John Deere wrote:

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

No, it isn't. It's a very well reasoned position, one
that is essentially accepted even by most "vegans".

> >>This position - "doing the best I can" - is the one
> >>Skanky Carpetmuncher is currently trying vainly to
> >>defend, even though she has already abandoned it to
> >>make her second retreat. The quote at the top is her
> >>reply to someone who asked her why she doesn't buy only
> >>locally produced foods and spices (the implication
> >>being that local production somehow necessarily causes
> >>fewer deaths than distant production.) Her answer
> >>implicitly *accepts* that locally produced means fewer
> >>deaths than remotely produced, but we see that she
> >>makes the reduction of animal deaths subordinate to her
> >>aesthetic desire for more flavorful food. She doesn't
> >>NEED spices at all; she merely wants them. How can a
> >>supposedly absolute ethical value - "it is wrong to
> >>kill animals" - take a back seat to her aesthetic wish
> >>for flavor variety, and still be called a valid ethics?

I have no way of knowing what farmers do what. I'm not
responsible for any deaths personally. You are trying
to put an 'absoluteness' on the whole thing, when in
fact you know full well that I am content with the death
reductions I have made (knowing that it's currently
impossible to do better). You say I'm not allowed to
feel content, something you have no say in. I am
doing the best I can and I'm happy with that. I have
seen no indications that foreign grown foods cause
more deaths than local ones, by the way.

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

You're the one putting absolute in there. I do indeed
believe that killing animals is wrong and I find some
farmers like Lundbergs commendable for reducing
accidental deaths. As for other commercial foods,
I'm content know there's less deaths from vegan foods
than in the meat and dairy industry as a whole due to
cds in crop/feed growing.

> >>There is no question that she is NOT "doing her best",
> >>as she could easily forgo the spices. She has, for the
> >>SECOND time, retreated from the claim "I'm doing the
> >>best I can" to the vastly weaker claim of "I think I'm
> >>doing better than you, which is good enough for me."

You're putting words in my mouth. Maybe this is the
root of why you're so antivegan. You think they all
hate you personally. I never said "I think I'm better
than you", admit it. This is again one of your implied
things, isn't it.

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

Stop forcing the word absolute into the above and
into your expectations of vegans.




--
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:

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

That's false. NOW, you know exactly what they do:
they chop little animals to bits in the course of
producing food for you. Previously, you didn't know,
but now you do know. It is your knowledge of what
happens that implicates you.

> I'm not
> responsible for any deaths personally.

You are responsible for the deaths of the animals
chopped up in the field in order to feed you in exactly
the same way a meat eater is responsible for the deaths
of animals he eats.

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

It is just there, based on YOUR belief in the absolute
wrongness of killing animals.

> when in
> fact you know full well that I am content with the death
> reductions I have made (knowing that it's currently
> impossible to do better).

You have no reason to be content, and it IS possible
for you to do better. It is EASILY possible for you to
do better, but you never cared in the first place. You
are content solely with doing the easiest, most emptily
symbolic act you can find.

> You say I'm not allowed to
> feel content, something you have no say in.

I do have say. You are not entitled to your feeling of
contentment. You haven't done anything morally
significant.

> I am doing the best I can

You are NOT doing the best you can. Stop lying.


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

No, it is just there.

> I do indeed
> believe that killing animals is wrong

Then you have no reason for feeling "content", because
you are STILL causing the death of animals with your
consumption patterns.

>
>
>>>>There is no question that she is NOT "doing her best",
>>>>as she could easily forgo the spices. She has, for the
>>>>SECOND time, retreated from the claim "I'm doing the
>>>>best I can" to the vastly weaker claim of "I think I'm
>>>>doing better than you, which is good enough for me."
>
>
> You're putting words in my mouth.

No. That is the essence of what you're saying.

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

I'm not. It's just there, whether you like it or not.

> > I have no way of knowing what farmers do what.
>
> That's false. NOW, you know exactly what they do:
> they chop little animals to bits in the course of
> producing food for you. Previously, you didn't know,
> but now you do know. It is your knowledge of what
> happens that implicates you.

Let me rephrase that. I have no way of knowing
WHICH farmers do what. Short of starving
myself, eating vegan provides the least
accidental deaths. We all know how that
works, I'm not repeating it over again.

> > I'm not
> > responsible for any deaths personally.
>
> You are responsible for the deaths of the animals
> chopped up in the field in order to feed you in exactly
> the same way a meat eater is responsible for the deaths
> of animals he eats.

My responsibility stops where I no longer have
control. In my case, that's most of what I eat,
excepting of course that I prefer Lundberg
both for lessening deaths on their farms, and
for just being the best quality brown rice.

> > You are trying
> > to put an 'absoluteness' on the whole thing
>
> It is just there, based on YOUR belief in the absolute
> wrongness of killing animals.

It's wrong, but I accept that some of it I can't control.
I'm not a superhero. Do you really think the word
absolute fits in this case? I mean considering that
you insist vegans should abstain absolutely from
all food grown by bad farmers.

> > when in
> > fact you know full well that I am content with the death
> > reductions I have made (knowing that it's currently
> > impossible to do better).
>
> You have no reason to be content, and it IS possible
> for you to do better. It is EASILY possible for you to
> do better, but you never cared in the first place. You
> are content solely with doing the easiest, most emptily
> symbolic act you can find.

Your way of doing it better is to eat wild meat, a
resource that would go extinct pretty fast if all
meat eaters switched to it. I could counter that
wild meat with wild tubers and berries etc. That's
0 deaths compared to your 1 (minimum) death.

Of course I will not eat meat. That's not a
valid thing to offer a vegetarian. You do
realize that, don't you?

> > You say I'm not allowed to
> > feel content, something you have no say in.
>
> I do have say. You are not entitled to your feeling of
> contentment. You haven't done anything morally
> significant.

I can feel content and you can't stop me. I don't
have to prove any moral points to you in order
to do so. You don't have say. Do you think I
have any say in YOUR contentment level?

> > I am doing the best I can
>
> You are NOT doing the best you can. Stop lying.

Yes I am. I know my abilities and limits. You don't.

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

Who put it there? You, as far as I can see. Your words,
your wording.

> >>>>There is no question that she is NOT "doing her best",
> >>>>as she could easily forgo the spices. She has, for the
> >>>>SECOND time, retreated from the claim "I'm doing the
> >>>>best I can" to the vastly weaker claim of "I think I'm
> >>>>doing better than you, which is good enough for me."
> >
> >
> > You're putting words in my mouth.
>
> No. That is the essence of what you're saying.

Oh, now you're calling it 'essence'? Earlier you
called these things 'implied'. You put words
in my mouth. It's what your paranoid side sees
as vegans hating you and being the enemy.

> > Stop forcing the word absolute into the above
>
> I'm not. It's just there, whether you like it or not.

You put it there.


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

Scented Nectar wrote:
>>>I have no way of knowing what farmers do what.
>>
>>That's false. NOW, you know exactly what they do:
>>they chop little animals to bits in the course of
>>producing food for you. Previously, you didn't know,
>>but now you do know. It is your knowledge of what
>>happens that implicates you.
>
>
> Let me rephrase that.

No. It's plainly weaseling.

> I have no way of knowing
> WHICH farmers do what.

Irrelevant. You know farmers do it, and you know you
buy from farmers who do it. You aren't doing the best
you can.

> Short of starving
> myself, eating vegan provides the least
> accidental deaths.

That's no good. Killing animals is ABSOLUTELY wrong in
your view, just as broom-****ing children is
ABSOLUTELY wrong. You DO view killing animals as
absolutely wrong, and you have no valid rationale for
stopping at some allegedly reduced amount.


>>>I'm not
>>>responsible for any deaths personally.
>>
>>You are responsible for the deaths of the animals
>>chopped up in the field in order to feed you in exactly
>>the same way a meat eater is responsible for the deaths
>>of animals he eats.
>
>
> My responsibility stops where I no longer have
> control.

You have control over what you buy. You don't "need"
to buy anything from anyone.


>>>You are trying
>>>to put an 'absoluteness' on the whole thing
>>
>>It is just there, based on YOUR belief in the absolute
>>wrongness of killing animals.
>
>
> It's wrong, but I accept that some of it I can't control.

You don't have to have ANY amount of business with
those who do it.

> I'm not a superhero.

Oh, we know that.

>
>
>>>when in
>>>fact you know full well that I am content with the death
>>>reductions I have made (knowing that it's currently
>>>impossible to do better).
>>
>>You have no reason to be content, and it IS possible
>>for you to do better. It is EASILY possible for you to
>>do better, but you never cared in the first place. You
>>are content solely with doing the easiest, most emptily
>>symbolic act you can find.
>
>
> Your way of doing it better

You aren't DOING anything. You falsely conclude from
something you're NOT doing - putting meat in your mouth
- that you're somehow "doing better". You aren't.
Your position simply is morally empty.

>
>>>You say I'm not allowed to
>>>feel content, something you have no say in.
>>
>>I do have say. You are not entitled to your feeling of
>>contentment. You haven't done anything morally
>>significant.
>
>
> I can feel content and you can't stop me.

I can point out that your basis for feeling content is
meaningless, and that your contentment is unearned and
unwarranted.

>>>I am doing the best I can
>>
>>You are NOT doing the best you can. Stop lying.
>
>
> Yes I am.

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

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

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

>
>>>>>>There is no question that she is NOT "doing her best",
>>>>>>as she could easily forgo the spices. She has, for the
>>>>>>SECOND time, retreated from the claim "I'm doing the
>>>>>>best I can" to the vastly weaker claim of "I think I'm
>>>>>>doing better than you, which is good enough for me."
>>>
>>>
>>>You're putting words in my mouth.
>>
>>No. That is the essence of what you're saying.
>
>
> Oh, now you're calling it 'essence'? Earlier you
> called these things 'implied'.

The essence of your belief is implied by all the things
you say.

>
>
>>>Stop forcing the word absolute into the above
>>
>>I'm not. It's just there, whether you like it or not.
>
>
> You put it there.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

> When are you just going to accept that?

I'm not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The whole time you've been posting here.

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

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

> I'm not responsible for any deaths personally.

You are when you purchase their crops.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wrong? Isn't that an absolute?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's barely different than crops grown here.

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> and the animals.

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

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

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

> The id is not acceptable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

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

I know, you slacker.

> unless you are gifting me one or something.

Don't hold your breath.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> and the health risks are unacceptable

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nonsense.

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

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

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

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

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

Definitely. It takes more planning on a vegetarian diet.

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

Not as diligently.

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

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

> Stop telling vegans what they should be doing.

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

> You're no expert.

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

> You're not even vegan,

Hurray! You finally admit it.

> so what are you doing?!?!

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

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

I know, you slacker.

> unless you are gifting me one or something.

Don't hold your breath.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> and the health risks are unacceptable

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nonsense.

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

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

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

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

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

Definitely. It takes more planning on a vegetarian diet.

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

Not as diligently.

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

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

> Stop telling vegans what they should be doing.

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

> You're no expert.

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

> You're not even vegan,

Hurray! You finally admit it.

> so what are you doing?!?!

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

In article >,
usual suspect > wrote:

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

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

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

Daddy!

Do as I say!

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

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

You killed Flipper and his Buds. Shame on you.

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

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

> can see the difficulty is not in veganism

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

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

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

<...>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's barely different than crops grown here.

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

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




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

In article . net>,
Jay Santos > wrote:

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

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

"Ron" > wrote

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

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

Ron, honestly, your comprehension skills are sadly lacking.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

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

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

Please clarify what you mean by "not wrong."

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

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

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

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

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

> I find you more confusing than
> ever.

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

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

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

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

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