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

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

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

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

But you are actively killing the salmon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"John Deere" > wrote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much again for making my points..

a) vegans can only argue with absurdities, and

b) vegans snip hard questions without responding

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


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


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


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

>

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

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

Please do.

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

In article 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.

"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.

John Deere wrote:
....
> a) You have very limited understanding and reasoning powers, or
> b) You are lying to yourself for some twisted reason.
>
> In your case, (a) may be valid, though the original proponent
> of your argument appears to be more of a strong (b) situation.

Reading the thread, the "twisted reason" becomes a little
clear: apparently the OP was some sort of a lapsed
vegetarian of some kind?

That would explain the extreme irrationality mixed
with much hatred. It would be springing from
an extreme driving need to deny one's lack of
will by finding some "justification"!

FWIW, I think there should not be any stigma attached
to people who couldn't stick with a veg*n diet
due to lack of will. When people are raised on
meat in every meal, just the effort they made
once does deserve some praise.

"John Deere" > wrote

> John Deere wrote:
> ...
>> a) You have very limited understanding and reasoning powers, or
>> b) You are lying to yourself for some twisted reason.
>>
>> In your case, (a) may be valid, though the original proponent
>> of your argument appears to be more of a strong (b) situation.
>
> Reading the thread, the "twisted reason" becomes a little
> clear: apparently the OP was some sort of a lapsed
> vegetarian of some kind?
>
> That would explain the extreme irrationality mixed
> with much hatred. It would be springing from
> an extreme driving need to deny one's lack of
> will by finding some "justification"!

You have absolutely no excuse for this degree of ignorance.

> FWIW, I think there should not be any stigma attached
> to people who couldn't stick with a veg*n diet
> due to lack of will. When people are raised on
> meat in every meal, just the effort they made
> once does deserve some praise.

I guess that makes you some kind of saint then.. typical vegan
self-flattery.

Dutch wrote:
> "John Deere" > wrote
>
> > John Deere wrote:
> > ...
> >> a) You have very limited understanding and reasoning powers, or
> >> b) You are lying to yourself for some twisted reason.
> >>
> >> In your case, (a) may be valid, though the original proponent
> >> of your argument appears to be more of a strong (b) situation.
> >
> > Reading the thread, the "twisted reason" becomes a little
> > clear: apparently the OP was some sort of a lapsed
> > vegetarian of some kind?
> >
> > That would explain the extreme irrationality mixed
> > with much hatred. It would be springing from
> > an extreme driving need to deny one's lack of
> > will by finding some "justification"!
>
> You have absolutely no excuse for this degree of ignorance.
>
> > FWIW, I think there should not be any stigma attached
> > to people who couldn't stick with a veg*n diet
> > due to lack of will. When people are raised on
> > meat in every meal, just the effort they made
> > once does deserve some praise.
>
> I guess that makes you some kind of saint then.. typical vegan
> self-flattery.
They have to pat themselves on the back.

Nobody else will.

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "John Deere" > wrote
>
> > John Deere wrote:
> > ...
> >> a) You have very limited understanding and reasoning powers, or
> >> b) You are lying to yourself for some twisted reason.
> >>
> >> In your case, (a) may be valid, though the original proponent
> >> of your argument appears to be more of a strong (b) situation.
> >
> > Reading the thread, the "twisted reason" becomes a little
> > clear: apparently the OP was some sort of a lapsed
> > vegetarian of some kind?
> >
> > That would explain the extreme irrationality mixed
> > with much hatred. It would be springing from
> > an extreme driving need to deny one's lack of
> > will by finding some "justification"!
>
> You have absolutely no excuse for this degree of ignorance.
>
> > FWIW, I think there should not be any stigma attached
> > to people who couldn't stick with a veg*n diet
> > due to lack of will. When people are raised on
> > meat in every meal, just the effort they made
> > once does deserve some praise.
>
> I guess that makes you some kind of saint then.. typical vegan
> self-flattery.

No, it just makes them better than those of who eat meat. In a culture
predicated on the notion of not causing harm, they do seem to manage
that. I have yet to see a vegan kill anyone or anything.

"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>> "John Deere" > wrote
>>
>> > John Deere wrote:
>> > ...
>> >> a) You have very limited understanding and reasoning powers, or
>> >> b) You are lying to yourself for some twisted reason.
>> >>
>> >> In your case, (a) may be valid, though the original proponent
>> >> of your argument appears to be more of a strong (b) situation.
>> >
>> > Reading the thread, the "twisted reason" becomes a little
>> > clear: apparently the OP was some sort of a lapsed
>> > vegetarian of some kind?
>> >
>> > That would explain the extreme irrationality mixed
>> > with much hatred. It would be springing from
>> > an extreme driving need to deny one's lack of
>> > will by finding some "justification"!
>>
>> You have absolutely no excuse for this degree of ignorance.
>>
>> > FWIW, I think there should not be any stigma attached
>> > to people who couldn't stick with a veg*n diet
>> > due to lack of will. When people are raised on
>> > meat in every meal, just the effort they made
>> > once does deserve some praise.
>>
>> I guess that makes you some kind of saint then.. typical vegan
>> self-flattery.
>
> No, it just makes them better than those of who eat meat. In a culture
> predicated on the notion of not causing harm, they do seem to manage
> that. I have yet to see a vegan kill anyone or anything.

What are you going to kill today?

In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
> >
> >> "John Deere" > wrote
> >>
> >> > John Deere wrote:
> >> > ...
> >> >> a) You have very limited understanding and reasoning powers, or
> >> >> b) You are lying to yourself for some twisted reason.
> >> >>
> >> >> In your case, (a) may be valid, though the original proponent
> >> >> of your argument appears to be more of a strong (b) situation.
> >> >
> >> > Reading the thread, the "twisted reason" becomes a little
> >> > clear: apparently the OP was some sort of a lapsed
> >> > vegetarian of some kind?
> >> >
> >> > That would explain the extreme irrationality mixed
> >> > with much hatred. It would be springing from
> >> > an extreme driving need to deny one's lack of
> >> > will by finding some "justification"!
> >>
> >> You have absolutely no excuse for this degree of ignorance.
> >>
> >> > FWIW, I think there should not be any stigma attached
> >> > to people who couldn't stick with a veg*n diet
> >> > due to lack of will. When people are raised on
> >> > meat in every meal, just the effort they made
> >> > once does deserve some praise.
> >>
> >> I guess that makes you some kind of saint then.. typical vegan
> >> self-flattery.
> >
> > No, it just makes them better than those of who eat meat. In a culture
> > predicated on the notion of not causing harm, they do seem to manage
> > that. I have yet to see a vegan kill anyone or anything.
>
> What are you going to kill today?

I'm doing a community service. By keeping those who enjoy killing
focused on killing animals we can avoid them killing humans. I've killed
nothing today. Not even an infection to destroy. Oh, the nature of man
-- if it moves kill it.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >
>> >> "John Deere" > wrote
>> >>
>> >> > John Deere wrote:
>> >> > ...
>> >> >> a) You have very limited understanding and reasoning powers, or
>> >> >> b) You are lying to yourself for some twisted reason.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In your case, (a) may be valid, though the original proponent
>> >> >> of your argument appears to be more of a strong (b) situation.
>> >> >
>> >> > Reading the thread, the "twisted reason" becomes a little
>> >> > clear: apparently the OP was some sort of a lapsed
>> >> > vegetarian of some kind?
>> >> >
>> >> > That would explain the extreme irrationality mixed
>> >> > with much hatred. It would be springing from
>> >> > an extreme driving need to deny one's lack of
>> >> > will by finding some "justification"!
>> >>
>> >> You have absolutely no excuse for this degree of ignorance.
>> >>
>> >> > FWIW, I think there should not be any stigma attached
>> >> > to people who couldn't stick with a veg*n diet
>> >> > due to lack of will. When people are raised on
>> >> > meat in every meal, just the effort they made
>> >> > once does deserve some praise.
>> >>
>> >> I guess that makes you some kind of saint then.. typical vegan
>> >> self-flattery.
>> >
>> > No, it just makes them better than those of who eat meat. In a culture
>> > predicated on the notion of not causing harm, they do seem to manage
>> > that. I have yet to see a vegan kill anyone or anything.
>>
>> What are you going to kill today?
>
> I'm doing a community service. By keeping those who enjoy killing
> focused on killing animals we can avoid them killing humans. I've killed
> nothing today. Not even an infection to destroy. Oh, the nature of man
> -- if it moves kill it.

Non-responsive.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >


snippage...


>> > FWIW, I think there should not be any stigma attached
>> > to people who couldn't stick with a veg*n diet
>> > due to lack of will. When people are raised on
>> > meat in every meal, just the effort they made
>> > once does deserve some praise.
>>
>> I guess that makes you some kind of saint then.. typical vegan
>> self-flattery.
>
> No, it just makes them better than those of who eat meat. In a culture
> predicated on the notion of not causing harm, they do seem to manage
> that. I have yet to see a vegan kill anyone or anything.
====================
LOL You really are this stupid. What, or who, have you seen any meat
eaters kill? The fact remains they do not live up to the 'notion of not
causing harm.' A fact they prove with each inane post to usenet.

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

> "Ron" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "Dutch" >
>
>
> snippage...
>
>
> >> > FWIW, I think there should not be any stigma attached
> >> > to people who couldn't stick with a veg*n diet
> >> > due to lack of will. When people are raised on
> >> > meat in every meal, just the effort they made
> >> > once does deserve some praise.
> >>
> >> I guess that makes you some kind of saint then.. typical vegan
> >> self-flattery.
> >
> > No, it just makes them better than those of who eat meat. In a culture
> > predicated on the notion of not causing harm, they do seem to manage
> > that. I have yet to see a vegan kill anyone or anything.
> ====================
> LOL You really are this stupid. What, or who, have you seen any meat
> eaters kill? The fact remains they do not live up to the 'notion of not
> causing harm.' A fact they prove with each inane post to usenet.

Do you farm animals -- I mean kill animals for fun, food and profit? I
find you unable to conduct yourself in a civil manner in a public space.
Given the demonstration of aggression on your part, imagine the
capabilities of one who fill their need for blood and death on a regular
basis. If one is unable to control themselves after reading a paragraph
or two and must act out then, imagine what the individual who finds
'therapy' in killing animals regularly is capable of if we were to take
away their ability to kill animals.

That you've continued to demonstrate some pleasure with calling people
names and being abusive, one can only imagine with the farmer/killer
experiences when personally killing an animal.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>,
> "rick etter" > wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >, "Dutch" >
>>
>>
>> snippage...
>>
>>
>> >> > FWIW, I think there should not be any stigma attached
>> >> > to people who couldn't stick with a veg*n diet
>> >> > due to lack of will. When people are raised on
>> >> > meat in every meal, just the effort they made
>> >> > once does deserve some praise.
>> >>
>> >> I guess that makes you some kind of saint then.. typical vegan
>> >> self-flattery.
>> >
>> > No, it just makes them better than those of who eat meat. In a culture
>> > predicated on the notion of not causing harm, they do seem to manage
>> > that. I have yet to see a vegan kill anyone or anything.
>> ====================
>> LOL You really are this stupid. What, or who, have you seen any meat
>> eaters kill? The fact remains they do not live up to the 'notion of not
>> causing harm.' A fact they prove with each inane post to usenet.
>
> Do you farm animals -- I mean kill animals for fun, food and profit?
=================
Do you?

I
> find you unable to conduct yourself in a civil manner in a public space.
====================
LOL Really? Where wold you have seen that, pansy-boy?



> Given the demonstration of aggression on your part, imagine the
> capabilities of one who fill their need for blood and death on a regular
> basis. If one is unable to control themselves after reading a paragraph
> or two and must act out then, imagine what the individual who finds
> 'therapy' in killing animals regularly is capable of if we were to take
> away their ability to kill animals.
>
> That you've continued to demonstrate some pleasure with calling people
> names and being abusive, one can only imagine with the farmer/killer
> experiences when personally killing an animal.
========================
Continued display of ignorance on display. Keep up the good work, fool.

"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>,
> "rick etter" > wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > In article >, "Dutch" >
>>
>>
>> snippage...
>>
>>
>> >> > FWIW, I think there should not be any stigma attached
>> >> > to people who couldn't stick with a veg*n diet
>> >> > due to lack of will. When people are raised on
>> >> > meat in every meal, just the effort they made
>> >> > once does deserve some praise.
>> >>
>> >> I guess that makes you some kind of saint then.. typical vegan
>> >> self-flattery.
>> >
>> > No, it just makes them better than those of who eat meat. In a culture
>> > predicated on the notion of not causing harm, they do seem to manage
>> > that. I have yet to see a vegan kill anyone or anything.
>> ====================
>> LOL You really are this stupid. What, or who, have you seen any meat
>> eaters kill? The fact remains they do not live up to the 'notion of not
>> causing harm.' A fact they prove with each inane post to usenet.
>
> Do you farm animals -- I mean kill animals for fun, food and profit?
=================
Do you?

I
> find you unable to conduct yourself in a civil manner in a public space.
====================
LOL Really? Where wold you have seen that, pansy-boy?



> Given the demonstration of aggression on your part, imagine the
> capabilities of one who fill their need for blood and death on a regular
> basis. If one is unable to control themselves after reading a paragraph
> or two and must act out then, imagine what the individual who finds
> 'therapy' in killing animals regularly is capable of if we were to take
> away their ability to kill animals.
>
> That you've continued to demonstrate some pleasure with calling people
> names and being abusive, one can only imagine with the farmer/killer
> experiences when personally killing an animal.
========================
Continued display of ignorance on display. Keep up the good work, fool.

Dutch wrote:

> > FWIW, I think there should not be any stigma attached
> > to people who couldn't stick with a veg*n diet
> > due to lack of will. When people are raised on
> > meat in every meal, just the effort they made
> > once does deserve some praise.
>
> I guess that makes you some kind of saint then.. typical vegan
> self-flattery.

Well, I don't need to flatter myself or hear kudos from
others, I *know* that I happen to have decent willpower.
I also realize that others may not have it, for
whatever reasons.

I am simply speculating that the original decision
to go veg*n, in both cases, may have been equally
moral. Lack of willpower and strength doesn't reduce
the goodwill displayed by the original decision.

"John Deere" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Dutch wrote:
>
>> > FWIW, I think there should not be any stigma attached
>> > to people who couldn't stick with a veg*n diet
>> > due to lack of will. When people are raised on
>> > meat in every meal, just the effort they made
>> > once does deserve some praise.
>>
>> I guess that makes you some kind of saint then.. typical vegan
>> self-flattery.
>
> Well, I don't need to flatter myself or hear kudos from
> others, I *know* that I happen to have decent willpower.
> I also realize that others may not have it, for
> whatever reasons.
>
> I am simply speculating that the original decision
> to go veg*n, in both cases, may have been equally
> moral. Lack of willpower and strength doesn't reduce
> the goodwill displayed by the original decision.
==================
"Goodwill" also doesn't mean you are causing any less death and suffering
either, killer.


>

"John Deere" > wrote
[..]

> Dutch wrote:
>
>> > FWIW, I think there should not be any stigma attached
>> > to people who couldn't stick with a veg*n diet
>> > due to lack of will. When people are raised on
>> > meat in every meal, just the effort they made
>> > once does deserve some praise.
>>
>> I guess that makes you some kind of saint then.. typical vegan
>> self-flattery.
>
> Well, I don't need to flatter myself or hear kudos from
> others.

I don't believe you, I think you have a desperate need to flatter yourself.

> I *know* that I happen to have decent willpower.

There you go..

> I also realize that others may not have it, for
> whatever reasons.

And a little moral relativity as a kicker..

> I am simply speculating that the original decision
> to go veg*n, in both cases, may have been equally
> moral.

The decision may have originated in a genuine empathy towards animals, or it
may have originated in a desire to become a member of an exclusive club, you
don't know. What is clear is that it inevitably results in the vegan having
an inflated, flattering view of themselves in the scheme of things.

> Lack of willpower and strength doesn't reduce
> the goodwill displayed by the original decision.

In fact, in matters of morality it is always the actions, the end result
that matters, not good intentions.

I repeat, it's not at all surprising that you choose to view the very
*intent* to follow veganism as admirable, since doing so reflects so very
well on your own self-image. Veganism is above all about
self-aggrandizement.

Dutch wrote:

> I repeat, it's not at all surprising that you choose to view the very

> *intent* to follow veganism as admirable, since doing so reflects so
very
> well on your own self-image. Veganism is above all about

This is way too schizoid.

OF COURSE I think veganism is admirable. If I didn't, why
would I be a vegan?

John Deere wrote:
>>I repeat, it's not at all surprising that you choose to view the very
>>*intent* to follow veganism as admirable, since doing so reflects so
>>very well on your own self-image. Veganism is above all about
>
> This is way too schizoid.

How so?

> OF COURSE I think veganism is admirable. If I didn't, why
> would I be a vegan?

Why are you a vegan?

"John Deere" > wrote
> Dutch wrote:
>
> > I repeat, it's not at all surprising that you choose to view the very
>
> > *intent* to follow veganism as admirable, since doing so reflects so
> very
> > well on your own self-image. Veganism is above all about
>
> This is way too schizoid.
>
> OF COURSE I think veganism is admirable. If I didn't, why
> would I be a vegan?

Ahem... self-promotion.

"John Deere" > wrote
> Dutch wrote:
>
> > I repeat, it's not at all surprising that you choose to view the very
>
> > *intent* to follow veganism as admirable, since doing so reflects so
> very
> > well on your own self-image. Veganism is above all about
>
> This is way too schizoid.
>
> OF COURSE I think veganism is admirable. If I didn't, why
> would I be a vegan?

Ahem... self-promotion.

John Deere wrote:
>>I repeat, it's not at all surprising that you choose to view the very
>>*intent* to follow veganism as admirable, since doing so reflects so
>>very well on your own self-image. Veganism is above all about
>
> This is way too schizoid.

How so?

> OF COURSE I think veganism is admirable. If I didn't, why
> would I be a vegan?

Why are you a vegan?

Dutch wrote:

> I repeat, it's not at all surprising that you choose to view the very

> *intent* to follow veganism as admirable, since doing so reflects so
very
> well on your own self-image. Veganism is above all about

This is way too schizoid.

OF COURSE I think veganism is admirable. If I didn't, why
would I be a vegan?

John Deere wrote:
>>>FWIW, I think there should not be any stigma attached
>>>to people who couldn't stick with a veg*n diet
>>>due to lack of will. When people are raised on
>>>meat in every meal, just the effort they made
>>>once does deserve some praise.
>>
>>I guess that makes you some kind of saint then.. typical vegan
>>self-flattery.
>
> Well, I don't need to flatter myself or hear kudos from
> others, I *know* that I happen to have decent willpower.
> I also realize that others may not have it, for
> whatever reasons.

At least you know yourself well enough to pat yourself on the back for
meaningless gestures.

> I am simply speculating

And don't forget that!

> that the original decision
> to go veg*n, in both cases, may have been equally
> moral. Lack of willpower and strength doesn't reduce
> the goodwill displayed by the original decision.

Why do you vegans have such indifference to the *results* of your
actions and consumption? The results are either no different (best case
scenario) or of the same kind (worst case scenario) as any other diet
you assail. Your "goodwill" is complete bullshit, especially when it's
attached to any stupid claims about your superior morality.

Let's see if we can move this to some other
kind of arena... how about charitable donations?

Ok, so once upon a time there was this very
greedy miser. He liked to get everything for
himself. He heard about these charitable donations,
and was very skeptical. But then he heard somebody
mention that giving to charity made them feel
good about themselves.

Now he was all about feeling good about himself.
So he decided to give it a try, and wrote and sent
out a $5 check to a charity he had heard about.

But that night, he tossed and turned in bed many
times. He kept thinking of his bank balance
of several millions, and how the $5 would
be gone _forever_ from it. He even got up
around 1 AM to try to raise his banker to
put a stop payment on the check, but then
he realized the bank would charge for
the stop payment.

So he decided he didn't like this charity
thing too much. But he didn't want to feel
bad about it, either.

So he argued thus: People who give charity
are evil. They give only a little bit of what
they have. If they gave everything they had, many more
people, whales and things could have been saved. But
because the charity givers gave only a little bit and
not everything they had, many people and whales and
so on that could be saved didn't get saved. They
even died, which was clearly a result of the
actions of the charity givers. Some of the money given
to charity even ended up in the wrong place or was
misused for the wrong things. So it was all the fault
of the charity givers. They were killers,
who simply didn't realize that the ultimate result
of their actions was evil.

There was no way he was going to join such
evil people.

Thus having come up with his clever argument,
he felt very good about not joining
the evil charity givers.

Others of his type liked his argument, and
rallied around him.

Though after a little bit of this, normal people
saw through him and decided he was worth only
ignoring, and thereby mostly ignored him.

"John Deere" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Let's see if we can move this to some other
> kind of arena... how about charitable donations?
>
> Ok, so once upon a time there was this very
> greedy miser. He liked to get everything for
> himself. He heard about these charitable donations,
> and was very skeptical. But then he heard somebody
> mention that giving to charity made them feel
> good about themselves.
>
> Now he was all about feeling good about himself.
> So he decided to give it a try, and wrote and sent
> out a $5 check to a charity he had heard about.
>
> But that night, he tossed and turned in bed many
> times. He kept thinking of his bank balance
> of several millions, and how the $5 would
> be gone _forever_ from it. He even got up
> around 1 AM to try to raise his banker to
> put a stop payment on the check, but then
> he realized the bank would charge for
> the stop payment.
>
> So he decided he didn't like this charity
> thing too much. But he didn't want to feel
> bad about it, either.
>
> So he argued thus: People who give charity
> are evil. They give only a little bit of what
> they have. If they gave everything they had, many more
> people, whales and things could have been saved. But
> because the charity givers gave only a little bit and
> not everything they had, many people and whales and
> so on that could be saved didn't get saved. They
> even died, which was clearly a result of the
> actions of the charity givers. Some of the money given
> to charity even ended up in the wrong place or was
> misused for the wrong things. So it was all the fault
> of the charity givers. They were killers,
> who simply didn't realize that the ultimate result
> of their actions was evil.
>
> There was no way he was going to join such
> evil people.
>
> Thus having come up with his clever argument,
> he felt very good about not joining
> the evil charity givers.
>
> Others of his type liked his argument, and
> rallied around him.
>
> Though after a little bit of this, normal people
> saw through him and decided he was worth only
> ignoring, and thereby mostly ignored him.

More typical vegan self-promotion by demonization.

John Deere wrote:
>>>FWIW, I think there should not be any stigma attached
>>>to people who couldn't stick with a veg*n diet
>>>due to lack of will. When people are raised on
>>>meat in every meal, just the effort they made
>>>once does deserve some praise.
>>
>>I guess that makes you some kind of saint then.. typical vegan
>>self-flattery.
>
> Well, I don't need to flatter myself or hear kudos from
> others, I *know* that I happen to have decent willpower.
> I also realize that others may not have it, for
> whatever reasons.

At least you know yourself well enough to pat yourself on the back for
meaningless gestures.

> I am simply speculating

And don't forget that!

> that the original decision
> to go veg*n, in both cases, may have been equally
> moral. Lack of willpower and strength doesn't reduce
> the goodwill displayed by the original decision.

Why do you vegans have such indifference to the *results* of your
actions and consumption? The results are either no different (best case
scenario) or of the same kind (worst case scenario) as any other diet
you assail. Your "goodwill" is complete bullshit, especially when it's
attached to any stupid claims about your superior morality.

"John Deere" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Dutch wrote:
>
>> > FWIW, I think there should not be any stigma attached
>> > to people who couldn't stick with a veg*n diet
>> > due to lack of will. When people are raised on
>> > meat in every meal, just the effort they made
>> > once does deserve some praise.
>>
>> I guess that makes you some kind of saint then.. typical vegan
>> self-flattery.
>
> Well, I don't need to flatter myself or hear kudos from
> others, I *know* that I happen to have decent willpower.
> I also realize that others may not have it, for
> whatever reasons.
>
> I am simply speculating that the original decision
> to go veg*n, in both cases, may have been equally
> moral. Lack of willpower and strength doesn't reduce
> the goodwill displayed by the original decision.
==================
"Goodwill" also doesn't mean you are causing any less death and suffering
either, killer.


>

"John Deere" > wrote
[..]

> Dutch wrote:
>
>> > FWIW, I think there should not be any stigma attached
>> > to people who couldn't stick with a veg*n diet
>> > due to lack of will. When people are raised on
>> > meat in every meal, just the effort they made
>> > once does deserve some praise.
>>
>> I guess that makes you some kind of saint then.. typical vegan
>> self-flattery.
>
> Well, I don't need to flatter myself or hear kudos from
> others.

I don't believe you, I think you have a desperate need to flatter yourself.

> I *know* that I happen to have decent willpower.

There you go..

> I also realize that others may not have it, for
> whatever reasons.

And a little moral relativity as a kicker..

> I am simply speculating that the original decision
> to go veg*n, in both cases, may have been equally
> moral.

The decision may have originated in a genuine empathy towards animals, or it
may have originated in a desire to become a member of an exclusive club, you
don't know. What is clear is that it inevitably results in the vegan having
an inflated, flattering view of themselves in the scheme of things.

> Lack of willpower and strength doesn't reduce
> the goodwill displayed by the original decision.

In fact, in matters of morality it is always the actions, the end result
that matters, not good intentions.

I repeat, it's not at all surprising that you choose to view the very
*intent* to follow veganism as admirable, since doing so reflects so very
well on your own self-image. Veganism is above all about
self-aggrandizement.

"John Deere" > wrote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much again for making my points..

a) vegans can only argue with absurdities, and

b) vegans snip hard questions without responding