tell you what to write/insult here? > > Tricky Ricky > > Confined within a closed mind ===================== Pearl, aka Lys, as usual, can't defend her diet, or anything else for that matter... snip usual drivel from the queen of lys.... ====================== Where's your proof that organic farming never kills animals? Continued evasion noted. |
"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message ...
<..> > > Awful, innit. ;). > > Yeah, but the poem's great! :) Must suck to be Ricky! Mmm... Yes, really really really. > That soup I was going to post has to wait now till > next weekend, as things have gotten too busy, but > I haven't forgotten. Can't wait, .. so to speak. ;) > > -- > 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 in message ...
<..> > > Awful, innit. ;). > > Yeah, but the poem's great! :) Must suck to be Ricky! Mmm... Yes, really really really. > That soup I was going to post has to wait now till > next weekend, as things have gotten too busy, but > I haven't forgotten. Can't wait, .. so to speak. ;) > > -- > 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 in message ... snippage.. > > Yeah, but the poem's great! :) Must suck to be Ricky! > ================= Nope. And thanks for proving your willingness to contribute to unnecessary animal death and suffering for nothing more than your entertainment, hypocrite. Must really hurt to be so stupid, eh killer? > That soup I was going to post has to wait now till > next weekend, as things have gotten too busy, but > I haven't forgotten. > > > -- > 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 in message ... snippage.. > > Yeah, but the poem's great! :) Must suck to be Ricky! > ================= Nope. And thanks for proving your willingness to contribute to unnecessary animal death and suffering for nothing more than your entertainment, hypocrite. Must really hurt to be so stupid, eh killer? > That soup I was going to post has to wait now till > next weekend, as things have gotten too busy, but > I haven't forgotten. > > > -- > 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 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. > >> > > >> > How are locally grown plants lower in cds than plants from > >> > elsewhere? > >> ================== > >> Are you really that stupid, or do you work really really hard at it? > > Does > >> those imported fruits and veggies just drop out of the sky and land on > > your > >> plate like manna from heaven? You are so totally ignorant of the > > impact > >> your life has on animals and the environemnt the world over that it > > makes my > >> head spin. How can anybody be so willfully stupid? > > > > Well, if you think that the transportation industry is causing > > deaths speak up ricky. > ================== > And you don't? Like I said, you're just too stupid to have done *any* > research into your impact on animals and the environment. So, if the transportation industry, both national and international, causes animal deaths, then are you suggesting that vegans give up their clothing, tvs, mattresses, stoves, etc.? You certainly have some overly high expectations of what you think vegans should do. It's funny that it's the non-vegan, insulting trolls that have ridiculous expectations. > > I have nothing against imported foods. Farmers markets are > > fine though limited. I like a mix of local and imported. > ================== > Why? There is no necessaty to importing foods for your diet. Again, you do > it for your selfish reasons. Proving yet again that saving animals is not a > real concern to you. > Many rodents get to know the growing patterns > > of their food, and will bury and store food during times > > of plenty for leaner times. > ======================== > ROTFLMAO What a hoot!!! No, an owl is a hoot. Food storage by rodents is a well known fact. > > The vegan can get all the nutrition needed to be healthy. > ===================== > No, they cannot naturally from the foods they eat. Unless of course you > like to eat crap.... Nonsense. There are b12 supplements if one's intestinal flora aren't producing and absorbing it. > >> > That's funny, I've been to very few 'activist' websites. I do > >> > however go to and subscribe to, many science news sites. > >> ======================= > >> LOL Then why are they on your site with links? Anything that > > proclaims > >> that something is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and then > > m,akes no > >> mention of the fact hat there are differing opinions is an > >> activist/propagand site looking to scam the rubes. > > > > On my recipe link site, I state clearly that all views, beliefs, > > etc are those of the people who made the various recipe > > sites. You will find activists, health nuts, food enthusiasts, > > specialty food sites, etc. I go to those websites for recipes. > > That's where my focus is. For scientific info, I go elsewhere. > =============== > Then you lied above, huh? You claimed you didn't go to 'activist' sites, > yet you link them from you page. What an ignorant dolt... I have been the activist's recipe sites. I go for the recipes. I don't hang around to join a cause, even though it's a good one. > >> > By admitting that hunting the deer would reverse their > >> > overpopulation, you admit that hunting them keeps > >> > lowering their amounts. After they are no longer > >> > overpopulated, when you keep hunting (the demand > >> > for meat doesn't go away you know) their numbers > >> > keep going down until they are extinct. > >> ================== > >> Clueless urbanite. You have no clue as to animals, do you killer? > > > > Try reading my paragraph again. Did you take any > > rudimentary mathematics when you were a kid? > ================== > Math has nothing to do with animal numbers fool. Deer are hunted now, and > guess what? Their numbers continue to rise, fool. Try increasing the hunt to replace all factory farmed meat. You'll see extinction soon enough. -- 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 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. > >> > > >> > How are locally grown plants lower in cds than plants from > >> > elsewhere? > >> ================== > >> Are you really that stupid, or do you work really really hard at it? > > Does > >> those imported fruits and veggies just drop out of the sky and land on > > your > >> plate like manna from heaven? You are so totally ignorant of the > > impact > >> your life has on animals and the environemnt the world over that it > > makes my > >> head spin. How can anybody be so willfully stupid? > > > > Well, if you think that the transportation industry is causing > > deaths speak up ricky. > ================== > And you don't? Like I said, you're just too stupid to have done *any* > research into your impact on animals and the environment. So, if the transportation industry, both national and international, causes animal deaths, then are you suggesting that vegans give up their clothing, tvs, mattresses, stoves, etc.? You certainly have some overly high expectations of what you think vegans should do. It's funny that it's the non-vegan, insulting trolls that have ridiculous expectations. > > I have nothing against imported foods. Farmers markets are > > fine though limited. I like a mix of local and imported. > ================== > Why? There is no necessaty to importing foods for your diet. Again, you do > it for your selfish reasons. Proving yet again that saving animals is not a > real concern to you. > Many rodents get to know the growing patterns > > of their food, and will bury and store food during times > > of plenty for leaner times. > ======================== > ROTFLMAO What a hoot!!! No, an owl is a hoot. Food storage by rodents is a well known fact. > > The vegan can get all the nutrition needed to be healthy. > ===================== > No, they cannot naturally from the foods they eat. Unless of course you > like to eat crap.... Nonsense. There are b12 supplements if one's intestinal flora aren't producing and absorbing it. > >> > That's funny, I've been to very few 'activist' websites. I do > >> > however go to and subscribe to, many science news sites. > >> ======================= > >> LOL Then why are they on your site with links? Anything that > > proclaims > >> that something is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and then > > m,akes no > >> mention of the fact hat there are differing opinions is an > >> activist/propagand site looking to scam the rubes. > > > > On my recipe link site, I state clearly that all views, beliefs, > > etc are those of the people who made the various recipe > > sites. You will find activists, health nuts, food enthusiasts, > > specialty food sites, etc. I go to those websites for recipes. > > That's where my focus is. For scientific info, I go elsewhere. > =============== > Then you lied above, huh? You claimed you didn't go to 'activist' sites, > yet you link them from you page. What an ignorant dolt... I have been the activist's recipe sites. I go for the recipes. I don't hang around to join a cause, even though it's a good one. > >> > By admitting that hunting the deer would reverse their > >> > overpopulation, you admit that hunting them keeps > >> > lowering their amounts. After they are no longer > >> > overpopulated, when you keep hunting (the demand > >> > for meat doesn't go away you know) their numbers > >> > keep going down until they are extinct. > >> ================== > >> Clueless urbanite. You have no clue as to animals, do you killer? > > > > Try reading my paragraph again. Did you take any > > rudimentary mathematics when you were a kid? > ================== > Math has nothing to do with animal numbers fool. Deer are hunted now, and > guess what? Their numbers continue to rise, fool. Try increasing the hunt to replace all factory farmed meat. You'll see extinction soon enough. -- SN http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/ A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites. Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button. |
In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote: > "Ron" > wrote in message > ... > > In article >, "Dutch" > > > wrote: > > > >> "Ron" > wrote > >> > "Dutch" > wrote: > >> > >> [..] > >> > >> >> > 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. > >> > > >> > In my view, "not wrong" is an avoidance of stating that killing > >> > animals, > >> > for example, is right or morally netural. I find that you do that quite > >> > often. In all of the discussions thus far, you have avoided stating > >> > something as morally neutral or just plain "right". > >> > >> It's the same thing, just addressed from a slightly different > >> perspective. > >> Killing animals, under the proper circumstances, is "not wrong", "right", > >> "acceptable", "moral", "ethical", "justifiable", "morally neutral", > >> however > >> you want to look at it. This is not an objection with any substance, > >> you're > >> grasping. > > > > Well, let me give you a few examples of what I experience when I read > > your comments. It's not wrong to get married. It's not wrong to have > > children. It's not wrong to go to work and be productive in society. How > > odd is that I would label these acts as not wrong versus labeling them > > as expected, normal, natural, right, and so on. > > I would not have called those things "not wrong" either because there is no > indication to me that anyone would consider them wrong, i.e. there is no > harm involved. Then, when you use the term not wrong there is a sense of wrongness that is, shall we say implied. So when you made statements to our vegan friend that eating meat was "not wrong" there is some sense of wrongness in the act. Do I understand your perspective correctly? > >> >> > 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. > >> > > >> > I do. You avoid responsibility for actions and you make excuses for > >> > others. > >> > >> Never. > > > > Frequently. You've done it with respect to pot use, veganism, child > > abuse, and killing in several situations. > > Wrong. > > >> > The person who kills the animal is killing the animal. > >> > >> Tautology. > >> > >> > They do > >> > so because they want to, otherwise they wouldn't. > >> > >> They probably do it because it's the only job they can get and they need > >> the > >> money. > > > > Absolution, forgiveness, excuses, justification, mitigation, etc. The > > language is filled with words that describe what you accomplished in > > that sentence. > > Nope, just a fact, they are doing a difficult, unpleasant, low wage job > because they need the money. They are not looking for forgiveness. It's a big world -- there are a multitude of jobs available. People often create jobs for themselves or find ones. Self-punishment and seeking forgiveness is an inherent flaw with such a moral system. the irony is that no one typically knows of the wrong doing, or demands the forgiveness. > > Of course, how could anyone want to hurt an animal? There _must_ be > > another reason. How could we function as humans to know that we are > > aggressive animals on this planet with behaviours that span a spectrum > > from "gentle" to "cruel". How could we maintain a guiding principle of > > not doing harm unless we created motivation and intent to exhonerate > > ourselves from our actions. > > Was that a question? It kinda sounded like a speech, and it didn't make much > sense. One must 'live with one's self' as they say. Awareness requires that one be able to accept the reality of life. You made similar observations of the pot user. Being unwilling or unable to accept the reality is well, there are many labels for it. There are times when I act as a "good person" and times where I act as a "bad person". I accept that I am a combination of all my actions and not any one thing specifically. Any label of good or bad that I can ascribe to any act that I engage in, as I've stated, is merely a social perception attached to that behaviour. To make any assessment of such actions as an existential statement about me the person, is simple irrational. > >> > Justification and > >> > mitigation are just ways the human beast satisfies it sense of guilt > >> > and > >> > shame at publicly accepted and enforced codes. > >> > >> Hogwash. > > > > Are you disputing this? > > What do YOU think? I'm more accustomed to a more elaborate explanation when someone is in disagreement. I'll accept this though if it is all your willing to state at the moment. > >> >> > 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. > >> > > >> > No. I'm addressing your fondness for using "not wrong". Please clarify > >> > do you mean right, or morally netural when you use this term, or is > >> > there some other explanation that you have for not wrong. > >> > >> Nope, all of those terms are synonyms with nearly identical meanings. > > > > Agreed. It's not wrong for a married couple to engage in sex for bonding > > or to procreate. and, it's not wrong to kill humans in some circstances. > > Does this demonstrate for you how you use the term. > > Not really. I would never have contemplated that married sex was wrong, it's > not a moral issue to me. As I established above, when you use the term not wrong, you still consider some degree of wrongness attached. For example, when you state that pot use is not wrong, you still believe at some level that there is some wrong involved. > >> >> > 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? > >> > > >> > I think you continue to evade the question. > >> > >> What question? > > > > You did clarify somewhat. So can we discuss the functional difference > > between wrong, not wrong, almost right and right or acceptable. > > Let's not, you're putting me to sleep. > > >> > As I've stated the act of giving money is morally neutral. As humans, > >> > we > >> > attach moral value to the purpose, function, motivation and so on. > >> > Paying 10K to the taxman = good. Paying 10 K to a prostitue or drug > >> > dealer = bad. The actions involved are the same. What is being "judged" > >> > is the motive and intent. > >> > >> Yes, combined with the action. Thinking about doing a wrong act is not > >> wrong. Thinking about doing an unselfish act is not commendable. The > >> action > >> is required. The circumstances are also required to assess the morality. > > > > The the action is not being assessed. > > > > A "john" pays a prostitute 10K for a weekend of sex. The general > > perception is that this is wrong. > > Not really, not if it is mutally agreeable. It's not even illegal in this > country. There is the circular argument, that what is illegal is wrong and what is wrong must there be illegal. Slavery was legal, was it right? As you can see the use of circular reasoning is problematic. > > The prostitute uses the money to feed > > her child, pay the rent so the child has a safe place to live and then > > invests 5K in an education fund for the child's future. Her actions are > > now the same as many parents. Is the act of her prostitution still > > "wrong"? Her actions have not caused harm, but are beneficial for her > > child. > > Yea, so? A wrong can be a right. > > You've argued that circumstances mitigate morality. Does it? > > Always. How is this accepting reality as was insisted our pot using friend should or ought to be doing. Mitigating responsibility is also about avoiding punishment. Another inherent flaw in the reasoning. Punishment is only one outcome for those who do wrong. |
In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote: > "Ron" > wrote in message > ... > > In article >, "Dutch" > > > wrote: > > > >> "Ron" > wrote > >> > "Dutch" > wrote: > >> > >> [..] > >> > >> >> > 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. > >> > > >> > In my view, "not wrong" is an avoidance of stating that killing > >> > animals, > >> > for example, is right or morally netural. I find that you do that quite > >> > often. In all of the discussions thus far, you have avoided stating > >> > something as morally neutral or just plain "right". > >> > >> It's the same thing, just addressed from a slightly different > >> perspective. > >> Killing animals, under the proper circumstances, is "not wrong", "right", > >> "acceptable", "moral", "ethical", "justifiable", "morally neutral", > >> however > >> you want to look at it. This is not an objection with any substance, > >> you're > >> grasping. > > > > Well, let me give you a few examples of what I experience when I read > > your comments. It's not wrong to get married. It's not wrong to have > > children. It's not wrong to go to work and be productive in society. How > > odd is that I would label these acts as not wrong versus labeling them > > as expected, normal, natural, right, and so on. > > I would not have called those things "not wrong" either because there is no > indication to me that anyone would consider them wrong, i.e. there is no > harm involved. Then, when you use the term not wrong there is a sense of wrongness that is, shall we say implied. So when you made statements to our vegan friend that eating meat was "not wrong" there is some sense of wrongness in the act. Do I understand your perspective correctly? > >> >> > 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. > >> > > >> > I do. You avoid responsibility for actions and you make excuses for > >> > others. > >> > >> Never. > > > > Frequently. You've done it with respect to pot use, veganism, child > > abuse, and killing in several situations. > > Wrong. > > >> > The person who kills the animal is killing the animal. > >> > >> Tautology. > >> > >> > They do > >> > so because they want to, otherwise they wouldn't. > >> > >> They probably do it because it's the only job they can get and they need > >> the > >> money. > > > > Absolution, forgiveness, excuses, justification, mitigation, etc. The > > language is filled with words that describe what you accomplished in > > that sentence. > > Nope, just a fact, they are doing a difficult, unpleasant, low wage job > because they need the money. They are not looking for forgiveness. It's a big world -- there are a multitude of jobs available. People often create jobs for themselves or find ones. Self-punishment and seeking forgiveness is an inherent flaw with such a moral system. the irony is that no one typically knows of the wrong doing, or demands the forgiveness. > > Of course, how could anyone want to hurt an animal? There _must_ be > > another reason. How could we function as humans to know that we are > > aggressive animals on this planet with behaviours that span a spectrum > > from "gentle" to "cruel". How could we maintain a guiding principle of > > not doing harm unless we created motivation and intent to exhonerate > > ourselves from our actions. > > Was that a question? It kinda sounded like a speech, and it didn't make much > sense. One must 'live with one's self' as they say. Awareness requires that one be able to accept the reality of life. You made similar observations of the pot user. Being unwilling or unable to accept the reality is well, there are many labels for it. There are times when I act as a "good person" and times where I act as a "bad person". I accept that I am a combination of all my actions and not any one thing specifically. Any label of good or bad that I can ascribe to any act that I engage in, as I've stated, is merely a social perception attached to that behaviour. To make any assessment of such actions as an existential statement about me the person, is simple irrational. > >> > Justification and > >> > mitigation are just ways the human beast satisfies it sense of guilt > >> > and > >> > shame at publicly accepted and enforced codes. > >> > >> Hogwash. > > > > Are you disputing this? > > What do YOU think? I'm more accustomed to a more elaborate explanation when someone is in disagreement. I'll accept this though if it is all your willing to state at the moment. > >> >> > 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. > >> > > >> > No. I'm addressing your fondness for using "not wrong". Please clarify > >> > do you mean right, or morally netural when you use this term, or is > >> > there some other explanation that you have for not wrong. > >> > >> Nope, all of those terms are synonyms with nearly identical meanings. > > > > Agreed. It's not wrong for a married couple to engage in sex for bonding > > or to procreate. and, it's not wrong to kill humans in some circstances. > > Does this demonstrate for you how you use the term. > > Not really. I would never have contemplated that married sex was wrong, it's > not a moral issue to me. As I established above, when you use the term not wrong, you still consider some degree of wrongness attached. For example, when you state that pot use is not wrong, you still believe at some level that there is some wrong involved. > >> >> > 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? > >> > > >> > I think you continue to evade the question. > >> > >> What question? > > > > You did clarify somewhat. So can we discuss the functional difference > > between wrong, not wrong, almost right and right or acceptable. > > Let's not, you're putting me to sleep. > > >> > As I've stated the act of giving money is morally neutral. As humans, > >> > we > >> > attach moral value to the purpose, function, motivation and so on. > >> > Paying 10K to the taxman = good. Paying 10 K to a prostitue or drug > >> > dealer = bad. The actions involved are the same. What is being "judged" > >> > is the motive and intent. > >> > >> Yes, combined with the action. Thinking about doing a wrong act is not > >> wrong. Thinking about doing an unselfish act is not commendable. The > >> action > >> is required. The circumstances are also required to assess the morality. > > > > The the action is not being assessed. > > > > A "john" pays a prostitute 10K for a weekend of sex. The general > > perception is that this is wrong. > > Not really, not if it is mutally agreeable. It's not even illegal in this > country. There is the circular argument, that what is illegal is wrong and what is wrong must there be illegal. Slavery was legal, was it right? As you can see the use of circular reasoning is problematic. > > The prostitute uses the money to feed > > her child, pay the rent so the child has a safe place to live and then > > invests 5K in an education fund for the child's future. Her actions are > > now the same as many parents. Is the act of her prostitution still > > "wrong"? Her actions have not caused harm, but are beneficial for her > > child. > > Yea, so? A wrong can be a right. > > You've argued that circumstances mitigate morality. Does it? > > Always. How is this accepting reality as was insisted our pot using friend should or ought to be doing. Mitigating responsibility is also about avoiding punishment. Another inherent flaw in the reasoning. Punishment is only one outcome for those who do wrong. |
Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>Buying a farm is not an option for me, >> >>I know, you slacker. > > How does that make me a slacker? It's the other way around. Your being a slacker has prevented you from owning land. > Just because > I'm going to have to wait until retirement doesn't > make me a slacker, just lucky or unlucky depending > on how you look at it. Lucky for getting there > someday, unlucky for it taking years. Luck has NOTHING to do with it. > Slacking has nothing to do with it. It has everything to do with it. >>>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. > > How are locally grown plants lower in cds than plants from > elsewhere? Less transportation and storage, less pesticide. >>>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. > > And how does one tell them apart from others? The label might say where the company is located, or where its canning facilities are located. Yves, as I've already told you, is in Vancouver. You're in Toronto. How many miles apart? Another thing you can do is ask your local food co-ops about which of their vendors are local. > The stores don't put the name of the farmers and > locations for most foods. What a dope. >>>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. > > I'll never recommend wild game. Not even to be pragmatic and help reduce animal deaths? > Extinction is permanent. Extinction is unlikely given the reproduction rates of species like deer. >>>The intentional death is both more in-your-face >> >>In your face as opposed to burying your head about CDs? > > First of all, I don't believe there's as many deaths from > slow moving farm machinery as you trolls would have > me think. Secondly, any such deaths are accidental > and not as abhorrent as an intentional death. So you'd prefer animals be sliced and diced accidentally as opposed to being humanely killed on purpose? > Did you know that a high number of serial killers start out by > killing animals intentionally? Especially the homosexual ones like Dahmer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Dahmer http://www.academiclibrary.com/view/...ery_Dahmer.htm > I'm not saying you're a serial killer, You're more likely to be one. Homosexuality is a far more common trait among serial killers, even among the ones who start by killing small animals. > but it says something of the mindset. No, it doesn't. >>>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. > > The vegan diet is not marginal. Yes, it is. > There is quite a lot > of variety in the foods. Not enough, which is why dietetic organizations only offer qualified support for such diets. > Go check out my recipe > directory if you don't believe it. I already have. It demonstrates that veganism isn't inherently health-oriented. >>>>>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. > > No charlatan. You're a charlatan. > I truly believe that it is good for me on a number of > levels. Because you're gullible and take the word of activists as gospel. > I don't believe your 'facts' about its dangers. Most of what > you claim, I've seen later disproven. Not disproven -- you've only seen activists try to explain it away. Too bad their agendas always get in the way of the facts. >>>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. > > It is a good thing. Only in a healthful ratio with omega-3. > The body needs all 3 and this oil > provides it. No, it doesn't. Your diet is already sufficient in omega-6 FAs from all the vegetable oils you consume. You don't need MORE of it. You need MORE omega-3 FAs. > It's you trolls who started worrying that > it might cause an overdose of omega 6, Not overdose on it, just have it in an unhealthy ratio with omega-3, which you DON'T get enough of. > without > even knowing how much is in there and how much > the person is getting elsewhere in their diet. I've read through your own recipes. You're not deficient in omega-6 with all the margarine (not a good idea if you're concerned about good health!) and other vegetable oils. >>>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." > > That's funny, I've been to very few 'activist' websites. I do > however go to and subscribe to, many science news sites. Hahahaha! You're lying. You've yet to cite any science news here, just points activists repeat ad nauseum. >>>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). > > By admitting that hunting the deer would reverse their > overpopulation, Not reverse it, get it under control. > you admit that hunting them keeps > lowering their amounts. After they are no longer > overpopulated, when you keep hunting (the demand > for meat doesn't go away you know) their numbers > keep going down until they are extinct. Bullshit. If that were the case, they'd already be extinct. So would other wildlife populations like ducks which have rebounded because of sound wildlife management principles. >>>and the 'grassfed' herds would barely supply anyone else. >> >>Nonsense. > > If it could supply everyone, then the grasslands would have > to support dozens and dozens, maybe hundreds > of times the number of cows. Not that many times more. >>>Face >>>it, the commercial meat industry supplies most meat eaters, >> >>Consumers drive demand, commercial supply doesn't drive demand. > > That's right, and your game and grass fed can't feed that demand. Yes, they can. >>>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. > > Cds are the issue. It's the thing that you trolls keep bringing up. No, you want to compare apples to oranges. You ignore widely-available alternatives like grass-fed beef, bison, wild game, etc., and then prate about the virtues of "veganic" farming -- which is the product of some severely malnourished daydreaming. >>>What's your point? That vegans should balance their meals? >> >>Definitely. It takes more planning on a vegetarian diet. > > Only at first when one is unfamiliar with some of the foods. Not at all. > After that it's as easy as one's previous meat diet. How much iron are you getting now? Zinc? B12? >>>>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. > > If you feel so strongly against the import and export > of foods, you must eat very bland meals. Do you consider jalapeņos bland? Serranos? Poblanos? > I think > that the import and export increases the variety > of foods availlable and is thus potentially more > healthful. You know nothing of health or nutrition, and your consumption of imported foods shows your concern about animals is nothing but bullshit. >>>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 here to troll. Nope. > Not to offer assistance. Yes, I am. > Assistance isn't 'offered' with insults and swearing at people. It is here. >>>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. > > Surely you must know that you're joking. I'm very serious. You're a twit when it comes to nutrition. > I know what my years of research is, Years? Zero. > and where it's led me. I know where it's led you: to the point of not being able to distinguish between good and bad fats, whether of animal or plant origin; to the point of making badly-formed generalizations that ALL meat is bad and ALL food from plants is good; and to the point of not knowing the difference between omega fatty acids and the importance of keeping them in a proper balance. > You know less than nothing about my research. I know plenty -- see above. You don't make informed statements when it comes to nutrition, because you're woefully uninformed. > Why would > you think that I would go to an insulting, lying troll and > ask for advise? And take that advise over my years > of research? *Advice*. Advise is a verb. You don't have yeas of "research." If anything, you've fallen for every pseudoscientific strand of activism you happened across and considered yourself enlightened. When you put your silly "findings" before an impartial and objective group, such as you've done here, your world just comes crashing down. > I don't think so. :) Keep burying your head in the sand, Skunky. Too bad you didn't start by burying your cankles. >>>You're not even vegan, >> >>Hurray! You finally admit it. > > Then why are you still here in alt.food.vegan? I'm here to help you get out while you can. > Do you now admit to trolling? I'm not a troll under any objective definition. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:32 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter