Helping ducklings to experience life...
dh
at the end of a finger on a dock where I have a boat. When
I noticed her there I knew I'd be taking the boat in and out,
and it would scare her off the nest. So I got some black
plastic and made a blind to close off my inside of the finger
so she couldn't see out and get scared, and dropped it
in place one of the first nights she started to set. It scared
her off then, but she came right back and the blind has
kept her from getting off several times since then.
Why? The baby ducks won't last a month. Some will die
in the first day or two. The mother ducks are followed by
groups of large carp who can eat day or two old ducks,
and apparently attacked by other things since I only saw
two of the many last year live long enough to grow much
feather. It might have been better just to break up the
nest and prevent all that, as "ARAs" want to do to all
domestic animals. But the experience of life must be
worth something, and hopefully it's worth a little effort
on my part to help a few zygotes get to be baby ducks
for a little while.
Rudy Canoza
> A duck is setting on a nest which she made on the float
> at the end of a finger on a dock where I have a boat. When
> I noticed her there I knew I'd be taking the boat in and out,
> and it would scare her off the nest. So I got some black
> plastic and made a blind to close off my inside of the finger
> so she couldn't see out and get scared, and dropped it
> in place one of the first nights she started to set. It scared
> her off then, but she came right back and the blind has
> kept her from getting off several times since then.
> Why?
Because you're an overly sentimental sap.
Dutch
<dh@.> wrote
The ducklings were already alive before you intervened. All
you did way modify your own behaviour to prevent you
from influencing them in a negative way. The parallel is to
animal welfare, not to animals getting to be born.
No moral imperative exists to raise livestock so they can
experience life.
Lynn Guini
<dh@.> wrote in message news:jdjv61ttbb7k24pit...@4ax.com...
> A duck is setting on a nest which she made on the float
> at the end of a finger on a dock where I have a boat. When
> I noticed her there I knew I'd be taking the boat in and out,
> and it would scare her off the nest. So I got some black
> plastic and made a blind to close off my inside of the finger
> so she couldn't see out and get scared, and dropped it
> in place one of the first nights she started to set. It scared
> her off then, but she came right back and the blind has
> kept her from getting off several times since then.
> Why?
because you know duck is delicious?
Scented Nectar
There's always the possibility
though that you did them a
favour, and that one or more
will actually make it to adulthood
and have chicks of their own.
--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.
quietguy
David
Rubystars
<dh@.> wrote in message news:jdjv61ttbb7k24pit...@4ax.com...
Your argument is flawed, but if your story is true, thank you for helping
the animals.
-Rubystars
Scented Nectar
I just got the following timely
piece from a bizarre news
email I subscribe to:
----- Secret Service Job Not All It's Quacked Up To Be -----
WASHINGTON - Secret Service agents know it's their job to
serve and protect. But I bet they never expected to be serv-
ing and protecting a duck. Usually it's just Washington VIPS
that get Secret Service protection, but now a mama mallard
is getting the special treatment. The duck recently took up
residence outside the Treasury Department and is watching
over her nine eggs. The sidewalk has been fenced off by
officials and the Secret Service is keeping an eye on the
nest. Officials expect that once the eggs hatch, the mother
duck will most likely parade her ducklings to the nearest
body of water. Of course, a Secret Service escort will be on
hand for that event if needed.
pearl
'Twenty percent of the corn grown in the U.S. is eaten by people.
Eighty percent of the corn and 95% of the oats grown in the U.S.
is eaten by livestock. The percentage of protein wasted by cycling
grain through livestock is calculated by experts as 90%.
One acre of land can produce 40,000 pounds of potatoes, or 250
pounds of beef. Fifty-six percent of all U.S. farmland is devoted to
beef production, and to produce each pound of beef requires 16
pounds of edible grain and soybeans, which could be used to feed
the hungry.
http://www.ivu.org/religion/articles/argument3.html
Rudy Canoza
> Scented, you asked for this info;
>
> 'Twenty percent of the corn grown in the U.S. is eaten by people.
> Eighty percent of the corn and 95% of the oats grown in the U.S.
> is eaten by livestock. The percentage of protein wasted by cycling
> grain through livestock is calculated by experts as 90%.
It's not 'wasted', any more than the extra raw
materials and capital and labor that go into making a
Mercedes-Benz S-500 versus a small Kia are 'wasted'.
People want meat, and it requires resources to produce
the meat. The use of the resources in that way is not
'waste'.
This idea that the resources are 'wasted' is a
wrong-headed and economics-illiterate way of looking at
the world.
Rudy Canoza
This exhibits completely illiterate understanding of
resource allocation issues and hunger.
The use of plant protein to produce meat is not a
"waste" of the protein. It is an alternative use of a
resource, a use for which the consumers of the meat pay.
Suppose you're considering buying a car, and you've
narrowed it down to a Mercedes-Benz S600 (US$128,000)
or a Hyundai Accent (US$10,000). The Hyundai has a
curb weight of about 1100kg, while the Mercedes-Benz
has a weight of 2090kg. Obviously, a lot more metal
and other raw materials went into making the M-B, and
in particular a lot more engineering (intellectual
capital) went into it. Is this extra metal and
engineering of the M-B "wasted", because it could have
been used to produce a dozen Hyundai Accents? No,
decidedly not. The buyer of the M-B PAYS for those
additional resources. The owners of those resources
are the ones who decide to what use the resources ought
to go, not some fuckwitted dreamy do-gooder like "pearl".
Or consider that you're inviting some people over for a
dinner party. You could open a few tins of beans, corn
(maize) and other vegetables, heat them up, and have a
nutritionally adequate but culinarily disgusting meal
ready to serve in about 20 minutes. Or, you could
spend three hours preparing a truly gourmet repast that
will delight your guests. If you do the former, you
*could* spend the remaing 2 hours 40 minutes "doing
something for the hungry". If you choose instead to
prepare the gourmet meal, is that time "wasted"? The
very question indicates the absurdity and STUPIDITY of
looking at resource allocation issues in this way.
The plant food fed to livestock is not "wasted". It is
a particular market-driven use of the resources, and it
is perfectly legitimate and proper.
http://www.hyundaiusa.com/Vehicles/Accent/Features_Specs/Vehicle_Details.asp
http://www.mbusa.com/brand/container.jsp?/models/features/specs/overview_engine.jsp?spec=4&menu=3_0&modelCode=S600V&class=06_S
Scented Nectar
news:d4q7j5$kav$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
Thanks. I think I'll choose the
40,000 pounds of potatoes! :)
16:1 is a large ratio. There are
obviously way more cds in meat
than veg food. Grain and soy
growing must take up 10x the
space as potatoes do though,
because the potato/beef ratio
is 160:1 That's huge!
Scented Nectar
news:5a7ce.632$V01...@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Tell that to the hungry people in
the world, and to the hungry
wildlife whose land is taken
from them due to extensive
human acreage overuse.
Scented Nectar
all over the place?
"Rudy Canoza" <som...@ph.con> wrote in message
news:6U7ce.682$V01...@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> pearl wrote:
>
> > Scented, you asked for this info;
> >
> > 'Twenty percent of the corn grown in the U.S. is eaten by people.
> > Eighty percent of the corn and 95% of the oats grown in the U.S.
> > is eaten by livestock. The percentage of protein wasted by cycling
> > grain through livestock is calculated by experts as 90%.
> >
> > One acre of land can produce 40,000 pounds of potatoes, or 250
> > pounds of beef. Fifty-six percent of all U.S. farmland is devoted to
> > beef production, and to produce each pound of beef requires 16
> > pounds of edible grain and soybeans, which could be used to feed
> > the hungry.
>
> This exhibits completely illiterate understanding of
> resource allocation issues and hunger.
>
> The use of plant protein to produce meat is not a
> "waste" of the protein. It is an alternative use of a
> resource, a use for which the consumers of the meat pay.
Wildlife pays too, due to the
overuse of formerly wild areas
like the extensive acreage
used in beef production.
> Suppose you're considering buying a car, and you've
> narrowed it down to a Mercedes-Benz S600 (US$128,000)
> or a Hyundai Accent (US$10,000). The Hyundai has a
> curb weight of about 1100kg, while the Mercedes-Benz
> has a weight of 2090kg. Obviously, a lot more metal
> and other raw materials went into making the M-B, and
> in particular a lot more engineering (intellectual
> capital) went into it. Is this extra metal and
> engineering of the M-B "wasted", because it could have
> been used to produce a dozen Hyundai Accents? No,
> decidedly not. The buyer of the M-B PAYS for those
> additional resources. The owners of those resources
> are the ones who decide to what use the resources ought
> to go, not some fuckwitted dreamy do-gooder like "pearl".
As far as the 'do-gooder' idea
of feeding the world, she makes
a good point. The grain/beans
to beef ratio is 16:1, and
the potatoes to beef ratio is
160:1. That's huge!
> Or consider that you're inviting some people over for a
> dinner party. You could open a few tins of beans, corn
> (maize) and other vegetables, heat them up, and have a
> nutritionally adequate but culinarily disgusting meal
> ready to serve in about 20 minutes. Or, you could
> spend three hours preparing a truly gourmet repast that
> will delight your guests. If you do the former, you
> *could* spend the remaing 2 hours 40 minutes "doing
> something for the hungry". If you choose instead to
> prepare the gourmet meal, is that time "wasted"? The
> very question indicates the absurdity and STUPIDITY of
> looking at resource allocation issues in this way.
I happen to be a great cook,
but that aside, are you actually
claiming that one must do all
one can, to extremes, in order
to maximise the time one
spends on good deeds?
And cooking for 3 hours is
evil compared to cooking
for 20 minutes? You're
wackier than the tobacco
I smoke!! And what's this
got to do with boats?
--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.
> The plant food fed to livestock is not "wasted". It is
Rudy Canoza
> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> news:d4q7j5$kav$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
>
>>Scented, you asked for this info;
>>
>>'Twenty percent of the corn grown in the U.S. is eaten by people.
>>Eighty percent of the corn and 95% of the oats grown in the U.S.
>>is eaten by livestock. The percentage of protein wasted by cycling
>>grain through livestock is calculated by experts as 90%.
>>
>>One acre of land can produce 40,000 pounds of potatoes, or 250
>>pounds of beef. Fifty-six percent of all U.S. farmland is devoted to
>>beef production, and to produce each pound of beef requires 16
>>pounds of edible grain and soybeans, which could be used to feed
>>the hungry.
>>
>>http://www.ivu.org/religion/articles/argument3.html
>
>
> Thanks. I think I'll choose the
> 40,000 pounds of potatoes! :)
> 16:1 is a large ratio. There are
> obviously way more cds in meat
> than veg food.
Morality is NOT a counting game. You are not "more
moral" for causing fewer, but still more than zero,
animal deaths, if you claim to believe that causing
animals to die is wrong.
Thanks for demonstrating your moral bankruptcy and
juvenile immaturity again.
Rudy Canoza
> Why did you crosspost this
> all over the place?
It belongs there.
>
> "Rudy Canoza" <som...@ph.con> wrote in message
> news:6U7ce.682$V01...@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>>pearl wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Scented, you asked for this info;
>>>
>>>'Twenty percent of the corn grown in the U.S. is eaten by people.
>>>Eighty percent of the corn and 95% of the oats grown in the U.S.
>>>is eaten by livestock. The percentage of protein wasted by cycling
>>>grain through livestock is calculated by experts as 90%.
>>>
>>>One acre of land can produce 40,000 pounds of potatoes, or 250
>>>pounds of beef. Fifty-six percent of all U.S. farmland is devoted to
>>>beef production, and to produce each pound of beef requires 16
>>>pounds of edible grain and soybeans, which could be used to feed
>>>the hungry.
>>
>>This exhibits completely illiterate understanding of
>>resource allocation issues and hunger.
>>
>>The use of plant protein to produce meat is not a
>>"waste" of the protein. It is an alternative use of a
>>resource, a use for which the consumers of the meat pay.
>
>
> Wildlife pays too, due to the
> overuse
It is not "over" use.
> of formerly wild areas
> like the extensive acreage
> used in beef production.
Your residence is part of a "formerly wild area". Stop
being a hypocrite: leave the residence and tear it down.
>>Suppose you're considering buying a car, and you've
>>narrowed it down to a Mercedes-Benz S600 (US$128,000)
>>or a Hyundai Accent (US$10,000). The Hyundai has a
>>curb weight of about 1100kg, while the Mercedes-Benz
>>has a weight of 2090kg. Obviously, a lot more metal
>>and other raw materials went into making the M-B, and
>>in particular a lot more engineering (intellectual
>>capital) went into it. Is this extra metal and
>>engineering of the M-B "wasted", because it could have
>>been used to produce a dozen Hyundai Accents? No,
>>decidedly not. The buyer of the M-B PAYS for those
>>additional resources. The owners of those resources
>>are the ones who decide to what use the resources ought
>>to go, not some fuckwitted dreamy do-gooder like "pearl".
>
>
> As far as the 'do-gooder' idea
> of feeding the world, she makes
> a good point.
She makes a wretched, typically shitty Lesley point.
It's total bullshit.
> The grain/beans
> to beef ratio is 16:1, and
> the potatoes to beef ratio is
> 160:1. That's huge!
It's also irrelevant. People are hungry in the world
for reasons having nothing to do with the total amount
of food produced. There is more than enough food
produced to feed everyone. The problem is getting it
to them, and paying the producers for it.
>>Or consider that you're inviting some people over for a
>>dinner party. You could open a few tins of beans, corn
>>(maize) and other vegetables, heat them up, and have a
>>nutritionally adequate but culinarily disgusting meal
>>ready to serve in about 20 minutes. Or, you could
>>spend three hours preparing a truly gourmet repast that
>>will delight your guests. If you do the former, you
>>*could* spend the remaing 2 hours 40 minutes "doing
>>something for the hungry". If you choose instead to
>>prepare the gourmet meal, is that time "wasted"? The
>>very question indicates the absurdity and STUPIDITY of
>>looking at resource allocation issues in this way.
>
>
> I happen to be a great cook,
I doubt that.
> but that aside, are you actually
> claiming that one must do all
> one can, to extremes, in order
> to maximise the time one
> spends on good deeds?
No, that's implicitly what that filthy foot-rubbing
WHORE Lesley is claiming.
> And cooking for 3 hours is
> evil compared to cooking
> for 20 minutes?
Absolutely not. It is what the FOUL WHORE Lesley is
implying. If she says that resources, rather than
going into the production of what she considers to be a
"luxury" good, meat, should instead be devoted to
"feeding the hungry", then she is NECESSARILY implying
that ANY use of scarce resources for purposes beyond
what she considers to be the "correct" minimum for you
must be "wastage". SHE is the one implying that
cooking for 3 hours is evil compared to cooking for 20
minutes. I do not consider it evil at all. It's your
time and your money. You may do with it what you like.
> And what's this
> got to do with boats?
You really can't see it? It's so fucking obvious, it's
about to kill you. You fucking idiot.
Scented Nectar
> Scented Nectar wrote:
>
> > Why did you crosspost this
> > all over the place?
>
> It belongs there.
Why would rec.boats people
care about our arguments
about food, and the growing
of food?
> > "Rudy Canoza" <som...@ph.con> wrote in message
> > news:6U7ce.682$V01...@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >
> >>pearl wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Scented, you asked for this info;
> >>>
> >>>'Twenty percent of the corn grown in the U.S. is eaten by people.
> >>>Eighty percent of the corn and 95% of the oats grown in the U.S.
> >>>is eaten by livestock. The percentage of protein wasted by cycling
> >>>grain through livestock is calculated by experts as 90%.
> >>>
> >>>One acre of land can produce 40,000 pounds of potatoes, or 250
> >>>pounds of beef. Fifty-six percent of all U.S. farmland is devoted to
> >>>beef production, and to produce each pound of beef requires 16
> >>>pounds of edible grain and soybeans, which could be used to feed
> >>>the hungry.
> >>
> >>This exhibits completely illiterate understanding of
> >>resource allocation issues and hunger.
> >>
> >>The use of plant protein to produce meat is not a
> >>"waste" of the protein. It is an alternative use of a
> >>resource, a use for which the consumers of the meat pay.
> >
> >
> > Wildlife pays too, due to the
> > overuse
>
> It is not "over" use.
Yes it is. We've outgrown our
petri dish.
> > of formerly wild areas
> > like the extensive acreage
> > used in beef production.
>
> Your residence is part of a "formerly wild area". Stop
> being a hypocrite: leave the residence and tear it down.
There's that extremism you're
expecting of me again. Actually
when you think of it, living in the
city uses up less actual space
per human, then living in the
country does.
> >>Suppose you're considering buying a car, and you've
> >>narrowed it down to a Mercedes-Benz S600 (US$128,000)
> >>or a Hyundai Accent (US$10,000). The Hyundai has a
> >>curb weight of about 1100kg, while the Mercedes-Benz
> >>has a weight of 2090kg. Obviously, a lot more metal
> >>and other raw materials went into making the M-B, and
> >>in particular a lot more engineering (intellectual
> >>capital) went into it. Is this extra metal and
> >>engineering of the M-B "wasted", because it could have
> >>been used to produce a dozen Hyundai Accents? No,
> >>decidedly not. The buyer of the M-B PAYS for those
> >>additional resources. The owners of those resources
> >>are the ones who decide to what use the resources ought
> >>to go, not some fuckwitted dreamy do-gooder like "pearl".
> >
> >
> > As far as the 'do-gooder' idea
> > of feeding the world, she makes
> > a good point.
>
> She makes a wretched, typically shitty Lesley point.
> It's total bullshit.
She's right about what she
posted and you know it.
> > The grain/beans
> > to beef ratio is 16:1, and
> > the potatoes to beef ratio is
> > 160:1. That's huge!
>
> It's also irrelevant. People are hungry in the world
> for reasons having nothing to do with the total amount
> of food produced. There is more than enough food
> produced to feed everyone. The problem is getting it
> to them, and paying the producers for it.
>
> >>Or consider that you're inviting some people over for a
> >>dinner party. You could open a few tins of beans, corn
> >>(maize) and other vegetables, heat them up, and have a
> >>nutritionally adequate but culinarily disgusting meal
> >>ready to serve in about 20 minutes. Or, you could
> >>spend three hours preparing a truly gourmet repast that
> >>will delight your guests. If you do the former, you
> >>*could* spend the remaing 2 hours 40 minutes "doing
> >>something for the hungry". If you choose instead to
> >>prepare the gourmet meal, is that time "wasted"? The
> >>very question indicates the absurdity and STUPIDITY of
> >>looking at resource allocation issues in this way.
> >
> >
> > I happen to be a great cook,
>
> I doubt that.
Doubt all you want. You'll
never get the chance to find
out. :)
> > but that aside, are you actually
> > claiming that one must do all
> > one can, to extremes, in order
> > to maximise the time one
> > spends on good deeds?
>
> No, that's implicitly what that filthy foot-rubbing
> WHORE Lesley is claiming.
But I've only been seeing YOU
claiming that people must go
to unreasonable extremes.
> > And cooking for 3 hours is
> > evil compared to cooking
> > for 20 minutes?
>
> Absolutely not. It is what the FOUL WHORE Lesley is
> implying. If she says that resources, rather than
Ah, there's that implying again.
> going into the production of what she considers to be a
> "luxury" good, meat, should instead be devoted to
> "feeding the hungry", then she is NECESSARILY implying
> that ANY use of scarce resources for purposes beyond
> what she considers to be the "correct" minimum for you
> must be "wastage". SHE is the one implying that
> cooking for 3 hours is evil compared to cooking for 20
> minutes. I do not consider it evil at all. It's your
> time and your money. You may do with it what you like.
She has never implied or said
anything about my cooking
time. You have however.
> > And what's this
> > got to do with boats?
>
> You really can't see it? It's so fucking obvious, it's
> about to kill you. You fucking idiot.
Let's see, boats are used in
the transporting of some foods.
Are you going to tell me I should
be against that too? Boats are
used in fishing and that's a
segue into food. Am I getting
warmer? Maybe someone
from rec.boats could give me
a hint if Rudy can't/won't.
Keynes
Let the market decide.
But what if the market decides you're of no further use?
The market may be right. How can it be wrong?
All of human society worships the market as God.
Selfishness is next to Godliness according to the market.
The more selfishness the better for everyone.
(Until the market decides you are of no further use.
Then it must be proper to lay down and die uselessly.
How can the market ever be wrong?)
We must teach the useless people of the world that
they have no right or reason to live. They ought to
understand that right away. It's just good business.
If they don't get it right away we can certainly afford
to kill them. Just a cost of doing business, you know.
Just give up, useless people, and don't make a fuss.
None of that Samson bringing down the temple stuff.
We take a dim view of 'terrorists' striking back rather
than letting us quietly slit their throats in a businesslike
manner.
Children and retirees ought to be the first economic
millstones to cast into the ocean. Right now they are
just a drag on the economy, forcing the well to do to
part with Some of their Money. It's THEIR money!
Fuck the useless drones. Who needs them?
(Why some have money and others don't is an unfathomable
mystery of the market, the arbitrary Will of God perhaps.
Ours not to reason why, but to grab, grab, grab, and
devil take the hindmost.)
Useless drones of the world, die quickly or die slowly,
but die, die, die, and decrease the surplus population.
So sayeth the Holy Market.
Scented Nectar
> Scented Nectar wrote:
>
> > "Rudy Canoza" <som...@ph.con> wrote in message
> > news:5a7ce.632$V01...@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >
> >>pearl wrote:
> >>
> >>>Scented, you asked for this info;
> >>>
> >>>'Twenty percent of the corn grown in the U.S. is eaten by people.
> >>>Eighty percent of the corn and 95% of the oats grown in the U.S.
> >>>is eaten by livestock. The percentage of protein wasted by cycling
> >>>grain through livestock is calculated by experts as 90%.
> >>
> >>It's not 'wasted', any more than the extra raw
> >>materials and capital and labor that go into making a
> >>Mercedes-Benz S-500 versus a small Kia are 'wasted'.
> >>People want meat, and it requires resources to produce
> >>the meat. The use of the resources in that way is not
> >>'waste'.
> >>
> >>This idea that the resources are 'wasted' is a
> >>wrong-headed and economics-illiterate way of looking at
> >>the world.
> >
> >
> > Tell that to the hungry people in
> > the world,
>
> Europeans ate a strictly vegetarian diet. Their hunger
> has fuck-all to do with our resource allocation.
> They're hungry because THEIR economies are fucked up,
> and their countries are run by murderers.
But then we'd be able to give them
our excess food and help them
to get back on their feet and be
eventually self-sufficient. Not that
this is likely to happen in reality,
but ideally this would be great
for everyone.
Scented Nectar
The potato to beef ratio is
even more astounding. It's
160:1. I think a moral
difference can be seen in
this comparison. Numbers
do count. Sometimes not
very much and sometimes
to a great deal, but they
always count (pun intended).
pearl
Hunger and Food Insecurity Reach Chronic Highs [November 2004]
..
In 2003 the number of American households experiencing hunger rose
26% over comparable 1999 data, according to a newly released U.S.
Department of Agriculture report, Household Food Security in the
United States, 2003. Based on data from the December 2003 Food
Security Supplement to the Current Population Survey, 36.3 million
Americans live in households that suffer directly from hunger and food
insecurity, cutting back on needed food requirements due to a lack of
adequate income. This represents an increase of more than 5 million
people since 1999, and includes more than 13 million children.
“This is an unexpected and even stunning outcome,” noted center
director Dr. J. Larry Brown, a leading scholarly authority on domestic
hunger. “This chronic level of hunger so long after the recession ended
means that it is a man-made problem. Congress and the White House
urgently need to address growing income inequality and the weakening
of the safety net in order to get this epidemic under control”
http://tinyurl.com/8zvmy (pdf)
'Number of human beings who could be fed by the grain
and soybeans eaten by U.S. livestock: 1,300,000,000
http://www.kindplanet.org/hunger.html
> But then we'd be able to give them
> our excess food and help them
> to get back on their feet and be
> eventually self-sufficient. Not that
> this is likely to happen in reality,
> but ideally this would be great
> for everyone.
"While soybean exports boomed in Brazil to feed Japanese
and European livestock - hunger spread from one-third to
two-thirds of the population"...."Where the majority of people
have been made too poor to buy the food grown on their own
country's soil, those who control productive resources will, not
surprisingly, orient their production to more lucrative markets
abroad."
Pro-trade policies like that of the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) and the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade (GATT) promotes export crop production and
suppresses basic food production. Foreign aid from industrialised
countries has supported such free trade and free market policies.
http://www.psrast.org/nowohu.htm
'Worldwatch states that 75% of the Third World imports of corn,
barley, sorghum, and oats are fed to animals and not people. "In
country after country, the demand for meat among the rich is
squeezing out staple production for the poor." The demand for
meat among the rich takes precedence over grain production for
the poor since "cash" crops come first. Two-thirds of the grain
exported from North America goes to feed livestock which then
filters back to only feeding the ones who can afford that type of food.
http://www.innvista.com/health/nutrition/diet/vworld.htm
.....
("Super Size Me" is starting on UK T.V right now .. ).
Rudy Canoza
Their food insufficiency has nothing to do with our consumption.
But if you really would like to help make a difference, why don't you
do this: leave your current residence, move into a much smaller and
CHEAPER one in a shitty part of town, take in a couple of flat-mates so
you can cut your rent even further, and send the difference to Oxfam or
some other worthy charity that helps to fight world hunger.
Also, when cooking dinners, spend only 15 minutes or so to heat some
tinned vegetables; spend the rest of the time that you used to take to
prepare dinners in doing some kind of volunteer work to help the hungry.
rick
Still telling the same old lys, eh killer?
Again, there is no equirment to eed any gains to beef cows. Too
bad you'e too stupid to understand that, eh hypocrite?
>
> http://www.ivu.org/religion/articles/argument3.html
>
>
Rudy Canoza
Load of shit, from a non-stop shit-spewer.
Poor people will always have problems.
rick
You ignorant fool, we do GIVE them our excess. Well, we do, I
don't know if you selfish Canadians do... They still starve
because of the governments, not because there is a ood shortage
worldwide. Man, you really are just too stupid to undestand
anything, aren't you.
Not that
> this is likely to happen in reality,
> but ideally this would be great
> for everyone.
==================
It is reality fool. We give them food, and they still starve.
Now, if you would like to promote invading even more countries
and turning out murderous dictators, then write your government
and tell them you want them to get involved. Oh, wait, Canada
doesn't believe in helping people that are being slaughtered.
Unless of course there a little fun in it for themselves, like
torturing somali teenagers to death.
rick
> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> news:d4q7j5$kav$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
>> Scented, you asked for this info;
>>
>> 'Twenty percent of the corn grown in the U.S. is eaten by
>> people.
>> Eighty percent of the corn and 95% of the oats grown in the
>> U.S.
>> is eaten by livestock. The percentage of protein wasted by
>> cycling
>> grain through livestock is calculated by experts as 90%.
>>
>> One acre of land can produce 40,000 pounds of potatoes, or 250
>> pounds of beef. Fifty-six percent of all U.S. farmland is
>> devoted to
>> beef production, and to produce each pound of beef requires 16
>> pounds of edible grain and soybeans, which could be used to
>> feed
>> the hungry.
>>
>> http://www.ivu.org/religion/articles/argument3.html
>
> Thanks. I think I'll choose the
> 40,000 pounds of potatoes! :)
Of course you will. You PREFER to kill more animals than
necessary. You love all that blood on your hands, killer.
> 16:1 is a large ratio. There are
> obviously way more cds in meat
> than veg food.
======================
Proof please? Oh, wait, you never provide that, do you
hypocrite?
Grain and soy
> growing must take up 10x the
> space as potatoes do though,
> because the potato/beef ratio
> is 160:1 That's huge!
====================
The soy that is ed to cattle is not grown for feed, fool. It is
grown for a vast myriad of products for YOUR consumption. After
the oils are extracted, THEN the 'waste' is used as feed. So,
it is YOUR consupmtion that drives the soy bean industry, not
mine. Especially since the beef I eat doesn't get any 'crops'.
Too bad your ly has been exposed yet again, hypocrite
Scented Nectar
news:1114724705.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
You're going to extremes again.
Rudy Canoza
Morality is not a counting game. You cannot do some non-zero amount of
something you say is wrong, then excuse yourself because you do less of
it than someone else.
This is established beyond reasonable dispute.
rick
No fool, it is not. The diference is that your potatoes kill
many many moe animals or the same calories as I get from beef.
It's
> 160:1. I think a moral
> difference can be seen in
> this comparison.
====================
No, I think the ignorance of vegans can be seen in their
stupidity...
Rudy Canoza
No, I'm not.
You don't do a FUCKING THING to try to alleviate the so-called "hunger
problem", apart from wringing your hands and paying lip service to some
sentimental crapola.
Dutch
> You're going to extremes again.
And you're still posing while claiming that you are doing "all you can".
pearl
>
> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> news:d4q7j5$kav$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
> > Scented, you asked for this info;
> >
> > 'Twenty percent of the corn grown in the U.S. is eaten by people.
> > Eighty percent of the corn and 95% of the oats grown in the U.S.
> > is eaten by livestock. The percentage of protein wasted by cycling
> > grain through livestock is calculated by experts as 90%.
> >
> > One acre of land can produce 40,000 pounds of potatoes, or 250
> > pounds of beef. Fifty-six percent of all U.S. farmland is devoted to
> > beef production, and to produce each pound of beef requires 16
> > pounds of edible grain and soybeans, which could be used to feed
> > the hungry.
> ================
> Still telling the same old lys, eh killer?
I'm still telling the truth, liar.
> Again, there is no equirment to eed any gains to beef cows.
You eat worn-out beef cows, is that it? What are they fed during
winter months, etter? How many lbs of feed do they eat per day?
What acreage does each animal graze approximately? Water?
> Too bad you'e too stupid to understand that, eh hypocrite?
More projection.
> > http://www.ivu.org/religion/articles/argument3.html
Scented Nectar
I wash my hand several times
a day. They are never bloody.
The water doesn't run red.
> > 16:1 is a large ratio. There are
> > obviously way more cds in meat
> > than veg food.
> ======================
> Proof please? Oh, wait, you never provide that, do you
> hypocrite?
Others have repeatedly. I'll
post if I come across current
info, but I can't post what I
haven't saved.
> Grain and soy
> > growing must take up 10x the
> > space as potatoes do though,
> > because the potato/beef ratio
> > is 160:1 That's huge!
> ====================
> The soy that is ed to cattle is not grown for feed, fool. It is
> grown for a vast myriad of products for YOUR consumption. After
> the oils are extracted, THEN the 'waste' is used as feed. So,
> it is YOUR consupmtion that drives the soy bean industry, not
> mine. Especially since the beef I eat doesn't get any 'crops'.
> Too bad your ly has been exposed yet again, hypocrite
There there, yes Ricky you are
better than other meat eaters
because you eat free range
ones. Feel better? As for the
food waste, I think it could be
of good use in the compost
piles.
Scented Nectar
Canada is just like the States
except that we get free
medical care (mostly) and
less of us carry guns. :)
Also except for the climate
zones. You guys have
some better ones.
> Not that
> > this is likely to happen in reality,
> > but ideally this would be great
> > for everyone.
> ==================
> It is reality fool. We give them food, and they still starve.
> Now, if you would like to promote invading even more countries
> and turning out murderous dictators, then write your government
> and tell them you want them to get involved. Oh, wait, Canada
> doesn't believe in helping people that are being slaughtered.
> Unless of course there a little fun in it for themselves, like
> torturing somali teenagers to death.
Canada did a great deal of
good in WW2. And as for
prisoner treatment, some of
your compatriots have proven
no better at Abu Graib.
rick
It's still there, killer.
>
>> > 16:1 is a large ratio. There are
>> > obviously way more cds in meat
>> > than veg food.
>> ======================
>> Proof please? Oh, wait, you never provide that, do you
>> hypocrite?
>
> Others have repeatedly. I'll
> post if I come across current
> info, but I can't post what I
> haven't saved.
=====================
No, they haven't fool.
>
>> Grain and soy
>> > growing must take up 10x the
>> > space as potatoes do though,
>> > because the potato/beef ratio
>> > is 160:1 That's huge!
>> ====================
>> The soy that is ed to cattle is not grown for feed, fool. It
>> is
>> grown for a vast myriad of products for YOUR consumption.
>> After
>> the oils are extracted, THEN the 'waste' is used as feed.
>> So,
>> it is YOUR consupmtion that drives the soy bean industry, not
>> mine. Especially since the beef I eat doesn't get any
>> 'crops'.
>> Too bad your ly has been exposed yet again, hypocrite
>
>
> There there, yes Ricky you are
> better than other meat eaters
> because you eat free range
> ones. Feel better? As for the
> food waste, I think it could be
> of good use in the compost
> piles.
========================
ROTFLMAO You eally are that stupid, aren't you?
rick
Then why are you so ignorant about the food that is sent to all
areas of the world as relief?
> except that we get free
> medical care (mostly) and
> less of us carry guns. :)
> Also except for the climate
> zones. You guys have
> some better ones.
>
>> Not that
>> > this is likely to happen in reality,
>> > but ideally this would be great
>> > for everyone.
>> ==================
>> It is reality fool. We give them food, and they still starve.
>> Now, if you would like to promote invading even more countries
>> and turning out murderous dictators, then write your
>> government
>> and tell them you want them to get involved. Oh, wait, Canada
>> doesn't believe in helping people that are being slaughtered.
>> Unless of course there a little fun in it for themselves, like
>> torturing somali teenagers to death.
>
> Canada did a great deal of
> good in WW2. And as for
> prisoner treatment, some of
> your compatriots have proven
> no better at Abu Graib.
==================
How many teenagers were tortured to death there, fool? Being
stripped and bound isn't the same as killing them. Besides,
Canadians would pay to be stripped and bound, eh killer?
rick
> "rick" <st...@stop.net> wrote in message
> news:JPcce.886$BE3...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
>> news:d4q7j5$kav$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
>> > Scented, you asked for this info;
>> >
>> > 'Twenty percent of the corn grown in the U.S. is eaten by
>> > people.
>> > Eighty percent of the corn and 95% of the oats grown in the
>> > U.S.
>> > is eaten by livestock. The percentage of protein wasted by
>> > cycling
>> > grain through livestock is calculated by experts as 90%.
>> >
>> > One acre of land can produce 40,000 pounds of potatoes, or
>> > 250
>> > pounds of beef. Fifty-six percent of all U.S. farmland is
>> > devoted to
>> > beef production, and to produce each pound of beef requires
>> > 16
>> > pounds of edible grain and soybeans, which could be used to
>> > feed
>> > the hungry.
>> ================
>> Still telling the same old lys, eh killer?
>
> I'm still telling the truth, liar.
No, you're not. Again, there is no need to eed grains to cattle.
Therefore there is no requirment for 16:1, fool.
>> Again, there is no equirment to eed any gains to beef cows.
>
> You eat worn-out beef cows, is that it? What are they fed
> during
> winter months, etter? How many lbs of feed do they eat per
> day?
> What acreage does each animal graze approximately? Water?
===============
LOL OK, now tell us your typical ly about water useage in the
US. It's always good for a laugh, hypocrite
>
>> Too bad you'e too stupid to understand that, eh hypocrite?
>
> More projection.
==================
Nope, telling it like it is, not telling lys....
>
>> > http://www.ivu.org/religion/articles/argument3.html
>
>
Scented Nectar
My dietary choices already are
doing something. More than
you're doing.
Scented Nectar
Are you so sure that it's more?
How do you know it's not less?
By the way, do you eat any pork
or chicken?
Scented Nectar
news:1172q0h...@news.supernews.com...
> "Scented Nectar" <m...@scentednectar.com> wrote
>
> > You're going to extremes again.
>
> And you're still posing while claiming that you are doing "all you can".
Let me rephrase it better. I
believe in doing all that one
can REASONABALLY be
expected to do. Not all one
can do at it's most extreme.
However, if anyone has the
energy to put everything
they've got into a good
cause, great. Nothing
wrong with that, but it's not
mandatory.
Scented Nectar
Some bad things are worse than
other bad things. Even though
both may be bad/wrong, there
may still be a difference in how
bad the thing is. So morality
is indeed a counting game
sometimes.
Rudy Canoza
> "Rudy Canoza" <som...@ph.con> wrote in message
> news:b59ce.877$7F4...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >
> > > Why did you crosspost this
> > > all over the place?
> >
> > It belongs there.
>
> Why would rec.boats people
> care about our arguments
> about food, and the growing
> of food?
Think about it for 20 or 30 years and see if you can't figure it out
without my help.
It is not "over" use. That's purely your aesthetic opinion, not a
scientific one.
>
> > > of formerly wild areas
> > > like the extensive acreage
> > > used in beef production.
> >
> > Your residence is part of a "formerly wild area". Stop
> > being a hypocrite: leave the residence and tear it down.
>
> There's that extremism you're
> expecting of me again.
No, I'm expecting you to stop being a lying hypocritical skank.
> > >>Suppose you're considering buying a car, and you've
> > >>narrowed it down to a Mercedes-Benz S600 (US$128,000)
> > >>or a Hyundai Accent (US$10,000). The Hyundai has a
> > >>curb weight of about 1100kg, while the Mercedes-Benz
> > >>has a weight of 2090kg. Obviously, a lot more metal
> > >>and other raw materials went into making the M-B, and
> > >>in particular a lot more engineering (intellectual
> > >>capital) went into it. Is this extra metal and
> > >>engineering of the M-B "wasted", because it could have
> > >>been used to produce a dozen Hyundai Accents? No,
> > >>decidedly not. The buyer of the M-B PAYS for those
> > >>additional resources. The owners of those resources
> > >>are the ones who decide to what use the resources ought
> > >>to go, not some fuckwitted dreamy do-gooder like "pearl".
> > >
> > >
> > > As far as the 'do-gooder' idea
> > > of feeding the world, she makes
> > > a good point.
> >
> > She makes a wretched, typically shitty Lesley point.
> > It's total bullshit.
>
> She's right about what she
> posted and you know it.
She's completely wrong. She completely bollixes up the entire issue of
world hunger. She knows nothing about it, nor does anyone else who
thinks it's a production issue.
> > > The grain/beans
> > > to beef ratio is 16:1, and
> > > the potatoes to beef ratio is
> > > 160:1. That's huge!
> >
> > It's also irrelevant. People are hungry in the world
> > for reasons having nothing to do with the total amount
> > of food produced. There is more than enough food
> > produced to feed everyone. The problem is getting it
> > to them, and paying the producers for it.
> >
> > >>Or consider that you're inviting some people over for a
> > >>dinner party. You could open a few tins of beans, corn
> > >>(maize) and other vegetables, heat them up, and have a
> > >>nutritionally adequate but culinarily disgusting meal
> > >>ready to serve in about 20 minutes. Or, you could
> > >>spend three hours preparing a truly gourmet repast that
> > >>will delight your guests. If you do the former, you
> > >>*could* spend the remaing 2 hours 40 minutes "doing
> > >>something for the hungry". If you choose instead to
> > >>prepare the gourmet meal, is that time "wasted"? The
> > >>very question indicates the absurdity and STUPIDITY of
> > >>looking at resource allocation issues in this way.
> > >
> > >
> > > I happen to be a great cook,
> >
> > I doubt that.
>
> Doubt all you want.
My doubts are well grounded.
> > > but that aside, are you actually
> > > claiming that one must do all
> > > one can, to extremes, in order
> > > to maximise the time one
> > > spends on good deeds?
> >
> > No, that's implicitly what that filthy foot-rubbing
> > WHORE Lesley is claiming.
>
> But I've only been seeing YOU
> claiming that people must go
> to unreasonable extremes.
No, it is logically implied by the foul WHORE Lesley's blabbering about
"waste". She's saying SHE knows a better use for resources. Those
resources include your time.
> > > And cooking for 3 hours is
> > > evil compared to cooking
> > > for 20 minutes?
> >
> > Absolutely not. It is what the FOUL WHORE Lesley is
> > implying. If she says that resources, rather than
>
> Ah, there's that implying again.
A correct identification of a logical implication. The foul WHORE
Lesley has no valid criteria for deciding that resources
"unnecessarily" used to produce grain for livestock are "wasted", while
your time "unnecessarily" spent producing (mediocre) time-consuming
meals is well-spent. Once the cat of personal judgments concerning
resource allocation is out of the bag, it can go anywhere.
> > going into the production of what she considers to be a
> > "luxury" good, meat, should instead be devoted to
> > "feeding the hungry", then she is NECESSARILY implying
> > that ANY use of scarce resources for purposes beyond
> > what she considers to be the "correct" minimum for you
> > must be "wastage". SHE is the one implying that
> > cooking for 3 hours is evil compared to cooking for 20
> > minutes. I do not consider it evil at all. It's your
> > time and your money. You may do with it what you like.
>
> She has never implied or said
> anything about my cooking
> time.
It is fully and necessarily implied by what she has said. NECESSARILY,
in Lesley's view, any resources devoted to feeding yourself beyond some
bare-minimum amount are "wasted". That includes your time, whether the
foul WHORE Lesley has said so or not.
> > > And what's this
> > > got to do with boats?
> >
> > You really can't see it? It's so fucking obvious, it's
> > about to kill you. You fucking idiot.
>
> Let's see, boats are used in
> the transporting of some foods.
> Are you going to tell me I should
> be against that too? Boats are
> used in fishing and that's a
> segue into food. Am I getting
> warmer? Maybe someone
> from rec.boats could give me
> a hint if Rudy can't/won't.
You are a fucking idiot.
Capt. Neal®
CN
"Rudy Canoza" <notg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1114731954.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Rudy Canoza
> "Rudy Canoza" <notg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1114725495.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > > "Rudy Canoza" <som...@ph.con> wrote in message
> > > news:4%8ce.875$7F4...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > > >
> > > > > "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> > > > > news:d4q7j5$kav$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
> > > > >
Right! Finally, you've gotten something correct on this score.
> Even though
> both may be bad/wrong,
Bad and wrong are not synonyms.
> there
> may still be a difference in how
> bad the thing is. So morality
> is indeed a counting game
> sometimes.
No, MORALITY - the wrongness part - is NOT a counting game. IF causing
animals to die is bad, then ceteris paribus, causing more animals to
die is worse than causing fewer to die.
But causing ANY animals to die is WRONG, full stop, in your shitty
phony value system. If you are broomhandle-sodomizing the child next
door "only" three times per week, while your slut of a sister is doing
the same thing to the child a dozen or 15 times a week, you are NOT
"more moral" than she is. You may be causing the child less harm, but
you are JUST as immoral as she.
Morality is NOT a counting game, and virtue NEVER is demonstrated by
recourse to a comparison with others. You either are behaving morally,
or you aren't.
Rudy Canoza
> > the Perfect Foil wrote:
> > > "Rudy Canoza" <notg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1114724705.5...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > "Rudy Canoza" <som...@ph.con> wrote in message
> > > > > news:%69ce.879$7F4...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
They are doing NOTHING to eliminate the massive moral conflict between
what you claim to believe is wrong, and what you actually do. You
claim to believe killing animals is wrong, but you continue VOLUNTARILY
to participate in processes that lead to animal death, irrespective of
your dietary choices. You are COMPLICIT in those deaths, because your
participation in the death-causing processes is completely voluntary
and unnecessary. You COULD, if you had a mind to do it, move to the
countryside, grow your own "death-free" food, and resolve the moral
conflict. But you DON'T WANT to do it. You keep lying and saying you
"can't afford it", or that your "responsibilities" keep you
(involuntarily) in the city, but we saw those lies off weeks ago. You
CAN afford to go live in the countryside, even if you can't afford the
same standard of comfort you now have, and you do NOT have any
"responsibilities" that keep you in the city against your will. You
are living in Toronto entirely by choice - your FREE choice - and
entirely voluntarily. Your "responsibilities" <scoff> are ones you
could ethically relinquish, if you WANTED to do so.
Stop LYING about the reason you don't go to the countryside and grow
your own food. We know the real reason: you DON'T WANT to do it.
Scented Nectar
Some food is sent, yes.
Don't ask me about the ones
who would pay for that. That's
not my thing. As for prisoner
deaths, Abu Graib has had
them too. Every army in the
world has their bad apples.
rick
Easy, because you have failed to prove it isn't. Your lack of
info is telling, killer.
Besides, I know potato production. It takes lots of *cides.
rick
Good, you've got a start. Now, what good does it do to just give
the food and not see that it is given to those that are starving,
and not to the murderous dictators. But then, Canadians appear
to love murderous dictators, eh killer?
=====================
Sure it did, 10s of 1000s, yearly. canadians don't seem to care
about that.
Scented Nectar
> the Perfect Foil wrote:
> > "Rudy Canoza" <som...@ph.con> wrote in message
> > news:b59ce.877$7F4...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > > the Perfect Foil wrote:
> > >
> > > > Why did you crosspost this
> > > > all over the place?
> > >
> > > It belongs there.
> >
> > Why would rec.boats people
> > care about our arguments
> > about food, and the growing
> > of food?
>
> Think about it for 20 or 30 years and see if you can't figure it out
> without my help.
Nah, I give up. If you want to
tell me fine, if not who cares.
Aesthetic? No.
> > > > of formerly wild areas
> > > > like the extensive acreage
> > > > used in beef production.
> > >
> > > Your residence is part of a "formerly wild area". Stop
> > > being a hypocrite: leave the residence and tear it down.
> >
> > There's that extremism you're
> > expecting of me again.
>
> No, I'm expecting you to stop being a lying hypocritical skank.
And do that by tearing down my
home? Are you more nuts today
than usual?
> > > >>Suppose you're considering buying a car, and you've
> > > >>narrowed it down to a Mercedes-Benz S600 (US$128,000)
> > > >>or a Hyundai Accent (US$10,000). The Hyundai has a
> > > >>curb weight of about 1100kg, while the Mercedes-Benz
> > > >>has a weight of 2090kg. Obviously, a lot more metal
> > > >>and other raw materials went into making the M-B, and
> > > >>in particular a lot more engineering (intellectual
> > > >>capital) went into it. Is this extra metal and
> > > >>engineering of the M-B "wasted", because it could have
> > > >>been used to produce a dozen Hyundai Accents? No,
> > > >>decidedly not. The buyer of the M-B PAYS for those
> > > >>additional resources. The owners of those resources
> > > >>are the ones who decide to what use the resources ought
> > > >>to go, not some fuckwitted dreamy do-gooder like "pearl".
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > As far as the 'do-gooder' idea
> > > > of feeding the world, she makes
> > > > a good point.
> > >
> > > She makes a wretched, typically shitty Lesley point.
> > > It's total bullshit.
> >
> > She's right about what she
> > posted and you know it.
>
> She's completely wrong. She completely bollixes up the entire issue of
> world hunger. She knows nothing about it, nor does anyone else who
> thinks it's a production issue.
I think everyone agrees it's
a distribution problem. That
problem includes too much
grain going to feed livestock
animals.
It's your loss.
> > > > but that aside, are you actually
> > > > claiming that one must do all
> > > > one can, to extremes, in order
> > > > to maximise the time one
> > > > spends on good deeds?
> > >
> > > No, that's implicitly what that filthy foot-rubbing
> > > WHORE Lesley is claiming.
> >
> > But I've only been seeing YOU
> > claiming that people must go
> > to unreasonable extremes.
>
> No, it is logically implied by the foul WHORE Lesley's blabbering about
> "waste". She's saying SHE knows a better use for resources. Those
> resources include your time.
She has never faulted me for
my time use like you do. As
far as being a foul whore, I have
yet to hear her say she's in the
sex trade. In fact I remember
her denying it. I also doubt
she is foul. She likely washes
with soap and water like
almost everyone else. You
win the prize for foul language
though.
> > > > And cooking for 3 hours is
> > > > evil compared to cooking
> > > > for 20 minutes?
> > >
> > > Absolutely not. It is what the FOUL WHORE Lesley is
> > > implying. If she says that resources, rather than
> >
> > Ah, there's that implying again.
>
> A correct identification of a logical implication. The foul WHORE
> Lesley has no valid criteria for deciding that resources
> "unnecessarily" used to produce grain for livestock are "wasted", while
> your time "unnecessarily" spent producing (mediocre) time-consuming
> meals is well-spent. Once the cat of personal judgments concerning
> resource allocation is out of the bag, it can go anywhere.
Huh? Your implication
perception is way off.
> > > going into the production of what she considers to be a
> > > "luxury" good, meat, should instead be devoted to
> > > "feeding the hungry", then she is NECESSARILY implying
> > > that ANY use of scarce resources for purposes beyond
> > > what she considers to be the "correct" minimum for you
> > > must be "wastage". SHE is the one implying that
> > > cooking for 3 hours is evil compared to cooking for 20
> > > minutes. I do not consider it evil at all. It's your
> > > time and your money. You may do with it what you like.
> >
> > She has never implied or said
> > anything about my cooking
> > time.
>
> It is fully and necessarily implied by what she has said. NECESSARILY,
> in Lesley's view, any resources devoted to feeding yourself beyond some
> bare-minimum amount are "wasted". That includes your time, whether the
> foul WHORE Lesley has said so or not.
Let's let her decide whether
she's telling me how to allot
my time.
> > > > And what's this
> > > > got to do with boats?
> > >
> > > You really can't see it? It's so fucking obvious, it's
> > > about to kill you. You fucking idiot.
> >
> > Let's see, boats are used in
> > the transporting of some foods.
> > Are you going to tell me I should
> > be against that too? Boats are
> > used in fishing and that's a
> > segue into food. Am I getting
> > warmer? Maybe someone
> > from rec.boats could give me
> > a hint if Rudy can't/won't.
>
> You are a fucking idiot.
No, just someone who doesn't
get what the above has to do
with boats. The philosophy
group I can understand, as we
discuss morals regarding the
use of food and animals, but
boats? Oh well, trying to figure
out how your mind works is
boggling. You say and do
the weirdest things.
Scented Nectar
No Canadian I know loves
murderous dictators. As far as
charities go, I question just how
much actually gets to the
people in need, rather than
feeding/supporting the
enforcers of a suppressive
regime. Maybe, if I'm reading
you right, we actually agree
on this?
I don't get it. Are you now
talking about all the US
run prisons in total?
Scented Nectar
I feel no moral conflict. Therefore
no moral conflict exists in me.
> claim to believe killing animals is wrong, but you continue VOLUNTARILY
> to participate in processes that lead to animal death, irrespective of
> your dietary choices. You are COMPLICIT in those deaths, because your
> participation in the death-causing processes is completely voluntary
> and unnecessary. You COULD, if you had a mind to do it, move to the
> countryside, grow your own "death-free" food, and resolve the moral
> conflict. But you DON'T WANT to do it. You keep lying and saying you
> "can't afford it", or that your "responsibilities" keep you
> (involuntarily) in the city, but we saw those lies off weeks ago. You
> CAN afford to go live in the countryside, even if you can't afford the
> same standard of comfort you now have, and you do NOT have any
> "responsibilities" that keep you in the city against your will. You
> are living in Toronto entirely by choice - your FREE choice - and
> entirely voluntarily. Your "responsibilities" <scoff> are ones you
> could ethically relinquish, if you WANTED to do so.
>
> Stop LYING about the reason you don't go to the countryside and grow
> your own food. We know the real reason: you DON'T WANT to do it.
If you knew how much I love plants
both wild and intentionally planted,
you'd know how crazy you sound.
Scented Nectar
Failing to supply proof doesn't
make it not true. Show me YOUR
numbers.
> Besides, I know potato production. It takes lots of *cides.
How many non-insect animals
die as a result of those per acre?
I don't think it's as high as you
make out. And what about
organic potatoes? I am able
to easily obtain those.
Scented Nectar
Ok, we agree on this one. Let's
see how the rest goes.
> > Even though
> > both may be bad/wrong,
>
> Bad and wrong are not synonyms.
I'm using them as synonyms in
this case. I put 'bad' in there so
that you wouldn't be confused
again.
> > there
> > may still be a difference in how
> > bad the thing is. So morality
> > is indeed a counting game
> > sometimes.
>
> No, MORALITY - the wrongness part - is NOT a counting game. IF causing
> animals to die is bad, then ceteris paribus, causing more animals to
> die is worse than causing fewer to die.
That's part of what I like about
being vegetarian. As an average
vegetarian, I am causing less
deaths than I used to as an
average meat eater.
> But causing ANY animals to die is WRONG, full stop, in your shitty
> phony value system. If you are broomhandle-sodomizing the child next
> door "only" three times per week, while your slut of a sister is doing
> the same thing to the child a dozen or 15 times a week, you are NOT
> "more moral" than she is. You may be causing the child less harm, but
> you are JUST as immoral as she.
I knew if I mentioned your fave
fantasy, you'd do this. Don't
use me as the perpetrator in
your scenario though. I would
never do the above at all. Never.
The person who causes the
harm more frequently is more
morally wrong than the one
who does it less, but the
difference is miniscule,
since they are both very
high up on the wrongness
scale.
> Morality is NOT a counting game, and virtue NEVER is demonstrated by
> recourse to a comparison with others. You either are behaving morally,
> or you aren't.
Sometimes morality IS a counting
game.
Rudy Canoza
> "Rudy Canoza" <notg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1114732227.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> > > "Rudy Canoza" <notg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1114725495.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > > > > "Rudy Canoza" <som...@ph.con> wrote in message
> > > > > news:4%8ce.875$7F4...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
It's going to go badly as soon as you revert, stupidly, to saying that
"bad" and "wrong" are synonyms, which I know without even looking that
you will do below. They are not.
>
> > > Even though
> > > both may be bad/wrong,
> >
> > Bad and wrong are not synonyms.
>
> I'm using them as synonyms in
> this case.
Yes, of course; I knew that even before I looked. You're still
wrong/incorrect (these ARE synonyms in this context).
> > > there
> > > may still be a difference in how
> > > bad the thing is. So morality
> > > is indeed a counting game
> > > sometimes.
> >
> > No, MORALITY - the wrongness part - is NOT a counting game. IF
causing
> > animals to die is bad, then ceteris paribus, causing more animals
to
> > die is worse than causing fewer to die.
>
> That's part of what I like about
> being vegetarian. As an average
> vegetarian, I am causing less
> deaths
Thanks, finally, for the admission. YOU are causing the deaths, even
if you aren't the hands-on killer. Wonderful.
> than I used to as an
> average meat eater.
But NOT compared to what you could relatively easily cause as a smart
meat-eater. It's relatively easy for a smart, conscientious meat eater
to cause fewer deaths than even the most dedicated "vegan", unless the
"vegan" is out there producing ALL of his food; and no "vegan" does
that. YOU won't even consider doing it.
You STILL are causing animal deaths, and your stated belief STILL is
that it is wrong to cause animals to die. Hypocrisy.
>
> > But causing ANY animals to die is WRONG, full stop, in your shitty
> > phony value system. If you are broomhandle-sodomizing the child
next
> > door "only" three times per week, while your slut of a sister is
doing
> > the same thing to the child a dozen or 15 times a week, you are NOT
> > "more moral" than she is. You may be causing the child less harm,
but
> > you are JUST as immoral as she.
>
> I knew if I mentioned your fave
> fantasy, you'd do this.
It's an excellent way of illustrating the issue in the starkest terms.
> Don't use me as the perpetrator in
> your scenario though. I would
> never do the above at all. Never.
That's a lie. We have already established, for good, that there is
NOTHING you could not somehow find a way to permit to yourself. All it
requires is the invocation of phony ideas like "affordability" and
"need". If you caught your filthy skanky slut sister sodomizing the
child, and she then ordered you at gunpoint to sodomize the child as
well in order to implicate you, and said she'd kill you if you didn't
do it, you would sodomize the child. Absolutely no question about it.
> The person who causes the
> harm more frequently is more
> morally wrong
NO, absolutely not. The person is producing a worse (more bad)
outcome, but that person is NOT "more morally wrong"; impossible,
because wrongness does NOT have scale.
> > Morality is NOT a counting game, and virtue NEVER is demonstrated
by
> > recourse to a comparison with others. You either are behaving
morally,
> > or you aren't.
>
> Sometimes morality IS a counting
> game.
Morality NEVER is a counting game. You simply are wrong on this.
You're not a sophisticated or learned thinker in these matters at all,
and it shows.
rick
I HAVE presented numbers before fool. You've NEVER presented
anything, killer.
>
>> Besides, I know potato production. It takes lots of *cides.
>
> How many non-insect animals
> die as a result of those per acre?
> I don't think it's as high as you
> make out. And what about
> organic potatoes? I am able
> to easily obtain those.
=================
BS Try looking up PEI potatoes, killer.
Dutch
"Scented Nectar" <m...@scentednectar.com> wrote
> it's not
> mandatory.
*Real* moral issues are mandatory.
rick
Collectivly you must. You haven't done much to get rid of any...
As far as
> charities go, I question just how
> much actually gets to the
> people in need, rather than
> feeding/supporting the
> enforcers of a suppressive
> regime. Maybe, if I'm reading
> you right, we actually agree
> on this?
=====================
Sure, but YOUR claim was that they are starving because of what
we eat. You've just agreed that you lied.
> =====================
No, fool, I'm talking about ABu Ghraib prison. You caed nothing
about the 10s of 1000s of deaths that were taking place there.
Neither you, nor your fellow countrymen. Apparently it was quite
ok for all that killing.
Dutch
> "Rudy Canoza" <notg...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> She's completely wrong. She completely bollixes up the entire issue of
>> world hunger. She knows nothing about it, nor does anyone else who
>> thinks it's a production issue.
>
> I think everyone agrees it's
> a distribution problem. That
> problem includes too much
> grain going to feed livestock
> animals.
No it doesn't, there is a worldwide surplus of grain now.
If we could feed the world's starving populations with
it, we could do it now. If less grain were fed to livestock,
less would need to be produced, and grain would ultimately
cost more. It have NO effect on the world's starving
populations.
The problems are economic and political.
Scented Nectar
Extremes are not mandatory.
Doing what one reasonably
can is good enough. It's
certainly better than nothing
at all, so why pick on it?
Scented Nectar
Us ordinary folk don't have any
say in what the military decides
to do or not do. Personally, I'm
very against harbouring or
supporting any murderous
dictators. As far as invading
messed-up countries, that's
a whole other can of worms.
In fact, invading non-messed
up countries is also a whole
other can of worms.
> As far as
> > charities go, I question just how
> > much actually gets to the
> > people in need, rather than
> > feeding/supporting the
> > enforcers of a suppressive
> > regime. Maybe, if I'm reading
> > you right, we actually agree
> > on this?
> =====================
> Sure, but YOUR claim was that they are starving because of what
> we eat. You've just agreed that you lied.
I'm just saying that we would
have an excess of food, huge,
if we were all vegetarian esp.
vegan. That would certainly
be put to good use by people
suffering either man-made
(war, dictators) or natural
(flood, drought) disasters.
So you're mad at Canadians
for not getting mad enough at
Americans for what happened
at Abu Graib?
Scented Nectar
Hey, maybe you ARE psychic.
We already know your psychotic.
> > > > Even though
> > > > both may be bad/wrong,
> > >
> > > Bad and wrong are not synonyms.
> >
> > I'm using them as synonyms in
> > this case.
>
> Yes, of course; I knew that even before I looked. You're still
> wrong/incorrect (these ARE synonyms in this context).
In THIS context, yes. In MY
context, yes also.
> > > > there
> > > > may still be a difference in how
> > > > bad the thing is. So morality
> > > > is indeed a counting game
> > > > sometimes.
> > >
> > > No, MORALITY - the wrongness part - is NOT a counting game. IF
> causing
> > > animals to die is bad, then ceteris paribus, causing more animals
> to
> > > die is worse than causing fewer to die.
> >
> > That's part of what I like about
> > being vegetarian. As an average
> > vegetarian, I am causing less
> > deaths
>
> Thanks, finally, for the admission. YOU are causing the deaths, even
> if you aren't the hands-on killer. Wonderful.
I am forcing the farmer, to the
small extent that my demands
on the market go, to cause less
cds. If you're going to insist that
I'm responsible for cds, then
you must agree that I cause less
deaths than an average meat
eater. Personally I don't blame
myself for cds, except in cases
where I knowingly choose the
worse of a choice, such as if
I bought regular rice instead
of the good Lundberg rice.
> > than I used to as an
> > average meat eater.
>
> But NOT compared to what you could relatively easily cause as a smart
> meat-eater. It's relatively easy for a smart, conscientious meat eater
> to cause fewer deaths than even the most dedicated "vegan", unless the
> "vegan" is out there producing ALL of his food; and no "vegan" does
> that. YOU won't even consider doing it.
Nonsense. What meat eater
would give up all chicken
and pork (both require
more acreage of food than
vegan foods do), and only
eat their own death free
plant foods and non-grain
fed beef? Not even Ricky,
the saint of low cd meats,
eats your ideal meat-
including diet. And their
eggs and dairy must be
free range too, to leave as
small a footprint as you
believe.
> You STILL are causing animal deaths, and your stated belief STILL is
> that it is wrong to cause animals to die. Hypocrisy.
>
>
> >
> > > But causing ANY animals to die is WRONG, full stop, in your shitty
> > > phony value system. If you are broomhandle-sodomizing the child
> next
> > > door "only" three times per week, while your slut of a sister is
> doing
> > > the same thing to the child a dozen or 15 times a week, you are NOT
> > > "more moral" than she is. You may be causing the child less harm,
> but
> > > you are JUST as immoral as she.
> >
> > I knew if I mentioned your fave
> > fantasy, you'd do this.
>
> It's an excellent way of illustrating the issue in the starkest terms.
Nah, you just like the topic.
> > Don't use me as the perpetrator in
> > your scenario though. I would
> > never do the above at all. Never.
>
> That's a lie. We have already established, for good, that there is
> NOTHING you could not somehow find a way to permit to yourself. All it
> requires is the invocation of phony ideas like "affordability" and
> "need". If you caught your filthy skanky slut sister sodomizing the
> child, and she then ordered you at gunpoint to sodomize the child as
> well in order to implicate you, and said she'd kill you if you didn't
> do it, you would sodomize the child. Absolutely no question about it.
Actually no I wouldn't. I would
dare the person to go ahead
and shoot me. Why do you
feel the need to make me or
my relatives be the victimizer
in these fantasies of yours?
I think you must have fantasies
of being broomsticked by a
dominatrix or something. :)
Is that it Rudy?
> > The person who causes the
> > harm more frequently is more
> > morally wrong
>
> NO, absolutely not. The person is producing a worse (more bad)
> outcome, but that person is NOT "more morally wrong"; impossible,
> because wrongness does NOT have scale.
>
> > > Morality is NOT a counting game, and virtue NEVER is demonstrated
> by
> > > recourse to a comparison with others. You either are behaving
> morally,
> > > or you aren't.
> >
> > Sometimes morality IS a counting
> > game.
>
> Morality NEVER is a counting game. You simply are wrong on this.
> You're not a sophisticated or learned thinker in these matters at all,
> and it shows.
Sometimes morality is a counting
Scented Nectar
Not bull. I can obtain organic
potatoes year round. It does
not matter to me whether or
not they are from PEI.
Guardian Pegasus
<m...@scentednectar.com> wrote:
>>'Twenty percent of the corn grown in the U.S. is eaten by
>>people.
>>Eighty percent of the corn and 95% of the oats grown in
>>the
>>U.S.
>>is eaten by livestock. The percentage of protein wasted
>>by
Who gives a shit? Is America starving? No! Can we live on just
potatoes? Yes, but not well. So what's the fucking problem? There's
plenty of food in the world, it's just skewed in distribution. There
are more potatoes around than people care to eat.
Rudy Canoza
> How big are your zucchinis this year, Rudy?
Haven't planted any yet. But the corn's as high as an
elephant's eye.
Rudy Canoza
> "Rudy Canoza" <notg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1114731954.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>>the Perfect Foil lied:
>>
>>>"Rudy Canoza" <som...@ph.con> wrote in message
>>>news:b59ce.877$7F4...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>>>the Perfect Foil lied:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Why did you crosspost this
>>>>>all over the place?
>>>>
>>>>It belongs there.
>>>
>>>Why would rec.boats people
>>>care about our arguments
>>>about food, and the growing
>>>of food?
>>
>>Think about it for 20 or 30 years and see if you can't figure it out
>>without my help.
>
>
> Nah, I give up.
You're a quitter. Quitters never proper. Winners
never quit, and quitters never win.
>>>>>>The use of plant protein to produce meat is not a
>>>>>>"waste" of the protein. It is an alternative use of a
>>>>>>resource, a use for which the consumers of the meat pay.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Wildlife pays too, due to the
>>>>>overuse
>>>>
>>>>It is not "over" use.
>>>
>>>Yes it is. We've outgrown our
>>>petri dish.
>>
>>It is not "over" use. That's purely your aesthetic opinion, not a
>>scientific one.
>
>
> Aesthetic? No.
Yes.
>>>>>of formerly wild areas
>>>>>like the extensive acreage
>>>>>used in beef production.
>>>>
>>>>Your residence is part of a "formerly wild area". Stop
>>>>being a hypocrite: leave the residence and tear it down.
>>>
>>>There's that extremism you're
>>>expecting of me again.
>>
>>No, I'm expecting you to stop being a lying hypocritical skank.
>
>
> And do that by tearing down my
> home?
You seem to be upset that "formerly wild areas" are no
longer such. The implication for your residence is
clear: get out of your shabby apartment house, and
bulldoze it.
No. No, they don't. People, fuckwitted Lesley at the
forefront, think it's a resource allocation problem.
They're wrong.
Suppose we didn't grow grain and other feedstuffs for
livestock. Do you seriously think that means we'd be
shipping, gratis, an equivalent amount of food to
"poor, starving people" around the world? You're an
idiot, so you might think so. But you're an idiot, and
you're wrong.
>>>>>The grain/beans
Grain and beans are NOT nutritionally equivalent, you
stupid fuck.
Hardly. You could scorch water.
>>>>>but that aside, are you actually
>>>>>claiming that one must do all
>>>>>one can, to extremes, in order
>>>>>to maximise the time one
>>>>>spends on good deeds?
>>>>
>>>>No, that's implicitly what that filthy foot-rubbing
>>>>WHORE Lesley is claiming.
>>>
>>>But I've only been seeing YOU
>>>claiming that people must go
>>>to unreasonable extremes.
>>
>>No, it is logically implied by the foul WHORE Lesley's blabbering about
>>"waste". She's saying SHE knows a better use for resources. Those
>>resources include your time.
>
>
> She has never faulted me for
> my time use like you do.
*I* am not faulting you for your time. SHE has
implied, whether she realizes it or not, that *any*
time you spend beyond the minimum necessary to put some
calories and protein and fiber in you is a waste.
>>>>>And cooking for 3 hours is
>>>>>evil compared to cooking
>>>>>for 20 minutes?
>>>>
>>>>Absolutely not. It is what the FOUL WHORE Lesley is
>>>>implying. If she says that resources, rather than
>>>
>>>Ah, there's that implying again.
>>
>>A correct identification of a logical implication. The foul WHORE
>>Lesley has no valid criteria for deciding that resources
>>"unnecessarily" used to produce grain for livestock are "wasted", while
>>your time "unnecessarily" spent producing (mediocre) time-consuming
>>meals is well-spent. Once the cat of personal judgments concerning
>>resource allocation is out of the bag, it can go anywhere.
>
>
> Huh? Your implication
> perception is way off.
My ability to detect logically necessary implications
is unsurpassed.
>>>>going into the production of what she considers to be a
>>>>"luxury" good, meat, should instead be devoted to
>>>>"feeding the hungry", then she is NECESSARILY implying
>>>>that ANY use of scarce resources for purposes beyond
>>>>what she considers to be the "correct" minimum for you
>>>>must be "wastage". SHE is the one implying that
>>>>cooking for 3 hours is evil compared to cooking for 20
>>>>minutes. I do not consider it evil at all. It's your
>>>>time and your money. You may do with it what you like.
>>>
>>>She has never implied or said
>>>anything about my cooking
>>>time.
>>
>>It is fully and necessarily implied by what she has said. NECESSARILY,
>>in Lesley's view, any resources devoted to feeding yourself beyond some
>>bare-minimum amount are "wasted". That includes your time, whether the
>>foul WHORE Lesley has said so or not.
>
>
> Let's let her decide whether
> she's telling me how to allot
> my time.
By implication, she is. If you spend resources, ANY
resources, beyond the minimum necessary to achieve some
basic crude nutritional survivability, then she
NECESSARILY views it as waste. Resource are resources,
and in her lame-brained half-baked marxist view, they
ought to be re-allocated to "more deserving" people.
>>>>>And what's this
>>>>>got to do with boats?
>>>>
>>>>You really can't see it? It's so fucking obvious, it's
>>>>about to kill you. You fucking idiot.
>>>
>>>Let's see, boats are used in
>>>the transporting of some foods.
>>>Are you going to tell me I should
>>>be against that too? Boats are
>>>used in fishing and that's a
>>>segue into food. Am I getting
>>>warmer? Maybe someone
>>>from rec.boats could give me
>>>a hint if Rudy can't/won't.
>>
>>You are a fucking idiot.
>
>
> No,
Yes.
> just someone who doesn't
> get what the above has to do
> with boats.
Because you're a FUCKING IDIOT.
> The philosophy
> group I can understand, as we
> discuss morals regarding the
> use of food and animals, but
> boats? Oh well, trying to figure
> out how your mind works is
> boggling. You say and do
> the weirdest things.
No.
THINK about it, you stupid bitch. THINK, for once in
your fucking worthless life.
Rudy Canoza
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:1173950...@news.supernews.com...
>
>>"Scented Nectar" <m...@scentednectar.com> wrote
>>
>>
>>>it's not
>>>mandatory.
>>
>>*Real* moral issues are mandatory.
>
>
> Extremes are not mandatory.
Not "extremes", you stupid fuck; absolutes.
Moral issues are absolute.
> Doing what one reasonably
> can is good enough.
No. And you're not DOING anything.
Rudy Canoza
> "Rudy Canoza" <notg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1114743406.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
>>the Perfect Foil lied::
>>
>>>"Rudy Canoza" <notg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1114732227.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>>the Perfect Foil lied:
>>>>
>>>>>"Rudy Canoza" <notg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:1114725495.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>the Perfect Foil lied:
>>>>>>Morality is not a counting game. You cannot do some non-zero amount of
>>>>>>something you say is wrong, then excuse yourself because you do less of
>>>>>>it than someone else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This is established beyond reasonable dispute.
>>>>>
>>>>>Some bad things are worse than
>>>>>other bad things.
>>>>
>>>>Right! Finally, you've gotten something correct on this score.
>>>
>>>Ok, we agree on this one. Let's
>>>see how the rest goes.
>>
>>It's going to go badly as soon as you revert, stupidly, to saying that
>>"bad" and "wrong" are synonyms, which I know without even looking that
>>you will do below. They are not.
>
>
> Hey, maybe you ARE psychic.
No, you're just predictable, and predictably stupid and
stubborn.
>>>>>Even though
>>>>>both may be bad/wrong,
>>>>
>>>>Bad and wrong are not synonyms.
>>>
>>>I'm using them as synonyms in
>>>this case.
>>
>>Yes, of course; I knew that even before I looked. You're still
>>wrong/incorrect (these ARE synonyms in this context).
>
>
> In THIS context, yes.
Right.
>>>>No, MORALITY - the wrongness part - is NOT a counting game. IF causing
>>>>animals to die is bad, then ceteris paribus, causing more animals to
>>>>die is worse than causing fewer to die.
>>>
>>>That's part of what I like about
>>>being vegetarian. As an average
>>>vegetarian, I am causing less
>>>deaths
>>
>>Thanks, finally, for the admission. YOU are causing the deaths, even
>>if you aren't the hands-on killer. Wonderful.
>
>
> I am forcing the farmer,
You are not "forcing" the farmer to do anything. The
farmer farms, killing animals. You KNOW how he farms,
and you CHOOSE anyway to buy from him.
Your demand indirectly causes the deaths. If no one
bought from the farmer, at all, he wouldn't farm, and
he wouldn't kill animals. Your demand leads inexorably
to the deaths.
>>>than I used to as an
>>>average meat eater.
>>
>>But NOT compared to what you could relatively easily cause as a smart
>>meat-eater. It's relatively easy for a smart, conscientious meat eater
>>to cause fewer deaths than even the most dedicated "vegan", unless the
>>"vegan" is out there producing ALL of his food; and no "vegan" does
>>that. YOU won't even consider doing it.
>
>
> Nonsense.
No: perfectly good sense.
> What meat eater
> would give up all chicken
> and pork
I said what a conscientious meat eater COULD do, you
stupid fuck. If you're looking to reduce your death
toll, you can do it far more easily with a
meat-including diet than with a meat-free diet.
>>You STILL are causing animal deaths, and your stated belief STILL is
>>that it is wrong to cause animals to die. Hypocrisy.
Established.
>>>>But causing ANY animals to die is WRONG, full stop, in your shitty
>>>>phony value system. If you are broomhandle-sodomizing the child next
>>>>door "only" three times per week, while your slut of a sister is doing
>>>>the same thing to the child a dozen or 15 times a week, you are NOT
>>>>"more moral" than she is. You may be causing the child less harm, but
>>>>you are JUST as immoral as she.
>>>
>>>I knew if I mentioned your fave
>>>fantasy, you'd do this.
>>
>>It's an excellent way of illustrating the issue in the starkest terms.
>
>
> Nah, you just like the topic.
I like it because it boxes you into a small, tight corner.
>>>Don't use me as the perpetrator in
>>>your scenario though. I would
>>>never do the above at all. Never.
I notice you didn't say your sister wouldn't.
>>That's a lie. We have already established, for good, that there is
>>NOTHING you could not somehow find a way to permit to yourself. All it
>>requires is the invocation of phony ideas like "affordability" and
>>"need". If you caught your filthy skanky slut sister sodomizing the
>>child, and she then ordered you at gunpoint to sodomize the child as
>>well in order to implicate you, and said she'd kill you if you didn't
>>do it, you would sodomize the child. Absolutely no question about it.
>
>
> Actually no I wouldn't.
Whenever a person begins a sentence with "Actually,
...", what follows is automatically a lie.
You WOULD sodomize the child, you liar. You would do
much worse, and with far less reason, even than that.
>>>The person who causes the
>>>harm more frequently is more
>>>morally wrong
>>
>>NO, absolutely not. The person is producing a worse (more bad)
>>outcome, but that person is NOT "more morally wrong"; impossible,
>>because wrongness does NOT have scale.
Settled issue.
>>>>Morality is NOT a counting game, and virtue NEVER is demonstrated
>>>>by recourse to a comparison with others. You either are behaving
>>>>morally, or you aren't.
>>>
>>>Sometimes morality IS a counting
>>>game.
>>
>>Morality NEVER is a counting game. You simply are wrong on this.
>>You're not a sophisticated or learned thinker in these matters at all,
>>and it shows.
>
>
> Sometimes morality is a counting
> game.
Morality NEVER is a counting game, and repeating your
inanity won't make it so.
bowgus
http://www.mcdonalds.com/usa.html Supersize? You betcha :-)
"> The plant food fed to livestock is not "wasted". It is
> a particular market-driven use of the resources, and it
> is perfectly legitimate and proper.
>
Dutch
"Scented Nectar" <m...@scentednectar.com> wrote
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
>>
>> "Scented Nectar" <m...@scentednectar.com> wrote
>>
>> > it's not
>> > mandatory.
>>
>> *Real* moral issues are mandatory.
>
> Extremes are not mandatory.
Yes they are.
> Doing what one reasonably
> can is good enough.
No it isn't. Since you define "reasonable" for yourself,
your definition is meaningless.
> It's
> certainly better than nothing
> at all, so why pick on it?
Because vegan choices in general are not represented
as just reasonable and "non-mandatory" at all, they
are represented by vegans as mandatory in order to
have a moral lifestyle.
Vegans cut themselves all sorts of slack, but cut non-vegans
none. That includes wannabes like you.
pearl
> >>
> >> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> >> news:d4q7j5$kav$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
> >> >
> >> > 'Twenty percent of the corn grown in the U.S. is eaten by people.
> >> > Eighty percent of the corn and 95% of the oats grown in the U.S.
> >> > is eaten by livestock. The percentage of protein wasted by cycling
> >> > grain through livestock is calculated by experts as 90%.
> >> >
> >> > One acre of land can produce 40,000 pounds of potatoes, or 250
> >> > pounds of beef. Fifty-six percent of all U.S. farmland is devoted to
> >> > beef production, and to produce each pound of beef requires 16
> >> > pounds of edible grain and soybeans, which could be used to feed
> >> > the hungry.
> >> Still telling the same old lys, eh killer?
> >
> > I'm still telling the truth, liar.
> > ======================
> No, you're not.
Always.
> Again, there is no need to eed grains to cattle.
What would you feed them instead?
> Therefore there is no requirment for 16:1, fool.
That's how the vast majority of animals are 'finished'.
> >> Again, there is no equirment to eed any gains to beef cows.
> >
> > You eat worn-out beef cows, is that it?
Guess it is.
> > What are they fed during winter months, etter?
Well, etter?
> > How many lbs of feed do they eat per day?
Hello?
> > What acreage does each animal graze approximately?
You need to answer this.
> Water?
> ===============
> LOL OK, now tell us your typical ly about water useage in the
> US. It's always good for a laugh, hypocrite
You're not laughing, liar. Answer the questions.
> >> Too bad you'e too stupid to understand that, eh hypocrite?
> >
> > More projection.
> ==================
> Nope, telling it like it is, not telling lys....
All I see is a lot of dishonest evasion.
> >> > http://www.ivu.org/religion/articles/argument3.html
pearl
> the Scented Nectar wrote:
<..>
> > She's right about what she
> > posted and you know it.
>
> She's completely wrong. She completely bollixes up the entire issue of
> world hunger. She knows nothing about it, nor does anyone else who
> thinks it's a production issue.
For this crosspost, from yesterday:
"Scented Nectar" <m...@scentednectar.com> wrote in message news:U92dnQFTD6Q...@rogers.com...
> "Rudy Canoza" <som...@ph.con> wrote in message
> news:%69ce.879$7F4...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > Scented Nectar wrote:
> >
> > > "Rudy Canoza" <som...@ph.con> wrote in message
> > > news:5a7ce.632$V01...@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > >
> > >>pearl wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>Scented, you asked for this info;
> > >>>
> > >>>'Twenty percent of the corn grown in the U.S. is eaten by people.
> > >>>Eighty percent of the corn and 95% of the oats grown in the U.S.
> > >>>is eaten by livestock. The percentage of protein wasted by cycling
> > >>>grain through livestock is calculated by experts as 90%.
> > >>
> > >>It's not 'wasted', any more than the extra raw
> > >>materials and capital and labor that go into making a
> > >>Mercedes-Benz S-500 versus a small Kia are 'wasted'.
> > >>People want meat, and it requires resources to produce
> > >>the meat. The use of the resources in that way is not
> > >>'waste'.
> > >>
> > >>This idea that the resources are 'wasted' is a
> > >>wrong-headed and economics-illiterate way of looking at
> > >>the world.
> > >
> > >
> > > Tell that to the hungry people in
> > > the world,
> >
> > They would be hungry EVEN IF all North Americans and
> > Europeans ate a strictly vegetarian diet. Their hunger
> > has fuck-all to do with our resource allocation.
> > They're hungry because THEIR economies are fucked up,
> > and their countries are run by murderers.
Hunger and Food Insecurity Reach Chronic Highs [November 2004]
..
In 2003 the number of American households experiencing hunger rose
26% over comparable 1999 data, according to a newly released U.S.
Department of Agriculture report, Household Food Security in the
United States, 2003. Based on data from the December 2003 Food
Security Supplement to the Current Population Survey, 36.3 million
Americans live in households that suffer directly from hunger and food
insecurity, cutting back on needed food requirements due to a lack of
adequate income. This represents an increase of more than 5 million
people since 1999, and includes more than 13 million children.
"This is an unexpected and even stunning outcome," noted center
director Dr. J. Larry Brown, a leading scholarly authority on domestic
hunger. "This chronic level of hunger so long after the recession ended
means that it is a man-made problem. Congress and the White House
urgently need to address growing income inequality and the weakening
of the safety net in order to get this epidemic under control"
http://tinyurl.com/8zvmy (pdf)
'Number of human beings who could be fed by the grain
and soybeans eaten by U.S. livestock: 1,300,000,000
http://www.kindplanet.org/hunger.html
> But then we'd be able to give them
> our excess food and help them
> to get back on their feet and be
> eventually self-sufficient. Not that
> this is likely to happen in reality,
> but ideally this would be great
> for everyone.
"While soybean exports boomed in Brazil to feed Japanese
and European livestock - hunger spread from one-third to
two-thirds of the population"...."Where the majority of people
have been made too poor to buy the food grown on their own
country's soil, those who control productive resources will, not
surprisingly, orient their production to more lucrative markets
abroad."
Pro-trade policies like that of the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) and the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade (GATT) promotes export crop production and
suppresses basic food production. Foreign aid from industrialised
countries has supported such free trade and free market policies.
http://www.psrast.org/nowohu.htm
'Worldwatch states that 75% of the Third World imports of corn,
barley, sorghum, and oats are fed to animals and not people. "In
country after country, the demand for meat among the rich is
squeezing out staple production for the poor." The demand for
meat among the rich takes precedence over grain production for
the poor since "cash" crops come first. Two-thirds of the grain
exported from North America goes to feed livestock which then
filters back to only feeding the ones who can afford that type of food.
http://www.innvista.com/health/nutrition/diet/vworld.htm
.....
'rudy's response:
"Load of shit, from a non-stop shit-spewer.
Poor people will always have problems."
That first sentence is projection, as usual.
pearl
> Scented Nectar wrote:
<..>
> > Let's let her decide whether
> > she's telling me how to allot
> > my time.
Absolutely not.
> By implication, she is. If you spend resources, ANY
> resources, beyond the minimum necessary to achieve some
> basic crude nutritional survivability, then she
> NECESSARILY views it as waste. Resource are resources,
> and in her lame-brained half-baked marxist view, they
> ought to be re-allocated to "more deserving" people.
I say may Scented enjoy all the veganic feasts she wishes,
and when you & co. stop eat the equivalent of 16lbs of grain
to feed your addiction with 1lb of beef, so will every person
on this planet. In addition to that, the vast expanses grazed
can revert to natural habitat, and many species your diet has
now driven to the edge of extinction will be able to recover.
Note well, jonathan ball ('rudy canoza'), that every post
you make which contains personal slurs against my person
will be used in a court action against you. You have been
advised to retract, but keep digging yourself in deeper..
rick
You're still lying, killer. Araid to see what potato growing
does, eh hypocrite?
rick
Never...
>
>> Again, there is no need to eed grains to cattle.
>
> What would you feed them instead?
================
A natural diet, you ignorant fool. Grasses...
>
>> Therefore there is no requirment for 16:1, fool.
>
> That's how the vast majority of animals are 'finished'.
====================
Doesn't make it a "requirment", now does it fool?
>
>> >> Again, there is no equirment to eed any gains to beef cows.
>> >
>> > You eat worn-out beef cows, is that it?
>
> Guess it is.
====================
Nope. You already know what I eat idiot. It's been discussed
many times.
>
>> > What are they fed during winter months, etter?
>
> Well, etter?
=============
Same as before, grasses...
>
>> > How many lbs of feed do they eat per day?
>
> Hello?
> =====================
I've already told you over and over ool, none. Is none too big a
number or you to comprehend?
>> > What acreage does each animal graze approximately?
>
> You need to answer this.
>
>> Water?
>> ===============
>> LOL OK, now tell us your typical ly about water useage in the
>> US. It's always good for a laugh, hypocrite
>
> You're not laughing, liar. Answer the questions.
=================
LOL You have all the answers, tell us fool.
>
>> >> Too bad you'e too stupid to understand that, eh hypocrite?
>> >
>> > More projection.
>> ==================
>> Nope, telling it like it is, not telling lys....
>
> All I see is a lot of dishonest evasion.
=================
Yes, that's all you ever post. Thanks for finally seeing
yourself for what you are!
>
>> >> > http://www.ivu.org/religion/articles/argument3.html
>
>
pearl
Liar.
> >> Again, there is no need to eed grains to cattle.
> >
> > What would you feed them instead?
> ================
> A natural diet, you ignorant fool. Grasses...
'The planet's mantle of trees has already declined by a third
relative to preagricultural times, and much of that remaining
is damaged or deteriorating. Historically, the demand for
grazing land is a major cause of worldwide clearing of forest
of most types. Currently, livestock production, fuel wood
gathering, lumbering, and clearing for crops are denuding a
conservatively estimated 40 million acres of the Earth's
forestland each year.
. Worldwide, grasses of more than 10,000 species once
covered more than 1/4 of the land. They supported the
world's greatest masses of large animals. Of the major
ecotypes, grassland produces the deepest, most fertile
topsoil and has the most resistance to soil erosion.
Livestock production has damaged the Earth's grassland
more than has any other land use, and has transformed
roughly half of it to desertlike condition. Lester Brown
of the Worldwatch Institute reports that "Widespread
grassland degradation [from livestock grazing] can now
be seen on every continent."
In 1977, experts attending the United Nations Conference
on Desertification in Nairobi agreed that the greatest cause
of world desertification in modern times has been livestock
grazing (as did the US Council on Environmental Quality in
1981). They reported that grazing was desertifying most arid,
semi-arid, and sub-humid land where farming was not occurring.
Seven years later UNEP compiled, from questionnaires sent to
91 countries, the most complete data on world desertification
ever assembled. According to the resultant 1984 assessment,
more than 11 billion acres, or 35% of the Earth's land surface,
are threatened by new or continued desertification. UNEP
estimated that more than 3/4 of this land -- the vast majority
of it grazed rangeland -- had already been at least moderately
degraded. About 15 million acres (the size of West Virginia)
of semi-arid or subhumid land annually are reduced to
unreclaimable desert-like condition, while another 52 million
and acres annually are reduced to minimal cover or to
sweeping sands -- more due to livestock grazing than any
other influence. The world's "deserts" are expected to expand
about 20% in the next 20 years.'
http://www.apnm.org/waste_of_west/Chapter6.html
> >> Therefore there is no requirment for 16:1, fool.
> >
> > That's how the vast majority of animals are 'finished'.
> ====================
> Doesn't make it a "requirment", now does it fool?
Where are you going to find the grazing to replace those grains?
> >> >> Again, there is no equirment to eed any gains to beef cows.
> >> >
> >> > You eat worn-out beef cows, is that it?
> >
> > Guess it is.
> ====================
> Nope. You already know what I eat idiot. It's been discussed
> many times.
You wrote above "beef cows".
> >> > What are they fed during winter months, etter?
> >
> > Well, etter?
> =============
> Same as before, grasses...
Grasses? Don't you mean silage and/or hay?
Aren't those harvested crops?
> >> > How many lbs of feed do they eat per day?
> >
> > Hello?
> > =====================
> I've already told you over and over ool, none. Is none too big a
> number or you to comprehend?
They have to eat something. Is the distinction between
'feed' and 'grain' to hard for you to comprehend. 'ool'?
> >> > What acreage does each animal graze approximately?
> >
> > You need to answer this.
Again you avoid answering the question. Why is that?
> >> Water?
> >> ===============
> >> LOL OK, now tell us your typical ly about water useage in the
> >> US. It's always good for a laugh, hypocrite
> >
> > You're not laughing, liar. Answer the questions.
> =================
> LOL You have all the answers, tell us fool.
Well, thanks for admitting it at last, but I'm asking you.
> >> >> Too bad you'e too stupid to understand that, eh hypocrite?
> >> >
> >> > More projection.
> >> ==================
> >> Nope, telling it like it is, not telling lys....
> >
> > All I see is a lot of dishonest evasion.
> =================
> Yes, that's all you ever post. Thanks for finally seeing
> yourself for what you are!
It's yourself you're seeing.
> >> >> > http://www.ivu.org/religion/articles/argument3.html
Capt. Neal®
"Rudy Canoza" <som...@ph.con> wrote in message news:vxjce.1083$V01...@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Capt. NealŽ wrote:
>
>> How big are your zucchinis this year, Rudy?
>
> Haven't planted any yet. But the corn's as high as an elephant's eye.
>
>
Those latin women eat lots of corn, I hear tell. That's why so many of them are obese.
Seems most latin women look good up till they reach about twenty years old or when
they have their first baby then they turn into butter hogs - it's enough to keep a
fog horn going almost constantly.
CN
Rudy Canoza
Load of shit, from a non-stop shit-spewer. Poor people
will always have problems.
Rudy Canoza
> "Rudy Canoza" wrote <som...@ph.con> wrote in message news:kGjce.1279$7F4...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>>Scented Nectar wrote:
>
> <..>
>
>>>Let's let her decide whether
>>>she's telling me how to allot
>>>my time.
>
>
> Absolutely not.
Implicitly, you are, you stupid lying foot masseuse.
You have suggested that any resource used beyond the
minimum necessary for elementary human nutrition is
wasted. That includes time.
> you make which contains personal slurs against my person
> will be used in a court action against you.
Fuck yourself with a broken bottle. You have no
grounds for suit, and you know full well that if you
did, I would know your full name and everything else
about you, LEGALLY, and I would spread it all over the
internet. Fuck off with your empty threats, asshole.
Capt. Neal®
"pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> spat this pabulum in message news:d4sshf$gs8$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
>
>
> Note well, jonathan ball ('rudy canoza'), that every post
> you make which contains personal slurs against my person
> will be used in a court action against you. You have been
> advised to retract, but keep digging yourself in deeper..
>
Which person would that be? Your pimp perhaps?
CN
Scented Nectar
> the Perfect Foil lied:
>
> > "Rudy Canoza" <notg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1114731954.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >>the Perfect Foil lied:
> >>
> >>>"Rudy Canoza" <som...@ph.con> wrote in message
> >>>news:b59ce.877$7F4...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> >>>
> >>>>the Perfect Foil lied:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Why did you crosspost this
> >>>>>all over the place?
> >>>>
> >>>>It belongs there.
> >>>
> >>>Why would rec.boats people
> >>>care about our arguments
> >>>about food, and the growing
> >>>of food?
> >>
> >>Think about it for 20 or 30 years and see if you can't figure it out
> >>without my help.
> >
> >
> > Nah, I give up.
>
> You're a quitter. Quitters never proper. Winners
> never quit, and quitters never win.
The prize is the answer to why
you crossposted this. No big
deal. It's probably just because
you're insane and think that
boating was 'implied'.
> >>>>>>The use of plant protein to produce meat is not a
> >>>>>>"waste" of the protein. It is an alternative use of a
> >>>>>>resource, a use for which the consumers of the meat pay.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Wildlife pays too, due to the
> >>>>>overuse
> >>>>
> >>>>It is not "over" use.
> >>>
> >>>Yes it is. We've outgrown our
> >>>petri dish.
> >>
> >>It is not "over" use. That's purely your aesthetic opinion, not a
> >>scientific one.
> >
> >
> > Aesthetic? No.
>
> Yes.
What do aesthetics have to
do with it?
> >>>>>of formerly wild areas
> >>>>>like the extensive acreage
> >>>>>used in beef production.
> >>>>
> >>>>Your residence is part of a "formerly wild area". Stop
> >>>>being a hypocrite: leave the residence and tear it down.
> >>>
> >>>There's that extremism you're
> >>>expecting of me again.
> >>
> >>No, I'm expecting you to stop being a lying hypocritical skank.
> >
> >
> > And do that by tearing down my
> > home?
>
> You seem to be upset that "formerly wild areas" are no
> longer such. The implication for your residence is
> clear: get out of your shabby apartment house, and
> bulldoze it.
You're nuts.
Distribution, allocation, pretty
much the same thing. Same
results.
> Suppose we didn't grow grain and other feedstuffs for
> livestock. Do you seriously think that means we'd be
> shipping, gratis, an equivalent amount of food to
> "poor, starving people" around the world? You're an
> idiot, so you might think so. But you're an idiot, and
> you're wrong.
I think you're missing the
point.
> >>>>>The grain/beans
>
> Grain and beans are NOT nutritionally equivalent, you
> stupid fuck.
Who said they were? I'm
referring to the combo.
Here's a recipe just for you.
Start with a dozen water hemlock
roots...just kidding. :)
> >>>>>but that aside, are you actually
> >>>>>claiming that one must do all
> >>>>>one can, to extremes, in order
> >>>>>to maximise the time one
> >>>>>spends on good deeds?
> >>>>
> >>>>No, that's implicitly what that filthy foot-rubbing
> >>>>WHORE Lesley is claiming.
> >>>
> >>>But I've only been seeing YOU
> >>>claiming that people must go
> >>>to unreasonable extremes.
> >>
> >>No, it is logically implied by the foul WHORE Lesley's blabbering about
> >>"waste". She's saying SHE knows a better use for resources. Those
> >>resources include your time.
> >
> >
> > She has never faulted me for
> > my time use like you do.
>
> *I* am not faulting you for your time. SHE has
> implied, whether she realizes it or not, that *any*
> time you spend beyond the minimum necessary to put some
> calories and protein and fiber in you is a waste.
I've not seen her say that.
> >>>>>And cooking for 3 hours is
> >>>>>evil compared to cooking
> >>>>>for 20 minutes?
> >>>>
> >>>>Absolutely not. It is what the FOUL WHORE Lesley is
> >>>>implying. If she says that resources, rather than
> >>>
> >>>Ah, there's that implying again.
> >>
> >>A correct identification of a logical implication. The foul WHORE
> >>Lesley has no valid criteria for deciding that resources
> >>"unnecessarily" used to produce grain for livestock are "wasted", while
> >>your time "unnecessarily" spent producing (mediocre) time-consuming
> >>meals is well-spent. Once the cat of personal judgments concerning
> >>resource allocation is out of the bag, it can go anywhere.
> >
> >
> > Huh? Your implication
> > perception is way off.
>
> My ability to detect logically necessary implications
> is unsurpassed.
You even find them when they
aren't there. You ARE good!
I think I'll wait and see what she
says about my time usage.
> >>>>>And what's this
> >>>>>got to do with boats?
> >>>>
> >>>>You really can't see it? It's so fucking obvious, it's
> >>>>about to kill you. You fucking idiot.
> >>>
> >>>Let's see, boats are used in
> >>>the transporting of some foods.
> >>>Are you going to tell me I should
> >>>be against that too? Boats are
> >>>used in fishing and that's a
> >>>segue into food. Am I getting
> >>>warmer? Maybe someone
> >>>from rec.boats could give me
> >>>a hint if Rudy can't/won't.
> >>
> >>You are a fucking idiot.
> >
> >
> > No,
>
> Yes.
>
> > just someone who doesn't
> > get what the above has to do
> > with boats.
>
> Because you're a FUCKING IDIOT.
Are there a lot of boating
vegetarians? Does boating for
fun make people suddenly
interested in veg food? Come
on, make sense for once.
> > The philosophy
> > group I can understand, as we
> > discuss morals regarding the
> > use of food and animals, but
> > boats? Oh well, trying to figure
> > out how your mind works is
> > boggling. You say and do
> > the weirdest things.
>
> No.
>
> THINK about it, you stupid bitch. THINK, for once in
> your fucking worthless life.
There's that famed politeness
again.
Scented Nectar
> "Rudy Canoza" lied <som...@ph.con> wrote in message
news:kGjce.1279$7F4...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> > Scented Nectar wrote:
> <..>
> > > Let's let her decide whether
> > > she's telling me how to allot
> > > my time.
>
> Absolutely not.
Thank you. He was seeing 'implied'
things again and getting it wrong
again.
> > By implication, she is. If you spend resources, ANY
> > resources, beyond the minimum necessary to achieve some
> > basic crude nutritional survivability, then she
> > NECESSARILY views it as waste. Resource are resources,
> > and in her lame-brained half-baked marxist view, they
> > ought to be re-allocated to "more deserving" people.
>
> I say may Scented enjoy all the veganic feasts she wishes,
> and when you & co. stop eat the equivalent of 16lbs of grain
> to feed your addiction with 1lb of beef, so will every person
> on this planet. In addition to that, the vast expanses grazed
> can revert to natural habitat, and many species your diet has
> now driven to the edge of extinction will be able to recover.
Sounds good to me. :) It's time
for a new batch of my vegan chili.
But first I have to make up a new
batch of my veg broth it uses.
Feast time. Cheers. :)
--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.
> Note well, jonathan ball ('rudy canoza'), that every post
Scented Nectar
I'm sure that if there were
something I should find
significant about the organic
growing of potatoes, you'll
post it here. I'm patient.
I'll wait.
Scented Nectar
AKA cropped and harvested hay
plus broadleaf herbicides.
> >> Therefore there is no requirment for 16:1, fool.
> >
> > That's how the vast majority of animals are 'finished'.
> ====================
> Doesn't make it a "requirment", now does it fool?
You just made fun of your own
typo!
> >> >> Again, there is no equirment to eed any gains to beef cows.
> >> >
> >> > You eat worn-out beef cows, is that it?
> >
> > Guess it is.
> ====================
> Nope. You already know what I eat idiot. It's been discussed
> many times.
>
>
> >
> >> > What are they fed during winter months, etter?
> >
> > Well, etter?
> =============
> Same as before, grasses...
Cropped, sprayed and harvested
hay.
Scented Nectar
>
> "Scented Nectar" <m...@scentednectar.com> wrote
> > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
> >>
> >> "Scented Nectar" <m...@scentednectar.com> wrote
> >>
> >> > it's not
> >> > mandatory.
> >>
> >> *Real* moral issues are mandatory.
> >
> > Extremes are not mandatory.
>
> Yes they are.
That's utter nonsense.
> > Doing what one reasonably
> > can is good enough.
>
> No it isn't. Since you define "reasonable" for yourself,
> your definition is meaningless.
It's my life, so my definitions
come first.
> > It's
> > certainly better than nothing
> > at all, so why pick on it?
>
> Because vegan choices in general are not represented
> as just reasonable and "non-mandatory" at all, they
> are represented by vegans as mandatory in order to
> have a moral lifestyle.
>
> Vegans cut themselves all sorts of slack, but cut non-vegans
> none. That includes wannabes like you.
Then why are the only people
not cutting me slack, the meat
eaters? I've yet to see a vegan
here accuse me of not doing
enough, and I'm only vegetarian,
so according to you, they are
all over me for it. Where?
Scented Nectar
> So what? The excess we have now is doing nothing to stop
> starvation around the world. Adding more rotting material to the
> pile does nothing, killer.
I believe that food charity must
be done in conjunction with
helping the people towards
self-sufficiency.
> That would certainly
> > be put to good use by people
> > suffering either man-made
> > (war, dictators) or natural
> > (flood, drought) disasters.
> ======================
> The excess we have now doesn't stop the starvation idiot. Adding
> to a rotting pile of material won't change anything.
Then change the rotting part
of the pile.
> ========================
> Zoom, right over your head, as usual. Too bad those 2 braincells
> you have can't even work together, killer.
I'm not a mindreader. I'm
only going by what you said.
Scented Nectar
Actually, it would be harder to
do as a meat eater. Right
now I only have to find death
free veg food. If I were your
fictional meat eater I would
have to find those PLUS death-
lessened meat, which of
course also has the intentional
death in it.
> >>You STILL are causing animal deaths, and your stated belief STILL is
> >>that it is wrong to cause animals to die. Hypocrisy.
>
> Established.
>
>
> >>>>But causing ANY animals to die is WRONG, full stop, in your shitty
> >>>>phony value system. If you are broomhandle-sodomizing the child next
> >>>>door "only" three times per week, while your slut of a sister is doing
> >>>>the same thing to the child a dozen or 15 times a week, you are NOT
> >>>>"more moral" than she is. You may be causing the child less harm, but
> >>>>you are JUST as immoral as she.
> >>>
> >>>I knew if I mentioned your fave
> >>>fantasy, you'd do this.
> >>
> >>It's an excellent way of illustrating the issue in the starkest terms.
> >
> >
> > Nah, you just like the topic.
>
> I like it because it boxes you into a small, tight corner.
No. You like it because it's
your favourite fantasy.
> >>>Don't use me as the perpetrator in
> >>>your scenario though. I would
> >>>never do the above at all. Never.
>
> I notice you didn't say your sister wouldn't.
No one* I know would ever do
that, so don't get your hopes
up.
*not including those I 'know'
from the internet.
> >>That's a lie. We have already established, for good, that there is
> >>NOTHING you could not somehow find a way to permit to yourself. All it
> >>requires is the invocation of phony ideas like "affordability" and
> >>"need". If you caught your filthy skanky slut sister sodomizing the
> >>child, and she then ordered you at gunpoint to sodomize the child as
> >>well in order to implicate you, and said she'd kill you if you didn't
> >>do it, you would sodomize the child. Absolutely no question about it.
> >
> >
> > Actually no I wouldn't.
>
> Whenever a person begins a sentence with "Actually,
> ...", what follows is automatically a lie.
Actually, that's not always the
case.
> You WOULD sodomize the child, you liar. You would do
> much worse, and with far less reason, even than that.
It's sounding more and more
like it's you who does things
like that.
> >>>The person who causes the
> >>>harm more frequently is more
> >>>morally wrong
> >>
> >>NO, absolutely not. The person is producing a worse (more bad)
> >>outcome, but that person is NOT "more morally wrong"; impossible,
> >>because wrongness does NOT have scale.
>
> Settled issue.
>
> >>>>Morality is NOT a counting game, and virtue NEVER is demonstrated
> >>>>by recourse to a comparison with others. You either are behaving
> >>>>morally, or you aren't.
> >>>
> >>>Sometimes morality IS a counting
> >>>game.
> >>
> >>Morality NEVER is a counting game. You simply are wrong on this.
> >>You're not a sophisticated or learned thinker in these matters at all,
> >>and it shows.
> >
> >
> > Sometimes morality is a counting
> > game.
>
> Morality NEVER is a counting game, and repeating your
> inanity won't make it so.
Repeating yours won't invalidate
mine.
Rudy Canoza
Uh-huh. That's why you've commented on it nearly half
a dozen times.
> It's probably just because
> you're insane and think that
> boating was 'implied'.
Boating IS implied. THINK about it, dope.
>>>>>>>>The use of plant protein to produce meat is not a
>>>>>>>>"waste" of the protein. It is an alternative use of a
>>>>>>>>resource, a use for which the consumers of the meat pay.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Wildlife pays too, due to the
>>>>>>>overuse
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It is not "over" use.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes it is. We've outgrown our
>>>>>petri dish.
>>>>
>>>>It is not "over" use. That's purely your aesthetic opinion, not a
>>>>scientific one.
>>>
>>>
>>>Aesthetic? No.
>>
>>Yes.
>
>
> What do aesthetics have to
> do with it?
Yes, what DOES (not "do", you idiot - "aesthetics" is
singular) aesthetics have to do with it? It is purely
your aesthetic opinion (screwed up) that land has been
"over" used.
>>>>>>>of formerly wild areas
>>>>>>>like the extensive acreage
>>>>>>>used in beef production.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Your residence is part of a "formerly wild area". Stop
>>>>>>being a hypocrite: leave the residence and tear it down.
>>>>>
>>>>>There's that extremism you're
>>>>>expecting of me again.
>>>>
>>>>No, I'm expecting you to stop being a lying hypocritical skank.
>>>
>>>
>>>And do that by tearing down my
>>>home?
>>
>>You seem to be upset that "formerly wild areas" are no
>>longer such. The implication for your residence is
>>clear: get out of your shabby apartment house, and
>>bulldoze it.
>
>
> You're nuts.
No, I'm not. You don't think so for a second.
NO, you fucking idiot, they aren't the same thing AT
ALL. Allocation of resources refers to what gets
produced; distribution refers to WHO GETS the things
that are produced.
You are SO INCREDIBLY FUCKING STUPID, it's just
unfathomable.
>>Suppose we didn't grow grain and other feedstuffs for
>>livestock. Do you seriously think that means we'd be
>>shipping, gratis, an equivalent amount of food to
>>"poor, starving people" around the world? You're an
>>idiot, so you might think so. But you're an idiot, and
>>you're wrong.
>
>
> I think you're missing the
> point.
I am not missing the point at all, cunt. YOU and the
fuckwit Lesley are missing the point. You don't have a
FUCKING CLUE what the point is.
The grain that is grown to feed livestock is
specifically grown for that purpose. That's a resource
allocation issue. To a very great extent, it is NOT
possible to take the same crops and, instead of
shipping them to midwestern feed lots, ship them
instead to Somalia. They are often things that humans
can't or won't eat.
If we were to reallocate the agricultural resources
used to produce livestock feed and instead produce
people feed to send to Somalia, it would mean growing
different things. But why would that be done? What is
to prevent Somalians, today, from placing orders for
American and Canadian grain? The answer is, lack of
money. They can't afford it; they're poor. So, some
farmer in the midwest with a few hundred acres,
deciding what to plant and to whom he'll sell it, is
essentially faced with this question: "Do I plant it
in hard dent corn and sell the corn to feedlot
operators at (say) $1.00 per bushel? Or, do I plant it
in sweet (soft) corn and sell it to Somalia for $.25
per bushel?" What would YOUR answer be, you stupid
business-ignorant twat?
Exactly WHAT mechanism do you propose using to make
these changes in both resource allocation AND end
product distribution?
What a waste of time to ask you a question like that.
You don't have a fucking clue.
>>>>>>>The grain/beans
>>
>>Grain and beans are NOT nutritionally equivalent, you
>>stupid fuck.
>
>
> Who said they were?
YOU did, twat: "grain/beans".
Go fuck yourself with a broken bottle.
>>>>>>>but that aside, are you actually
>>>>>>>claiming that one must do all
>>>>>>>one can, to extremes, in order
>>>>>>>to maximise the time one
>>>>>>>spends on good deeds?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, that's implicitly what that filthy foot-rubbing
>>>>>>WHORE Lesley is claiming.
>>>>>
>>>>>But I've only been seeing YOU
>>>>>claiming that people must go
>>>>>to unreasonable extremes.
>>>>
>>>>No, it is logically implied by the foul WHORE Lesley's blabbering about
>>>>"waste". She's saying SHE knows a better use for resources. Those
>>>>resources include your time.
>>>
>>>
>>>She has never faulted me for
>>>my time use like you do.
>>
>>*I* am not faulting you for your time. SHE has
>>implied, whether she realizes it or not, that *any*
>>time you spend beyond the minimum necessary to put some
>>calories and protein and fiber in you is a waste.
>
>
> I've not seen her say that.
No one CARES if she has literally said it or not. It
is unambiguously and undeniably implied by her whining
about resource allocation and product distribution.
ANY resource that doesn't go where she thinks it
"ought" to go is, by definition, "wasted". That's just
how it is. She has no way of saying why your extra
time spent cooking should NOT be considered wasted,
under her view of how resources "ought" to be
allocated. All that STUPID TWAT can do is flatulantly
say "absolutely not" when served up your puff-ball
comment. It's horseshit.
>>>>>>>And cooking for 3 hours is
>>>>>>>evil compared to cooking
>>>>>>>for 20 minutes?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Absolutely not. It is what the FOUL WHORE Lesley is
>>>>>>implying. If she says that resources, rather than
>>>>>
>>>>>Ah, there's that implying again.
>>>>
>>>>A correct identification of a logical implication. The foul WHORE
>>>>Lesley has no valid criteria for deciding that resources
>>>>"unnecessarily" used to produce grain for livestock are "wasted", while
>>>>your time "unnecessarily" spent producing (mediocre) time-consuming
>>>>meals is well-spent. Once the cat of personal judgments concerning
>>>>resource allocation is out of the bag, it can go anywhere.
>>>
>>>
>>>Huh? Your implication
>>>perception is way off.
>>
>>My ability to detect logically necessary implications
>>is unsurpassed.
>
>
> You even find them when they
> aren't there.
They are there.
She's a lying stupid fuck. She is incapable of seeing
that once she starts complaining about resource
allocation, ALL resource allocations, including your
time, are open to question.
>>>>>>>And what's this
>>>>>>>got to do with boats?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You really can't see it? It's so fucking obvious, it's
>>>>>>about to kill you. You fucking idiot.
>>>>>
>>>>>Let's see, boats are used in
>>>>>the transporting of some foods.
>>>>>Are you going to tell me I should
>>>>>be against that too? Boats are
>>>>>used in fishing and that's a
>>>>>segue into food. Am I getting
>>>>>warmer? Maybe someone
>>>>
>>>>>from rec.boats could give me
>>>>
>>>>>a hint if Rudy can't/won't.
>>>>
>>>>You are a fucking idiot.
>>>
>>>
>>>No,
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>
>>>just someone who doesn't
>>>get what the above has to do
>>>with boats.
>>
>>Because you're a FUCKING IDIOT.
>
>
> Are there a lot of boating
> vegetarians?
You're a fucking moron and asshole.
>>>The philosophy
>>>group I can understand, as we
>>>discuss morals regarding the
>>>use of food and animals, but
>>>boats? Oh well, trying to figure
>>>out how your mind works is
>>>boggling. You say and do
>>>the weirdest things.
>>
>>No.
>>
>>THINK about it, you stupid bitch. THINK, for once in
>>your fucking worthless life.
>
>
> There's that famed politeness
> again.
THINK, twat. Stop blabbering and THINK.
Here's a hint as big as the entire province of Ontario:
Are resources allocated to the manufacture of
recreational boats?
Rudy Canoza
> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> news:d4sshf$gs8$1...@reader01.news.esat.net...
>
>>"Rudy Canoza" lied <som...@ph.con> wrote in message
>
> news:kGjce.1279$7F4...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>>>Scented Nectar wrote:
>>
>><..>
>>
>>>>Let's let her decide whether
>>>>she's telling me how to allot
>>>>my time.
>>
>>Absolutely not.
>
>
> Thank you. He was seeing 'implied'
> things again and getting it wrong
> again.
It IS implied. The foul skank Lesley has no criteria
AT ALL to say why agricultural resources ought to be
reallocated to feed starving people, but your time
should not be reallocated. Your time is a (low-valued)
resource, and one could easily make just as good a case
that you spend "too much" time cooking for yourself.
You could spend much less time cooking, still eat a
nutritionally adequate diet, and spend the saved time
doing something meaningful to help starving people. It
is just as legitimate a demand as the demand that
agricultural resources be reallocated away from meat
production and towards food-for-starving-people
production.
Scented Nectar
Well, you have to admit that it's
strange. I'll bet there are also
boaters who feel this is off
topic.
> > It's probably just because
> > you're insane and think that
> > boating was 'implied'.
>
> Boating IS implied. THINK about it, dope.
It's not implied from what I've
seen. Recreational boating
has nothing to do with veg
foods.
> >>>>>>>>The use of plant protein to produce meat is not a
> >>>>>>>>"waste" of the protein. It is an alternative use of a
> >>>>>>>>resource, a use for which the consumers of the meat pay.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Wildlife pays too, due to the
> >>>>>>>overuse
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>It is not "over" use.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Yes it is. We've outgrown our
> >>>>>petri dish.
> >>>>
> >>>>It is not "over" use. That's purely your aesthetic opinion, not a
> >>>>scientific one.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Aesthetic? No.
> >>
> >>Yes.
> >
> >
> > What do aesthetics have to
> > do with it?
>
> Yes, what DOES (not "do", you idiot - "aesthetics" is
> singular) aesthetics have to do with it? It is purely
> your aesthetic opinion (screwed up) that land has been
> "over" used.
Science agrees with me.
> >>>>>>>of formerly wild areas
> >>>>>>>like the extensive acreage
> >>>>>>>used in beef production.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Your residence is part of a "formerly wild area". Stop
> >>>>>>being a hypocrite: leave the residence and tear it down.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>There's that extremism you're
> >>>>>expecting of me again.
> >>>>
> >>>>No, I'm expecting you to stop being a lying hypocritical skank.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>And do that by tearing down my
> >>>home?
> >>
> >>You seem to be upset that "formerly wild areas" are no
> >>longer such. The implication for your residence is
> >>clear: get out of your shabby apartment house, and
> >>bulldoze it.
> >
> >
> > You're nuts.
>
> No, I'm not. You don't think so for a second.
Sorry to disappoint you, but
yes, I really do think you're nuts.
Allocate means distribute, moron.
> >>Suppose we didn't grow grain and other feedstuffs for
> >>livestock. Do you seriously think that means we'd be
> >>shipping, gratis, an equivalent amount of food to
> >>"poor, starving people" around the world? You're an
> >>idiot, so you might think so. But you're an idiot, and
> >>you're wrong.
> >
> >
> > I think you're missing the
> > point.
>
> I am not missing the point at all, cunt. YOU and the
> fuckwit Lesley are missing the point. You don't have a
> FUCKING CLUE what the point is.
Calm down Rudy, your head
will explode.
> The grain that is grown to feed livestock is
> specifically grown for that purpose. That's a resource
> allocation issue. To a very great extent, it is NOT
> possible to take the same crops and, instead of
> shipping them to midwestern feed lots, ship them
> instead to Somalia. They are often things that humans
> can't or won't eat.
>
> If we were to reallocate the agricultural resources
> used to produce livestock feed and instead produce
> people feed to send to Somalia, it would mean growing
> different things. But why would that be done? What is
> to prevent Somalians, today, from placing orders for
> American and Canadian grain? The answer is, lack of
> money. They can't afford it; they're poor. So, some
> farmer in the midwest with a few hundred acres,
> deciding what to plant and to whom he'll sell it, is
> essentially faced with this question: "Do I plant it
> in hard dent corn and sell the corn to feedlot
> operators at (say) $1.00 per bushel? Or, do I plant it
> in sweet (soft) corn and sell it to Somalia for $.25
> per bushel?" What would YOUR answer be, you stupid
> business-ignorant twat?
The whole point is to make money
challenged people become self-
sufficient, not merely dependant
on hand outs.
> Exactly WHAT mechanism do you propose using to make
> these changes in both resource allocation AND end
> product distribution?
>
> What a waste of time to ask you a question like that.
> You don't have a fucking clue.
>
> >>>>>>>The grain/beans
> >>
> >>Grain and beans are NOT nutritionally equivalent, you
> >>stupid fuck.
> >
> >
> > Who said they were?
>
> YOU did, twat: "grain/beans".
I was referring to a ratio. The
combo of grains/beans to the
amount of beef produced. Why
are you having such a hard time
understanding things?
No way, you've already used it.
That's how it broke. You're a
tight ass!!! :)
She's not said anything even
close to what you claim.
> >>>>>>>And cooking for 3 hours is
> >>>>>>>evil compared to cooking
> >>>>>>>for 20 minutes?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Absolutely not. It is what the FOUL WHORE Lesley is
> >>>>>>implying. If she says that resources, rather than
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Ah, there's that implying again.
> >>>>
> >>>>A correct identification of a logical implication. The foul WHORE
> >>>>Lesley has no valid criteria for deciding that resources
> >>>>"unnecessarily" used to produce grain for livestock are "wasted",
while
> >>>>your time "unnecessarily" spent producing (mediocre) time-consuming
> >>>>meals is well-spent. Once the cat of personal judgments concerning
> >>>>resource allocation is out of the bag, it can go anywhere.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Huh? Your implication
> >>>perception is way off.
> >>
> >>My ability to detect logically necessary implications
> >>is unsurpassed.
> >
> >
> > You even find them when they
> > aren't there.
>
> They are there.
So are the voices in your head,
the ones that point out implications
to you. But they're not real either.
It's been proven that you're
making untrue claims about
her.
> >>>>>>>And what's this
> >>>>>>>got to do with boats?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>You really can't see it? It's so fucking obvious, it's
> >>>>>>about to kill you. You fucking idiot.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Let's see, boats are used in
> >>>>>the transporting of some foods.
> >>>>>Are you going to tell me I should
> >>>>>be against that too? Boats are
> >>>>>used in fishing and that's a
> >>>>>segue into food. Am I getting
> >>>>>warmer? Maybe someone
> >>>>
> >>>>>from rec.boats could give me
> >>>>
> >>>>>a hint if Rudy can't/won't.
> >>>>
> >>>>You are a fucking idiot.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>No,
> >>
> >>Yes.
> >>
> >>
> >>>just someone who doesn't
> >>>get what the above has to do
> >>>with boats.
> >>
> >>Because you're a FUCKING IDIOT.
> >
> >
> > Are there a lot of boating
> > vegetarians?
>
> You're a fucking moron and asshole.
Maybe veggies are a fave
food among boaters? :))
> >>>The philosophy
> >>>group I can understand, as we
> >>>discuss morals regarding the
> >>>use of food and animals, but
> >>>boats? Oh well, trying to figure
> >>>out how your mind works is
> >>>boggling. You say and do
> >>>the weirdest things.
> >>
> >>No.
> >>
> >>THINK about it, you stupid bitch. THINK, for once in
> >>your fucking worthless life.
> >
> >
> > There's that famed politeness
> > again.
>
> THINK, twat. Stop blabbering and THINK.
>
> Here's a hint as big as the entire province of Ontario:
> Are resources allocated to the manufacture of
> recreational boats?
Oh, now they're evil for taking
the world's resources? What
will you think of next?
Rudy Canoza
> "Rudy Canoza" <som...@ph.con> wrote in message
> news:vPjce.1283$7F4...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>>the Perfect Foil lied:
>>
>>
>>>"Rudy Canoza" <notg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1114743406.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>That's part of what I like about
No, it's much easier.
> Right now I only have to find death
> free veg food.
There IS NONE. EVERY meal you eat causes some untold
number of deaths. A conscientious meat eater could get
SEVERAL meals out of a single animal death, EASILY.
>>>>You STILL are causing animal deaths, and your stated belief STILL is
>>>>that it is wrong to cause animals to die. Hypocrisy.
>>
>>Established.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>But causing ANY animals to die is WRONG, full stop, in your shitty
>>>>>>phony value system. If you are broomhandle-sodomizing the child next
>>>>>>door "only" three times per week, while your slut of a sister is doing
>
>
>>>>>>the same thing to the child a dozen or 15 times a week, you are NOT
>>>>>>"more moral" than she is. You may be causing the child less harm, but
>>>>>>you are JUST as immoral as she.
>>>>>
>>>>>I knew if I mentioned your fave
>>>>>fantasy, you'd do this.
>>>>
>>>>It's an excellent way of illustrating the issue in the starkest terms.
>>>
>>>
>>>Nah, you just like the topic.
>>
>>I like it because it boxes you into a small, tight corner.
>
>
> No.
Yes. It absolutely brutalizes you, and I think that's
great.
>>>>>Don't use me as the perpetrator in
>>>>>your scenario though. I would
>>>>>never do the above at all. Never.
>>
>>I notice you didn't say your sister wouldn't.
>
>
> No one* I know would ever do
> that
You and your sister both would.
>>>>That's a lie. We have already established, for good, that there is
>>>>NOTHING you could not somehow find a way to permit to yourself. All it
>>>>requires is the invocation of phony ideas like "affordability" and
>>>>"need". If you caught your filthy skanky slut sister sodomizing the
>>>>child, and she then ordered you at gunpoint to sodomize the child as
>>>>well in order to implicate you, and said she'd kill you if you didn't
>>>>do it, you would sodomize the child. Absolutely no question about it.
>>>
>>>
>>>Actually no I wouldn't.
>>
>>Whenever a person begins a sentence with "Actually,
>>...", what follows is automatically a lie.
>
>
> Actually, [snip remainder of lie]
It is the case.
>>You WOULD sodomize the child, you liar. You would do
>>much worse, and with far less reason, even than that.
>
>
> It's sounding more and more
It's what you would do.
>>>>>The person who causes the
>>>>>harm more frequently is more
>>>>>morally wrong
>>>>
>>>>NO, absolutely not. The person is producing a worse (more bad)
>>>>outcome, but that person is NOT "more morally wrong"; impossible,
>>>>because wrongness does NOT have scale.
>>
>>Settled issue.
>>
>>
>>>>>>Morality is NOT a counting game, and virtue NEVER is demonstrated
>>>>>>by recourse to a comparison with others. You either are behaving
>>>>>>morally, or you aren't.
>>>>>
>>>>>Sometimes morality IS a counting
>>>>>game.
>>>>
>>>>Morality NEVER is a counting game. You simply are wrong on this.
>>>>You're not a sophisticated or learned thinker in these matters at all,
>>>>and it shows.
>>>
>>>
>>>Sometimes morality is a counting
>>>game.
>>
>>Morality NEVER is a counting game, and repeating your
>>inanity won't make it so.
>
>
> Repeating yours won't invalidate
> mine.
I have demonstrated the soundness of my logic. You
have merely blabbered, mindlessly, your fuckwitted
belief in fantasy.
Rudy Canoza
> "Rudy Canoza" <som...@ph.con> wrote in message
> news:G2uce.1335$pe3...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
>>the Perfect Foil lied:
>>
>>>"Rudy Canoza" <som...@ph.con> wrote in message
>>>news:kGjce.1279$7F4...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>the Perfect Foil lied:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Rudy Canoza" <notg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:1114731954.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>>Why would rec.boats people
>>>>>>>care about our arguments
>>>>>>>about food, and the growing
>>>>>>>of food?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Think about it for 20 or 30 years and see if you can't figure it out
>>>>>>without my help.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Nah, I give up.
>>>>
>>>>You're a quitter. Quitters never proper. Winners
>>>>never quit, and quitters never win.
>>>
>>>
>>>The prize is the answer to why
>>>you crossposted this. No big
>>>deal.
>>
>>Uh-huh. That's why you've commented on it nearly half
>>a dozen times.
>
>
> Well, you have to admit that it's
> strange.
It isn't strange. It makes perfect sense, but only to
someone who can THINK. That lets you out.
>>>It's probably just because
>>>you're insane and think that
>>>boating was 'implied'.
>>
>>Boating IS implied. THINK about it, dope.
>
>
> It's not implied from what I've
> seen.
It IS implied, you fucking idiot.
>>>>>>It is not "over" use. That's purely your aesthetic opinion, not a
>>>>>>scientific one.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Aesthetic? No.
>>>>
>>>>Yes.
>>>
>>>
>>>What do aesthetics have to
>>>do with it?
>>
>>Yes, what DOES (not "do", you idiot - "aesthetics" is
>>singular) aesthetics have to do with it? It is purely
>>your aesthetic opinion (screwed up) that land has been
>>"over" used.
>
>
> Science agrees with me.
No, and you wouldn't know science if someone rammed it
down your throat.
>>>>>>No, I'm expecting you to stop being a lying hypocritical skank.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>And do that by tearing down my
>>>>>home?
>>>>
>>>>You seem to be upset that "formerly wild areas" are no
>>>>longer such. The implication for your residence is
>>>>clear: get out of your shabby apartment house, and
>>>>bulldoze it.
>>>
>>>
>>>You're nuts.
>>
>>No, I'm not. You don't think so for a second.
>
>
> Sorry to disappoint you, but
> yes, I really do think you're nuts.
No, you don't. It's just the best of all the lame
usenet insults you could dredge up.
>>>>>>She's completely wrong. She completely bollixes up the entire issue
>>>>>>of world hunger. She knows nothing about it, nor does anyone else who
>>>>>>thinks it's a production issue.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I think everyone agrees it's
>>>>>a distribution problem.
>>>>
>>>>No. No, they don't. People, fuckwitted Lesley at the
>>>>forefront, think it's a resource allocation problem.
>>>>They're wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>>Distribution, allocation, pretty
>>>much the same thing.
>>
>>NO, you fucking idiot, they aren't the same thing AT
>>ALL. Allocation of resources refers to what gets
>>produced; distribution refers to WHO GETS the things
>>that are produced.
>>
>>You are SO INCREDIBLY FUCKING STUPID, it's just
>>unfathomable.
>
>
> Allocate means distribute, moron.
NO, you fucking illiterate, it does not.
>>>>Suppose we didn't grow grain and other feedstuffs for
>>>>livestock. Do you seriously think that means we'd be
>>>>shipping, gratis, an equivalent amount of food to
>>>>"poor, starving people" around the world? You're an
>>>>idiot, so you might think so. But you're an idiot, and
>>>>you're wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>>I think you're missing the
>>>point.
>>
>>I am not missing the point at all, cunt. YOU and the
>>fuckwit Lesley are missing the point. You don't have a
>>FUCKING CLUE what the point is.
>>
That is NOT the point of fuckwitted Lesley's suggestion
that agricultural resources in developed countries
currently being used to produce meat should be
reallocated to producing food for starving people.
There is NOTHING about North American livestock feed
production that in any way prevents "money challenged"
- I presume you mean "poor" and are just trying for a
phony erudite sound - from attaining food self
sufficiency. Lesley's fuckwitted suggestion would
actually do EXACTLY the opposite: it would INCREASE
their dependency on the west.
>>Exactly WHAT mechanism do you propose using to make
>>these changes in both resource allocation AND end
>>product distribution?
>>
>>What a waste of time to ask you a question like that.
>>You don't have a fucking clue.
Acknowledged.
>>>>>>>>>The grain/beans
>>>>
>>>>Grain and beans are NOT nutritionally equivalent, you
>>>>stupid fuck.
>>>
>>>
>>>Who said they were?
>>
>>YOU did, twat: "grain/beans".
>
>
> I was referring to a ratio.
No, you weren't. You were suggesting that beans are
commonly fed to livestock.
>>>>>>>>>I happen to be a great cook,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I doubt that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Doubt all you want.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>My doubts are well grounded.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>It's your loss.
>>>>
>>>>Hardly. You could scorch water.
>>>
>>>
>>>Here's a recipe just for you.
>>
>>Go fuck yourself with a broken bottle.
>
>
> No way,
Do it.
>>>>>She has never faulted me for
>>>>>my time use like you do.
>>>>
>>>>*I* am not faulting you for your time. SHE has
>>>>implied, whether she realizes it or not, that *any*
>>>>time you spend beyond the minimum necessary to put some
>>>>calories and protein and fiber in you is a waste.
>>>
>>>
>>>I've not seen her say that.
>>
>>No one CARES if she has literally said it or not. It
>>is unambiguously and undeniably implied by her whining
>>about resource allocation and product distribution.
>>ANY resource that doesn't go where she thinks it
>>"ought" to go is, by definition, "wasted". That's just
>>how it is. She has no way of saying why your extra
>>time spent cooking should NOT be considered wasted,
>>under her view of how resources "ought" to be
>>allocated. All that STUPID TWAT can do is flatulantly
>>say "absolutely not" when served up your puff-ball
>>comment. It's horseshit.
>
>
> She's not said anything even
> close to what you claim.
NO ONE CARES if she has said it or not. It IS implied.
>>>>>>>>>And cooking for 3 hours is
>>>>>>>>>evil compared to cooking
>>>>>>>>>for 20 minutes?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Absolutely not. It is what the FOUL WHORE Lesley is
>>>>>>>>implying. If she says that resources, rather than
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Ah, there's that implying again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>A correct identification of a logical implication. The foul WHORE
>>>>>>Lesley has no valid criteria for deciding that resources
>>>>>>"unnecessarily" used to produce grain for livestock are "wasted", while
>>>>>>your time "unnecessarily" spent producing (mediocre) time-consuming
>>>>>>meals is well-spent. Once the cat of personal judgments concerning
>>>>>>resource allocation is out of the bag, it can go anywhere.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Huh? Your implication
>>>>>perception is way off.
>>>>
>>>>My ability to detect logically necessary implications
>>>>is unsurpassed.
>>>
>>>
>>>You even find them when they
>>>aren't there.
>>
>>They are there.
>
>
> So are
The implications are there.
It has been proven that her fuckwitted comments about
resource allocation are applicable to all resources,
whether she exlicitly says it or not.
>>>>>>>>>And what's this
>>>>>>>>>got to do with boats?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>You really can't see it? It's so fucking obvious, it's
>>>>>>>>about to kill you. You fucking idiot.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Let's see, boats are used in
>>>>>>>the transporting of some foods.
>>>>>>>Are you going to tell me I should
>>>>>>>be against that too? Boats are
>>>>>>>used in fishing and that's a
>>>>>>>segue into food. Am I getting
>>>>>>>warmer? Maybe someone
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>from rec.boats could give me
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>a hint if Rudy can't/won't.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You are a fucking idiot.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>No,
>>>>
>>>>Yes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>just someone who doesn't
>>>>>get what the above has to do
>>>>>with boats.
>>>>
>>>>Because you're a FUCKING IDIOT.
>>>
>>>
>>>Are there a lot of boating
>>>vegetarians?
>>
>>You're a fucking moron and asshole.
>
>
> Maybe
No "maybe" about it: you're a fucking moron and asshole.
>>>>>The philosophy
>>>>>group I can understand, as we
>>>>>discuss morals regarding the
>>>>>use of food and animals, but
>>>>>boats? Oh well, trying to figure
>>>>>out how your mind works is
>>>>>boggling. You say and do
>>>>>the weirdest things.
>>>>
>>>>No.
>>>>
>>>>THINK about it, you stupid bitch. THINK, for once in
>>>>your fucking worthless life.
>>>
>>>
>>>There's that famed politeness
>>>again.
>>
>>THINK, twat. Stop blabbering and THINK.
>>
>>Here's a hint as big as the entire province of Ontario:
>>Are resources allocated to the manufacture of
>>recreational boats?
>
>
> Oh, now they're evil for taking
> the world's resources?
If there are "starving people", and if those resources
could go to help feed "starving people", then how could
fuckwitted Lesley NOT consider recreational boating to
be a waste of resources?
Dutch
"Scented Nectar" <m...@scentednectar.com> wrote
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:1173jga...@news.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Scented Nectar" <m...@scentednectar.com> wrote
> > > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
> > >>
> > >> "Scented Nectar" <m...@scentednectar.com> wrote
> > >>
> > >> > it's not
> > >> > mandatory.
> > >>
> > >> *Real* moral issues are mandatory.
> > >
> > > Extremes are not mandatory.
> >
> > Yes they are.
>
> That's utter nonsense.
It's ALWAYS wrong to commit murder. It's ALWAYS wrong to steal
or commit assault. Real moral rules are absolute.
> > > Doing what one reasonably
> > > can is good enough.
> >
> > No it isn't. Since you define "reasonable" for yourself,
> > your definition is meaningless.
>
> It's my life, so my definitions
> come first.
Morality is about the social contract, your personal
definitions of right and wrong are immaterial.
> > > It's
> > > certainly better than nothing
> > > at all, so why pick on it?
> >
> > Because vegan choices in general are not represented
> > as just reasonable and "non-mandatory" at all, they
> > are represented by vegans as mandatory in order to
> > have a moral lifestyle.
> >
> > Vegans cut themselves all sorts of slack, but cut non-vegans
> > none. That includes wannabes like you.
>
> Then why are the only people
> not cutting me slack, the meat
> eaters?
We don't need to cut you any slack, you cut yourself
all the slack you want.
> I've yet to see a vegan
> here accuse me of not doing
> enough, and I'm only vegetarian,
> so according to you, they are
> all over me for it. Where?
Vegans consider vegetarians part of the "club"
who have just not yet acheived full membership.
rick
LOL I'm still waiting for you to post your organic potatoes,
fool.
And again, organic does not mean pesticide and machinery free,
killer.
rick
> "rick" <st...@stop.net> wrote in message
> news:8_nce.1343$HL2...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
snip...
=================
That's not what you were supporting. You were claiming that if
only we sent food to the starving that they were be fed. Try to
keep up, killer.
>
>> That would certainly
>> > be put to good use by people
>> > suffering either man-made
>> > (war, dictators) or natural
>> > (flood, drought) disasters.
>> ======================
>> The excess we have now doesn't stop the starvation idiot.
>> Adding
>> to a rotting pile of material won't change anything.
>
> Then change the rotting part
> of the pile.
================
Not what you were supporting.
snip...
>> >
>> > So you're mad at Canadians
>> > for not getting mad enough at
>> > Americans for what happened
>> > at Abu Graib?
>> ========================
>> Zoom, right over your head, as usual. Too bad those 2
>> braincells
>> you have can't even work together, killer.
>
> I'm not a mindreader. I'm
> only going by what you said.
=======================
Yes, and you missed it. You deny that many many deaths that
occured at Abu? You, and the rest of your countrymwn did
nothing. You prefered the death, as long as you were not
inconvienced.
rick
Yes, you are. A proven one...
>
>> >> Again, there is no need to eed grains to cattle.
>> >
>> > What would you feed them instead?
>> ================
>> A natural diet, you ignorant fool. Grasses...
>
> 'The planet's mantle of trees has already declined by a third
> relative to preagricultural times, and much of that remaining
> is damaged or deteriorating. Historically, the demand for
> grazing land is a major cause of worldwide clearing of forest
> of most types. Currently, livestock production, fuel wood
> gathering, lumbering, and clearing for crops are denuding a
> conservatively estimated 40 million acres of the Earth's
> forestland each year.
======================
I see you still have to post lys, eh killer? The beef I eat is
not 'currenttly' clearing any land. The land here was cleared
for CROP production 100 years ago and more. Not for livestock
production fool. There was no large livestock industry, just
vast mono-cultue crops for people! THAT is what cleared the US
amland, idiot.
snip rest of idiocy that doesn't apply to US production in
geberal, and mine in particular. Your delusional rantings are
amusing, killer. Too bad you don't have a thought of your own.
>
>> >> Therefore there is no requirment for 16:1, fool.
>> >
>> > That's how the vast majority of animals are 'finished'.
>> ====================
>> Doesn't make it a "requirment", now does it fool?
>
> Where are you going to find the grazing to replace those
> grains?
==================
All beef cattle are already grazed for most of their lives you
ignorant fool. The pasture/graze is aleady there, killer.
>
>> >> >> Again, there is no equirment to eed any gains to beef
>> >> >> cows.
>> >> >
>> >> > You eat worn-out beef cows, is that it?
>> >
>> > Guess it is.
>> ====================
>> Nope. You already know what I eat idiot. It's been discussed
>> many times.
>
> You wrote above "beef cows".
================
Yes, and again, there is NO requirement to feed grains to any
cows, even beef ones, fool.
>
>> >> > What are they fed during winter months, etter?
>> >
>> > Well, etter?
>> =============
>> Same as before, grasses...
>
> Grasses? Don't you mean silage and/or hay?
> Aren't those harvested crops?
====================
Some are, not all use them, fool. However, they are not *cided
to the max like your mono-culture crop foods, even organi ones,
killer.
>
>> >> > How many lbs of feed do they eat per day?
>> >
>> > Hello?
>> > =====================
>> I've already told you over and over ool, none. Is none too
>> big a
>> number or you to comprehend?
>
> They have to eat something. Is the distinction between
> 'feed' and 'grain' to hard for you to comprehend. 'ool'?
=======================
Are you too stupid to understand that feed is a specific term to
most sane people? I know that that lets you out, but do try to
get a clue once in awhile. The beef cows I eat get no feed or
grains....
>
>> >> > What acreage does each animal graze approximately?
>> >
>> > You need to answer this.
>
> Again you avoid answering the question. Why is that?
====================
I don't know fool. It's not my am. Plus he has several tracts
around.
>
>> >> Water?
>> >> ===============
>> >> LOL OK, now tell us your typical ly about water useage in
>> >> the
>> >> US. It's always good for a laugh, hypocrite
>> >
>> > You're not laughing, liar. Answer the questions.
>> =================
>> LOL You have all the answers, tell us fool.
>
> Well, thanks for admitting it at last, but I'm asking you.
==========================
Why? You never support anything except lys. The farms here
have ponds. Spring fed and creek fed. What kind of water do the
cows in your fabtasies drink, fool?
>
>> >> >> Too bad you'e too stupid to understand that, eh
>> >> >> hypocrite?
>> >> >
>> >> > More projection.
>> >> ==================
>> >> Nope, telling it like it is, not telling lys....
>> >
>> > All I see is a lot of dishonest evasion.
>> =================
>> Yes, that's all you ever post. Thanks for finally seeing
>> yourself for what you are!
>
> It's yourself you're seeing.
===============
Nope. I see you lys, hypocrite...
>
>> >> >> > http://www.ivu.org/religion/articles/argument3.html
>
>
rick
Nope. Too bad you're as stupid as Lys is....
>
>> >> Therefore there is no requirment for 16:1, fool.
>> >
>> > That's how the vast majority of animals are 'finished'.
>> ====================
>> Doesn't make it a "requirment", now does it fool?
>
> You just made fun of your own
> typo!
===============
Thanks for dodging, again, fool. You continually prove your
ignorance.
>
>> >> >> Again, there is no equirment to eed any gains to beef
>> >> >> cows.
>> >> >
>> >> > You eat worn-out beef cows, is that it?
>> >
>> > Guess it is.
>> ====================
>> Nope. You already know what I eat idiot. It's been discussed
>> many times.
>>
>>
>> >
>> >> > What are they fed during winter months, etter?
>> >
>> > Well, etter?
>> =============
>> Same as before, grasses...
>
> Cropped, sprayed and harvested
> hay.
=================
Nope. Try again killer. SHow us those organic potatoes,
killer.
Sprayed with deadly poisons, especially organic ones...
Rudy Canoza
> > > > > > the Perfect Foil wrote:
> > > > > > > "Rudy Canoza" <som...@ph.con> wrote in message
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > the Perfect Foil wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "Rudy Canoza" <som...@ph.con> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >>pearl wrote:
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>>Scented, you asked for this info;
> > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > >>>'Twenty percent of the corn grown in the U.S. is
eaten
> > by
> > > > > > people.
> > > > > > > > >>>Eighty percent of the corn and 95% of the oats grown
in
> > the
> > > > U.S.
> > > > > > > > >>>is eaten by livestock. The percentage of protein
wasted
> > by
> > > > > > cycling
> > > > > > > > >>>grain through livestock is calculated by experts as
90%.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>materials and capital and labor that go into making a
> > > > > > > > >>Mercedes-Benz S-500 versus a small Kia are 'wasted'.
> > > > > > > > >>People want meat, and it requires resources to
produce
> > > > > > > > >>the meat. The use of the resources in that way is
not
> > > > > > > > >>'waste'.
> > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > >>This idea that the resources are 'wasted' is a
> > > > > > > > >>wrong-headed and economics-illiterate way of looking
at
> > > > > > > > >>the world.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Tell that to the hungry people in
> > > > > > > > > the world,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > They would be hungry EVEN IF all North Americans and
> > > > > > > > Europeans ate a strictly vegetarian diet. Their hunger
> > > > > > > > has fuck-all to do with our resource allocation.
> > > > > > > > They're hungry because THEIR economies are fucked up,
> > > > > > > > and their countries are run by murderers.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But then we'd be able to give them
> > > > > > > our excess food and help them
> > > > > > > to get back on their feet and be
> > > > > > > eventually self-sufficient.
> > > > > >
> > consumption.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But if you really would like to help make a difference, why
> > don't
> > > > you
> > > > > > do this: leave your current residence, move into a much
> > smaller
> > > > and
> > > > > > CHEAPER one in a shitty part of town, take in a couple of
> > > > flat-mates so
> > > > > > you can cut your rent even further, and send the difference
to
> > > > Oxfam or
> > > > > > some other worthy charity that helps to fight world hunger.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also, when cooking dinners, spend only 15 minutes or so to
heat
> > > > some
> > > > > > tinned vegetables; spend the rest of the time that you used
to
> > take
> > > > to
> > > > > > prepare dinners in doing some kind of volunteer work to
help
> > the
> > > > hungry.
> > > > >
> > > > > You're going to extremes again.
> > > >
> > > > No, I'm not.
> > > >
> > > > You don't do a FUCKING THING to try to alleviate the so-called
> > "hunger
> > > > problem", apart from wringing your hands and paying lip service
to
> > some
> > > > sentimental crapola.
> > >
> > > My dietary choices already are
> > > doing something.
> >
> > They are doing NOTHING to eliminate the massive moral conflict
between
> > what you claim to believe is wrong, and what you actually do. You
>
> I feel no moral conflict. Therefore
> no moral conflict exists in me.
You suffer from cognitive dissonance.
> > claim to believe killing animals is wrong, but you continue
VOLUNTARILY
> > to participate in processes that lead to animal death, irrespective
of
> > your dietary choices. You are COMPLICIT in those deaths, because
your
> > participation in the death-causing processes is completely
voluntary
> > and unnecessary. You COULD, if you had a mind to do it, move to
the
> > countryside, grow your own "death-free" food, and resolve the moral
> > conflict. But you DON'T WANT to do it. You keep lying and saying
you
> > "can't afford it", or that your "responsibilities" keep you
> > (involuntarily) in the city, but we saw those lies off weeks ago.
You
> > CAN afford to go live in the countryside, even if you can't afford
the
> > same standard of comfort you now have, and you do NOT have any
> > "responsibilities" that keep you in the city against your will.
You
> > are living in Toronto entirely by choice - your FREE choice - and
> > entirely voluntarily. Your "responsibilities" <scoff> are ones you
> > could ethically relinquish, if you WANTED to do so.
> >
> > Stop LYING about the reason you don't go to the countryside and
grow
> > your own food. We know the real reason: you DON'T WANT to do it.
>
> If you knew how much I love plants
> both wild and intentionally planted
That has nothing to do with loving the hard work involved in growing
your own food.
You see, we knew all along that you had a misconception about farming.
You figured, stupidly, that you'd only have to go out into your
*garden* and delicately and leisurely tend to a few carrots and
watercress plants. That's not going to do the job, and you know it.
You're going to have to work an acre or two, and it's going to involve
growing wheat or maize or some grain, and milling the grain, and a
whole lot else. You have no IDEA how hard you would have to work.
Scented Nectar
news:n7uce.1349$pe3...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
It's not implied. She even said
so, and she knows better what
she means than you do.
Scented Nectar
>
> "Scented Nectar" <m...@scentednectar.com> wrote
> > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> > news:1173jga...@news.supernews.com...
> > >
> > > "Scented Nectar" <m...@scentednectar.com> wrote
> > > > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
> > > >>
> > > >> "Scented Nectar" <m...@scentednectar.com> wrote
> > > >>
> > > >> > it's not
> > > >> > mandatory.
> > > >>
> > > >> *Real* moral issues are mandatory.
> > > >
> > > > Extremes are not mandatory.
> > >
> > > Yes they are.
> >
> > That's utter nonsense.
>
> It's ALWAYS wrong to commit murder. It's ALWAYS wrong to steal
> or commit assault. Real moral rules are absolute.
But how wrong the murder is,
depends on a lot of things.
That's why there's different
degrees of murder.
> > > > Doing what one reasonably
> > > > can is good enough.
> > >
> > > No it isn't. Since you define "reasonable" for yourself,
> > > your definition is meaningless.
> >
> > It's my life, so my definitions
> > come first.
>
> Morality is about the social contract, your personal
> definitions of right and wrong are immaterial.
According to the dictionary:
1. Concern with the distinction
between good and evil or right
and wrong; right or good conduct.
2. Motivation based on ideas of
right and wrong.
http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/morality
While it can have social factors
to it, that's not necessarily so.
> > > > It's
> > > > certainly better than nothing
> > > > at all, so why pick on it?
> > >
> > > Because vegan choices in general are not represented
> > > as just reasonable and "non-mandatory" at all, they
> > > are represented by vegans as mandatory in order to
> > > have a moral lifestyle.
> > >
> > > Vegans cut themselves all sorts of slack, but cut non-vegans
> > > none. That includes wannabes like you.
> >
> > Then why are the only people
> > not cutting me slack, the meat
> > eaters?
>
> We don't need to cut you any slack, you cut yourself
> all the slack you want.
>
> > I've yet to see a vegan
> > here accuse me of not doing
> > enough, and I'm only vegetarian,
> > so according to you, they are
> > all over me for it. Where?
>
> Vegans consider vegetarians part of the "club"
> who have just not yet acheived full membership.
Neat, a club where you don't
have to pay any dues.
Scented Nectar
I think. I think that you're missing
an important segue if you believe
I'm supposed to see a connection.
> >>>It's probably just because
> >>>you're insane and think that
> >>>boating was 'implied'.
> >>
> >>Boating IS implied. THINK about it, dope.
> >
> >
> > It's not implied from what I've
> > seen.
>
> It IS implied, you fucking idiot.
Suurre Rudy, so was my tea
with the Queen today.
> >>>>>>It is not "over" use. That's purely your aesthetic opinion, not a
> >>>>>>scientific one.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Aesthetic? No.
> >>>>
> >>>>Yes.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>What do aesthetics have to
> >>>do with it?
> >>
> >>Yes, what DOES (not "do", you idiot - "aesthetics" is
> >>singular) aesthetics have to do with it? It is purely
> >>your aesthetic opinion (screwed up) that land has been
> >>"over" used.
> >
> >
> > Science agrees with me.
>
> No, and you wouldn't know science if someone rammed it
> down your throat.
Are you actually denying that
humans have ruined a lot of
the land they use?
> >>>>>>No, I'm expecting you to stop being a lying hypocritical skank.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>And do that by tearing down my
> >>>>>home?
> >>>>
> >>>>You seem to be upset that "formerly wild areas" are no
> >>>>longer such. The implication for your residence is
> >>>>clear: get out of your shabby apartment house, and
> >>>>bulldoze it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>You're nuts.
> >>
> >>No, I'm not. You don't think so for a second.
> >
> >
> > Sorry to disappoint you, but
> > yes, I really do think you're nuts.
>
> No, you don't. It's just the best of all the lame
> usenet insults you could dredge up.
You are actually in denial over
the fact that I think you're nuts.
Talk about nuts!
>
> >>>>>>She's completely wrong. She completely bollixes up the entire issue
> >>>>>>of world hunger. She knows nothing about it, nor does anyone else
who
> >>>>>>thinks it's a production issue.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I think everyone agrees it's
> >>>>>a distribution problem.
> >>>>
> >>>>No. No, they don't. People, fuckwitted Lesley at the
> >>>>forefront, think it's a resource allocation problem.
> >>>>They're wrong.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Distribution, allocation, pretty
> >>>much the same thing.
> >>
> >>NO, you fucking idiot, they aren't the same thing AT
> >>ALL. Allocation of resources refers to what gets
> >>produced; distribution refers to WHO GETS the things
> >>that are produced.
> >>
> >>You are SO INCREDIBLY FUCKING STUPID, it's just
> >>unfathomable.
> >
> >
> > Allocate means distribute, moron.
>
> NO, you fucking illiterate, it does not.
Yes it does. From Websters:
"Distribute according to a
plan or set apart for a special
purpose;"
http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/allocate
Not if combined with a plan
towards self-sufficiency.
> >>Exactly WHAT mechanism do you propose using to make
> >>these changes in both resource allocation AND end
> >>product distribution?
> >>
> >>What a waste of time to ask you a question like that.
> >>You don't have a fucking clue.
>
> Acknowledged.
>
> >>>>>>>>>The grain/beans
> >>>>
> >>>>Grain and beans are NOT nutritionally equivalent, you
> >>>>stupid fuck.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Who said they were?
> >>
> >>YOU did, twat: "grain/beans".
> >
> >
> > I was referring to a ratio.
>
> No, you weren't. You were suggesting that beans are
> commonly fed to livestock.
Soy products certainly are.
And I was referring to the
ratio of grains&beans to
beef.
When you believe something
is implied, you might be wrong.
That's why it's good to check if
this is the case. You are wrong
again. When checking with
Pearl, you were shown that the
implications you see are false.
> >>>>>>>>>And cooking for 3 hours is
> >>>>>>>>>evil compared to cooking
> >>>>>>>>>for 20 minutes?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Absolutely not. It is what the FOUL WHORE Lesley is
> >>>>>>>>implying. If she says that resources, rather than
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Ah, there's that implying again.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>A correct identification of a logical implication. The foul WHORE
> >>>>>>Lesley has no valid criteria for deciding that resources
> >>>>>>"unnecessarily" used to produce grain for livestock are "wasted",
while
> >>>>>>your time "unnecessarily" spent producing (mediocre) time-consuming
> >>>>>>meals is well-spent. Once the cat of personal judgments concerning
> >>>>>>resource allocation is out of the bag, it can go anywhere.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Huh? Your implication
> >>>>>perception is way off.
> >>>>
> >>>>My ability to detect logically necessary implications
> >>>>is unsurpassed.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>You even find them when they
> >>>aren't there.
> >>
> >>They are there.
> >
> >
> > So are
>
> The implications are there.
In your mind, anything could
be there. Except goodness
and logic.
The opposite has been proven.
She does not demand the
extremes that you do.
The people in rec.boats really
don't want to hear us going on
and on about rural vegetarian
living, etc.
> >>>>>The philosophy
> >>>>>group I can understand, as we
> >>>>>discuss morals regarding the
> >>>>>use of food and animals, but
> >>>>>boats? Oh well, trying to figure
> >>>>>out how your mind works is
> >>>>>boggling. You say and do
> >>>>>the weirdest things.
> >>>>
> >>>>No.
> >>>>
> >>>>THINK about it, you stupid bitch. THINK, for once in
> >>>>your fucking worthless life.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>There's that famed politeness
> >>>again.
> >>
> >>THINK, twat. Stop blabbering and THINK.
> >>
> >>Here's a hint as big as the entire province of Ontario:
> >>Are resources allocated to the manufacture of
> >>recreational boats?
> >
> >
> > Oh, now they're evil for taking
> > the world's resources?
>
> If there are "starving people", and if those resources
> could go to help feed "starving people", then how could
> fuckwitted Lesley NOT consider recreational boating to
> be a waste of resources?
THAT's your big connection to
boats? Get a life.