New Soup
Scented Nectar
tomorrow or Sunday. No guarantees
though, as I'm just going to make it up as
I go along the produce aisles at the organic
place.
One not completely organic thing that I will
use in it is, a leftover 2 cups of unsalted
veggie broth I made. Here's the recipe of
the broth:
Veggie Broth
--Ingredients:
1 large onion
1 garlic bulb - use all cloves
2 sweet potatoes
1 small bunch celery
4 carrots
2 sweet red peppers
20 parsley sprigs
10 large mushrooms, unopened
--Directions:
Coarsely chop everything except the
parsley and mushrooms.
Put everything in an extra large cookpot.
Fill with water, and simmer until the
carrots are soft.
Strain, keeping the broth.
This freezes well. It makes about 25 cups of broth.
--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.
Scented Nectar
news:S8SdnR8M4oU...@rogers.com...
Well, I've been shopping but only at the place
that has less organic than the other store.
I got an organic cauliflower, organic carrots,
organic broccoli, potatoes, organic soymilk,
bag of frozen corn, herbs, spices. and I'll use
my 2 cups leftover broth.
I'm going for a 'creamy' thick puree. If it turns
out good, I'll post the recipe later.
Scented Nectar
Here it is. I think it turned out pretty good.
Lot's of flavour.
2 cups unsalted broth
946 ml organic soy milk
4 lg yukon gold potatoes - chopped
1 cauliflower - head only, chopped
1 brocolli - head only, chopped
3 bay leaves
2 tsp. oregano
4 tsp. basil
2 tsp. paprika
1/2 tsp. pepper
1 Tbsp. salt
2 Tbsp. sugar
approx. 2 cups extra water.
Put all of the above into a big cookpot.
Bring to a simmer then lower the heat.
Cook till veggies are very soft. Stir
often as it will foam up at first.
Remove the bay leaves.
Puree with one of those handheld
things, or use the blender in small
batches
Once it's pureed, thaw the corn under
the hot water tap, drain and add to the
soup.
I'll save the organic carrots for another
recipe. They just didn't seem like they'd
go with the above.
pearl
What an unlikely (to ol' me), but very nevertheless
very tasty-looking selection. I can't imagine what
to expect... I'll let you know, if you like.. :).
To return the/a favour, I'd like to share with you
a site/service I recently came across, which gives
you (free) 5 photos a day with software which
automatically changes desktop wallpaper themes..
http://www.webshots.com/ . - - Eye Candy. ;).
......
"Scented Nectar" <m...@scentednectar.com> wrote in message news:S8SdnR8M4oU...@rogers.com...
Scented Nectar
> Lot's of flavour.
>
> 2 cups unsalted broth
> 946 ml organic soy milk
> 4 lg yukon gold potatoes - chopped
> 1 cauliflower - head only, chopped
> 1 brocolli - head only, chopped
> 3 bay leaves
> 2 tsp. oregano
> 4 tsp. basil
> 2 tsp. paprika
> 1/2 tsp. pepper
> 1 Tbsp. salt
> 2 Tbsp. sugar
> approx. 2 cups extra water.
> Put all of the above into a big cookpot.
>
> Bring to a simmer then lower the heat.
> Cook till veggies are very soft. Stir
> often as it will foam up at first.
>
> Remove the bay leaves.
>
> Puree with one of those handheld
> things, or use the blender in small
> batches
I forgot to mention here as an ingredient:
1 small bag frozen corn
> Once it's pureed, thaw the corn under
> the hot water tap, drain and add to the
> soup.
>
> I'll save the organic carrots for another
> recipe. They just didn't seem like they'd
> go with the above.
--
pearl
:).
*
" In every respect, vegans appear to enjoy equal or better health
in comparison to both vegetarians and non-vegetarians." -- T.
Colin Campbell, PhD Professor of Nutrition, Cornell University
(letter dated 3/29/98)
pearl
As it appears that (at least unfermented) soya is best
avoided [ http://www.detailshere.com/lowdownonsoy.htm ],
do you think that 'Rice Dream' would be alright instead?
"Scented Nectar" <m...@scentednectar.com> wrote in message news:M7ednZNesoM...@rogers.com...
Scented Nectar
news:crpuba$1p6$1...@kermit.esat.net...
> Many thanks, S.N.
>
> As it appears that (at least unfermented) soya is best
> avoided [ http://www.detailshere.com/lowdownonsoy.htm ],
> do you think that 'Rice Dream' would be alright instead?
I'm not sure. I wonder if any company has thought
of making milk from a different bean, one that's
less toxic. If using Rice Dream, I'd worry that it's
not creamy enough, so maybe replace the water
with extra Rice Dream too?
pearl
> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message
> news:crpuba$1p6$1...@kermit.esat.net...
> > Many thanks, S.N.
> >
> > As it appears that (at least unfermented) soya is best
> > avoided [ http://www.detailshere.com/lowdownonsoy.htm ],
> > do you think that 'Rice Dream' would be alright instead?
>
> I'm not sure. I wonder if any company has thought
> of making milk from a different bean, one that's
> less toxic.
I wonder, but see; http://www.nomilk.com/nutmilks.txt (?).
> If using Rice Dream, I'd worry that it's
> not creamy enough, so maybe replace the water
> with extra Rice Dream too?
Well, I'll make it, using that, and let you know.
Scented Nectar
> > Lot's of flavour.
> >
> > 2 cups unsalted broth
> > 946 ml organic soy milk
> > 4 lg yukon gold potatoes - chopped
> > 1 cauliflower - head only, chopped
> > 1 brocolli - head only, chopped
> > 3 bay leaves
> > 2 tsp. oregano
> > 4 tsp. basil
> > 2 tsp. paprika
> > 1/2 tsp. pepper
> > 1 Tbsp. salt
The soup turned out to have the right amount
of salt for my tastes, but it might be best to only
put in 2 tsp. to start with. You can always put in
more later.
> > 2 Tbsp. sugar
> > approx. 2 cups extra water.
>
> > Put all of the above into a big cookpot.
> >
> > Bring to a simmer then lower the heat.
> > Cook till veggies are very soft. Stir
> > often as it will foam up at first.
> >
> > Remove the bay leaves.
> >
> > Puree with one of those handheld
> > things, or use the blender in small
> > batches
>
> I forgot to mention here as an ingredient:
> 1 small bag frozen corn
>
> > Once it's pureed, thaw the corn under
> > the hot water tap, drain and add to the
> > soup.
--
usual suspect
> Hey Pearl, I'll be trying out that new soup
> tomorrow or Sunday. No guarantees
> though, as I'm just going to make it up as
> I go along the produce aisles at the organic
> place.
IOW, you don't grow anything. Stop pretending you support "veganic" farming.
> One not completely organic thing
Why would you concern yourself over organic or conventional? They're
just different blood-drenched sides of the same blood-drenched coin.
usual suspect
> Well, I've been shopping but only at the place
> that has less organic than the other store.
Doesn't make a fucking difference, Skanky. Both stores use lethal force
to kill rodents and other pests. Both kinds of farming also use lethal
force to kill rodents and other pests. Both kinds of farming use
machinery that runs over or mutilates animals. You're still contributing
to wholesale animal slaughter and pain, you misguided, heartless witch.
usual suspect
> Here it is. I think it turned out pretty good.
Sounds utterly horrible.
> Lot's of flavour.
Lots. No apostrophe, it's not possessive.
> 2 cups unsalted broth
> 946 ml organic soy milk
Why not use the whole damn liter?
> 4 lg yukon gold potatoes - chopped
Potatoes are a vicious animal killing crop. I hope you're happy.
> 1 cauliflower - head only, chopped
> 1 brocolli - head only, chopped
> 3 bay leaves
> 2 tsp. oregano
> 4 tsp. basil
> 2 tsp. paprika
> 1/2 tsp. pepper
> 1 Tbsp. salt
> 2 Tbsp. sugar
> approx. 2 cups extra water.
>
> Put all of the above into a big cookpot.
>
> Bring to a simmer then lower the heat.
> Cook till veggies are very soft.
Yuck. Mushy vegetables? They'd be a LOT healthier for you if you
wouldn't overcook them, Skanky, but I know you're a poseur when it comes
to interest in health anyway.
> Stir often as it will foam up at first.
So it matches your mouth?
> Remove the bay leaves.
>
> Puree with one of those handheld
> things, or use the blender in small
> batches
>
> Once it's pureed, thaw the corn under
> the hot water tap, drain and add to the
> soup.
>
> I'll save the organic carrots
Hahaha. When did you start stipulating which produce you consume is organic?
> for another
> recipe. They just didn't seem like they'd
> go with the above.
Why not?
usual suspect
> " In every respect, vegans appear to enjoy equal or better health
> in comparison to both vegetarians and non-vegetarians." -- T.
> Colin Campbell, PhD Professor of Nutrition, Cornell University
> (letter dated 3/29/98)
Not in every respect. From a study of 11,000 vegetarians and other
health conscious people:
This study was initially set up to test the hypotheses that
daily consumption of wholemeal bread (as an indicator of a high
fibre diet) and vegetarian diet are associated with a reduction
in mortality from ischaemic heart disease; the reduction in
mortality associated with both of these dietary factors was *NOT
SIGNIFICANT*.
We found that a vegetarian diet was associated with a 15%
reduction in mortality from ischaemic heart disease. This was
*NOT SIGNIFICANT* and was LESS THAN the roughly 30% reductions
REPORTED IN EARLIER ANALYSES of this cohort.... A vegetarian
diet was also associated with a *SIGNIFICANT INCREASE* in
mortality from breast cancer. However, the confidence interval
was wide.... The numbers of deaths for individual cancer sites
were small and the mortality ratios have wide confidence
intervals. The 41% reduction in mortality from lung cancer
associated with daily consumption of fresh fruit was *NOT
SIGNIFICANT*....
http://tinyurl.com/4q6fe
Additionally, the latest issue of JAMA reports the findings of a large
study concerning incidence of certain cancers and consumption of red and
processed meats. What's really interesting from the study but not
getting much attention is that consumption of fish and poultry was
linked to a significantly *decreased* rates of colorectal cancers. So
enough with your categorical claims, you foot-rubbing charlatan.
usual suspect
> Many thanks, S.N.
>
> As it appears that (at least unfermented) soya is best
> avoided
In moderation, or consumed on occasion, it's not going to kill you. Twit.
> do you think that 'Rice Dream' would be alright instead?
Why wouldn't it be? Both are just starchy water.
usual suspect
>>As it appears that (at least unfermented) soya is best
>>avoided [ http://www.detailshere.com/lowdownonsoy.htm ],
>>do you think that 'Rice Dream' would be alright instead?
>
> I'm not sure. I wonder if any company has thought
> of making milk from a different bean, one that's
> less toxic.
You know nothing of toxicity. Why start worrying now?
> If using Rice Dream, I'd worry that it's
> not creamy enough, so maybe replace the water
> with extra Rice Dream too?
Or use some carrageanan, a bit of corn or potato starch, etc. Rice milk
is just starchy water anyway. You don't have to make it more difficult
or more expensive than it already is, dummy.
Scented Nectar
I see you're still insane Usual. Organic veggies are
more nutritious than regular ones because they get
more balanced nutrients from the naturally enriched
soil.
As for blaming me for other people's killing, well,
no soup for you!
Scented Nectar
news:XZfFd.4332$%P4...@fe2.texas.rr.com...
No. Soya milk is definately more 'creamy' than
starchy. The soup's texture might change a bit
but it should still taste good.
If substituting a different broth than the one I used,
try to get one heavy on the celery onion and garlic.
Scented Nectar
>
> Sounds utterly horrible.
Good. None for you. And you won't mind then.
> > Lot's of flavour.
>
> Lots. No apostrophe, it's not possessive.
Someone call the typo police.
> > 2 cups unsalted broth
> > 946 ml organic soy milk
>
> Why not use the whole damn liter?
That's the size the milk came in. Why? You'd
have to ask the company.
> > 4 lg yukon gold potatoes - chopped
>
> Potatoes are a vicious animal killing crop. I hope you're happy.
I've got an alibi. I wasn't even in the province they
were grown in. But thanks for telling me how mean
potatoes are. I had no idea they were vicious
killers. Good thing I chopped them up before they
got my cat or something.
>
> > 1 cauliflower - head only, chopped
> > 1 brocolli - head only, chopped
> > 3 bay leaves
> > 2 tsp. oregano
> > 4 tsp. basil
> > 2 tsp. paprika
> > 1/2 tsp. pepper
> > 1 Tbsp. salt
> > 2 Tbsp. sugar
> > approx. 2 cups extra water.
> >
> > Put all of the above into a big cookpot.
> >
> > Bring to a simmer then lower the heat.
> > Cook till veggies are very soft.
>
> Yuck. Mushy vegetables? They'd be a LOT healthier for you if you
> wouldn't overcook them, Skanky, but I know you're a poseur when it
comes
> to interest in health anyway.
It's you who's a poseur in cooking. My soup was
intended on being a creamy puree with corn added
after the pureeing. Vegetables must be soft to
puree well. At least when making a soup, you get
to eat the water they've boiled in, recatching some
of the cooked out nutrients.
> > Stir often as it will foam up at first.
>
> So it matches your mouth?
Only when I'm rabid. Come closer. :)
> > Remove the bay leaves.
> >
> > Puree with one of those handheld
> > things, or use the blender in small
> > batches
> >
> > Once it's pureed, thaw the corn under
> > the hot water tap, drain and add to the
> > soup.
> >
> > I'll save the organic carrots
>
> Hahaha. When did you start stipulating which produce you consume is
organic?
Organic was brought up earlier in the thread. I was quite happy
to find the organic broccoli and cauliflower.
> > for another
> > recipe. They just didn't seem like they'd
> > go with the above.
>
> Why not?
They just didn't. Turns out the soup was delicious.
Me and a friend polished off the whole potload.
None left for you :)
--
Rubystars
"usual suspect" <sup...@our.troops> wrote in message
I tried rice milk a couple of months ago because I was curious about how it
tasted and I was disappointed. It sort of burned my throat a little. Soy
milk and even regular old cow's milk is so much better. Hazelnut milk is
pretty good tasting although it's not "milky" like soy. I haven't tried
almond milk yet.
-Rubystars
pearl
RELATIVE risk of breast cancer among Japanese woman
Meat Eggs Butter/cheese
less than once per week 1.0 1.0 1.0
2-4 times per week 2.55 1.91 2.10
almost daily 3.83 2.86 3.23
(from a paper by Hirayama cited in John Scharffenberg's
Problems with Meat", 1989)
Am J Clin Nutr 1999 Sep;70(3 Suppl):532S-538S
Associations between diet and cancer, ischemic heart disease,
and all-cause mortality in non-Hispanic white California
Seventh-day Adventists.
Fraser GE. Center for Health Research and the Department of
Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Loma Linda University, CA USA.
Results associating diet with chronic disease in a cohort of 34192
California Seventh-day Adventists are summarized. Most Seventh-day
Adventists do not smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol, and there is a wide
range of dietary exposures within the population. About 50% of those
studied ate meat products <1 time/wk or not at all, and vegetarians
consumed more tomatoes, legumes, nuts, and fruit, but less coffee,
doughnuts, and eggs than did nonvegetarians. Multivariate analyses
showed significant associations between beef consumption and fatal
ischemic heart disease (IHD) in men [relative risk (RR) = 2.31 for
subjects who ate beef > or =3 times/wk compared with vegetarians],
significant protective associations between nut consumption and fatal
and nonfatal IHD in both sexes (RR approximately 0.5 for subjects
who ate nuts > or =5 times/wk compared with those who ate nuts
<1 time/wk), and reduced risk of IHD in subjects preferring whole-grain
to white bread. The lifetime risk of IHD was reduced by approximately
31% in those who consumed nuts frequently and by 37% in male
vegetarians compared with nonvegetarians. Cancers of the colon and
prostate were significantly more likely in nonvegetarians (RR of 1.88
and 1.54, respectively), and frequent beef consumers also had higher
risk of bladder cancer. Intake of legumes was negatively associated
with risk of colon cancer in nonvegetarians and risk of pancreatic
cancer. Higher consumption of all fruit or dried fruit was associated
with lower risks of lung, prostate, and pancreatic cancers.
Cross-sectional data suggest vegetarian Seventh-day Adventists have
lower risks of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and arthritis than
nonvegetarians. Thus, among Seventh-day Adventists, vegetarians are
healthier than nonvegetarians but this cannot be ascribed only to the
absence of meat.
PMID: 10479227
'.. disease rates were significantly associated within a range of dietary
plant food composition that suggested an absence of a disease
prevention threshold. That is, the closer a diet is to an all-plant foods
diet, the greater will be the reduction in the rates of these diseases.'
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Nov98/thermogenesis_paper.html
> Additionally, the latest issue of JAMA reports the findings of a large
> study concerning incidence of certain cancers and consumption of red and
> processed meats. What's really interesting from the study but not
> getting much attention is that consumption of fish and poultry was
> linked to a significantly *decreased* rates of colorectal cancers. So
> enough with your categorical claims,
Asia Pacific J Clin Nutr (1996) Vol5, No 1: 2-9
Intestinal flora and human health
Tomotari Mitsuoka, DVM, PhD
Professor Emeritus, The University of Tokyo, Japan
..
Other intestinal bacteria produce substances that are harmful to
the host, such as putrefactive products, toxins and carcinogenic
substances. When harmful bacteria dominate in the intestines,
essential nutrients are not produced and the level of harmful
substances rises. These substances may not have an immediate
detrimental effect on the host but they are thought to be
contributing factors to ageing, promoting cancer, liver and kidney
disease, hypertension and arteriosclerosis, and reduced immunity.
Little is known regarding which intestinal bacteria are responsible
for these effects. A number of factors can change the balance of
intestinal flora in favour of harmful bacteria. These include
peristalsis disorders, surgical operations of stomach or small
intestine, liver or kidney diseases, pernicious anaemia, cancer,
radiation or antibiotic therapies, immune disorders, emotional
stress, poor diet and ageing.
....
The intestinal flora may play an important role in the causation
of cancer and ageing
Dietary factors are considered important environmental risk
determinants for colorectal cancer development. From
epidemiological observations, a high fat intake is associated
positively and a high fibre intake negatively with colorectal cancer.
This is thought to occur by the following mechanisms. From food
components in the gastrointestinal tract, organisms produce
various carcinogens from the dietary components and endogenous
substances, detoxify carcinogens, or enhance the host's immune
function, which results in changes in the incidence of cancers. The
ingestion of large amounts of animal fat enhances bile secretion,
causing an increase in bile acid and cholesterol in the intestine.
These increased substances are converted by intestinal bacteria
into secondary bile acids, their derivatives, aromatic polycyclic
hydrocarbons, oestrogen and epoxides derivatives that are
related to carcinogenesis. Various tryptophan metabolites (indole,
skatole, 3-hydroxykinurenine, 3-hydroxyanthranilic acid, etc.)
phenols, amines, and nitroso compounds produced by intestinal
bacteria from protein also participate in carcinogenesis (Fig. 5).
..
Figure 5. Relationships among diet, intestinal bacteria and cancer.
Recent epidemiological studies have revealed that insufficient intake
of dietary fibre is associated with high incidences of Western
diseases such as colorectal cancer, obesity, heart disease, diabetes,
and hypertension. Ingested dietary fibre causes increased volume
of faeces, dilution of noxious substances, and shortening of the
transit time of intestinal contents, resulting in early excretion of
noxious substances such as carcinogens produced by intestinal
bacteria. '
http://elecpress.monash.edu.au/APJCN/Vol5/Num1/51p02.htm#top
> you foot-rubbing charlatan.
"A favored technique is to debilitate your identity [personally,
I hate the term self-esteem] by levelling false accusations and/or
questioning your honesty, fidelity, trustworthiness, your "true"
motivations, your "real" character, your sanity and judgement."
http://www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/cleckley-mos.htm
usual suspect
>>>Well, I've been shopping but only at the place
>>>that has less organic than the other store.
>>
>>Doesn't make a fucking difference, Skanky. Both stores use lethal
>>force to kill rodents and other pests. Both kinds of farming also use lethal
>>force to kill rodents and other pests. Both kinds of farming use
>>machinery that runs over or mutilates animals. You're still
>>contributing to wholesale animal slaughter and pain, you misguided, heartless
>>witch.
>
> I see you're still insane Usual.
I see you're still a hypocrite, Skanky.
> Organic veggies are more nutritious
You've been "researching" activist claims again, haven't you.
--------
Organic More Nutritious? Even the Organic Industry Doesn't Think So!
by Alex Avery
Is organic food more nutritious? The simple answer is no. While some
studies have been trumpeted as having finally shown the nutritional
superiority of organic foods, other studies of similar crops show either
no difference or superiority of conventional produce. Many factors
affect nutrient and mineral content of food, especially produce
(genetics, sunlight, moisture, pests, harvest date/time of day, time lag
from harvest to consumption, etc.). Any differences which may result
from the use of organic or conventional farming practices cannot be
detected.
But don’t take our word for it. Look at what others have had to say
about this question:
-- Even the organic foods industry has been forced to admit that their
products offer no significant nutritional advantages. Katherine
DiMatteo, spokesperson for the U.S. Organic Trade Association, was asked
on ABC’s 20/20 (February 4, 2000) whether organic foods were more
nutritious than their conventional counterparts. She twice responded
that “organic foods are as nutritious as any other product.” Not more
nutritious, merely “as nutritious.”
--The Tufts University Health & Nutrition letter
(http://www.phys.com/b_nutrition/02solutions/10tufts/tuftsqa/organic.htm)
answered the question of whether organic is more nutritious this way:
“No one knows. The question is a difficult one to study because of all
the factors besides farming methods that could affect nutritional
quality, including soil type and climate. The evidence from the small
body of reliable studies available thus far does not show any
significant differences between the nutrient content of organically
grown and conventionally grown food.”
--UC Davis nutritionist Dr. Gail Feenstra says, “As much as I'd
like to say yes, unfortunately the evidence doesn't show that it is. The
studies are equivocal; there are no definitive studies that show that
organic is much better than conventionally-produced produce."
--Consumer Reports, a magazine that strongly favors organic foods
(and has recommended it several times in the past), wrote this after its
own evaluation of organic foods Dec. 15, 1997. (available at
www.consumerreports.com/Special/News/Reports/9712n001.html): “Yet
organic produce tastes no different than ‘conventionally’ grown produce,
and any nutritional differences there might be between them are likely
so subtle as to evade detection.”
-- Canada’s Manitoba Agriculture and Food agency
(www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/homeec/cbd03s01.htm) had this to say:
“Nutritional value of plants depends on genetics, availability of water,
amount of sunlight, maturity when picked, how long it took to come to
market and whether it was properly handled and refrigerated. Numerous
laboratory tests have not found any substantial nutritional differences
in organically and conventionally grown produce.”
--The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
(http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/research/researchfund/fs2docs/fs7...
“Various comparisons have been made on the nutrient content of plants
and on other components of nutritional quality. Although differences can
be found they are not consistent among the different experiments that
have been conducted. Varying the soil nutrients or other growing
conditions could conceivably produce similar results. There is no
conclusive evidence that crops grown organically are either inferior or
superior nutritionally. There are major differences between experiments
and among crops within the same experiment.”
Dr. Clarence Swanton, professor in the Department of Plant Agriculture
at the University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada says, “There is no
scientific evidence whatsoever that I am aware of that [organic food] is
nutritionally better for you.”
http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articles/1999/oct_18_97.htm
See also:
http://www.price-pottenger.org/Articles/OrganicNutrition.html
http://www.ivillage.co.uk/food/cook/health/articles/0,10103,164370_52...
http://www.nature.com/nsu/000831/000831-4.
-----
> As for blaming me for other people's killing,
I'm blaming you for your own killing. Your consumption makes you
directly responsible for dead animals.
> well, no soup for you!
Thank goodness. Sounded like crap anyway.
usual suspect
>>>Here it is. I think it turned out pretty good.
>>
>>Sounds utterly horrible.
>
> Good. None for you. And you won't mind then.
You're doing me a favor.
<...>
>>>4 lg yukon gold potatoes - chopped
>>
>>Potatoes are a vicious animal killing crop. I hope you're happy.
>
> I've got an alibi. I wasn't even in the province they
> were grown in.
That's not an alibi. You still bought them knowing the farmer was
killing animals. That makes you a hypocrite.
<...>
>>>Bring to a simmer then lower the heat.
>>>Cook till veggies are very soft.
>>
>>Yuck. Mushy vegetables? They'd be a LOT healthier for you if you
>>wouldn't overcook them, Skanky, but I know you're a poseur when it
>>comes to interest in health anyway.
>
> It's you who's a poseur in cooking.
No, I'm an excellent cook.
> My soup was
> intended on being a creamy puree with corn added
> after the pureeing. Vegetables must be soft to
> puree well.
Not "very soft," which is what you called for in your recipe.
> At least when making a soup, you get
> to eat the water they've boiled in, recatching some
> of the cooked out nutrients.
You should learn to steam and sautee your veggies rather than boil them.
Maybe you just haven't researched that stuff yet.
>>>Stir often as it will foam up at first.
>>
>>So it matches your mouth?
>
> Only when I'm rabid. Come closer. :)
No thanks.
>>>Remove the bay leaves.
>>>
>>>Puree with one of those handheld
>>>things, or use the blender in small
>>>batches
>>>
>>>Once it's pureed, thaw the corn under
>>>the hot water tap, drain and add to the
>>>soup.
>>>
>>>I'll save the organic carrots
>>
>>Hahaha. When did you start stipulating which produce you consume is
>>organic?
>
> Organic was brought up earlier in the thread. I was quite happy
> to find the organic broccoli and cauliflower.
Interestingly, both are on the Environmental Working Group's list of
"safest" produce from the standpoint of pesticide residues. Those are
two examples where buying organic is a complete waste of money.
http://www.foodnews.org/reportcard.php
>>>for another
>>>recipe. They just didn't seem like they'd
>>>go with the above.
>>
>>Why not?
>
> They just didn't. Turns out the soup was delicious.
> Me and a friend polished off the whole potload.
Gluttons.
> None left for you :)
Thank goodness.
pearl
> Scented Nectar wrote:
> >>>Well, I've been shopping but only at the place
> >>>that has less organic than the other store.
> >>
> >>Doesn't make a fucking difference, Skanky. Both stores use lethal
> >>force to kill rodents and other pests. Both kinds of farming also use lethal
> >>force to kill rodents and other pests. Both kinds of farming use
> >>machinery that runs over or mutilates animals. You're still
> >>contributing to wholesale animal slaughter and pain, you misguided, heartless
> >>witch.
> >
> > I see you're still insane Usual.
Mad as a hatter!
,..
> > Organic veggies are more nutritious
>
> You've been "researching" activist claims again, haven't you.
You're going to post corporate propaganda and flawed 'research', aren't you.
> Organic More Nutritious? Even the Organic Industry Doesn't Think So!
>
> by Alex Avery
'Monsanto and the Campaign to Undermine Organics
Monsanto also partially funds the extreme anti-organic Center for
Global Food Issues, a project of the right-wing Hudson Institute.
It is run by Dennis Avery
[1] (http://www.gmwatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=15&page=A)
The Hudson Institute is funded by many firms whose products are
excluded from organic agriculture: eg, AgrEvo, Dow AgroSciences,
Monsanto, Novartis Crop Protection, Zeneca, Du Pont, DowElanco,
ConAgra, and Cargill.
[2] (http://www.gmwatch.org/p2temp2.asp?aid=48&page=1&op=1)
and his son Alex Avery.
....'
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Monsanto_and_the_Campaign_to_Undermine_Organics
> Is organic food more nutritious? The simple answer is no. While some
> studies have been trumpeted as having finally shown the nutritional
> superiority of organic foods, other studies of similar crops show either
> no difference or superiority of conventional produce. Many factors
> affect nutrient and mineral content of food, especially produce
> (genetics, sunlight, moisture, pests, harvest date/time of day, time lag
> from harvest to consumption, etc.). Any differences which may result
> from the use of organic or conventional farming practices cannot be
> detected.
'The mineral content of organic food - Rutgers University USA
Percentage of Quantities per 100 Grams Trace Elements. Parts per million
Dry Weight Dry Weight Dry matter
Vegetable: Mineral Ash Calcium Magnesium Boron Manganese Iron Copper Cobalt
Snap Beans
Organic 10.45 40.5 60 73 60 227 69 0.26
Non-organic 4.04 15.5 14.8 10 2 10 3 0
Cabbage
Organic 10.38 60 43.6 42 13 94 48 0.15
Non-organic 6.12 17.5 13.6 7 2 20 0.4 0
Lettuce
Organic 24.48 71 49.3 37 169 516 60 0.19
Non-organic 7.01 16 13.1 6 1 9 3 0
Tomatoes
Organic 14.2 23 59.2 36 68 1938 53 0.63
Non-organic 6.07 4.5 4.5 3 1 1 0 0
Spinach
Organic 28.56 96 203.9 88 117 1584 32 0.25
Non-organic 12.38 47.5 46.9 12 1 49 0.3 0.2
http://www.organicnutrition.co.uk/whyorganic/whyorganic.htm.
> But don’t take our word for it.
Of course not!!
> Look at what others have had to say about this question:
>
> -- Even the organic foods industry has been forced to admit that their
> products offer no significant nutritional advantages. Katherine
> DiMatteo, spokesperson for the U.S. Organic Trade Association, was asked
> on ABC’s 20/20 (February 4, 2000) whether organic foods were more
> nutritious than their conventional counterparts. She twice responded
> that “organic foods are as nutritious as any other product.” Not more
> nutritious, merely “as nutritious.”
'chemical isolation combined with nuclear magnetic resonance
(NMR) spectroscopy revealed that the organically-grown oranges
contained 30% more vitamin C than the conventionally-grown fruits
— even though they were only about half the size. '
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/06/020603071017.htm
> --The Tufts University Health & Nutrition letter
> (http://www.phys.com/b_nutrition/02solutions/10tufts/tuftsqa/organic.htm)
> answered the question of whether organic is more nutritious this way:
> “No one knows. The question is a difficult one to study because of all
> the factors besides farming methods that could affect nutritional
> quality, including soil type and climate. The evidence from the small
> body of reliable studies available thus far does not show any
> significant differences between the nutrient content of organically
> grown and conventionally grown food.”
More research confirms organic food is better for you
RESEARCH PAPER: ARCHIVED
The Soil Association Organic Farming, Food Quality and Human
Health report showed that the nutritional content of organic was
higher than non-organic foods. New US research shows by how
much.
"While my review looked at the entire picture of nutritional food
quality" says Shane Heaton, author of the Soil Association food
quality report, "this research, by nutritionist Virginia Worthington,
has looked specifically at the comparative vitamin and mineral
contents, reviewing a similar collection of scientific studies.
"Her research confirms our findings that, on average, organic
produce contains significantly higher levels of vitamin C, iron,
magnesium and phosphorus, and how seemingly small
differences in nutrients can mean the difference between
getting the recommended daily allowance - or failing to."
All 21 minerals compared were higher in organic produce.
..'
http://www.soilassociation.org/sa/saweb.nsf/librarytitles/Articles10122001.html
> --UC Davis nutritionist Dr. Gail Feenstra says, “As much as I'd
> like to say yes, unfortunately the evidence doesn't show that it is. The
> studies are equivocal; there are no definitive studies that show that
> organic is much better than conventionally-produced produce."
'Mineral content: This may be the most important nutritional difference
between organic and regular produce since heavy use of fertilizer inhibits
absorbtion of some minerals, which are likely to be at lower levels to
begin with in soils that have been abused. This may be caused in part
by the lack of beneficial mycorrhizae fungi on the roots since high levels
of fertilizer tend to kill them. Standard diets tend to be low in various
minerals, resulting in a variety of problems including osteoporosis.
..'
http://math.ucsd.edu/~ebender/Health%20&%20Nutrition/Foods/organic.html
> --Consumer Reports, a magazine that strongly favors organic foods
> (and has recommended it several times in the past), wrote this after its
> own evaluation of organic foods Dec. 15, 1997. (available at
> www.consumerreports.com/Special/News/Reports/9712n001.html): “Yet
> organic produce tastes no different than ‘conventionally’ grown produce,
> and any nutritional differences there might be between them are likely
> so subtle as to evade detection.”
'Evaluation of validity of studies
Of the 99 studies found, claiming or claimed to make a direct
comparison of the nutritional quality of organic and non-organic
produce, 70 were rejected as invalid comparisons for the
following reasons: insufficient duration (27), incorrect or
unknown practices (23), absence of relevant quality comparisons
(14) and republished results of previous experiments (6). Of the
29 remaining valid studies, 14 compare mineral contents, 13
compare vitamin C contents and 19 compare the dry matter
content of organic and non-organic produce.
Results
Against a background of declining mineral levels in fresh
produce over the last sixty years (Mayer 1997), and given that
many people fail to achieve the recommended daily allowance for
a variety of nutrients (MAFF 1996, Clayton 2001), the nutrient
contents of organic and non-organic produce are worthy of
comparison. ..
While similar controlled studies in humans are difficult, clinical
experience and recorded observations have suggested similar
benefits in human reproductive health (Foresight), recovery from
illness (Plaskett 1999) and general health (Daldy 1940) from
the consumption of organically produced food.
..
http://www.organic.aber.ac.uk/library/Assessing%20organic%20food%20quality.pdf.
> -- Canada’s Manitoba Agriculture and Food agency
> (www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/homeec/cbd03s01.htm) had this to say:
> “Nutritional value of plants depends on genetics, availability of water,
> amount of sunlight, maturity when picked, how long it took to come to
> market and whether it was properly handled and refrigerated. Numerous
> laboratory tests have not found any substantial nutritional differences
> in organically and conventionally grown produce.”
Study Denying Nutritional Benefits of Organic Was Bogus
..
Zinc levels, one of the more interesting comparisons given it's importance
as a trace mineral in human health and because many people are not able
to obtain the recommended daily allowance, described as 'negligible', are
reported as the same level in all twenty crops, which is often 100 percent
higher than the conventional food table figures. Clearly the zinc levels were
not properly assessed.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/Organic/bogusstudy071902.cfm
> --The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
> (http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/research/researchfund/fs2docs/fs7061.htm):
> “Various comparisons have been made on the nutrient content of plants
> and on other components of nutritional quality. Although differences can
> be found they are not consistent among the different experiments that
> have been conducted. Varying the soil nutrients or other growing
> conditions could conceivably produce similar results. There is no
> conclusive evidence that crops grown organically are either inferior or
> superior nutritionally. There are major differences between experiments
> and among crops within the same experiment.”
'The emphasis of organic agriculture on feeding soils is the primary
step in achieving products of high nutritional content. An
understanding of nutritional balance, physical and biophysical soil
composition underpins a successful organic farming system. '
http://www.rirdc.gov.au/pub/org5yr3.htm
> Dr. Clarence Swanton, professor in the Department of Plant Agriculture
> at the University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada says, “There is no
> scientific evidence whatsoever that I am aware of that [organic food] is
> nutritionally better for you.”
> http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articles/1999/oct_18_97.htm
'Organic food IS more nutritious, especially if fresh, and eating it is
vital to good health; let those who claim otherwise try to prove their
case! I still see articles in reputable magazines stating that there is no
nutritional difference between organic produce and regular supermarket
food. I've even repeatedly received this erroneous information from
Agricultural Extension offices and Professors of Agriculture at
“reputable” State Universities... although one Professor, probably
safely tenured, told me in hushed tones that “of course, most of
our funding comes from chemical companies.”
http://www.living-foods.com/articles/organicnutritious.html
> ----------
> See also:
> http://www.price-pottenger.org/Articles/OrganicNutrition.html
'According to the USDA, the calcium content of an apple has
declined from 13.5 mg in 1914 to 7 mg in 1992. The iron content
has declined from 4.6 mg in 1914 to 0.18 mg in 1992.
..
A study published in the Journal of Applied Nutrition, Vol. 45, #1,
1993 compared the nutrient content of supermarket food versus
organically grown food from food stores in the Chicago area. The
organic produce averaged twice the mineral content of the
supermarket food.
http://www.drlwilson.com/articles/organic_agriculture.htm
> http://www.ivillage.co.uk/food/cook/health/articles/0,10103,164370_526834,00.html
'Organic oats have much higher levels of essential nutrients than conventional
..
As the chart below shows, preliminary nutritional analysis of oat plants from
The Rodale Institute's Farming Systems Trial found that the organic plants
had increases of up to 74 percent in nutrient content over conventionally
grown plants, suggesting an answer to the perennial question, "Is organic
better?"
http://www.newfarm.org/columns/jeff_moyer/1003.shtml
> http://www.nature.com/nsu/000831/000831-4.html
'A study commissioned by the Organic Retailers and Growers
Association of Australia (ORGAA) found that conventionally
grown fruit and vegetables purchased in supermarkets and
other commercial retail outlets had ten times less mineral content
than fruit and vegetables grown organically.
Source: Organic Retailers and Growers Association of Australia,
2000, as cited in Pesticides and You, Vol. 20, No. 1, Spring 2000,
News from Beyond Pesticides/National Coalition Against the
Misuse of Pesticides.
http://www.organicconnection.net/nutritional.html
....
usual suspect
<...>
>>Or use some carrageanan, a bit of corn or potato starch, etc. Rice milk is
>>just starchy water anyway. You don't have to make it more difficult or
>>more expensive than it already is, dummy.
>
> I tried rice milk a couple of months ago because I was curious about how it
> tasted and I was disappointed.
I bet you were.
> It sort of burned my throat a little.
Wow, I haven't heard of that happening before. The stuff is just starchy
water -- and quite vile.
> Soy milk and even regular old cow's milk is so much better.
Like the song says, "Ain't nothing like the real thing, baby..."
> Hazelnut milk is
> pretty good tasting although it's not "milky" like soy.
Carrageanan is what gives soy milk and a lot of other soy and dairy
products (fat free yogurt, for example) a creamy mouthfeel. Soy milk
without carrageanan is as vile as rice milk, and it has a nasty soy
aftertaste to boot.
> I haven't tried almond milk yet.
It's okay, but I'd much rather eat my almonds than drink them.
usual suspect
<...>
>>>I see you're still insane Usual.
>
> Mad as a hatter!
Pretty rich coming from someone who believes in or promotes:
"veganism"
"inner earth beings"
"hollow earth" based on a goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe
helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef
rain forest destruction
Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade)
Stolen French flying saucers
Zapper and Hulda Clark's quackery
Foot massage (as cure-all)
Astrology
Numerology
Alien abduction
bestiality (she thinks it's okay to have sex with animals)
Leprechauns
Channeling
Polar fountains as proof of a hollow earth
Sun gazing
Drinking urine as a cure-all
Chemtrails
AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory
Crop circles
she's sexually aroused by violent ex-convicts
she participates in the skinhead subculture
she accepts the validity of online IQ tests (even multiple attempts)
crackpot 9-11 conspiracy theories
Jeff Rense is a valid source for "news"
Inability to distinguish between hearsay and evidence
>>>Organic veggies are more nutritious
>>
>>You've been "researching" activist claims again, haven't you.
>
> You're going to post corporate propaganda and flawed 'research', aren't you.
I posted information including quotes from organic apologists:
Even the organic foods industry has been forced to admit that
their products offer no significant nutritional advantages.
Katherine DiMatteo, spokesperson for the U.S. Organic Trade
Association, was asked on ABC’s 20/20 (February 4, 2000) whether
organic foods were more nutritious than their conventional
counterparts. She twice responded that “organic foods are as
nutritious as any other product.” Not more nutritious, merely
“as nutritious.”
Etc.
>>Organic More Nutritious? Even the Organic Industry Doesn't Think So!
>>
>>by Alex Avery
>
> 'Monsanto and the Campaign to Undermine Organics
>
> Monsanto also partially funds the extreme anti-organic Center for
> Global Food Issues, a project of the right-wing Hudson Institute.
> It is run by Dennis Avery
And your point is what, that we should *only* consider activists from
the other side? The problem for you is that Avery and others rely on
science for their claims; your side rejects science for its own demented
axiom that organic is inherently better. Nice of you to try to make the
case that your side's own spokeswoman couldn't on national television,
though.
Snip of gibberish and propaganda.
Scented Nectar
>
> You're doing me a favor.
I'm getting the feeling that you wouldn't like
any recipe I post.
> > I've got an alibi. I wasn't even in the province they
> > were grown in.
>
> That's not an alibi. You still bought them knowing the farmer was
> killing animals. That makes you a hypocrite.
I know that the farmer killed less animals then they
would have for the same poundage of pork or
poultry, etc. You trolls are just going to have to
accept that I am content with reduction of
deaths, and that I realize that it's not within
my powers to eliminate them completely.
No hypocrasy
> > My soup was
> > intended on being a creamy puree with corn added
> > after the pureeing. Vegetables must be soft to
> > puree well.
>
> Not "very soft," which is what you called for in your recipe.
For purees, I like the veggies to be very soft. If
you don't, that's fine. More for me.
> > At least when making a soup, you get
> > to eat the water they've boiled in, recatching some
> > of the cooked out nutrients.
>
> You should learn to steam and sautee your veggies rather than boil
them.
> Maybe you just haven't researched that stuff yet.
So, you make soups without any boiling or
simmering? It was a SOUP I was making.
> > They just didn't. Turns out the soup was delicious.
> > Me and a friend polished off the whole potload.
>
> Gluttons.
No, just very happy munchies time. Gluttony would
be doing it all the time.
> > None left for you :)
>
> Thank goodness.
I could have posted ANY recipe and you'd find something
against it. It's because you like arguing.
Scented Nectar
> Scented Nectar wrote:
> >>>As it appears that (at least unfermented) soya is best
> >>>avoided
> >>
> >>In moderation, or consumed on occasion, it's not going to kill you.
> >
> > Twit.
>
Have you taken to editing, or are you just talking
to yourself. It was you that wrote 'Twit'
> > Soya milk is definately more 'creamy' than
> > starchy.
The one I used for this recipe contained only
soy beans and water. No thickeners or sugar
like some do. I never tried it on its own though,
but it was great in the soup.
> > The soup's texture might change a bit
>
> Entirely undetectable to an unenlightened palate like yours.
How could you possibly know my palette? You don't.
> > If substituting a different broth than the one I used,
> > try to get one heavy on the celery onion and garlic.
>
> What do you consider heavy?
Ok, lesson for the cooking-challenged. Heavy
in this case meaning that those are the primary
flavours of the broth.
--
pearl
> peril wrote:
> <...>
> >>>I see you're still insane Usual.
> >
> > Mad as a hatter!
>
> Pretty rich coming from someone who believes in or promotes:
Point proven, idiot _liar_ suspect.
<snip usual gibberish propaganda>
rick etter
>> > Good. None for you. And you won't mind then.
>>
>> You're doing me a favor.
>
> I'm getting the feeling that you wouldn't like
> any recipe I post.
>
>> > I've got an alibi. I wasn't even in the province they
>> > were grown in.
>>
>> That's not an alibi. You still bought them knowing the farmer was
>> killing animals. That makes you a hypocrite.
>
> I know that the farmer killed less animals then they
> would have for the same poundage of pork or
> poultry, etc.
Let's see the proof of your claims, killer. You never have, and never will
be able to prove your delusions.
You trolls are just going to have to
> accept that I am content with reduction of
> deaths,
==================
No, you are content with your delusions of causes fewer. You haven't proven
that you have done anything to save animals, killer.
and that I realize that it's not within
> my powers to eliminate them completely.
> No hypocrasy
=================
Yes, magnitudes of hypocrisy, killer. All you follow is your simple rule
for your simple mind, despite being shown that it doesn't hold any water.
But even at that, you do *nothing* to choose between foods that you do eat,
thus making your claims of caring false and hypocritical.
Scented Nectar
> > would have for the same poundage of pork or
> > poultry, etc.
> =====================
> Let's see the proof of your claims, killer. You never have, and
never will
> be able to prove your delusions.
I've already proven this point. Read my previous posts
in many, many threads.
> You trolls are just going to have to
> > accept that I am content with reduction of
> > deaths,
> ==================
> No, you are content with your delusions of causes fewer. You haven't
proven
> that you have done anything to save animals, killer.
I've already proven this point. Read my previous posts
in many, many threads.
> and that I realize that it's not within
> > my powers to eliminate them completely.
> > No hypocrasy
> =================
> Yes, magnitudes of hypocrisy, killer. All you follow is your simple
rule
> for your simple mind, despite being shown that it doesn't hold any
water.
> But even at that, you do *nothing* to choose between foods that you do
eat,
> thus making your claims of caring false and hypocritical.
You've not shown it not to hold water. You've proven
nothing to me. You've convinced me of nothing.
Scented Nectar
> >>organic?
> >
> > Organic was brought up earlier in the thread. I was quite happy
> > to find the organic broccoli and cauliflower.
>
> Interestingly, both are on the Environmental Working Group's list of
> "safest" produce from the standpoint of pesticide residues. Those are
> two examples where buying organic is a complete waste of money.
>
> http://www.foodnews.org/reportcard.php
Organic varieties of tomato ketchup contain three times
as much of a cancer-fighting chemical called lycopene as
non-organic brands.
In the US, tomato ketchup comes in purple and green
varieties as well as the traditional red. Betty Ishida and
Mary Chapman at the Agricultural Research Service in
Albany, California, US, wondered if the colouring might
be indicative of low levels of lycopene, the pigment that
makes tomatoes red.
The chemical has been shown to help protect against
breast, pancreatic, prostate and intestinal cancer,
especially when eaten with fatty foods. There is also
evidence that lycopene can reduce the risk of heart
attacks (New Scientist print edition, 23 December 2000).
The researchers tested lycopene levels and antioxidant
activity in 13 ketchup brands: six popular ones, three
organic, two store brands and two from fast-food chains.
Purple and green ketchups had a similar lycopene
content to their plain red counterparts.
But organic ketchups excelled, with one brand containing
183 micrograms of lycopene per gram of ketchup, about
five times as much per weight as a tomato. Non-organic
brands averaged 100 micrograms per gram, with one
fast-food sample containing just 60 micrograms per gram.
If you want high lycopene levels, says Ishida, the rule of
thumb is to pick the darkest red ketchup.
Journal reference: Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry (DOI:
10.1021/jf0401540)
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6844
rick etter
>> > I know that the farmer killed less animals then they
>> > would have for the same poundage of pork or
>> > poultry, etc.
>> =====================
>> Let's see the proof of your claims, killer. You never have, and
> never will
>> be able to prove your delusions.
>
> I've already proven this point. Read my previous posts
> in many, many threads.
I have read your posts. Many, many of them. Not one of them has ever
provided any proof of the claims you make. Repeating your claims doesn't
constitute proof, killer. Now, provide proof that your claims are valid,
hypocrite.
>
>> You trolls are just going to have to
>> > accept that I am content with reduction of
>> > deaths,
>> ==================
>> No, you are content with your delusions of causes fewer. You haven't
> proven
>> that you have done anything to save animals, killer.
>
> I've already proven this point. Read my previous posts
> in many, many threads.
================
I have read your posts. Many, many of them. Not one of them has ever
provided any proof of the claims you make. Repeating your claims doesn't
constitute proof, killer. Now, provide proof that your claims are valid,
hypocrite.
>
>> and that I realize that it's not within
>> > my powers to eliminate them completely.
>> > No hypocrasy
>> =================
>> Yes, magnitudes of hypocrisy, killer. All you follow is your simple
> rule
>> for your simple mind, despite being shown that it doesn't hold any
> water.
>> But even at that, you do *nothing* to choose between foods that you do
> eat,
>> thus making your claims of caring false and hypocritical.
>
> You've not shown it not to hold water. You've proven
> nothing to me. You've convinced me of nothing.
====================
Because you snip and run whenever I do post proof, killer. Proof that you
cannot refute, so you delete it.
>
>
>
>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.
> Ignoranc, irony, and hypocrisy run amok....
>
>
>
>
>
Scented Nectar
news:1qCFd.6592$Ii4....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Scented Nectar" <m...@scentednectar.com> wrote in message
> news:V8mdnSNfDY1...@rogers.com...
> >> > I know that the farmer killed less animals then they
> >> > would have for the same poundage of pork or
> >> > poultry, etc.
> >> =====================
> >> Let's see the proof of your claims, killer. You never have, and
> > never will
> >> be able to prove your delusions.
> >
> > I've already proven this point. Read my previous posts
> > in many, many threads.
> ================
> I have read your posts. Many, many of them. Not one of them has ever
> provided any proof of the claims you make. Repeating your claims
doesn't
> constitute proof, killer. Now, provide proof that your claims are
valid,
> hypocrite.
If I have to repeat the stuff you don't understand any
more times, I'll be overly repetitious. So sorry, tricky
Dicky, I'm not proving it again.
Dutch
> I know that the farmer killed less animals then they
> would have for the same poundage of pork or
> poultry, etc.
So if a person was able to access meat, fish or fowl from a source that they
believe killed even fewer animals than commercial produce that would be even
better, right?
Scented Nectar
> > would have for the same poundage of pork or
> > poultry, etc.
>
> So if a person was able to access meat, fish or fowl from a source
that they
> believe killed even fewer animals than commercial produce that would
be even
> better, right?
Does this source have the potential of extinction, like wild
game, or is it a meat that has a fringe following like free
range organic beef? The first I wouldn't even recommend
to a meat eater, and the second is bought by meat eating
friends already.
Of course the best alternative is to just stick to vegetarian
food. Takes less resources to produce. That means
less collateral deaths, and of course the intentional death.
For a meat eater, your suggestions would be better than
factory farmed, healthwise for the eater. Not so good for
the animal itself. Also, wild game and free range beef
can't satisfy the demand of meat eaters worldwide.
There are always vegetarian foods that cause less deaths.
If grown with no cds, it will always be the best of all the foods.
Dutch
>> > I know that the farmer killed less animals then they
>> > would have for the same poundage of pork or
>> > poultry, etc.
>>
>> So if a person was able to access meat, fish or fowl from a source
> that they
>> believe killed even fewer animals than commercial produce that would
> be even
>> better, right?
>
> Does this source have the potential of extinction, like wild
> game, or is it a meat that has a fringe following like free
> range organic beef?
No risk of extinction..
> The first I wouldn't even recommend
> to a meat eater,
Let's just rule out endangered species, OK? Nobody here wants to be killing
them.
> and the second is bought by meat eating
> friends already.
I'm not talking about anyone's current dietary preferences, I talking about
ANY person who is striving to cause the least amount of animal death and
suffering they possibly can.
> Of course the best alternative is to just stick to vegetarian
> food. Takes less resources to produce. That means
> less collateral deaths, and of course the intentional death.
You are changing the question I posed to you. I stipulated that a person,
according to the best of their ability, evaluated foods available to them
and *determined* that substituting carefully selected meat products, e.g.
hunted, free range or what-have-you, for certain plant products, represents
a net *decrease* in the amount of overall animal suffering caused by their
diet. These are the given parameters for the question.
Now, regardless of their personal preference for food types, would it not be
a better choice for animals overall that they make that choice?
> For a meat eater, your suggestions would be better than
> factory farmed, healthwise for the eater.
I did not specify whether the person currently had meat in his or her diet
or not, it is not relevant to this particular question.
> Not so good for
> the animal itself.
Perhaps not for the actual animal being eaten, but remember the question
stipulated that the change in the diet actually caused less animal harm.
> Also, wild game and free range beef
> can't satisfy the demand of meat eaters worldwide.
Again, not part of the question. I am talking about one person making a
choice about what foods to include in their diet.
> There are always vegetarian foods that cause less deaths.
In the case I am citing there are only imported, commercially grown plant
foods available.
> If grown with no cds, it will always be the best of all the foods.
Agreed, but that is not the question I am asking.
Scented Nectar
>
> In the case I am citing there are only imported, commercially grown
plant
> foods available.
Why would you compare the worst of the produce to the
'best' of the meats?
> > If grown with no cds, it will always be the best of all the foods.
>
> Agreed, but that is not the question I am asking.
Then we agree. What are you asking exactly?
Exactly which foods are you comparing and
why?
rick etter
> "rick etter" <st...@stop.net> wrote in message
> news:1qCFd.6592$Ii4....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>
>> "Scented Nectar" <m...@scentednectar.com> wrote in message
>> news:V8mdnSNfDY1...@rogers.com...
>> >> > I know that the farmer killed less animals then they
>> >> > would have for the same poundage of pork or
>> >> > poultry, etc.
>> >> =====================
>> >> Let's see the proof of your claims, killer. You never have, and
>> > never will
>> >> be able to prove your delusions.
>> >
>> > I've already proven this point. Read my previous posts
>> > in many, many threads.
>> ================
>> I have read your posts. Many, many of them. Not one of them has ever
>> provided any proof of the claims you make. Repeating your claims
> doesn't
>> constitute proof, killer. Now, provide proof that your claims are
> valid,
>> hypocrite.
>
> If I have to repeat the stuff you don't understand any
> more times, I'll be overly repetitious.
ROTFLMAO What a hoot! The next time you post any 'proof' of your
delusions will be the *first* time, killer.
So sorry, tricky
> Dicky, I'm not proving it again.
====================
You haven't proven it once, yet hypocrite.
>
>
>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.
> Irony, hypocrisy, stupidity, and ignorance all in one big bundle...
>
rick etter
>> > I know that the farmer killed less animals then they
>> > would have for the same poundage of pork or
>> > poultry, etc.
>>
>> So if a person was able to access meat, fish or fowl from a source
> that they
>> believe killed even fewer animals than commercial produce that would
> be even
>> better, right?
>
> Does this source have the potential of extinction, like wild
> game, or is it a meat that has a fringe following like free
> range organic beef? The first I wouldn't even recommend
> to a meat eater, and the second is bought by meat eating
> friends already.
>
> Of course the best alternative is to just stick to vegetarian
> food.
And your proof of that is?
\
Takes less resources to produce.
====================
False, and demostratedbly so. It has been proven yto you time and again,
killer.
That means
> less collateral deaths, and of course the intentional death.
================
No less intentional than the animals you kill for clean, cheap veggies,
hypocrite. Only you kill more of them...
>
> For a meat eater, your suggestions would be better than
> factory farmed, healthwise for the eater. Not so good for
> the animal itself. Also, wild game and free range beef
> can't satisfy the demand of meat eaters worldwide.
==================
Nice strawman, killer. Your garden plot mythical veganic cannot feed the
world either. You lose, yet again. Because you will never dare compare
your actual diet to somebody elses. All you can do is focus on what you
think everybody else in the world is doing in an attempt to assuage your own
guilt, killer.
>
> There are always vegetarian foods that cause less deaths.
> If grown with no cds, it will always be the best of all the foods.
=====================
You don't eat any of that, as it is mythical delusions....
>
>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.
rick etter
>> > There are always vegetarian foods that cause less deaths.
>>
>> In the case I am citing there are only imported, commercially grown
> plant
>> foods available.
>
> Why would you compare the worst of the produce to the
> 'best' of the meats?
>
>> > If grown with no cds, it will always be the best of all the foods.
>>
>> Agreed, but that is not the question I am asking.
>
> Then we agree. What are you asking exactly?
> Exactly which foods are you comparing and
> why?
Your diet and mine. Two real diets. Not some mythical source that you
don't use, and never will. Why can't you discuss anything except the rst of
the world, hypocrite? Have you realized that you own attempts are falling
far short of your claims?
>
>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.
Scented Nectar
foods.
> >>
> >> Agreed, but that is not the question I am asking.
> >
> > Then we agree. What are you asking exactly?
> > Exactly which foods are you comparing and
> > why?
> ==================
> Your diet and mine. Two real diets. Not some mythical source that
you
> don't use, and never will. Why can't you discuss anything except the
rst of
> the world, hypocrite? Have you realized that you own attempts are
falling
> far short of your claims?
Um, Ricky, I was asking Dutch. But despite that,
I'll not compare my personal diet to anyone else's.
You can't tell if the other person is telling the truth.
It also means you have to jot down everything you
eat for a week or however long. That sounds like
a royal pain. Also, such a comparison assumes
that the sample compared is indicative of the
person's diet, when in fact, that can change
drastically from week to week.
rick etter
>> >> > If grown with no cds, it will always be the best of all the
> foods.
>> >>
>> >> Agreed, but that is not the question I am asking.
>> >
>> > Then we agree. What are you asking exactly?
>> > Exactly which foods are you comparing and
>> > why?
>> ==================
>> Your diet and mine. Two real diets. Not some mythical source that
> you
>> don't use, and never will. Why can't you discuss anything except the
> rst of
>> the world, hypocrite? Have you realized that you own attempts are
> falling
>> far short of your claims?
>
>
> Um, Ricky, I was asking Dutch. But despite that,
> I'll not compare my personal diet to anyone else's.
Of course you won't, it would lay bare the hypocrisy you spew every post...
> You can't tell if the other person is telling the truth.
================
We already know that you aren't, killer.
> It also means you have to jot down everything you
> eat for a week or however long. That sounds like
> a royal pain. Also, such a comparison assumes
> that the sample compared is indicative of the
> person's diet, when in fact, that can change
> drastically from week to week.
=====================
Not if you were really focused on the claims you keep making about caring
about animals. But then, every inane post you make to usenet proves that
animals are of no concern to you.
>
>
> --
> SN
> http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
> A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
> Has a fun 'Jump to a Random Link' button.
Dutch
"Scented Nectar" <m...@scentednectar.com> wrote
>> > There are always vegetarian foods that cause less deaths.
>>
>> In the case I am citing there are only imported, commercially grown
> plant
>> foods available.
>
> Why would you compare the worst of the produce to the
> 'best' of the meats?
Why not? It is a choice consumers face.
>> > If grown with no cds, it will always be the best of all the foods.
>>
>> Agreed, but that is not the question I am asking.
>
> Then we agree. What are you asking exactly?
Simply put, is it ALWAYS better to try to reduce animal deaths, or is only
better when it is done via the vegan formula, eliminating animal products?
> Exactly which foods are you comparing and
> why?
The foods are commercially grown and manufactured rice, beans, vegetables
and fruit compared to beef grown in a local community, pastured and not
finished with grain.
The reason I am doing it is that I am using your refusal to make the
comparison as an illustration of vegetarian narrow-mindedness, or
alternately, you could view it as an opportunity to prove me wrong about
that by acknowledging that my proposition is a plausible one. By doing so
you also release yourself from the fantasy that the vegan drive to eliminate
animal products from one's diet is a foolproof way to reduce animal deaths.
Rubystars
"usual suspect" <sup...@our.troops> wrote in message
> Carrageanan is what gives soy milk and a lot of other soy and dairy
> products (fat free yogurt, for example) a creamy mouthfeel. Soy milk
> without carrageanan is as vile as rice milk, and it has a nasty soy
> aftertaste to boot.
Offbrand soy milk has a bit of that beany aftertaste, I noticed. If
Carageenan helps so much I have to wonder why they don't add it to the other
"milks."
-Rubystars
Scented Nectar
> > 'best' of the meats?
>
> Why not? It is a choice consumers face.
No it's not
> >> > If grown with no cds, it will always be the best of all the
foods.
> >>
> >> Agreed, but that is not the question I am asking.
> >
> > Then we agree. What are you asking exactly?
>
> Simply put, is it ALWAYS better to try to reduce animal deaths, or is
only
> better when it is done via the vegan formula, eliminating animal
products?
I personally think it's best to reduce what deaths
you reasonably can, and to do it while following
the 'formula' of eliminating animal products. The
intentional death involved in meat makes eating
meat a very repusive choice. Even if a fringe
meat has a total of less deaths than a 'worst of
the produce' food, the intentional death is very
in your face (pun intended) when you eat meat.
The act of eating dead body parts is too
repulsive to do. Some people become vegetarian
for no other reason in fact. It's not always about
animal rights. There's health and other reasons
people go vegetarian. Going vegan reduces
animal deaths a great deal so it's a good choice
if ones goal is that.
> > Exactly which foods are you comparing and
> > why?
>
> The foods are commercially grown and manufactured rice, beans,
vegetables
> and fruit compared to beef grown in a local community, pastured and
not
> finished with grain.
I don't want to compare the best of meats to the
worst of veggies. I wouldn't want to compare the
best of veggies to the worst of meats either. Both
are apples and oranges.
> The reason I am doing it is that I am using your refusal to make the
> comparison as an illustration of vegetarian narrow-mindedness, or
> alternately, you could view it as an opportunity to prove me wrong
about
> that by acknowledging that my proposition is a plausible one. By doing
so
> you also release yourself from the fantasy that the vegan drive to
eliminate
> animal products from one's diet is a foolproof way to reduce animal
deaths.
Who ever claimed it's foolproof? In overall averages it's better, but
not
foolproof.
usual suspect
>>>>>As it appears that (at least unfermented) soya is best
>>>>>avoided
>>>>
>>>>In moderation, or consumed on occasion, it's not going to kill you.
>>>
>>>Twit.
>>
>>Glad you agree.
>
> Have you taken to editing,
No editing was required.
>>>Soya milk is definately more 'creamy' than
>>>starchy.
>
> The one I used for this recipe contained only
> soy beans and water. No thickeners or sugar
> like some do. I never tried it on its own though,
> but it was great in the soup.
You wouldn't know the difference. The creaminess or smoothness of the
soup was most likely because of the potatoes, which are very starchy and
thicken cooking liquids, and cauliflower, which has a very smooth,
creamy mouthfeel when pureed. Soy milk isn't particularly creamy or
starchy, unless it has carrageanan or another thickening agent in it.
>>>The soup's texture might change a bit
>>
>>Entirely undetectable to an unenlightened palate like yours.
>
> How could you possibly know my palette?
By reviewing your recipes. Major league ick.
>>>If substituting a different broth than the one I used,
>>>try to get one heavy on the celery onion and garlic.
>>
>>What do you consider heavy?
>
> Ok, lesson for the cooking-challenged.
Look who's talking! I sure as hell don't need lessons in anything from
some urban hag who thinks spaghetti sauce and beans is chili. Geeeeez.
For an example of real cuisine, contrasted with your mushy boiled and
pureed vegetables, consider some of my own recipes.
Tamales: http://tinyurl.com/6gop2
Meatless meat balls: http://tinyurl.com/4z7tf
Spicy lentil soup: http://tinyurl.com/6yuqa
Dirty rice: http://tinyurl.com/66v9l
> Heavy in this case meaning that those are the primary
> flavours of the broth.
In that case, I'd go *easy* on the celery and add more carrots. You can
have too much celery in a dish, especially in a stock.
usual suspect
>>>Good. None for you. And you won't mind then.
>>
>>You're doing me a favor.
>
> I'm getting the feeling that you wouldn't like
> any recipe I post.
Especially if in contains beans and spaghetti sauce and you try to pass
it off as chili. Call it what it is: Skunky's Spaghetti Sauce and Beans.
>>>I've got an alibi. I wasn't even in the province they
>>>were grown in.
>>
>>That's not an alibi. You still bought them knowing the farmer was
>>killing animals. That makes you a hypocrite.
>
> I know
No, Skunky, you don't. You ASSUME. You assume WRONGLY.
> that the farmer killed less animals then they
> would have for the same poundage of pork or
> poultry, etc.
Ipse dixit. The death of one pig provides a lot of meals. Your soy milk
is a very wasteful product -- a lot of soybeans go into it for what you
get out, and soy is a high-CD cro: a lot of animal deaths, no meals.
>>>They just didn't. Turns out the soup was delicious.
>>>Me and a friend polished off the whole potload.
>>
>>Gluttons.
>
> No, just very happy munchies time. Gluttony would
> be doing it all the time.
Gluttony pertains to overindulgence, period. There is no timeframe
required for something to be called gluttony. You don't have to be like
Dreck (aka Retard) to be a fat-assed glutton, but he's mastered it (not
a good thing at all).
>>>None left for you :)
>>
>>Thank goodness.
>
> I could have posted ANY recipe and you'd find something
> against it.
Your recipes are, for the most part, offensive to good taste. Post a
good one and you'll be praised for it.
usual suspect
>>>>>I see you're still insane Usual.
>>>
>>>Mad as a hatter!
>>
>>Pretty rich coming from someone who believes in or promotes:
Restore:
End Restore
> Point proven,
I know it is, you psycho.
usual suspect
>>>I know that the farmer killed less animals then they
>>>would have for the same poundage of pork or
>>>poultry, etc.
>>
>>=====================
>>Let's see the proof of your claims, killer. You never have, and
>>never will be able to prove your delusions.
>
> I've already proven this point.
No, you never have. You've been asked to repeatedly, but you've only
repeated yourself that you've already proven it.
usual suspect
>>>>Hahaha. When did you start stipulating which produce you consume is
>>>>organic?
>>>
>>>Organic was brought up earlier in the thread. I was quite happy
>>>to find the organic broccoli and cauliflower.
>>
>>Interestingly, both are on the Environmental Working Group's list of
>>"safest" produce from the standpoint of pesticide residues. Those are
>>two examples where buying organic is a complete waste of money.
>>
>>http://www.foodnews.org/reportcard.php
>
> Organic varieties of tomato ketchup contain three times
> as much of a cancer-fighting chemical called lycopene as
> non-organic brands.
Now you claim *ketchup* is a health food, lol?! Oh, my ribs.
> If you want high lycopene levels, says Ishida, the rule of
> thumb is to pick the darkest red ketchup.
Correct -- *not simply* the organic one. Other foods are much healthier
for you than ketchup and contain a lot more lycopene -- including other
forms of cooked tomato.
mg of lycopene per 100g wet weight
Apricot, dried 0.86
Grapefruit, raw pink 3.36
Guava, fresh 5.40
Guava juice 3.34
Papaya, fresh 2.00-5.30
Watermelon, fresh 2.30-7.20
Tomato sauce 6.20
Tomato paste 5.40-150.00
Tomato soup, condensed 7.99
Tomato powder, drum or spray dried 112.63-126.49
Tomato juice 5.00-11.60
Tomatoes, fresh 0.88-4.20
Sun-dried tomato in oil 46.50
Tomatoes, cooked 3.70
usual suspect
<...>
> Does this source have the potential of extinction, like wild
> game,
Name one game species in North America at risk of extinction.
<snip of your standard unproven/bullshit claims>
Scented Nectar
> > any recipe I post.
>
> Especially if in contains beans and spaghetti sauce and you try to
pass
> it off as chili. Call it what it is: Skunky's Spaghetti Sauce and
Beans.
Well, it tastes like chili, looks like chili... The spaghetti sauce
is only one of many tomato containing ingredients. The spices
make for a strong chili flavour. The texture is definately
chili, although a little thicker than average.
For those who don't know what recipe Usual's complaining
about, go to http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/recipes/index.htm
The page is a mix of vegan and lacto-ovo, but the chili and
the broth they use is vegan, I'm pretty sure. Ironically, it's the
spaghetti sauce I'm unsure of. I know there's no meat (unlike
the high-fat version they sell in that flavour), but I don't
know if it has a bit of cheese. I'll check next time I'm there.
> > No, just very happy munchies time. Gluttony would
> > be doing it all the time.
>
> Gluttony pertains to overindulgence, period. There is no timeframe
> required for something to be called gluttony. You don't have to be
like
> Dreck (aka Retard) to be a fat-assed glutton, but he's mastered it
(not
> a good thing at all).
You trolls are so against vegetarianism, that if enjoyment
of the foods are shown, you call it gluttony and complain.
Are you just that glum?
> > I could have posted ANY recipe and you'd find something
> > against it.
>
> Your recipes are, for the most part, offensive to good taste. Post a
> good one and you'll be praised for it.
I'm not looking for praise from a troll who insults whenever he
can. I find it satisfying that those in my real (offline) life enjoy
my cooking. Even my meateating friends do, so I'm not looking
for or expecting any praise from you.
By the way, if you gather your recipes onto a website,
those being the ones other than your recent sashimi,
I will list you in my directory. Even though you're a
troll who doesn't want to be called vegan but
whose recipes are suitable for vegans !! :)
usual suspect
<...>
> Um, Ricky, I was asking Dutch. But despite that,
> I'll not compare my personal diet to anyone else's.
Chickenshit.
> You can't tell if the other person is telling the truth.
Especially clueless urbanites in Toronto who think their produce is
grown "veganically." Hahahaha!
> It also means you have to jot down everything you
> eat for a week or however long. That sounds like
> a royal pain. Also, such a comparison assumes
> that the sample compared is indicative of the
> person's diet, when in fact, that can change
> drastically from week to week.
Keep tap dancing, Skunky, and maybe someday you'll be as good as Gregory
Hines.
usual suspect
>>Carrageanan is what gives soy milk and a lot of other soy and dairy
>>products (fat free yogurt, for example) a creamy mouthfeel. Soy milk
>>without carrageanan is as vile as rice milk, and it has a nasty soy
>>aftertaste to boot.
>
> Offbrand soy milk has a bit of that beany aftertaste, I noticed.
I've noticed it in the major brands, too.
> If
> Carageenan helps so much I have to wonder why they don't add it to the other
> "milks."
I know that it's in a lot of the reduced-fat dairy products now and
almost every soy product (soy milk, soy ice cream, soy yogurt, etc.)
I've seen has it. I don't buy nut or rice milk, so I don't know what's
in those.
Scented Nectar
> Scented Nectar wrote:
> <...>
> > Does this source have the potential of extinction, like wild
> > game,
>
> Name one game species in North America at risk of extinction.
If all meateaters took the 'higher road' of meat eating,
ate only game, and no farmed meat, the demand for
meat is so high that any/all game would soon risk
extinction. Currently, if you are eating game, since
you are in that fringe group, there's not likely to be
extinction. But if it was to provide ALL meat for
meateaters it would be gone soon enough.
Scented Nectar
Ok, one more time for the data-impaired.
To make a pound of meat it takes between
3 to 16 times the amount of fodder crops
than it does to produce a pound of vegan
food. Your friend Jay/Jon/NewName even
posted some proof of that in one of his
posts. The more crops are involved, the
more collateral deaths happen. Since
meat production requires more crops,
the cds are much much higher. Most
meat and vegan foods produced are
commercially grown so that's what I'm
comparing here.
Scented Nectar
pass
> it off as chili. Call it what it is: Skunky's Spaghetti Sauce and
Beans.
Are you in the Toronto area? If you are, I
would like to challenge you to try my
chili next summer, when meeting in a
public place outdoors for a picnic is
possible. My chili will knock your socks
off. Other Torontonians welcome too.
Oh yeah, you're from Texas. That's
a bit far away to go for a picnic, but
it was a good idea. :)
usual suspect
>><...>
>>
>>>Does this source have the potential of extinction, like wild
>>>game,
>>
>>Name one game species in North America at risk of extinction.
>
>
> If all meateaters took the 'higher road' of meat eating,
You were asked to name one game species in North America at risk of
extinction. You didn't. Try again.
Dutch
"Scented Nectar" <m...@scentednectar.com> wrote
> > > Why would you compare the worst of the produce to the
> > > 'best' of the meats?
> >
> > Why not? It is a choice consumers face.
>
> No it's not
Of course it is. If I still lived in the northern rural community I lived in
years ago, that is exactly the kind of choice I had to make. The only
non-commercial, non-imported food available was locally raised animals, and
some deer and moose meat.
> > >> > If grown with no cds, it will always be the best of all the
> foods.
> > >>
> > >> Agreed, but that is not the question I am asking.
> > >
> > > Then we agree. What are you asking exactly?
> >
> > Simply put, is it ALWAYS better to try to reduce animal deaths, or is
> only
> > better when it is done via the vegan formula, eliminating animal
> products?
>
> I personally think it's best to reduce what deaths
> you reasonably can, and to do it while following
> the 'formula' of eliminating animal products. The
> intentional death involved in meat makes eating
> meat a very repusive choice. Even if a fringe
> meat has a total of less deaths than a 'worst of
> the produce' food, the intentional death is very
> in your face (pun intended) when you eat meat.
> The act of eating dead body parts is too
> repulsive to do. Some people become vegetarian
> for no other reason in fact. It's not always about
> animal rights.
If the reasoning is that it's "repulsive", and you do it regardless of the
impact on animals, then it is nothing about animal rights, it is about you
feeling good.
> There's health and other reasons
> people go vegetarian. Going vegan reduces
> animal deaths a great deal so it's a good choice
> if ones goal is that.
Except as I just explained, it doesn't necessarily do that..
> > > Exactly which foods are you comparing and
> > > why?
> >
> > The foods are commercially grown and manufactured rice, beans,
> vegetables
> > and fruit compared to beef grown in a local community, pastured and
> not
> > finished with grain.
>
> I don't want to compare the best of meats to the
> worst of veggies. I wouldn't want to compare the
> best of veggies to the worst of meats either.
You don't want to compare them because you don't like the conclusion.
There's no other reason to not compare them.
> Both
> are apples and oranges.
In this instance, contrary to the old saying, comparing apples and oranges
is a valid comparison. If the oranges were commercially grown using
pesticides and mechanical harvesters and the apples were locally grown with
no spraying then if you really are concerned about animals the ethical fruit
choice would be the apples rather than the oranges. The same principle
applies for the free range meat vs the commercial veggies, the fact that
apples (or meat) turn you off is not a valid moral criterion.
> > The reason I am doing it is that I am using your refusal to make the
> > comparison as an illustration of vegetarian narrow-mindedness, or
> > alternately, you could view it as an opportunity to prove me wrong
> about
> > that by acknowledging that my proposition is a plausible one. By doing
> so
> > you also release yourself from the fantasy that the vegan drive to
> eliminate
> > animal products from one's diet is a foolproof way to reduce animal
> deaths.
>
> Who ever claimed it's foolproof? In overall averages it's better, but
> not
> foolproof.
If you really believed that it's not foolproof then you would have
acknowledged that the pastured meat could be an ethically superior choice to
the commerical veggies based on animal harm, but you didn't, you refused to
make the comparison. That tells me that you are not being candid when you
say that.
usual suspect
>>Especially if in contains beans and spaghetti sauce and you try to
>>pass it off as chili. Call it what it is: Skunky's Spaghetti Sauce and
>>Beans.
>
> Are you in the Toronto area?
You know I'm not.
> If you are, I would like to challenge you to try my
> chili next summer,
It isn't chili. It's beans in spaghetti sauce.
> when meeting in a
> public place outdoors for a picnic is
> possible.
Meeting for food outdoors in central Canada this time of year isn't a
good idea. I know because I've been there in winter.
> My chili will knock your socks
> off.
It isn't chili. It's beans in spaghetti sauce.
Dutch
> "usual suspect" <sup...@our.troops> wrote
> > Scented Nectar wrote:
> > <...>
> > > Does this source have the potential of extinction, like wild
> > > game,
> >
> > Name one game species in North America at risk of extinction.
>
>
> If all meateaters took the 'higher road' of meat eating,
> ate only game, and no farmed meat, the demand for
> meat is so high that any/all game would soon risk
> extinction. Currently, if you are eating game, since
> you are in that fringe group, there's not likely to be
> extinction. But if it was to provide ALL meat for
> meateaters it would be gone soon enough.
Animal populations are protected by hunting quotas and are more so when
populations decline. Supply always expands to meet demand. If the demand for
free-range/pastured meat with no grain feeding were to increase as a
substitute for hunted meat, then it would be produced to meet the demand,
count on it.
Scented Nectar
> extinction. You didn't. Try again.
I did better than that. I named them all. The
demand for meat is very high in North America
where I live. Even the vast wilds in Canada
would not be able to support the meat
needs of the meateaters. Demand would
exceed supply, but those making money
off selling hunted meat are not likely to
stop. Eventually the populations drop to
rare and/or extinct.
Scented Nectar
when
> populations decline. Supply always expands to meet demand. If the
demand for
> free-range/pastured meat with no grain feeding were to increase as a
> substitute for hunted meat, then it would be produced to meet the
demand,
> count on it.
Could it supply all meateaters in North America? What
about pork and poultry and fish? There's quite a market
for all of those too. Can the ranges feed these too?
Anyways, no matter how politically correct your meat
is (oxymoron, I know), there's still the intentional
death involved. It's ridiculous to suggest to a
group of vegetarians that they should eat meat.
Why do you do it? If you really wanted to be
helpful, compile a vegan list of foods and their
cds, since you're such an expert on cds. Then
vegans worldwide will thank you for such a
resource. I suspect however, you don't really
know how many for which foods. All that's
really known for sure is that the meat industry
as a whole uses tons and tons more crops
to make a pound of animal then to make
a pound of vegetable/grain etc. So therefore,
meat production causes more cds.
Scented Nectar
> > > > 'best' of the meats?
> > >
> > > Why not? It is a choice consumers face.
> >
> > No it's not
>
> Of course it is. If I still lived in the northern rural community I
lived in
> years ago, that is exactly the kind of choice I had to make. The only
> non-commercial, non-imported food available was locally raised
animals, and
> some deer and moose meat.
You were in a fringe community when compared to most
people.
> > I personally think it's best to reduce what deaths
> > you reasonably can, and to do it while following
> > the 'formula' of eliminating animal products. The
> > intentional death involved in meat makes eating
> > meat a very repusive choice. Even if a fringe
> > meat has a total of less deaths than a 'worst of
> > the produce' food, the intentional death is very
> > in your face (pun intended) when you eat meat.
> > The act of eating dead body parts is too
> > repulsive to do. Some people become vegetarian
> > for no other reason in fact. It's not always about
> > animal rights.
>
> If the reasoning is that it's "repulsive", and you do it regardless of
the
> impact on animals, then it is nothing about animal rights, it is about
you
> feeling good.
No. It's for most about the death of that particular
animal. It's right in your face and to eat its dead
body is repulsive both aesthetically and from an
animal awareness point of view. When it's right
in your face, mealwise, it's just impossible to eat.
It's not an appropriate food to consider into one's
diet, no matter how low in cds it claims to be.
Plus of course there's the id.
> > There's health and other reasons
> > people go vegetarian. Going vegan reduces
> > animal deaths a great deal so it's a good choice
> > if ones goal is that.
>
> Except as I just explained, it doesn't necessarily do that..
And I explained that it does.
> > I don't want to compare the best of meats to the
> > worst of veggies. I wouldn't want to compare the
> > best of veggies to the worst of meats either.
>
> You don't want to compare them because you don't like the conclusion.
> There's no other reason to not compare them.
Then why don't you want to compare some produce
from a friends small organic farm to commercial
factory farmed intensively grown meat? Do you
see what I'm getting at here?
usual suspect
<...>
>>If the reasoning is that it's "repulsive", and you do it regardless of
>>the impact on animals, then it is nothing about animal rights, it is about
>>you feeling good.
>
> No.
Yes, Mr Dutch is correct.
> It's for most about the death of that particular
> animal.
Why that one and not all the particular animals that die in the course
of producing, storing, processing, and transporting your food?
> It's right in your face
Unlike all the ones from your diet which you want to turn a blind eye,
right?
> and to eat its dead body is repulsive
Subjective. Not everyone finds meat repulsive. Many people find
cruciferous veggies repulsive. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be eaten.
> both aesthetically and from an
> animal awareness point of view.
Those are the same thing, not separate issues.
> When it's right
> in your face, mealwise, it's just impossible to eat.
But it's not when the dead animals are littered across rice fields in
California, wheat fields in Alberta and North Dakota, soy fields across
the US, or behind Yves' factory in Vancouver?
> It's not an appropriate food to consider into one's
> diet, no matter how low in cds it claims to be.
That begs the question, Why is it appropriate for you to have
mechanically-harvested and processed foods which are high in animal
deaths in your own diet if killing animals is wrong?
> Plus of course there's the id.
How many CDs are worth one ID to you?
>>>There's health and other reasons
>>>people go vegetarian. Going vegan reduces
>>>animal deaths a great deal so it's a good choice
>>>if ones goal is that.
>>
>>Except as I just explained, it doesn't necessarily do that..
>
> And I explained that it does.
No, you didn't.
>>>I don't want to compare the best of meats to the
>>>worst of veggies. I wouldn't want to compare the
>>>best of veggies to the worst of meats either.
>>
>>You don't want to compare them because you don't like the conclusion.
>>There's no other reason to not compare them.
>
> Then why don't you want to compare some produce
> from a friends small organic farm to commercial
> factory farmed intensively grown meat? Do you
> see what I'm getting at here?
Yes, you only want to compare apples to oranges. As usual.
usual suspect
>>You were asked to name one game species in North America at risk of
>>extinction. You didn't. Try again.
>
> I did better than that.
No, you didn't. You evaded the issue. For the third time, name one game
usual suspect
<...>
> Anyways, no matter how politically correct your meat
> is (oxymoron, I know), there's still the intentional
> death involved.
Still objecting only to the 1001st death. You have no moral issue with
the first 1000. You just go into a frenzy about *one* that gets eaten by
humans rather than the sliced and diced by a combine or poisoned from
pesticides (including organic ones). You're a hypocritical poseur.
Scented Nectar
You're still trying to convince vegetarians to eat meat.
Try convincing them instead to eat certain produce.
You sound very concerned about cds, so why don't
you research all the vegan foods and rate them
according to cds. Then you'd have a valid argument.
Scented Nectar
>
>
> Understand this: no one among omnivores cares what you eat. We only
> care about your shabby ethics for deciding what to eat.
Hello, Jon/Jay/Rudy. Welcome back. Do you always
wait a while between changing names?
If you don't care about what we eat, then you should
care even less about our reasons. The real reason
you're here is to cause shit and insult and stuff.
Scented Nectar
based
> on what you *don't* eat.
You're mistaking contentment and happiness with
smugness and sanctimoniousness.
> Why do you not object to the 1000 deaths?
Who said it's 1000 deaths? How many deaths
does an avocado farm cause? How about
almonds? How about wild rice? Let's get
particular. You espouse the belief that there
are a huge amount of cds everywhere. Let's
keep things on topic and veggie. Let's hear
from you, you expert on cds on every veg food
there is, since that's what vegetarians eat.
usual suspect
>>>Anyways, no matter how politically correct your meat
>>>is (oxymoron, I know), there's still the intentional
>>>death involved.
>>
>>Still objecting only to the 1001st death. You have no moral issue with
>>the first 1000. You just go into a frenzy about *one* that gets eaten
>>by humans rather than the sliced and diced by a combine or poisoned from
>>pesticides (including organic ones). You're a hypocritical poseur.
>
> You're still trying to convince vegetarians to eat meat.
Quite the contrary. You're the one making categorical statements against
meat-eating. You're also the one who makes a very specific claim with
respect to your diet and its effects on animal welfare. You've shown
through (a) your stupid arguments against ANYONE eating meat, (b) your
own consumption, and (c) your *reckless indifference towards the
results* of your own diet and any other that you don't really care about
animals. You're a poseur. You prefer an entirely meaningless gesture to
actually living out your convictions. That's because you only care about
your shallow and pompous brand of self-righteousness, which you think
stems from merely abstaining from meat. You're a rank hypocrite and a
sanctimonious twit because you're too accepting of 1000 animal deaths
but so fast to object to the 1001st if it's eaten.
> Try convincing them instead to eat certain produce.
That hasn't worked when *anyone's* tried it with you. You still consume
crops, including soy and rice, which are mechanically harvested and
which kill many more animals than you'll ever eat.
usual suspect
>>>You're still trying to convince vegetarians to eat meat.
>>
>>No - only demonstrating to them that their moral pose is bogus.
>>
>>Understand this: no one among omnivores cares what you eat. We only
>>care about your shabby ethics for deciding what to eat.
>
> care even less about our reasons.
That doesn't follow.
> The real reason
> you're here is to cause shit and insult and stuff.
Why do you object only to the 1001st death -- the animal that gets eaten
-- but remain unconcerned about the first 1000? What kind of compassion
is that, Skanky?
Scented Nectar
> >
> > Who said it's 1000 deaths?
>
Who said it's 1000 deaths? How many deaths
does an avocado farm cause? How about
almonds? How about wild rice? Let's get
particular. You espouse the belief that there
are a huge amount of cds everywhere. Let's
keep things on topic and veggie. Let's hear
from you, you expert on cds on every veg food
there is, since that's what vegetarians eat.
> The point - the point with which you cannot deal - is that there is
> some large and unknown number of deaths caused by the production of
the
> food you eat, and you do not object to them. You merely object to the
> death of an animal that someone DOES eat. But the animals chopped to
> bits and left in fields are just as dead as the ones people eat.
There
> is no moral difference in their deaths, but you act as if there is
one.
It's known that the meat industry causes more deaths. A lot
more. That alone validates eating a vegan diet. It's
impossible currently to eliminate all cds but to lessen
them by being vegan is a good thing.
> Clearly - and undeniably - the EATING of the animal cannot be the
> immoral thing. It HAS to be the killing. And yet, you do not object
> to some number - 1,000, or 10,000, or 10,000,000 - of animal deaths
> caused by the production of vegetables and fruits.
I doubt the numbers you spout. I don't think the cds in food and
fodder growing are as high as you say.. All I know for sure is
that the meat industry uses way more crops, so there are way
more cds.
> You're a hypocrite. Incoherent, too. You can't explain your moral
> position.
It's not that I can't explain it. It's that you won't let me. You have
told me that my moral position is an absolute that I must follow
because you say so. When you were writing under the name Jay.
Do you remember things from reincarnation to reincarnation?
You refused to accept that I'm content with what I do re animals,
health, dietary choice, etc. and you tell me they're all morally
wrong and that I must follow your moral of an absolute.
Dutch
"Scented Nectar" <m...@scentednectar.com> wrote in message
news:9ridnVO2VY5...@rogers.com...
>> > > > Why would you compare the worst of the produce to the
>> > > > 'best' of the meats?
>> > >
>> > > Why not? It is a choice consumers face.
>> >
>> > No it's not
>>
>> Of course it is. If I still lived in the northern rural community I
> lived in
>> years ago, that is exactly the kind of choice I had to make. The only
>> non-commercial, non-imported food available was locally raised
> animals, and
>> some deer and moose meat.
>
> You were in a fringe community when compared to most
> people.
Rural communities are not "fringe communities", vegans fit that description
better.
>> > I personally think it's best to reduce what deaths
>> > you reasonably can, and to do it while following
>> > the 'formula' of eliminating animal products. The
>> > intentional death involved in meat makes eating
>> > meat a very repusive choice. Even if a fringe
>> > meat has a total of less deaths than a 'worst of
>> > the produce' food, the intentional death is very
>> > in your face (pun intended) when you eat meat.
>> > The act of eating dead body parts is too
>> > repulsive to do. Some people become vegetarian
>> > for no other reason in fact. It's not always about
>> > animal rights.
>>
>> If the reasoning is that it's "repulsive", and you do it regardless of
> the
>> impact on animals, then it is nothing about animal rights, it is about
> you
>> feeling good.
>
> No. It's for most about the death of that particular
> animal. It's right in your face and to eat its dead
> body is repulsive both aesthetically and from an
> animal awareness point of view. When it's right
> in your face, mealwise, it's just impossible to eat.
Those are all concerns about *your comfort*, not moral issues.
> It's not an appropriate food to consider into one's
> diet, no matter how low in cds it claims to be.
Not appropriate for you even if it causes less animal suffering, thanks for
that.
> Plus of course there's the id.
Beg your pardon?
>> > There's health and other reasons
>> > people go vegetarian. Going vegan reduces
>> > animal deaths a great deal so it's a good choice
>> > if ones goal is that.
>>
>> Except as I just explained, it doesn't necessarily do that..
>
> And I explained that it does.
Always?
>> > I don't want to compare the best of meats to the
>> > worst of veggies. I wouldn't want to compare the
>> > best of veggies to the worst of meats either.
>>
>> You don't want to compare them because you don't like the conclusion.
>> There's no other reason to not compare them.
>
> Then why don't you want to compare some produce
> from a friends small organic farm to commercial
> factory farmed intensively grown meat?
Of course I am willing to compare those, the vegetables win hands down. The
difference between you and I is that I am trying to get to the truth, where
you are trying to defend a flawed idea.
> Do you
> see what I'm getting at here?
Yes I do, exactly. You are unwilling to make a comparison of foods unless
the comparsion results in the foods you prefer to eat winning out.
Specifically, you can't bring yourself to acknowledge that any diet
containing MEAT wins out over some vegan diets. You are afraid of what the
truth might do to you. You don't need to be, it won't hurt you.
Scented Nectar
with
> >>the first 1000. You just go into a frenzy about *one* that gets
eaten
> >>by humans rather than the sliced and diced by a combine or poisoned
from
> >>pesticides (including organic ones). You're a hypocritical poseur.
I'm not convinced about the 1000 deaths. Which crop and
what size field is this 'data' concerning?
If you're such an expert on cds, please list, with
references all the plant-based foods and how
many cds are caused by a pound of each.
Whatever the results, we only know for a fact
that the meat industry uses way more crops
than vegan foods, so logic would have it that
the vegan foods have a lesser amount of cds,
since cds happen in crop production.
usual suspect
>>And about your even shabbier smug, sanctimonious view of yourself
>>based on what you *don't* eat.
>
> You're mistaking contentment and happiness with
> smugness and sanctimoniousness.
No, he isn't. He's spot on.
>>Why do you not object to the 1000 deaths?
>
> Who said it's 1000 deaths?
It's a metaphor which demonstrates your callous disregard for animal
casualties from agriculture SO LONG as they don't end up as food for
human beings. Your consumption shows you have no regard for the
metaphorical "first thousand" animal deaths, and your arguments against
the sole "intentional death" of a deer, moose, or steer demonstrate that
you object only to the 1001st metaphorical death -- that is, the one
which is consumed by humans.
You've taken the sleaziest, most slothful road you can on this issue,
Skanky. You make categorical claims about food and ascribe to yourself
some kind of virtue while your own consumption continues to recklessly
kill animals. You're entirely disinterested in the *actual results* of
your diet. Those *actual results*, which should be your primary interest
if you REALLY cared about animal suffering, show that your diet doesn't
do what you say. Instead, you continue to prattle about "veganic"
agriculture and other pipedreams that are the antithesis of how you
currently consume. That proves you're every bit as phony as your pose.
Dutch
> Anyways, no matter how politically correct your meat
> is (oxymoron, I know),
I don't see an oxymoron there.
> there's still the intentional
> death involved.
There are plenty of intentional deaths involved in other forms of
agriculture. The only difference is, you don't want the evidence on your
plate because it disturbs your waking dream state.
> It's ridiculous to suggest to a
> group of vegetarians that they should eat meat.
> Why do you do it?
I am not suggesting that vegetarians eat meat, I am suggesting that you open
your eyes to the hypocrisy of the vegan obsession with animal products.
Dutch
>> > Anyways, no matter how politically correct your meat
>> > is (oxymoron, I know), there's still the intentional
>> > death involved.
>>
>> Still objecting only to the 1001st death. You have no moral issue with
>> the first 1000. You just go into a frenzy about *one* that gets eaten
> by
>> humans rather than the sliced and diced by a combine or poisoned from
>> pesticides (including organic ones). You're a hypocritical poseur.
>
> You're still trying to convince vegetarians to eat meat.
Where did he say that?
> Try convincing them instead to eat certain produce.
Good point, why don't you?
> You sound very concerned about cds,
You sound very unconcerned about cds, why is that?
> so why don't
> you research all the vegan foods and rate them
> according to cds. Then you'd have a valid argument.
Why aren't vegans doing that? They are the ones who claim to revere animals.
Dutch
"Scented Nectar" <m...@scentednectar.com> wrote
> You're mistaking contentment and happiness with
> smugness and sanctimoniousness.
No, you are. If you ever experience honest, open, non-judgmental contentment
and happiness you will not mistake it for the feeling you get from looking
down your nose at meat-eaters..
Dutch
> You're a hypocrite. Incoherent, too. You can't explain your moral
> position.
To be fair, there *is* no explanation.
Scented Nectar
> > people.
>
> Rural communities are not "fringe communities", vegans fit that
description
> better.
Numbers wise, they are a fringe.
> > No. It's for most about the death of that particular
> > animal. It's right in your face and to eat its dead
> > body is repulsive both aesthetically and from an
> > animal awareness point of view. When it's right
> > in your face, mealwise, it's just impossible to eat.
>
> Those are all concerns about *your comfort*, not moral issues.
It's both. What do you think causes the repulsion?
It's knowing how wrong it is to be eating dead
bodies. If you want to call that a moral issue or
not is of no concern to me.
> > It's not an appropriate food to consider into one's
> > diet, no matter how low in cds it claims to be.
>
> Not appropriate for you even if it causes less animal suffering,
thanks for
> that.
There's always veganic gardens that can do better than
the best of your meats. I'm lucky enough to get produce
grains, etc near where I live, that I believe have no cds
to them.
Since you're in a vegetarian group, it would be more
appropriate and helpful if you just listed all vegan
foods and their cds per pound, if they exist like you
say in such high numbers.
> > Plus of course there's the id.
>
> Beg your pardon?
You know, the intentional death. The one that
the vegan diet never has.
> >> > There's health and other reasons
> >> > people go vegetarian. Going vegan reduces
> >> > animal deaths a great deal so it's a good choice
> >> > if ones goal is that.
> >>
> >> Except as I just explained, it doesn't necessarily do that..
> >
> > And I explained that it does.
>
> Always?
Well, I can only give you 'as a whole' type
statistics. I'm sure though that you want
to compare a vegan who consumes only
potato chips and is unhealthy to a meat
eater who is relatively healthier. Why not
compare a meateater who only eats plain
burger on white buns and who is unhealthy
to a vegan who is relatively healthier.
rick etter
>> >>>I know that the farmer killed less animals then they
>> >>>would have for the same poundage of pork or
>> >>>poultry, etc.
>> >>
>> >>=====================
>> >>Let's see the proof of your claims, killer. You never have, and
>> >>never will be able to prove your delusions.
>> >
>> > I've already proven this point.
>>
>> No, you never have. You've been asked to repeatedly, but you've only
>> repeated yourself that you've already proven it.
>
> Ok, one more time for the data-impaired.
> To make a pound of meat it takes between
> 3 to 16 times the amount of fodder crops
> than it does to produce a pound of vegan
> food.
======================
No fool, it does not require any crops to produce meat. Now, remember your
lesson on the amount of soy it takes to produce tofu? That is a real ratio
that will always mean you lose the counting game, killer.
Your friend Jay/Jon/NewName even
> posted some proof of that in one of his
> posts. The more crops are involved, the
> more collateral deaths happen.
=======================
Yep, and *YOU* require far more animals to be killed to be vegan.
Especially a vegan wannabe that demands foods imported from around the
world.
Since
> meat production requires more crops,
====================
Again, you are lying. It requires *NO* crops to produce meat, hypocrite.
Why do you feel you have to ly so much? Just to try to assuage your guilt,
or do you think it washes all that blood off your hhands?
> the cds are much much higher. Most
> meat and vegan foods produced are
> commercially grown so that's what I'm
> comparing here.
======================
No, you made definitive statements, as in all meat requires this or that.
You are a proven liar, killer.
rick etter
>> > Anyways, no matter how politically correct your meat
>> > is (oxymoron, I know), there's still the intentional
>> > death involved.
>>
>> Still objecting only to the 1001st death. You have no moral issue with
>> the first 1000. You just go into a frenzy about *one* that gets eaten
> by
>> humans rather than the sliced and diced by a combine or poisoned from
>> pesticides (including organic ones). You're a hypocritical poseur.
>
> You're still trying to convince vegetarians to eat meat.
> Try convincing them instead to eat certain produce.
ROTFLMAO What a hoot! No one has ever told you to eat meat, killer. All
they've done is point out the ly in your claims that vegans is always
better.
As to the other produce, I've told you that several times, fool, and as you
usually do, you ignored it because you are too selfish to give up veggies
that you now know causes more death and suffering than other veggies. But
as the hypocrite you are, you've determined that you will continue to eat
them anyway, becusea you come first, and the animals mean nothing. Thanks
for once again proving your ignorance and dishonesty, killer.
> You sound very concerned about cds,
==================
Why are you so unconcerned about them, killer? Afterall, it's you that
claims to care, yet every post you make proves otherwise, hypocrite.
so why don't
> you research all the vegan foods and rate them
> according to cds. Then you'd have a valid argument.
=====================
LOL We've already pointed out several items for you, fool. You blithly
said you would continue to eat them anyway. So, again, thanks for proving
that animals are of no real concern to you.
Scented Nectar
>
> Where did he say that?
Aren't you reading these threads?
> > so why don't
> > you research all the vegan foods and rate them
> > according to cds. Then you'd have a valid argument.
>
> Why aren't vegans doing that? They are the ones who claim to revere
animals.
You're the selfprofessed experts on cds. Now
lets have numbers. Do a list of all vegan
foods and how many cds they cause per
pound. Then you'll finally have something
that's worth debating over. Will people
increase the lower cd foods in their lives
or not?
Don't bother with meats on this list. These
newsgroups are mostly vegetarian.
Scented Nectar
> > smugness and sanctimoniousness.
>
> No, you are. If you ever experience honest, open, non-judgmental
contentment
> and happiness you will not mistake it for the feeling you get from
looking
> down your nose at meat-eaters..
You are paranoid. I've barely been rude and not
condescending even when faced with all your hostility.
Scented Nectar
> > > > animal. It's right in your face and to eat its dead
> > > > body is repulsive both aesthetically and from an
> > > > animal awareness point of view. When it's right
> > > > in your face, mealwise, it's just impossible to eat.
> > >
> > > Those are all concerns about *your comfort*, not moral issues.
> >
> > It's both.
>
Then stop attaching an absolute morality to it.
When are you going to learn?
> > If you want to call that a moral issue or
> > not is of no concern to me.
>
> Bullshit.
It's you that's so hung up on there having to be
a moral issue attached to veganism. There's
your absolute rules you used to say all the time.
> > > >> > There's health and other reasons
> > > >> > people go vegetarian. Going vegan reduces
> > > >> > animal deaths a great deal
>
> Not enough. If you believe killing animals is wrong, you must stop
> causing ANY animals to die. Being "vegan" doesn't do that.
Oh, there you go telling me I doing veganism wrong again. And
there's your absolute moral rule which doesn't accept people
who realistically just do the best they can. Ron and Dutch
had quite an interesting conversation about absolute
morals. Maybe you missed it. You were gone a while.
Scented Nectar
was knocked up with you? You've got
an explosive hostility problem that you
should get help for.
pearl
> peril wrote:
> >>>>>I see you're still insane Usual.
> >>>
> >>>Mad as a hatter!
> >>
> >>Pretty rich coming from someone who believes in or promotes:
>
> Restore
proven fraudulent 'list'!
rick etter
> Rick, did your mom drink a lot when she
> was knocked up with you? You've got
> an explosive hostility problem that you
> should get help for.
Ah yes, the old dishonest snip and run. Thanks for proving yet again that
you have nothing but ignorance, delsuions, and religious dogma, killer....
Ron
"rick etter" <st...@stop.net> wrote:
> "Scented Nectar" <m...@scentednectar.com> wrote in message
> news:pbWdnTO5ruM...@rogers.com...
> > Rick, did your mom drink a lot when she
> > was knocked up with you? You've got
> > an explosive hostility problem that you
> > should get help for.
> > ======================
> Ah yes, the old dishonest snip and run. Thanks for proving yet again that
> you have nothing but ignorance, delsuions, and religious dogma, killer....
Snip and run is dishonest. I must remember this.
pearl
.. known to be fraudulent list.
"A favored technique is to debilitate your identity [personally,
I hate the term self-esteem] by levelling false accusations and/or
questioning your honesty, fidelity, trustworthiness, your "true"
motivations, your "real" character, your sanity and judgement."
..
When we consider his actual performance, evidence of
mental competency is sorely lacking. We find instead a
spectacle that suggests madness in excelsis, ..
...
http://www.cassiopaea.com/cassiopaea/cleckley-mos.htm