Depression and veganism
tofubar
they take vitamins, seem more moody and depressed. Has anyone else
noticed this?
Laurie
"tofubar" <tof...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:690c4878.03103...@posting.google.com...
> I've noticed that my friends who have gone exclusively vegan, even if
> they take vitamins, seem more moody and depressed. Has anyone else
> noticed this?
http://www.ecologos.org/anxiety.htm
Laurie
Jonathan Ball
You are getting the causation arrow backward. They are
not depressed because they've "gone 'vegan'". They
went "vegan" because they're depressed, mentally ill
people.
Ray
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:dskob.9261$RQ1....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
What a stupid response you pathetic little pixie :)
You are compressed not depressed.
>
LordSnooty
actually J Ball) Jonathan No Testicles in sockpuppet mode wrote a
troll post:
>I've noticed that my friends who have gone exclusively vegan, even if
>they take vitamins, seem more moody and depressed. Has anyone else
>noticed this?
Wrong Jonathan. You abuse people and animals, you eat meat and are
proud of it, you are 7st impotent dwarf. YOU are thoroughly depressed
24/7.
Now what does that tell us about a meat diet?
People become vegan because they are happy to become vegan, happy to
help animals, happy to care. What is there to be depressed about?
We see you making an ass of yourself, with your simple sock puppets
and solitary friends in dick eater and crutch, we actually laugh AT
you, so depression? I don't think so.
'You can't win 'em all.'
Lord Haw Haw.
Since I stopped donating money to CONservation hooligan charities
Like the RSPB, Woodland Trust and all the other fat cat charities
I am in the top 0.801% richest people in the world.
There are 5,951,930,035 people poorer than me
If you're really interested I am the 48,069,965
richest person in the world.
And I'm keeping the bloody lot.
So sue me.
Derek
"Laurie" <lau...@the-bitch.net> wrote in message news:vq3km0k...@corp.supernews.com...
"The short-term effects of fasting on the neuroendocrine
system in patients with chronic pain syndromes.", and
then goes on to explain why in a language I simply don't
understand. Does it translate to fasting being beneficial for
overweight people suffering chronic pain? David Blain lost
4 stone in 44 days during his fast; something I could do with,
but would such a fast, even for only a week, diminish chronic
pain in your opinion?
Bill Jay
NOW LEAVE ME ALONE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:-)
tofubar
because seriously everyone I've known who's gone vegan has gotten
really fucking depressed.
Joseph M Battaglia
I believe this depression to be completely unrelated to any vitamin or
other deficiency a person may have (which are still much less common in vegans
than in meat-eaters). It stems from the fact that vegans are generally much more
aware of the cruelty to animals (and people) than others. Every time we have to
check ingredients or find the source of one, we are reminded of what takes place
at factory farms and slaughterhouses. Every time we see leather, fur, or other
animal-derived materials, we are reminded of how the animals had to suffer
before they were brutally slaughtered. "Average" people don't associate these
products with suffering. These reminders constantly make us aware of the state
of this world and the way we treat the creatures on it, which may result in
depression depending on how the individual can handle this awareness.
rick etter
news:slrnbqb6vi....@mango.cc.columbia.edu...
> In article <690c4878.03103...@posting.google.com>, tofubar
wrote:
> > I've noticed that my friends who have gone exclusively vegan, even if
> > they take vitamins, seem more moody and depressed. Has anyone else
> > noticed this?
>
> I believe this depression to be completely unrelated to any vitamin or
> other deficiency a person may have (which are still much less common in
vegans
> than in meat-eaters).
Af act you didn't back up, eh?
It stems from the fact that vegans are generally much more
> aware of the cruelty to animals (and people) than others. Every time we
have to
> check ingredients or find the source of one, we are reminded of what takes
place
> at factory farms and slaughterhouses.
=======================
yet you sanctimoniuosly ignore the death and suffering that brought that
product to your plate. Why is that?
You are perfectly capable of causing less death and suffering than you do
now by substituting some of your
veggies with the right meats. But, for vegans that's agains't their simple
rule. Simple rules for simple minds.
Every time we see leather, fur, or other
> animal-derived materials, we are reminded of how the animals had to suffer
> before they were brutally slaughtered.
=======================
Whenevr I see cotton or pretro-chemical industry based synthetics I think of
all the animals that are far more cruelly
killed that those in the slaughterhouses. Guess you conveninetly ignore
those deaths, eh? Why is it that all you think
you have to do is not eat, wear, or touch animal parts and you believe that
no animals ever died?
Even posting your ignorance on usenet around the world for all to see is not
cruelty free. So, the fact remains,
you are not concerned with the death and suffering of animals, just what it
takes to make you
feel better about yourself, and superior to others.
"Average" people don't associate these
> products with suffering.
====================
Nor should they. It's the same as you never associating animal death and
suffering with your choices.
death and suffering which, again, is far more horrible and inhumane than the
deaths of animals in
slaughterhouses.
These reminders constantly make us aware of the state
> of this world and the way we treat the creatures on it, which may result
in
> depression depending on how the individual can handle this awareness.
____----------------------
The only possibility then is that your toatl ignorance of facts keeps you
unaware of your bloody footprints
as your traipse around feeling so smug about your idiocy.
drdoody
> I've noticed that my friends who have gone exclusively vegan, even if
> they take vitamins, seem more moody and depressed. Has anyone else
> noticed this?
I think it comes from the standard vegan/ARA personality type rather
than from their diet. In case you haven't noticed, they don't tend to
be the most stable of people.
Doc
nemo
> they take vitamins, seem more moody and depressed. Has anyone else
> noticed this?
Far more people suffer depression as a result of the Organophosphate
pesticide that almost all non-organic vegetables are saturated with.
And the farmers and the Government still pretend the stuff is harmless and
dream up ridiculous stories to cover up poisoning by the stuff.
Nemo
nemo
Derek <dere...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:bnt9n5$15n4t5$1...@ID-190488.news.uni-berlin.de...
nemo
Jonathan Ball <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:dskob.9261$RQ1....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
disease, diverticular disease, obesity etc. are sane???
Pull the other one. It plays Lettuce with a gladsome mind . .
piddock
> they take vitamins, seem more moody and depressed. Has anyone else
> noticed this?
No. Vegans and vegetarians are happier than meat-eaters.
Whenever vegans do feel sad, it is because of anti-vegetarians
who favor greater government control to force vegans and animals
to cater to their selfish lifestyle.
usual suspect
> And meat eaters who risk about 30 different parasites, cancer, heart
> disease, diverticular disease, obesity etc. are sane???
Consumers of organic produce are also at risk of parasitic infection, e
coli infection, etc. Nature's a real bitch, huh.
rick etter
"piddock" <pid...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:c93ec7ed.03110...@posting.google.com...
ROTFLMAO What a hoot! this is the laugh of the day, killer.
The only people here advocating making others do what they do are the
vegans, you ignorant loon!
No where has any of us told you what you have to eat. vegans do that all
the time, and would make
it the governments fuction to ensure that diet given the chance. You truly
are insane, hypocrite.
piddock
> ROTFLMAO What a hoot!
ROTFLMAO!! What a fucking liar, you are!
I can hardly wait until you get your first heart attack.
I will jump for joy when you suffer and drop dead!
It will be hilarious for the medical staff to laugh at you
and tell you that they don't have to be told by YOU what to do.
You anti-vegetarians force meat on your kids. You force it on people
in public schools and universities and government. Your advertising
is forced in our face everywhere.
And you force YOUR beliefs and YOUR behaviors on animals
by forcing THEM to do what you want -- suffer and die in
a cage -- for your trivial little lust for burgers.
Throwing you in prison for the rest of your life,
or leaving you to die if you get a heart attack or stroke,
is the ONLY way to get your type to get this point through your
heads.
rick etter
> > ROTFLMAO What a hoot!
>
> ROTFLMAO!! What a fucking liar, you are!
> I can hardly wait until you get your first heart attack.
==============================
Ah, feel the AR/vegan compassion. You really are a laugh a minute, killer.
> It will be hilarious for the medical staff to laugh at you
> and tell you that they don't have to be told by YOU what to do.
> ====================
If what a said is such a ly, why did you feel you had to snip it out,
without annotation, and without responding to it? you really are too stupid
to be in the discussion, aren't you? you can't even discuss what you really
think, if you do at all, what with the brain damage you must have.
> You anti-vegetarians force meat on your kids. You force it on people
> in public schools and universities and government. Your advertising
> is forced in our face everywhere.
==================
If it's 'forced' on everybody so badly, why aren't you eating it, fool? You
really don't have a clue, do you?
>
> And you force YOUR beliefs and YOUR behaviors on animals
> by forcing THEM to do what you want -- suffer and die in
> a cage -- for your trivial little lust for burgers.
====================
Hey, what a coincedence, you cause more animals to die than I do. what's
that say about your hypocrisy, killer?
>
> Throwing you in prison for the rest of your life,
> or leaving you to die if you get a heart attack or stroke,
> is the ONLY way to get your type to get this point through your
> heads.
=======================
Ah, again, the compassion just flows off the tougnes of AR'vegans, doesn't
it?
usual suspect
> ROTFLMAO!! What a fucking liar, you are!
> I can hardly wait until you get your first heart attack.
Feel the LOVE. Oh, what compassion.
> I will jump for joy when you suffer and drop dead!
Yes, you enjoy misfortune of humans while pretending to be compassionate
for animals. I don't expect the light to go on in your head about what's
wrong with that picture because you're mentally ill.
> It will be hilarious for the medical staff to laugh at you
> and tell you that they don't have to be told by YOU what to do.
Fortunately, medical professionals tend to be a lot more compassionate
than AR/vegan activists.
> You anti-vegetarians force meat on your kids.
Offer a kid the choice between meat and broccoli and he's more likely to
take the meat.
> You force it on people
> in public schools and universities and government.
Nobody forces anyone to eat certain kinds of food. Most institutions
offer choices, and many even cater to individuals with specific
religious, cultural, or medical needs. ARAs/vegans are the only group
attempting to force anything on anyone. Meat sells because that's what
people want to eat.
> Your advertising is forced in our face everywhere.
Just shut off your fucking television if it bothers you so much, asshole.
> And you force YOUR beliefs and YOUR behaviors on animals
> by forcing THEM to do what you want -- suffer and die in
> a cage -- for your trivial little lust for burgers.
Tastes aren't trivial. Most of them are formed over many, many years of
evolution.
> Throwing you in prison for the rest of your life,
Treat them the way you *think* they treat animals? Two wrongs make it
right, huh.
> or leaving you to die if you get a heart attack or stroke,
Feel the love...
> is the ONLY way to get your type to get this point through your
> heads.
Why can't you just learn to be tolerant of others, pencil dick?
LordSnooty
>yet another "vegan" misanthrope wrote:
>> ROTFLMAO!! What a fucking liar, you are!
>> I can hardly wait until you get your first heart attack.
>
>Feel the LOVE. Oh, what compassion.
Why should anyone have compassion for you? you don't even love
yourself.
>> I will jump for joy when you suffer and drop dead!
>
>Yes, you enjoy misfortune of humans while pretending to be compassionate
>for animals. I don't expect the light to go on in your head about what's
>wrong with that picture because you're mentally ill.
Typical abuser, doesn't mind abusing defenseless people and creatures,
but when he gets abused he cries like a baby, how sick is that jon?
>> It will be hilarious for the medical staff to laugh at you
>> and tell you that they don't have to be told by YOU what to do.
>
>Fortunately, medical professionals tend to be a lot more compassionate
>than AR/vegan activists.
Very lucky for you then, you obese, pygmy, lard arse dwarf. Personally
I'd let you die slowly in your own juices, scum like you don't deserve
anything else.
>> You anti-vegetarians force meat on your kids.
>
>Offer a kid the choice between meat and broccoli and he's more likely to
>take the meat.
>
>> You force it on people
>> in public schools and universities and government.
>
>Nobody forces anyone to eat certain kinds of food. Most institutions
>offer choices, and many even cater to individuals with specific
>religious, cultural, or medical needs. ARAs/vegans are the only group
>attempting to force anything on anyone. Meat sells because that's what
>people want to eat.
>
>> Your advertising is forced in our face everywhere.
>
>Just shut off your fucking television if it bothers you so much, asshole.
>
>> And you force YOUR beliefs and YOUR behaviors on animals
>> by forcing THEM to do what you want -- suffer and die in
>> a cage -- for your trivial little lust for burgers.
>
>Tastes aren't trivial. Most of them are formed over many, many years of
>evolution.
>
>> Throwing you in prison for the rest of your life,
>
>Treat them the way you *think* they treat animals? Two wrongs make it
>right, huh.
Oh yes they do, in your case.
>> or leaving you to die if you get a heart attack or stroke,
>
>Feel the love...
Getting worried fatty?
They say it's a horrible, slow death.
>> is the ONLY way to get your type to get this point through your
>> heads.
>
>Why can't you just learn to be tolerant of others, pencil dick?
Because your intolerance of animals and others cannot be allowed to
continue, pervert. next you'll be asking us if it's OK to fiddle with
your children, well it's not fatso.
**********************************************
'You can't win 'em all.'
Lord Haw Haw.
Since I stopped donating money to CONservation hooligan charities
Like the RSPB, Woodland Trust and all the other fat cat charities
I am in the top 0.801% richest people in the world.
There are 5,951,930,035 people poorer than me
If you're really interested I am the 48,069,965
richest person in the world.
And I'm keeping the bloody lot.
So sue me.
http://www.globalrichlist.com/
Newsgroup ettiquette
1) Tell everyone the Trolls don't bother you.
2) Say you've killfiled them, yet continue to respond.
3) Tell other people off who repsond despite doing so yourself.
4) Continually talk about Trolls while maintaining
they're having no effect.
5) Publicly post killfile rules so the Trolls know
how to avoid them.
6) Make lame legal threats and other barrel scraping
manoeuvres when your abuse reports are ignored.
7) Eat vast quantities of pies.
8) Forget to brush your teeth for several decades.
9) Help a demon.local poster with their email while
secretly reading it.
10) Pretend you're a hard bastard when in fact you're
as bent as a roundabout.
11) Become the laughing stock of Usenet like Mabbet
12) Die of old age
13) Keep paying Dr Chartham his fees and hope one day you
will have a penis the girls can see.
---------------------------------------
"If you would'nt talk to them in a bar, don't *uckin' vote for them"
"Australia was not *discovered* it was invaded"
The Big Yin.
Rubystars
> "rick etter" <rette...@bright.net> wrote in message news:<clWpb.1601
> > ROTFLMAO What a hoot!
>
> ROTFLMAO!! What a fucking liar, you are!
> I can hardly wait until you get your first heart attack.
> I will jump for joy when you suffer and drop dead!
That's not very compassionate. What's the point in having a respect
for life (all life) if you tell someone that you wish they would drop
dead from a heart attack?
I may get flamed for saying this, but isn't a human life of more value
than a cow's? It is in my opinion. Why would you be happy if Rick died
but sad when a cow died?
I've been reading/posting to this group on and off and I know Rick
posts things that make people angry and seems to stir people up, but
you shouldn't let him get under your skin. He just has a different
opinion than other people here, even if he is deliberately trying to
get reactions.
He's correct that animals die from all kinds of food production. Even
when I went to go pick wild dewberries with my dad in the field, we
had to wash all the caterpillars and other bugs off of them when we
got home. A few berries were discarded because I saw caterpillars
crawl out of them. I may have even eaten some of them without knowing
it, though I think most of the berries were clean (I broke many of
them in half to make sure *L*).
A lot of the produce we buy at the store is also contaminated with
insects that we may unknowingly eat. And yeah, sometimes rats and mice
get chopped up during harvesting and processing of grains.
I don't think it's as big of a deal as Rick makes it out to be (I
mean, we are talking pests, mostly, and compassionate to animals or
not, pests need to be dealt with or they will ruin our food and spread
disease). Personally I feel that vegetable production is at least less
directly harmful to animals, not that it doesn't directly harm them,
but that the intent isn't to harm animals (just a thought). Also we
all need to eat plants to live and we don't all need to eat meat to
live. So it's not like we can stop supporting the vegetable farmers
altogether, and they do an important job, not only feeding us but also
people in third world countries.
Also a lot of food is grown for animal feed and I'm sure that a
certain amount of insects/rats/mice get killed in that process so I
don't see how choosing to eat meat reduces cruelty, especially when
the direct source of the food is an animal's death. Even "organic" or
"free range" meat producers need suitable fields for grazing.
It is wrong however to say that your lifestyle is free from animal
use/exploitation. We all rely on animals to one degree or another.
Vegans IMO probably harm animals the least, despite Ritter's points
having some truth to them.
> It will be hilarious for the medical staff to laugh at you
> and tell you that they don't have to be told by YOU what to do.
>
Why would it be hilarious for the medical staff to laugh at him? I
doubt they'd be laughing at him anyway. They'd be treating their
patient. Also they would have to do what he told them to do, as a
patient has a right to refuse any treatment they want.
> You anti-vegetarians force meat on your kids. You force it on people
> in public schools and universities and government. Your advertising
> is forced in our face everywhere.
>
Meat eating is the way that humans have lived since before we were
humans. I don't really see that as "forcing" it on the kids. I'm sure
a lot of parents who tell their kids to eat their meat even if they
don't want to just want their kids to be nourished and are concerned
for them. It's a parent's job to help their child grow up to be as
strong and healthy as possible, and most people grew up learning that
2-3 servings of meat daily was a dietary need.
It's hard to un-program that, especially when you get the occasional
news story of "Vegan" or "Vegetarian" parents who deprived their
children of the proper nutrition because of an overly restrictive
diet, and ended up with a death or severe sickness as a result.
Now most of us in this group realize that a vegetarian, or even a
vegan diet, can be nourishing and healthy, if done correctly. That's
all well and good, but we can't expect everyone in the world to
understand that. You can only control what you eat, and what you
decide to do.
Public schools and universities don't grab people and shove meat down
their throats by force. There is such a thing as a bagged lunch. In a
university, you can just go off campus and head to a veg. restaurant
if you want for lunch. Most people want to eat meat and therefore meat
is provided there. If meat wasn't provided, then people would have to
go off campus for lunch or bring a bagged lunch, because most people
don't want to go vegetarian. That would be catering to the minority at
the expense of the majority if meat wasn't available. Now if there's
ever a time when meat eating is in the minority, then there may be a
better case for not having it available.
Advertising shouldn't bother you as much as it does! Most people enjoy
going to restaurants and eating "Kentucky fried chicken." or a
flame-grilled "Whataburger" or a cheesy "Domino's pizza." Therefore
there will continue to be commercials promoting these foods as long as
there is a strong market for them. If the commercials bother you so
much, does that mean they're tempting you? Change the channel for a
second or turn off the tv, if you don't want to be tempted to eat
those things. If those foods hold no appeal for you, then I don't see
how they can be any more annoying than the "1-800-Collect" commercials
that are starting to get very overplayed.
> And you force YOUR beliefs and YOUR behaviors on animals
> by forcing THEM to do what you want -- suffer and die in
> a cage -- for your trivial little lust for burgers.
We all use animals to one degree or another. I don't think it makes
someone a terrible person if they want to eat meat. They're just like
most people around the world, and through history. They've grown up
with it, acquired a strong taste for it, etc. And to be honest most of
the animals don't suffer as much as PETA would have you believe anyway
(I do acknowledge that they suffer). Even "Factory farms" have the
animals grazing in open fields for most of their lives until they get
to the finishing lots. Now I fully understand not wanting to support
the slaughter of animals for meat but the only one you can control is
you.
> Throwing you in prison for the rest of your life,
> or leaving you to die if you get a heart attack or stroke,
> is the ONLY way to get your type to get this point through your
> heads.
That makes you sound like a fanatic. Vegans and even vegetarians have
a bad reputation for being fanatical, for hating humans and loving
animals more than humans. Wouldn't it be much better to ignore him, or
to be kind to him, rather than to seem so vicious?
-Rubystars
Jonathan Ball
> pid...@comcast.net (piddock) wrote in message news:<c93ec7ed.03110...@posting.google.com>...
>
>>"rick etter" <rette...@bright.net> wrote in message news:<clWpb.1601
>>
>>>ROTFLMAO What a hoot!
>>
>>ROTFLMAO!! What a fucking liar, you are!
>>I can hardly wait until you get your first heart attack.
>>I will jump for joy when you suffer and drop dead!
>
>
> That's not very compassionate. What's the point in having a respect
> for life (all life) if you tell someone that you wish they would drop
> dead from a heart attack?
He *doesn't* have a respect for all life. "vegans" are
following a spurious hate-based philosophy.
>
> I may get flamed for saying this, but isn't a human life of more value
> than a cow's? It is in my opinion. Why would you be happy if Rick died
> but sad when a cow died?
As a perversely racist and speciesist bigot, he *would*
be happy in that development.
...
>
> Also a lot of food is grown for animal feed and I'm sure that a
> certain amount of insects/rats/mice get killed in that process so I
> don't see how choosing to eat meat reduces cruelty,
It *could* reduce it, depending on the diet followed by
the typical "vegan". Whether or not it does is
irrelevant. "vegans" make an outlandish claim, and the
hypothetical case Rick presents demolishes the claim.
...
rick etter
"Rubystars" <windst...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:669fe9ea.03110...@posting.google.com...
> pid...@comcast.net (piddock) wrote in message
news:<c93ec7ed.03110...@posting.google.com>...
> > "rick etter" <rette...@bright.net> wrote in message news:<clWpb.1601
> > > ROTFLMAO What a hoot!
> >
> > ROTFLMAO!! What a fucking liar, you are!
> > I can hardly wait until you get your first heart attack.
> > I will jump for joy when you suffer and drop dead!
>
> That's not very compassionate. What's the point in having a respect
> for life (all life) if you tell someone that you wish they would drop
> dead from a heart attack?
>
> I may get flamed for saying this, but isn't a human life of more value
> than a cow's? It is in my opinion. Why would you be happy if Rick died
> but sad when a cow died?
>
> I've been reading/posting to this group on and off and I know Rick
> posts things that make people angry and seems to stir people up, but
> you shouldn't let him get under your skin. He just has a different
> opinion than other people here, even if he is deliberately trying to
> get reactions.
Nope. Deliberatly trying to expose vegan ignorance and delusions.
>
> He's correct that animals die from all kinds of food production. Even
> when I went to go pick wild dewberries with my dad in the field, we
> had to wash all the caterpillars and other bugs off of them when we
> got home. A few berries were discarded because I saw caterpillars
> crawl out of them. I may have even eaten some of them without knowing
> it, though I think most of the berries were clean (I broke many of
> them in half to make sure *L*).
>
> A lot of the produce we buy at the store is also contaminated with
> insects that we may unknowingly eat. And yeah, sometimes rats and mice
> get chopped up during harvesting and processing of grains.
==================
Millions and milllions. Plus the ones that are poisoned. Plus the ones
that die for energy production in the petro-chemical industry that supports
your veggies lifestyle.
>
> I don't think it's as big of a deal as Rick makes it out to be (I
> mean, we are talking pests, mostly, and compassionate to animals or
> not, pests need to be dealt with or they will ruin our food and spread
> disease).
===========================
The 'pests' I'm talking about are mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, and
amphibians. Why are small mammals of less imporatance to vegans than cows,
pigs, chickens? Now, if you want to add bugs to the list of animals that
die for food, bring it on. You'll lose that numbers game for sure, hands
down.
Personally I feel that vegetable production is at least less
> directly harmful to animals, not that it doesn't directly harm them,
> but that the intent isn't to harm animals (just a thought).
========================
Doesn't directly harm them? Are you kidding? tell that to the massive
numbers of animals that are deliberatly poisoned just to keep your veggies
clean, cheap, and convenient.
Also we
> all need to eat plants to live and we don't all need to eat meat to
> live.
========================
Yes, you do. Meat has nutrients that you cannot get from veggies, despite
the delusional claims of others.
So, many vegans take supplements. Where do these come from, manna from
heaven? Their production is just another part of the death machine for
vegans.
So it's not like we can stop supporting the vegetable farmers
> altogether, and they do an important job, not only feeding us but also
> people in third world countries.
====================
We're not talking about feeding the world, just the hypocritical vegan
loons. They make the claims that they care. They are the ones that *could*
stop supporting farmers, but like you, most are too lazy and too consumer
oriented to make the changes needed to actually live up to your stated
goals.
>
> Also a lot of food is grown for animal feed and I'm sure that a
> certain amount of insects/rats/mice get killed in that process so I
> don't see how choosing to eat meat reduces cruelty, especially when
> the direct source of the food is an animal's death. Even "organic" or
> "free range" meat producers need suitable fields for grazing.
=====================
And grazing kills what other animals? I suppose you crop fields are just
there by magic?
>
> It is wrong however to say that your lifestyle is free from animal
> use/exploitation. We all rely on animals to one degree or another.
> Vegans IMO probably harm animals the least, despite Ritter's points
> having some truth to them.
=======================
A claim that vegans have neverbeen able to back up with any kind of proof.
I can, however show you where millions and millions of animals die in
particular phases of crop agriculture.
snippage...
>
> > Throwing you in prison for the rest of your life,
> > or leaving you to die if you get a heart attack or stroke,
> > is the ONLY way to get your type to get this point through your
> > heads.
>
> That makes you sound like a fanatic. Vegans and even vegetarians have
> a bad reputation for being fanatical, for hating humans and loving
> animals more than humans. Wouldn't it be much better to ignore him, or
> to be kind to him, rather than to seem so vicious?
======================
He can't. His hatred is all he has. He knows his 'ethics' are a sham. so
he has to hate those that remind him of that fact.
>
> -Rubystars
googlesux
they have) a certain level of compassion, or eat according to their
moral philosophy? That's like assuming anyone who's Christian is
Christian because they want to go to heaven. It's a rather random
assumption. This is a diet-related newsgroup by name. Everything else
is assumption.
Rubystars
> "Rubystars" <windst...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:669fe9ea.03110...@posting.google.com...
> > pid...@comcast.net (piddock) wrote in message
> news:<c93ec7ed.03110...@posting.google.com>...
> > > "rick etter" <rette...@bright.net> wrote in message news:<clWpb.1601
>
I just want to remind you Rick that I'm not a vegan and I'm not even a
vegetarian yet, though I eat a lot less meat than I used to. I think
most of what PETA says is pure BS, but I'm also skeptical of what you
are saying. I don't think anyone has the complete truth. I do think
that it's common sense that if you really have a moral objection to
eating meat you shouldn't do it.
Rats and mice are pests, and there's no shortage of them (quite the
contrary). I don't think they should be tortured, but I don't see how
getting chopped up in a machine (a harvester or a grain processor)
could possibly be worse than the rat poison, coca cola, and flour
mixed with concrete they're subjected to when they invade people's
properties. It's probably a LOT more humane than that.
I think what a lot of vegetarians object to is the fact that animals
are raised for the express purpose of killing them. I don't really
have a problem with that, if the animals are treated humanely in life
and killed with little pain.
However I do think that it's sad that people eat as much meat as they
do. It's really not necessary to eat meat 3 or more times a day, and
it's not healthy either. I may or may not go vegetarian later but I
don't think that I'm going to be increasing animal suffering if I
choose to do that. I really don't.
The reason I replied though is that I was surprised at the fanatical
responses you're getting. I guess I shouldn't be though. I knew if I
thought someone was saying things to get a rise out of me I'd probably
ignore them.
> He can't. His hatred is all he has. He knows his 'ethics' are a sham. so
> he has to hate those that remind him of that fact.
I just think that if he wants to put a postive face on vegetarianism
or veganism that he should treat other people nicely, even those he
isn't fond of. I know that's not always easy and some flaming back and
forth is probably permissible (since this is Usenet) but telling
someone to drop dead from a heart attack goes way too far, IMO. I
mean, we are talking about food here, it's not THAT darn important.
-Rubystars
rick etter
"Rubystars" <windst...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:669fe9ea.03110...@posting.google.com...
> "rick etter" <rette...@bright.net> wrote in message
news:<0p-dnVM0-tt...@bright.net>...
> > "Rubystars" <windst...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:669fe9ea.03110...@posting.google.com...
> > > pid...@comcast.net (piddock) wrote in message
> > news:<c93ec7ed.03110...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > "rick etter" <rette...@bright.net> wrote in message
news:<clWpb.1601
> >
> <snip lots of stuff>
>
> I just want to remind you Rick that I'm not a vegan and I'm not even a
> vegetarian yet, though I eat a lot less meat than I used to. I think
> most of what PETA says is pure BS, but I'm also skeptical of what you
> are saying. I don't think anyone has the complete truth. I do think
> that it's common sense that if you really have a moral objection to
> eating meat you shouldn't do it.
Then don't. Nobody has ever said that anyone here *has* to eat meat. The
reverse cannot be said of vegan loons here though. Just don't try to tell
everyone it's because you're 'saving' animals.
>
> Rats and mice are pests, and there's no shortage of them (quite the
> contrary).
==================
Ther's no shortage of cows or chickens either. Is that the only critiria
you have? Or is it just their size makes them less important as far as
animal death and suffering are concerned?
I don't think they should be tortured, but I don't see how
> getting chopped up in a machine (a harvester or a grain processor)
> could possibly be worse than the rat poison, coca cola, and flour
> mixed with concrete they're subjected to when they invade people's
> properties. It's probably a LOT more humane than that.
======================
Why these comparisons? the one you should be comparing them to are the
animals that die in slaughterhouses.
I'd say that those animals die a more humane death than any of the ones you
mentioned.
>
> I think what a lot of vegetarians object to is the fact that animals
> are raised for the express purpose of killing them. I don't really
> have a problem with that, if the animals are treated humanely in life
> and killed with little pain.
====================
As many are. The problem is your crop fields are just the ticket for fast
population explosions of many animals. You can say they are raised
expressly because of your food production. Increases that would not occur
without your crops providing easy food and cover. then, just when the
populations are at their peak, you take away all the food and cover. What
do you think happens to these animals, that they just mosey over to the
next field that's cut down? They are left without food and cover to die
from starvation and predation. they all can't just go into the surrounding
area because those areas will already be at their carrying capacity.
> However I do think that it's sad that people eat as much meat as they
> do.
======================
Do you really know how much? Or are you just guessing with your delusions
from PeTA and their ilk? Even the typical American diet contains far more
plant material than meats. About 200lbs of meat. about 400lbs of veggies,
200lbs of grains and cerials, and 100lbs of fruit. There is also 500+lbs of
dairy, but that's neither meat nor veggie.
It's really not necessary to eat meat 3 or more times a day, and
> it's not healthy either. I may or may not go vegetarian later but I
> don't think that I'm going to be increasing animal suffering if I
> choose to do that. I really don't.
====================
But you refuse to even consider that as a possibility, nor will you even try
to check it out, will you? Why? Afraid of what you'll discover?
That's also part of the point. Vegans won't even try to determine which of
their own foods cause less or more animals death and suffering. They just
assume that it's all nice and cruelty free.
>
> The reason I replied though is that I was surprised at the fanatical
> responses you're getting. I guess I shouldn't be though. I knew if I
> thought someone was saying things to get a rise out of me I'd probably
> ignore them.
========================
Nope. I'm not replying to get a 'rise' out of any body. I just want to
present the truth. Something vegans are ashamed of apparently since all
they spew are lys and delusions.
>
>
> > He can't. His hatred is all he has. He knows his 'ethics' are a sham.
so
> > he has to hate those that remind him of that fact.
>
> I just think that if he wants to put a postive face on vegetarianism
> or veganism that he should treat other people nicely, even those he
> isn't fond of. I know that's not always easy and some flaming back and
> forth is probably permissible (since this is Usenet) but telling
> someone to drop dead from a heart attack goes way too far, IMO. I
> mean, we are talking about food here, it's not THAT darn important.
=====================
But that's part of the point. Vegans will claim that their diet 'saves' all
those animals. They've never checked it out, and can't prove it, but they
make the claims anyway. the fact is, their, and your, and my diets are far
from having the greatest impact on animal death and suffering. There are
far more things in our lifestyles that contribute to animal death and
suffering than just from whatever we eat. case in point, your posts to
usenet are not cruelty free.
>
> -Rubystars
Rubystars
> "Rubystars" <windst...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:669fe9ea.03110...@posting.google.com...
> > "rick etter" <rette...@bright.net> wrote in message
> news:<0p-dnVM0-tt...@bright.net>...
> > > "Rubystars" <windst...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:669fe9ea.03110...@posting.google.com...
> > > > pid...@comcast.net (piddock) wrote in message
> news:<c93ec7ed.03110...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > "rick etter" <rette...@bright.net> wrote in message
> news:<clWpb.1601
> > >
> > <snip lots of stuff>
> >
> > I just want to remind you Rick that I'm not a vegan and I'm not even a
> > vegetarian yet, though I eat a lot less meat than I used to. I think
> > most of what PETA says is pure BS, but I'm also skeptical of what you
> > are saying. I don't think anyone has the complete truth. I do think
> > that it's common sense that if you really have a moral objection to
> > eating meat you shouldn't do it.
> ================
> Then don't. Nobody has ever said that anyone here *has* to eat meat. The
> reverse cannot be said of vegan loons here though. Just don't try to tell
> everyone it's because you're 'saving' animals.
I don't know what the numbers come out to, but
> >
> > Rats and mice are pests, and there's no shortage of them (quite the
> > contrary).
> ==================
> Ther's no shortage of cows or chickens either. Is that the only critiria
> you have? Or is it just their size makes them less important as far as
> animal death and suffering are concerned?
Size doesn't have anything to do with it. Show me a 30 foot cockroach
and I'll need a big-ass can of RAID. With that said, I think people
have the right to decide which animals they value over others. Dogs,
cats, and horses mean a LOT more to me than some chicken on a farm,
for example. Everyone has different values, so if someone values cows
and chickens over rats, then so be it. The only thing that really
pisses me off is when people value humans lower than other animals.
>
> I don't think they should be tortured, but I don't see how
> > getting chopped up in a machine (a harvester or a grain processor)
> > could possibly be worse than the rat poison, coca cola, and flour
> > mixed with concrete they're subjected to when they invade people's
> > properties. It's probably a LOT more humane than that.
> ======================
> Why these comparisons? the one you should be comparing them to are the
> animals that die in slaughterhouses.
> I'd say that those animals die a more humane death than any of the ones you
> mentioned.
I'm comparing them to the other rats because rats are pests. If
they're allowed to live where we are, they spread disease and spoil
food and chew holes in our dwellings. I don't want them to suffer any
more than I do any other animal, but if you're going to kill a rat a
harvester doesn't sound like the worst thing that could happen to it.
And unfortunately rats do need to be killed when they're causing
problems.
Animals that die in slaughterhouses are often killed humanely but
sometimes they're not. I'm not getting that from some ARA web site
either, I've been reading guidelines on how to slaughter cows and the
idea of "return to sensibility" is covered. Apparently sometimes after
the animals are stunned they can come back around and be in pain and
have to be stunned again.
> > I think what a lot of vegetarians object to is the fact that animals
> > are raised for the express purpose of killing them. I don't really
> > have a problem with that, if the animals are treated humanely in life
> > and killed with little pain.
> ====================
> As many are. The problem is your crop fields are just the ticket for fast
> population explosions of many animals. You can say they are raised
> expressly because of your food production. Increases that would not occur
> without your crops providing easy food and cover.
>then, just when the
> populations are at their peak, you take away all the food and cover. What
> do you think happens to these animals, that they just mosey over to the
> next field that's cut down? They are left without food and cover to die
> from starvation and predation. they all can't just go into the surrounding
> area because those areas will already be at their carrying capacity.
This happens throughout nature though, species tend to have more young
than can survive. Just look at a Tasmanian devil mother. She has many
offspring that are born, around 30, but only two nipples. The rest
starve, die of exposure, or are licked up by the mother.
Humans don't deliberately raise rats in crop fields, but rats have
adapted to the new environment there, and it has been beneficial to
the species as a whole.
> > However I do think that it's sad that people eat as much meat as they
> > do.
> ======================
> Do you really know how much? Or are you just guessing with your delusions
> from PeTA and their ilk? Even the typical American diet contains far more
> plant material than meats. About 200lbs of meat. about 400lbs of veggies,
> 200lbs of grains and cerials, and 100lbs of fruit. There is also 500+lbs of
> dairy, but that's neither meat nor veggie.
I have little to no respect for PETA. They may do a good thing every
once in a while but on the whole I think they do more harm than good,
mostly by confusing the public in regards to what is "Animal Rights"
and what is "Animal Welfare." Animal welfarists have to deal with
people who think that they're just like the PETA folks.
I'm in favor of animal use, just not abuse.
> It's really not necessary to eat meat 3 or more times a day, and
> > it's not healthy either. I may or may not go vegetarian later but I
> > don't think that I'm going to be increasing animal suffering if I
> > choose to do that. I really don't.
> ====================
> But you refuse to even consider that as a possibility, nor will you even try
> to check it out, will you? Why? Afraid of what you'll discover?
> That's also part of the point. Vegans won't even try to determine which of
> their own foods cause less or more animals death and suffering. They just
> assume that it's all nice and cruelty free.
Most people can't follow a vegan diet because it's so much of a
hassle. As an experiment I tried to do it for two weeks and there was
almost NOTHING at the regular grocery store that was free of animal
products. All the breakfast cereals and pancake mixes had whey, for
example. Breads either had whey or egg glaze, or something else
similar to that. Almost everything you can think of that doesn't have
meat in it has some milk, honey, or eggs, or a derivative thereof.
It made me realize why those who try to go on such a diet and don't do
it correctly, by finding the right balance of nutrients and using
supplementation, can really make themselves malnourished.
With all that in mind, it made me realize that those who do follow a
vegan diet do it because they really have a commitment to their
beliefs. It takes effort to find vegan-friendly foods! If I was to do
it out here, I'd have to go to a health food store just to find enough
of them. And God only knows how much money that would cost.
(Vegetarian foods are pretty easy though.)
Add that on to the lifestyle changes that many vegans make to reduce
their consumption of animal products, for example, leather shoes
(which, by the way, were the only pair I could find that fit me at
Wal-Mart), wool sweaters (Wool stays warm even when wet, but they must
use alternative materials), seashell jewelry, paintbrushes made with
hair, among other things.
My point is that they must, by necessity, put so much research and
effort into living their lifestyle that it seems sad for you to refer
to them as lazy or unmotivated. I agree with you that they are not
eliminating totally their impact on animals, but I think with all
that, they must at least be reducing it.
> >
> > The reason I replied though is that I was surprised at the fanatical
> > responses you're getting. I guess I shouldn't be though. I knew if I
> > thought someone was saying things to get a rise out of me I'd probably
> > ignore them.
> ========================
> Nope. I'm not replying to get a 'rise' out of any body. I just want to
> present the truth. Something vegans are ashamed of apparently since all
> they spew are lys and delusions.
I'm skeptical of both sides, Rick. Maybe you just have a different way
of viewing the situation than they do, though. I think they do the
best they can with the knowledge and resources they have. I think it's
unreasonable to pretend like they are not causing animal deaths, I
agree with you on that. However, I think it's unreasonable to ask
people to further restrict an already heavily restrictive diet and
lifestyle and to expect people who are already heavily committed to
become more so. There's only so much the average person can do, and
most of these people have gone beyond average as far as going out of
their way to follow this lifestyle.
No one's perfect. Is it a lie that they're free of animal
exploitation? Yes, it's a lie! I agree with you there. That doesn't
mean they aren't doing something good for animals.
> But that's part of the point. Vegans will claim that their diet 'saves' all
> those animals. They've never checked it out, and can't prove it, but they
> make the claims anyway. the fact is, their, and your, and my diets are far
> from having the greatest impact on animal death and suffering. There are
> far more things in our lifestyles that contribute to animal death and
> suffering than just from whatever we eat. case in point, your posts to
> usenet are not cruelty free.
Yeah I know that. The way I see it though, communication really helps
a lot of humans, so that's pretty important in itself. I guess there
are trade offs in everything.
-Rubystars
LordSnooty
wrote:
Then you are an arse. No one needs to make any such comparisons but a
fool. We can live quite happily side, by side with animals, we do NOT
need to eat them, we do NOT need to abuse them. just because a rat is
a rat doesn't mean we have a right to kill it on a whim, 90% of pest
control is pre-emptive and completely unnecessary. It's like banning
cars to save children from being run over, borne of stupidity and
ignorance, that people seem to thrive on.
Fact is if we were not such a dirty, lazy shits then rats and
cockroaches would not be a problem. I know I am living quite happily
wth no pest control measures in my life at all and always will.
>> I don't think they should be tortured, but I don't see how
>> > getting chopped up in a machine (a harvester or a grain processor)
>> > could possibly be worse than the rat poison, coca cola, and flour
>> > mixed with concrete they're subjected to when they invade people's
>> > properties. It's probably a LOT more humane than that.
>> ======================
>> Why these comparisons? the one you should be comparing them to are the
>> animals that die in slaughterhouses.
>> I'd say that those animals die a more humane death than any of the ones you
>> mentioned.
>
>I'm comparing them to the other rats because rats are pests.
So are humans.
> If
>they're allowed to live where we are,
They do live here already, that will never change.
> they spread disease and spoil
>food and chew holes in our dwellings.
Onl;y when dirty humans let them.
> I don't want them to suffer any
>more than I do any other animal, but if you're going to kill a rat a
>harvester doesn't sound like the worst thing that could happen to it.
>And unfortunately rats do need to be killed when they're causing
>problems.
No they don't, the problem is the dirty human.
>Animals that die in slaughterhouses are often killed humanely but
>sometimes they're not. I'm not getting that from some ARA web site
>either, I've been reading guidelines on how to slaughter cows and the
>idea of "return to sensibility" is covered. Apparently sometimes after
>the animals are stunned they can come back around and be in pain and
>have to be stunned again.
Indeed. It's cruel and the ultimate abuse of an animal.
It's how we have been conditioned, do you not see that?
> All the breakfast cereals and pancake mixes had whey, for
>example. Breads either had whey or egg glaze, or something else
>similar to that. Almost everything you can think of that doesn't have
>meat in it has some milk, honey, or eggs, or a derivative thereof.
Rubbish. A veggie diet is well catered for today, but no excuse for
being lazy and doing your own food preparations.
>It made me realize why those who try to go on such a diet and don't do
>it correctly, by finding the right balance of nutrients and using
>supplementation, can really make themselves malnourished.
>
>With all that in mind, it made me realize that those who do follow a
>vegan diet do it because they really have a commitment to their
>beliefs. It takes effort to find vegan-friendly foods! If I was to do
>it out here, I'd have to go to a health food store just to find enough
>of them. And God only knows how much money that would cost.
>(Vegetarian foods are pretty easy though.)
No one said caring for yourself and the planet was easy.
>Add that on to the lifestyle changes that many vegans make to reduce
>their consumption of animal products, for example, leather shoes
>(which, by the way, were the only pair I could find that fit me at
>Wal-Mart), wool sweaters (Wool stays warm even when wet, but they must
>use alternative materials), seashell jewelry, paintbrushes made with
>hair, among other things.
>
>My point is that they must, by necessity, put so much research and
>effort into living their lifestyle that it seems sad for you to refer
>to them as lazy or unmotivated. I agree with you that they are not
>eliminating totally their impact on animals, but I think with all
>that, they must at least be reducing it.
Indeed, one can but try their best. Fat slugs like no balls have an
agenda and nothing will change their minds.
>> >
>> > The reason I replied though is that I was surprised at the fanatical
>> > responses you're getting. I guess I shouldn't be though. I knew if I
>> > thought someone was saying things to get a rise out of me I'd probably
>> > ignore them.
>> ========================
>> Nope. I'm not replying to get a 'rise' out of any body. I just want to
>> present the truth. Something vegans are ashamed of apparently since all
>> they spew are lys and delusions.
>
>I'm skeptical of both sides, Rick.
Rick is a dick.
>Maybe you just have a different way
>of viewing the situation than they do, though. I think they do the
>best they can with the knowledge and resources they have. I think it's
>unreasonable to pretend like they are not causing animal deaths, I
>agree with you on that. However, I think it's unreasonable to ask
>people to further restrict an already heavily restrictive diet and
>lifestyle and to expect people who are already heavily committed to
>become more so. There's only so much the average person can do, and
>most of these people have gone beyond average as far as going out of
>their way to follow this lifestyle.
>
>No one's perfect. Is it a lie that they're free of animal
>exploitation? Yes, it's a lie! I agree with you there. That doesn't
>mean they aren't doing something good for animals.
>
>> But that's part of the point. Vegans will claim that their diet 'saves' all
>> those animals. They've never checked it out, and can't prove it, but they
>> make the claims anyway. the fact is, their, and your, and my diets are far
>> from having the greatest impact on animal death and suffering. There are
>> far more things in our lifestyles that contribute to animal death and
>> suffering than just from whatever we eat. case in point, your posts to
>> usenet are not cruelty free.
>
>Yeah I know that. The way I see it though, communication really helps
>a lot of humans, so that's pretty important in itself. I guess there
>are trade offs in everything.
>
>-Rubystars
usual suspect
>>Size doesn't have anything to do with it. Show me a 30 foot cockroach
>>and I'll need a big-ass can of RAID. With that said, I think people
>>have the right to decide which animals they value over others. Dogs,
>>cats, and horses mean a LOT more to me than some chicken on a farm,
>>for example. Everyone has different values, so if someone values cows
>>and chickens over rats, then so be it. The only thing that really
>>pisses me off is when people value humans lower than other animals.
>
> Then you are an arse. No one needs to make any such comparisons but a
> fool.
You do it all the time. Fool.
> We can live quite happily side, by side with animals, we do NOT
> need to eat them,
Many people like the way they taste. Meat is food.
> we do NOT need to abuse them.
We're not talking about abusing them, just keeping their populations at
manageable, tolerable levels.
> just because a rat is
> a rat doesn't mean we have a right to kill it on a whim,
Yes, we do.
> 90% of pest control is pre-emptive and completely unnecessary.
According to whom?
> It's like banning
> cars to save children from being run over, borne of stupidity and
> ignorance, that people seem to thrive on.
Non sequitur.
> Fact is if we were not such a dirty, lazy shits then rats and
> cockroaches would not be a problem. I know I am living quite happily
> wth no pest control measures in my life at all and always will.
Spoken like a true misanthrope.
>>I'm comparing them to the other rats because rats are pests.
>
> So are humans.
You love animals, and detest people. Yes, you are compassionate. Haha.
<snip>
>>Animals that die in slaughterhouses are often killed humanely but
>>sometimes they're not. I'm not getting that from some ARA web site
>>either, I've been reading guidelines on how to slaughter cows and the
>>idea of "return to sensibility" is covered. Apparently sometimes after
>>the animals are stunned they can come back around and be in pain and
>>have to be stunned again.
>
> Indeed. It's cruel and the ultimate abuse of an animal.
The ultimate abuse is for an animal to be used as a political pawn by
someone like you. You don't REALLY care about animals, you just REALLY
hate humans.
<snip>
>>Most people can't follow a vegan diet because it's so much of a
>>hassle. As an experiment I tried to do it for two weeks and there was
>>almost NOTHING at the regular grocery store that was free of animal
>>products.
>
> It's how we have been conditioned, do you not see that?
Conditioning plays only a small role in it. Most tastes are universal,
and part of our evolution. Repulsion of extreme bitter flavors is a
mechanism which helps us to avoid poisons.
<snip>
tofubar
depressed on a vegan diet, even with all sorts of variety and
supplementation. This was my first post to these groups.
piddock
> That's not very compassionate. What's the point in having a respect
> for life (all life) if you tell someone that you wish they would drop
> dead from a heart attack?
Because it is MY RIGHT to have compassion or not for whomever I want,
because Rick Etter, Usual Suspect, Radical Moderate, and Dutch all do
the same. They
>
> I may get flamed for saying this, but isn't a human life of more value
> than a cow's? It is in my opinion. Why would you be happy if Rick died
> but sad when a cow died?
Because it is MY RIGHT to do that. *I* do not hurt anybody by wishing
anti-vegetarians like them dead. ALL that matters to THEM is THEIR
right to torture and kill for no other reason than it tastes or feels
good, even when they have plenty of choices. Their lives have no
value.
THEY claim to be "pro-human". That makes them the GREATEST HYPOCRITES
of ALL, because THEY ARE FURIOUSLY DETERMINED TO DO NOTHING BUT
INSULT AND GIVE ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS, who are HUMAN BEINGS, ARE
HARD TIME AND MAKE THEIR LIVES POOR AND MISERABLE.
> I've been reading/posting to this group on and off and I know Rick
> posts things that make people angry and seems to stir people up, but
> you shouldn't let him get under your skin. He just has a different
> opinion than other people here, even if he is deliberately trying to
> get reactions.
Good. So then if I wish Rick Etter dead, or if some person wanted the
entire human race wiped off the earth (such persons do exist, but none
of them want humans exterminated for the benefit of animals -- usually
they have some abstract religious reason), then THAT should not get
under your skin, right?
So please do NOT pretend that ANYthing *I* say "bothers" you.
Because, based upon your anything goes attitude, I know that it does
not, and that for you to say otherwise is a lie.
> Meat eating is the way that humans have lived since before we were
> humans. I don't really see that as "forcing" it on the kids.
Face the hard reality: EVERY kid is forced into existence by their
parents. Even people of the most diverse political opinions agree
on that.
> is provided there. If meat wasn't provided, then people would have to
> go off campus for lunch or bring a bagged lunch, because most people
> don't want to go vegetarian.
So? Let them.
> That would be catering to the minority at
> the expense of the majority if meat wasn't available.
No. The animals are in the majority. Their PAIN is in the majority
-- it simply annihilates in importance all these other petty little
desires many meat-eaters have.
> Now if there's
> ever a time when meat eating is in the minority, then there may be a
> better case for not having it available.
That will occur only because of the efforts and dedicated work of
people like me and other animal activists. It will never come about
by any of your posts talking about what the majority wants.
You are not saying anything new nor anything that needs to be said.
There are PLENTY of OTHER things the majority of humans
wants which it DOES get: television, running water, electricity,
a million other things in our daily lifestyles. Meat is only a small
one for them, but a big one for the animals.
> We all use animals to one degree or another. I don't think it makes
> someone a terrible person if they want to eat meat.
> That makes you sound like a fanatic. Vegans and even vegetarians have
> a bad reputation for being fanatical, for hating humans and loving
And being a fanatic does not make a person terrible.
If you tell me or anyone else that a meat-eater is not a bad
person even if they have better choices, then I will tell you that
NObody is a bad person. Period.
> animals more than humans. Wouldn't it be much better to ignore him, or
> to be kind to him, rather than to seem so vicious?
No -- because, again, if HE can state HIS opinion, then I can, too.
But, your brain is so fanatically obsessed with telling pro-animal
people what to say or not say or do or not do that nobody will listen
to you or take you seriously.
P.S. If a majority of adults wanted sex with children, obviously
you would support their right to do it, wouldn't you, since majority
rule is all that matters. And sex with children is not nearly as bad
as deliberately torturing someone by forcing a feeding tube down their
throat while keeping them in a cage their entire lives.
Even the Libertarian Party does not blindly approve of majority rule.
The LP does not say, "Get rid of homosexuality if a majority of people
want no homosexuals in their country."
usual suspect
>>That's not very compassionate. What's the point in having a respect
>>for life (all life) if you tell someone that you wish they would drop
>>dead from a heart attack?
>
> Because it is MY RIGHT to have compassion or not for whomever I want,
> because Rick Etter, Usual Suspect, Radical Moderate, and Dutch all do
> the same. They
You have the RIGHT, but WHEN did any of the individuals you named wish
yuo to drop dead or suffer bodily harm in any form or fashion?
>>I may get flamed for saying this, but isn't a human life of more value
>>than a cow's? It is in my opinion. Why would you be happy if Rick died
>>but sad when a cow died?
>
> Because it is MY RIGHT to do that. *I* do not hurt anybody by wishing
> anti-vegetarians like them dead. ALL that matters to THEM is THEIR
> right to torture and kill for no other reason than it tastes or feels
> good, even when they have plenty of choices. Their lives have no
> value.
More value than yours.
> THEY claim to be "pro-human". That makes them the GREATEST HYPOCRITES
> of ALL, because THEY ARE FURIOUSLY DETERMINED TO DO NOTHING BUT
> INSULT AND GIVE ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS, who are HUMAN BEINGS, ARE
> HARD TIME AND MAKE THEIR LIVES POOR AND MISERABLE.
You pussy! You've been asked repeatedly to back up your wild-assed
claims, and you can't. You've been asked repeatedly to address issues,
and you won't. Then you resort to the lowest and most base insults,
wishing harm -- indeed, DEATH -- upon others.
If you cannot support your claims or address issues, perhaps you should
tone down your overheated rhetoric until you can. Wishing harm upon
others like you did doesn't score you ANY points. Rubystars is hardly a
troll, and her questions about your twisted desires for Rick's demise
are fair. She deserves better answers than you've given, but I think
she's wise enough not to expect them from a hateful prat like you.
>>I've been reading/posting to this group on and off and I know Rick
>>posts things that make people angry and seems to stir people up, but
>>you shouldn't let him get under your skin. He just has a different
>>opinion than other people here, even if he is deliberately trying to
>>get reactions.
>
> Good. So then if I wish Rick Etter dead, or if some person wanted the
> entire human race wiped off the earth (such persons do exist, but none
> of them want humans exterminated for the benefit of animals -- usually
> they have some abstract religious reason), then THAT should not get
> under your skin, right?
>
> So please do NOT pretend that ANYthing *I* say "bothers" you.
> Because, based upon your anything goes attitude, I know that it does
> not, and that for you to say otherwise is a lie.
Your hateful attitude mixed with your misplaced pride will not let you
admit that you're just plain wrong. Rubystars is a very nice young lady.
Her questions were fair and deserve a better answer than this. Try
again, you hate-filled twerp.
>>Meat eating is the way that humans have lived since before we were
>>humans. I don't really see that as "forcing" it on the kids.
>
> Face the hard reality: EVERY kid is forced into existence by their
> parents. Even people of the most diverse political opinions agree
> on that.
Logical fallacy of appealing to popularity. It's also not truly a
"reality." It *is* your opinion, but you've already demonstrated
yourself to be misanthropic (extremely so). Your spiteful bias isn't
shared universally.
>>is provided there. If meat wasn't provided, then people would have to
>>go off campus for lunch or bring a bagged lunch, because most people
>>don't want to go vegetarian.
>
> So? Let them.
Let them what?
>>That would be catering to the minority at
>>the expense of the majority if meat wasn't available.
>
> No. The animals are in the majority. Their PAIN is in the majority
> -- it simply annihilates in importance all these other petty little
> desires many meat-eaters have.
Tastes are not petty. It took millions of years of evolution for people
to acquire them. You're not going to thwart all that evolution with a
wave of your magic wand.
>>Now if there's
>>ever a time when meat eating is in the minority, then there may be a
>>better case for not having it available.
>
> That will occur only because of the efforts and dedicated work of
> people like me and other animal activists.
Bullshit. You and other animal activists are considered a joke by the
mainstream. You're marginalized. You're not even in the mainstream of
leftist thought, you little putz.
> It will never come about
> by any of your posts talking about what the majority wants.
> You are not saying anything new nor anything that needs to be said.
Neither are you, hate-meister.
> There are PLENTY of OTHER things the majority of humans
> wants which it DOES get: television, running water, electricity,
> a million other things in our daily lifestyles. Meat is only a small
> one for them, but a big one for the animals.
It's a bigger one for humans. All that evolution and taste. We're
predators, animals are our prey whether they're wild or domesticated.
>>We all use animals to one degree or another. I don't think it makes
>>someone a terrible person if they want to eat meat.
>>That makes you sound like a fanatic. Vegans and even vegetarians have
>>a bad reputation for being fanatical, for hating humans and loving
>
> And being a fanatic does not make a person terrible.
In your case, it does.
> If you tell me or anyone else that a meat-eater is not a bad
> person even if they have better choices, then I will tell you that
> NObody is a bad person. Period.
Non sequitur, but you rarely make coherent arguments.
>>animals more than humans. Wouldn't it be much better to ignore him, or
>>to be kind to him, rather than to seem so vicious?
>
> No -- because, again, if HE can state HIS opinion, then I can, too.
He gives you facts, you give him a death wish.
> But, your brain is so fanatically obsessed with telling pro-animal
> people what to say or not say or do or not do that nobody will listen
> to you or take you seriously.
More people take her seriously because her arguments aren't laced with
threats and wishes for harm. Your arguments aren't even worthy of
consideration since they lack facts and reason, all you have are your
hateful wishes for others.
> P.S. If a majority of adults wanted sex with children, obviously
> you would support their right to do it, wouldn't you, since majority
> rule is all that matters. And sex with children is not nearly as bad
> as deliberately torturing someone by forcing a feeding tube down their
> throat while keeping them in a cage their entire lives.
Non sequitur, jelly-head. Stop sniffing glue. And keep reading, lol.
> Even the Libertarian Party does not blindly approve of majority rule.
You moron, that's not a non-issue. The LP, like other political parties,
respects the political processes of our government which afford
protections to political minorities. That's especially true in their
case since they ARE a political minority. BTW, maybe you need to brush
up on the LP-USA's position on children and sex:
[W]e call for the repeal of all laws that restrict anyone,
including children, from engaging in voluntary exchanges of
goods, services, or information regarding human sexuality,
reproduction, birth control, or related medical or biological
technologies.
http://tinyurl.com/u7xh
There has long been a faction in the LP which supports abolishing
distinctions between minor and adult with respect to the law. The effect
would make child pornography legal, as well as sexual relations between
consulting "minors" and adults. That side has won out in the LP's platform.
> The LP does not say, "Get rid of homosexuality if a majority of people
> want no homosexuals in their country."
*No* political party says that, asswipe.
Dutch
> windst...@hotmail.com (Rubystars) wrote
>
> > That's not very compassionate. What's the point in having a respect
> > for life (all life) if you tell someone that you wish they would drop
> > dead from a heart attack?
>
> Because it is MY RIGHT to have compassion or not for whomever I want,
> because Rick Etter, Usual Suspect, Radical Moderate, and Dutch all do
> the same.
Except you are posing as a super-compassionate person, a pose which is
obviously a self-serving lie.
> > I may get flamed for saying this, but isn't a human life of more value
> > than a cow's? It is in my opinion. Why would you be happy if Rick died
> > but sad when a cow died?
>
> Because it is MY RIGHT to do that.
That's not an answer.
> *I* do not hurt anybody by wishing
> anti-vegetarians like them dead.
You demonstrate the mean-spirited, human-hating ethic at the core of
veganism, so in fact you're doing us all a favour, thanks.
> ALL that matters to THEM is THEIR
> right to torture and kill for no other reason than it tastes or feels
> good,
That's untrue, animal products are also highly nutritious.
> even when they have plenty of choices.
You're making selfish choices right now and every day that have a negative
impact on animals.
> Their lives have no value.
Thanks again for demonstrating the true nature of veganism.
> THEY claim to be "pro-human". That makes them the GREATEST HYPOCRITES
> of ALL, because THEY ARE FURIOUSLY DETERMINED TO DO NOTHING BUT
> INSULT AND GIVE ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS, who are HUMAN BEINGS, ARE
> HARD TIME AND MAKE THEIR LIVES POOR AND MISERABLE.
Quit whining you pathetic heap of hate.
> > I've been reading/posting to this group on and off and I know Rick
> > posts things that make people angry and seems to stir people up, but
> > you shouldn't let him get under your skin. He just has a different
> > opinion than other people here, even if he is deliberately trying to
> > get reactions.
-snip irrational crap-
> No. The animals are in the majority. Their PAIN is in the majority
> -- it simply annihilates in importance all these other petty little
> desires many meat-eaters have.
Your diet and the rest of your comfort-based western lifestyle causes
unending death to animals. Pointing the fingers self-righteously at others
is a drug, nothing more.
> > Now if there's
> > ever a time when meat eating is in the minority, then there may be a
> > better case for not having it available.
>
> That will occur only because of the efforts and dedicated work of
> people like me and other animal activists. It will never come about
> by any of your posts talking about what the majority wants.
> You are not saying anything new nor anything that needs to be said.
>
> There are PLENTY of OTHER things the majority of humans
> wants which it DOES get: television, running water, electricity,
> a million other things in our daily lifestyles. Meat is only a small
> one for them, but a big one for the animals.
No it isn't. All those other benefits have at least as great an impact on
animals. You consider them "benefits" though, while considering meat
unecessary. The reasoning is focused on creating a moral pedestal for
yourself, nothing more.
> > We all use animals to one degree or another. I don't think it makes
> > someone a terrible person if they want to eat meat.
>
> > That makes you sound like a fanatic. Vegans and even vegetarians have
> > a bad reputation for being fanatical, for hating humans and loving
>
> And being a fanatic does not make a person terrible.
In this case it makes you a self-righteous creep.
> If you tell me or anyone else that a meat-eater is not a bad
> person even if they have better choices, then I will tell you that
> NObody is a bad person. Period.
Why are meat-eaters bad people for making choices that cause harm to animals
and you are NOT?
> > animals more than humans. Wouldn't it be much better to ignore him, or
> > to be kind to him, rather than to seem so vicious?
>
> No -- because, again, if HE can state HIS opinion, then I can, too.
> But, your brain is so fanatically obsessed with telling pro-animal
> people what to say or not say or do or not do that nobody will listen
> to you or take you seriously.
Do you think YOU are taken seriously? You have the mentality of an
adolescent.
-snip more ranting-
rick etter
"LordSnooty" <Lord_...@Notmail.com> wrote in message
news:3g6qqvkr0bqpcmvhb...@4ax.com...
You should know, right?
No one needs to make any such comparisons but a
> fool. We can live quite happily side, by side with animals, we do NOT
> need to eat them, we do NOT need to abuse them.
========================
Yet you do, continuously, and just for your selfish pleasure and
entertainment.
just because a rat is
> a rat doesn't mean we have a right to kill it on a whim, 90% of pest
> control is pre-emptive and completely unnecessary.
=========================
yet you condone it, and reward those that do it.
It's like banning
> cars to save children from being run over, borne of stupidity and
> ignorance, that people seem to thrive on.
======================
That you should really know all about. Ignorance and stupidity is your
stock-n-trade, killer.
> Fact is if we were not such a dirty, lazy shits then rats and
> cockroaches would not be a problem. I know I am living quite happily
> wth no pest control measures in my life at all and always will.
======================
Liar. All your life is dictated by animal death and suffering. You can't
even post your insanity to usenet without causing death and suffering you
fool.
>
> >> I don't think they should be tortured, but I don't see how
> >> > getting chopped up in a machine (a harvester or a grain processor)
> >> > could possibly be worse than the rat poison, coca cola, and flour
> >> > mixed with concrete they're subjected to when they invade people's
> >> > properties. It's probably a LOT more humane than that.
> >> ======================
> >> Why these comparisons? the one you should be comparing them to are the
> >> animals that die in slaughterhouses.
> >> I'd say that those animals die a more humane death than any of the ones
you
> >> mentioned.
> >
> >I'm comparing them to the other rats because rats are pests.
>
> So are humans.
=================
Yes, many of you are...
snip of rest of snottys ignorant rants...
rick etter
news:<669fe9ea.03110...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > That's not very compassionate. What's the point in having a respect
> > for life (all life) if you tell someone that you wish they would drop
> > dead from a heart attack?
>
> Because it is MY RIGHT to have compassion or not for whomever I want,
> because Rick Etter, Usual Suspect, Radical Moderate, and Dutch all do
> the same. They
> >
> > I may get flamed for saying this, but isn't a human life of more value
> > than a cow's? It is in my opinion. Why would you be happy if Rick died
> > but sad when a cow died?
>
> Because it is MY RIGHT to do that. *I* do not hurt anybody by wishing
> anti-vegetarians like them dead. ALL that matters to THEM is THEIR
> right to torture and kill for no other reason than it tastes or feels
> good, even when they have plenty of choices. Their lives have no
> value.
Hey, imagine that, what a coincidence, that's all you live by too, torturing
and killing animals for your frivolous whims.
You really are too stupid for this, aren't you killer?
>
> THEY claim to be "pro-human". That makes them the GREATEST HYPOCRITES
> of ALL, because THEY ARE FURIOUSLY DETERMINED TO DO NOTHING BUT
> INSULT AND GIVE ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS, who are HUMAN BEINGS, ARE
> HARD TIME AND MAKE THEIR LIVES POOR AND MISERABLE.
=======================
LOL You really don't even know what you're screaming, do you, killer? try
again.
snip of rest of puds ignorant spew...
analogys are really hard for him, ....
nemo
usual suspect <w...@where.how> wrote in message
news:XiVpb.7184$f53...@twister.austin.rr.com...
nemo
enough and people might believe it. Doesn't work on here though. Neither
does replying with, "I'm not the one doing that. It's exactly what you're
doing though."
At the risk of causing you to commit suicide, I must break the devastatingly
shocking news to you that on here there are many people who are mush more
intelligent that yourself and know a damned sight more about nutrition, food
toxicology and ethics than you do.
How much are the Meat Trades Association paying you and do they realise that
they are wasting their money?!
nemo
You'll never get the point through the heads of these aggressive, macho,
penis-obsessed idiots who swear by meat because they believe that by eating
it they will acquire some of the strength and potency of the animal. That's
all it is.
Instead of worrying about these types, just look back over the years. When I
became veggie in 1962 I think it was, people said I would die, I was mad,
and what else was there to eat. There were very few veggie restaurants, no
food labelling regulations and people including my parents and most of my
relations were dropping like flies from cardio-vascular disease with doctors
swearing blind that there was no dietary connection.
Now we've got the entire medical profession recommending a balanced diet
with not too much red meat and fat, there are more veggie restaurants than
you can shake a stick at, and nowadays, if I tell someone I'm Vegan, they
don't say I'm barmey; instead they say: how interesting and ask for
recipes!!
So whatever these trolls say, the world HAS changed and is still changing,
and there's bugger all they can do about it other than winge and whine, lie,
insult and provoke, while at the same time putting plenty of money aside for
the coronary bypass operation they will be certain to need some time in the
future! And of course mourn the relatives they've already lost to the
diet-related diseases that they deny exist! Poor little sods!
Nemo
35 years a Vegan and praaaaaaaaadd of it!!!
nemo
>
Look 'ere, sunshine. Why don't you tell the truth and change your moniker to
"Sick Etter"?
nemo
googlesux <jkl...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:589947d5.03110...@posting.google.com...
Non sequitur.
Dutch
>
> rick etter <rette...@bright.net> wrote
> >
> > "piddock" <pid...@comcast.net> wrote
> > > tof...@comcast.net (tofubar) wrote
> > > > I've noticed that my friends who have gone exclusively vegan, even
if
> > > > they take vitamins, seem more moody and depressed. Has anyone else
> > > > noticed this?
> > >
> > > No. Vegans and vegetarians are happier than meat-eaters.
> > > Whenever vegans do feel sad, it is because of anti-vegetarians
> > > who favor greater government control to force vegans and animals
> > > to cater to their selfish lifestyle.
> > ========================
> > ROTFLMAO What a hoot! this is the laugh of the day, killer.
> > The only people here advocating making others do what they do are the
> > vegans, you ignorant loon!
> > No where has any of us told you what you have to eat. vegans do that
all
> > the time, and would make
> > it the governments fuction to ensure that diet given the chance. You
> truly
> > are insane, hypocrite.
> >
> Very old propaganda technique: repeat a set of lies vehemently and often
> enough and people might believe it. Doesn't work on here though. Neither
> does replying with, "I'm not the one doing that. It's exactly what you're
> doing though."
Are you actually saying that you believe anti-vegans want to force vegans to
start eating meat? Maybe you DO need a steak or two.
> At the risk of causing you to commit suicide, I must break the
devastatingly
> shocking news to you that on here there are many people who are mush more
> intelligent that yourself and know a damned sight more about nutrition,
food
> toxicology and ethics than you do.
You're intelligence is "mush" all right.
> How much are the Meat Trades Association paying you and do they realise
that
> they are wasting their money?!
Very old rhetorical technique, commonly known as "When did you stop beating
your wife?"
Just go eat your carrots, you're out of your depth.
rick etter
"nemo" <ne...@naughtylass2.wet> wrote in message
news:kJfrb.35220$Ou6....@news-lhr.blueyonder.co.uk...
Really? where's the ly, killer?
Doesn't work on here though. Neither
> does replying with, "I'm not the one doing that. It's exactly what you're
> doing though."
=======================
Nope. You're comprehension need work, hypocrite.
>
> At the risk of causing you to commit suicide, I must break the
devastatingly
> shocking news to you that on here there are many people who are mush more
> intelligent that yourself and know a damned sight more about nutrition,
food
> toxicology and ethics than you do.
========================
How 'mush' more do you think you know? Obviously not much, since you to are
in the long list of ar/vegan loons that have *never* offered any prove to
the vegan claims of 'caring' for animals so much that you kill
none/less/fewer.
>
> How much are the Meat Trades Association paying you and do they realise
that
> they are wasting their money?!
======================
Don't even know what that is. To bad for you, eh fool? Do you know how
ignorant your rants are, and that you send them around the world for all to
see, contributing to even more animal death and suffering for no more reason
than your entertainment. And ours, actually, since your stupidity is so
much fun to watch,
mush brain...
>
>
rick etter
"nemo" <ne...@naughtylass2.wet> wrote in message
ROTFLMAO What a hoot! You belong to each other! Try reading for
comprhension sometime, idiot. The agression here is only from your 'side'.
What a bucnh of losers! And, you're the only one talking about how little
your tallywacker is.
>
> Instead of worrying about these types, just look back over the years. When
I
> became veggie in 1962 I think it was, people said I would die, I was mad,
> and what else was there to eat. There were very few veggie restaurants, no
> food labelling regulations and people including my parents and most of my
> relations were dropping like flies from cardio-vascular disease with
doctors
> swearing blind that there was no dietary connection.
==================
You have obviously gotten dumber. Must be the diet, eh killer?
>
> Now we've got the entire medical profession recommending a balanced diet
> with not too much red meat and fat, there are more veggie restaurants than
> you can shake a stick at, and nowadays, if I tell someone I'm Vegan, they
> don't say I'm barmey; instead they say: how interesting and ask for
> recipes!!
=====================
Imagine that. "A balanced" diet. And they still recommend meat. Too bad
your ignorance doesn't allow you to see the idiocy of your posts.
>
> So whatever these trolls say, the world HAS changed and is still changing,
> and there's bugger all they can do about it other than winge and whine,
lie,
> insult and provoke, while at the same time putting plenty of money aside
for
> the coronary bypass operation they will be certain to need some time in
the
> future! And of course mourn the relatives they've already lost to the
> diet-related diseases that they deny exist! Poor little sods!
======================
Yep. Laughing all the way to old age. Too bad you're going to be too
ignorant to even fuction within a few years now, stupid.
>
> Nemo
>
> 35 years a Vegan and praaaaaaaaadd of it!!!
======================
35 years and getting more ignorant every day....
>
>
rick etter
"nemo" <ne...@naughtylass2.wet> wrote in message
Because i'm far healthier than you, and do far more than you even think
about, killer.
Now, why don't you just get back your 'wetness' naughty little boy.
>
Rubystars
>
> because Rick Etter, Usual Suspect, Radical Moderate, and Dutch all do
> the same. They
It's your right to do it, so it's their right to do it as well? Am I
understanding you correctly? I don't like it when I see people being
abusive to the vegans here, but I think it's stupid to be abusive back
when you could be so much more effective by "turning the other cheek."
I mean I'm not perfect and I've been known to lash out at people who
pissed me off but I know it's not the right way to handle these
situations.
<snip my words>
> Because it is MY RIGHT to do that. *I* do not hurt anybody by wishing
> anti-vegetarians like them dead. ALL that matters to THEM is THEIR
> right to torture and kill for no other reason than it tastes or feels
> good, even when they have plenty of choices. Their lives have no
> value.
I suppose it is your right to value cattle over humans, but I can't
say I respect that opinion. I have a different opinion, that humans
are valuable just because they're humans, and that places them above
others. I think other animals are valuable living things too, but not
on the same level as humans.
I don't see how you can say that a human life has no value, especially
when they're not (as far as we know) serial killers, terrorists, or
anyone else who might earn themselves being called that.
> THEY claim to be "pro-human". That makes them the GREATEST HYPOCRITES
> of ALL, because THEY ARE FURIOUSLY DETERMINED TO DO NOTHING BUT
> INSULT AND GIVE ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS, who are HUMAN BEINGS, ARE
> HARD TIME AND MAKE THEIR LIVES POOR AND MISERABLE.
Let me try to understand here. You say that you're not hurting anyone
"by wishing anti-vegetarians like them dead." So how are they possibly
hurting you by insulting you?
<snip my words>
> Good. So then if I wish Rick Etter dead, or if some person wanted the
> entire human race wiped off the earth (such persons do exist, but none
> of them want humans exterminated for the benefit of animals -- usually
> they have some abstract religious reason), then THAT should not get
> under your skin, right?
You don't really bother me or get under my skin. I'm just trying to
help you out a little. If you want people to see vegetarianism or
veganism in a positive light, something they might want to be a part
of, telling them you wish they were dead isn't really very attractive.
This kind of behavior also puts other veg*ns at risk because it can
cause people to think of you guys as "fanatical nutcases", and can
just cause more hatred against you and others.
> So please do NOT pretend that ANYthing *I* say "bothers" you.
> Because, based upon your anything goes attitude, I know that it does
> not, and that for you to say otherwise is a lie.
You don't bother me, I'm just curious why you want to make veg*ns look
so bad.
<snip my words>
> Face the hard reality: EVERY kid is forced into existence by their
> parents. Even people of the most diverse political opinions agree
> on that.
Well isn't that just a crime? Forced into existence? *L* This has got
to be stopped! ;)
> > is provided there. If meat wasn't provided, then people would have to
> > go off campus for lunch or bring a bagged lunch, because most people
> > don't want to go vegetarian.
>
> So? Let them.
Why, so the 5 or so vegetarians (or maybe 1 or 2) in a lunch room of
100-150 people or more can be happy and everybody else miserable? If
you're so unhappy with people forcing meat on you, why would you be
any happier about attempting to force vegetarianism on other people?
<snip my words>
> No. The animals are in the majority. Their PAIN is in the majority
> -- it simply annihilates in importance all these other petty little
> desires many meat-eaters have.
>
What if the animals are raised and killed humanely?
> > Now if there's
> > ever a time when meat eating is in the minority, then there may be a
> > better case for not having it available.
>
> That will occur only because of the efforts and dedicated work of
> people like me and other animal activists. It will never come about
> by any of your posts talking about what the majority wants.
> You are not saying anything new nor anything that needs to be said.
I feel like any effort you're putting out to make vegetarianism seem
like a healthy, tasty way to eat, that helps the world in a positive
manner, is shattered when you tell someone they're a terrible person
for not following it, or that you want them to drop dead from a heart
attack. If your plan for the lunch rooms was implemented, you'd have a
bunch of angry, hungry people instead of people who said "You know,
this vegetarianism stuff is great, how could I have been so wrong all
this time."
> There are PLENTY of OTHER things the majority of humans
> wants which it DOES get: television, running water, electricity,
> a million other things in our daily lifestyles. Meat is only a small
> one for them, but a big one for the animals.
They don't know anything about meat. They live and then they get
killed.
<snip my words>
> And being a fanatic does not make a person terrible.
Fanaticism leads to hatred which leads to violence. You might only be
wishing people dead now, but how can I know that you won't become
angry enough to carry out something like that the next time you see a
kid enjoying a happy meal with their family?
> If you tell me or anyone else that a meat-eater is not a bad
> person even if they have better choices, then I will tell you that
> NObody is a bad person. Period.
Humans naturally eat meat. It's been part of our diet since before we
were human. Now we both know it's possible to live a healthy,
well-nourished life without it, but that has to be a deliberate choice
(if involuntary, it's because of a lack of available meat). It's also
a choice that takes a lot of effort and a lot of education to do
correctly or it can lead to deficiencies (vegans are prone to being
deficient in B12 if they don't supplement).
If a human being is a terrible person for eating meat that was
humanely raised and slaughtered, why don't you get angry at wolves who
painfully kill deer by ripping them? Why don't you get angry at orcas
who toss seals up into the air? I'm not suggesting that you actually
get angry at those animals, they're doing nothing wrong; they're
following their natural diets and instincts.
> > animals more than humans. Wouldn't it be much better to ignore him, or
> > to be kind to him, rather than to seem so vicious?
>
> No -- because, again, if HE can state HIS opinion, then I can, too.
> But, your brain is so fanatically obsessed with telling pro-animal
> people what to say or not say or do or not do that nobody will listen
> to you or take you seriously.
I am a pro-animal person, but a welfarist rather than an AR person.
I'm trying to lend you a hand by showing what damage you're doing to
your own cause by such actions.
> P.S. If a majority of adults wanted sex with children, obviously
> you would support their right to do it, wouldn't you, since majority
> rule is all that matters. And sex with children is not nearly as bad
> as deliberately torturing someone by forcing a feeding tube down their
> throat while keeping them in a cage their entire lives.
> Even the Libertarian Party does not blindly approve of majority rule.
> The LP does not say, "Get rid of homosexuality if a majority of people
> want no homosexuals in their country."
A goose or duck whose liver will become foie gras is tortured and
that's wrong, and it should be stopped, but how dare you compare that
to a human child's life being ruined because of abuse? This is why I
decided not to become part of any kind of AR movement, because the
people in it care more for animals than fellow human beings.
-Rubystars
Rubystars
> > cockroaches would not be a problem. I know I am living quite happily
> > wth no pest control measures in my life at all and always will.
Here's an example I'd like to give you about why that might not always
work. There are roaches that live outside here, called "American
cockroaches." They're also known as "Palmetto bugs" or "Water bugs."
They're the largest pest roach in the world. I swear I've seen some
that approached 3 inches in length, and they fly.
When a storm is coming, the roaches outside get agitated, and
sometimes hang out around people's front doors or back doors for
shelter. This has nothing to do with how clean the houses are, it's
just part of the natural wildlife around here, apparently. About the
only thing you can do to prevent them is to use some kind of perimeter
poison to kill them before they get to your door.
(Bay leaves don't cut it.)
Of course, a dirty house will make them feel more at home should they
find their way indoors, but that's another matter.
I opened my back door to let the dogs go outside and a huge roach flew
in last week and landed on my shoe. Agitated by the coming storm it
proceeded to fly in an erratic manner all over the kitchen. I got out
of there quickly before it could land on me again and hunted down a
can of Raid.
My sister went in to look for it, but she couldn't find it. I was
worried about getting ambushed by the darn thing. A few hours later I
thought maybe it was safe to go back into the kitchen, and I looked
around, to see if it was going to fly down at me from anywhere. I
found it hiding behind the trash can (this thing looked as big as a
mouse) Just as it was about to take flight again, I was able to spray
it with the Raid.
It went crazy after that, flip flopping all over the place before it
finally started slowing down, I sprayed it again and it rolled over on
its back.
I waited for a second to make sure it wasn't going to fly at me and
then I got my shoe and crushed it so it wouldn't suffer. (this is more
than most people would do. Most people spray them and then let them
die slowly kicking around all night).
How would you have handled that situation? I killed that roach as fast
as I could, with as little pain as possible. It wasn't something I
could've prevented from happening, as that kind of roach lives in the
sewers and fields around here and tends to congregate around people's
doors when the weather is turning.
-Rubystars
piddock
<thoughtful analysis snipped>
This is all very well, Nemo. And you should be congratulated for sticking
to a vegan diet. However, if the only reason we tell people to give up
meat is for their health, the animals will suffer greatly in the long term.
Eventually, somebody will simply find some even more cruel and sadistic
way of confining animals, experimenting on them, and torturing them
in order to give health-conscious meat-eaters low-calorie, low-steroid,
low-antibiotic, low-fat pork or chicken or goose or rabbit or monkey.
Furthermore, meat-eaters will rightfully say that their health is
their own business -- which it is, provided I am not forced to pay
for their health problems caused by their meat eating. And provided
medical personnel are not forced to save them from heart attacks.
Every libertarian and proponent of self-responsibility
would agree with me.
There is nothing more wrong with "genetic engineering" or "cloning"
of humans or animals than there is with breeding them the old-fashioned
way. The issue is the breeding, the level of consciousness, trade-offs
the quality of life. Bringing ANY human or non-human into existence
has risks for the newborn and for everyone else -- such as the burden
of taking care of the disabled. We have no more control over the positions
of the atoms of in our bodies by reproducing the natural way than we do
using high technology - in fact, we have less. We must wait for
nanotechnology to advance.
tortrix
> That's not very compassionate. What's the point in having a respect
> for life (all life) if you tell someone that you wish they would drop
> dead from a heart attack?
Piddock never claimed to have "respect for all life".
Why should he be forced to "respect all life" any more than
you or Rick Etter or Usual Suspect?
You don't go preaching to somebody who is ALREADY showing more
respect for life by going vegetarian than the average person.
You tell and preach your pro-life philosophies to the WORST
offenders: Saddam Hussein, Al-Qaeda, Rick Etter, Usual Suspect.
Trying to squeeze more sacrifice and "respect"
out of those who have already changed their lifestyles
is idiotic, pointless, useless, and counterproductive for everyone.
> I may get flamed for saying this, but isn't a human life of more value
> than a cow's? It is in my opinion. Why would you be happy if Rick died
> but sad when a cow died?
Why are you sad at the possibility that Rick Etter or Usual Suspect
might be forced to give up meat? But you are not sad at the prospect
of poor people dying from either malnutrition or lack of medical services,
since you obviously do not give all your money away to them?
Why do you defend rich people getting even richer,
even though they do less work than the average person,
and even though forcing rich people through law
to give up their money and luxury to poor people
would have far greater benefit than cost?
Obviously, you believe the value of a rich person's
unearned money (the millions above the first 100K they earned)
is greater than the value of the life of a poor person
if you do not support mandatory wealth equalization.
usual suspect
<snip>
> Why are you sad at the possibility that Rick Etter or Usual Suspect
> might be forced to give up meat?
Just for the record, numbnuts, I don't eat meat.
usual suspect
<snip>
> Why do you defend rich people getting even richer,
She didn't.
> even though they do less work than the average person,
Bullshit. The way most people become wealthy is by working harder and
smarter than slugs like you who punch in and punch out reflexively.
> and even though forcing rich people through law
> to give up their money and luxury to poor people
> would have far greater benefit than cost?
Non sequitur. Taking from those who earn and giving to those who don't
isn't egalitarian or democratic, it's theft. Redistribution schemes help
no one, including the recipient. The welfare state has created
dependency, not independence, for recipients. It has increased crime. It
has led to a rise in single-parent homes. The steady rise in payments
has created a disincentive for finding work. In short, it has created a
lot more problems than it's solved. And after generations of "aid" and
billions of dollars, idiots like you still think redistribution SOLVES
problems. You couldn't be more wrong.
Welfare is both a consequence and a cause of several conditions
best described as social pathologies. These conditions include
dependency, poverty, out-of-wedlock births, nonemployment,
abortion, and violent crime.
http://tinyurl.com/uayy
Welfare contributes to crime in several ways. First, children
from single-parent families are more likely to become involved
in criminal activity. According to one study, children raised in
single-parent families are one-third more likely to exhibit
anti-social behavior.(3) Moreover, O'Neill found that, holding
other variables constant, black children from single- parent
households are twice as likely to commit crimes as black
children from a family where the father is present. Nearly 70
percent of juveniles in state reform institutions come from
fatherless homes, as do 43 percent of prison inmates.(4)
Research indicates a direct correlation between crime rates and
the number of single-parent families in a neighborhood.(5)
http://tinyurl.com/uazh
Welfare benefits are far more generous than commonly thought and
substantially exceed the amount a recipient could earn in an
entry-level job. As a result, recipients are likely to choose
welfare over work, increasing long-term dependence.
http://tinyurl.com/ub06
Want more?
> Obviously, you believe the value of a rich person's
> unearned money (the millions above the first 100K they earned)
People earn every cent, not just their first $100,000. Contrary to what
you seem to believe, most millionaires in the US earned their own
fortunes recently (within the last 10 years).
http://tinyurl.com/ub0q
> is greater than the value of the life of a poor person
Nobody is holding poor people from earning more income than they do.
Some of the greatest success stories in business continue to come from
immigrants who arrive with literally the clothes on their backs but who
go on with their dreams and hard work and become quite wealthy.
> if you do not support mandatory wealth equalization.
There's nothing "equal" about your mandatory theft scheme. You're a
totalitarian all the way around.
Rubystars
> windst...@hotmail.com (Rubystars) wrote in message news:<669fe9ea.03110...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > That's not very compassionate. What's the point in having a respect
> > for life (all life) if you tell someone that you wish they would drop
> > dead from a heart attack?
>
> Piddock never claimed to have "respect for all life".
I always thought of the vegan lifestyle as an attempt to promote peace
and respect for life. If that's not what vegans are about then what is
the purpose of the lifestyle?
> Why should he be forced to "respect all life" any more than
> you or Rick Etter or Usual Suspect?
I respect living things and know they hold value. I believe animals
are ok to use as long as they're not abused. I can't speak for Rick or
US because they're not me.
> You don't go preaching to somebody who is ALREADY showing more
> respect for life by going vegetarian than the average person.
I was trying to tell Rick somewhere in this thread that I think most
vegans must have an amazing commitment to the cause to go to such
lengths and take all the trouble that comes with it in order to avoid
all of the animal products they do since nearly everything in the
regular grocery store has animal products.
I think I mentioned that it seemed wrong to call vegans lazy after
they've taken all those steps and gone out of their way.
I guess you didn't notice that though.
I don't think that piddock is showing a lot of respect for life though
(in fact, he shows less than the average person) when he tells people
who don't agree with him that they should drop dead from heart
attacks.
He could've saved a bag of drowning puppies for all I care, but does
that make him a compassionate person if he still thinks other human
beings should drop dead for having a different opinion?
> You tell and preach your pro-life philosophies to the WORST
> offenders: Saddam Hussein, Al-Qaeda, Rick Etter, Usual Suspect.
When did Rick or US kill anybody?
> Trying to squeeze more sacrifice and "respect"
> out of those who have already changed their lifestyles
> is idiotic, pointless, useless, and counterproductive for everyone.
I'm not asking for more sacrifices. In fact, I think you guys have
gone far beyond what most people are willing to do, even those who
really do care for animals; and for that, I have some respect. What I
am interested in here in this thread, is why piddock wishes to make
vegans look like ugly nasty people when that's probably NOT how most
of them really are!
If vegans are compassionate, peaceful, and happy in life, why doesn't
he let some of those qualities shine through rather than telling other
people they should die?
> > I may get flamed for saying this, but isn't a human life of more value
> > than a cow's? It is in my opinion. Why would you be happy if Rick died
> > but sad when a cow died?
>
> Why are you sad at the possibility that Rick Etter or Usual Suspect
> might be forced to give up meat? But you are not sad at the prospect
> of poor people dying from either malnutrition or lack of medical services,
> since you obviously do not give all your money away to them?
>
I'd be upset if anyone was "forced" to eat a certain way. I'd be upset
if one of them forced you to eat meat, and I'd be upset if you forced
them to eat tofu if they didn't want to.
I'm not sure what you're bringing all that "medical services" stuff up
for.
> Why do you defend rich people getting even richer,
> even though they do less work than the average person,
> and even though forcing rich people through law
> to give up their money and luxury to poor people
> would have far greater benefit than cost?
> Obviously, you believe the value of a rich person's
> unearned money (the millions above the first 100K they earned)
> is greater than the value of the life of a poor person
> if you do not support mandatory wealth equalization.
I don't understand what all this has to do with whether or not piddock
is showing veganism in a positive light.
-Rubystars
nemo
Not very good at it are you? And you left out the comma after "wetness", you
microscopic moron!
nemo
Dutch <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:vqr9sg6...@news.supernews.com...
> Just go eat your carrots, you're out of your depth.
>
>
It's: "Just go AND eat your carrots. You're out of your depth," you pratt!
Learn some grammar.
nemo
> >
> > 35 years a Vegan and praaaaaaaaadd of it!!!
> ======================
> 35 years and getting more ignorant every day....
>
You'll never get the point through the heads of these aggressive, macho,
penis-obsessed idiots who swear by meat because they believe that by eating
it they will acquire some of the strength and potency of the animal. That's
all it is.
. . . and as expected, the chief one appears. Sick Etter!
How easy these idiots are to control!
nemo
news:<mJfrb.35221$Ou6....@news-lhr.blueyonder.co.uk>...
>
> <thoughtful analysis snipped>
>
> This is all very well, Nemo. And you should be congratulated for sticking
> to a vegan diet. However, if the only reason we tell people to give up
> meat is for their health, the animals will suffer greatly in the long
term.
> Eventually, somebody will simply find some even more cruel and sadistic
> way of confining animals, experimenting on them, and torturing them
> in order to give health-conscious meat-eaters low-calorie, low-steroid,
> low-antibiotic, low-fat pork or chicken or goose or rabbit or monkey.
I am an ethical Vegan. I was converted by the leaflet "What Happens To The
Calf." I don't know whether the Vegan Society still publish it but it says
it all.
>
> Furthermore, meat-eaters will rightfully say that their health is
> their own business --
Not in the UK where they cost the National Health Service a fortune! Yes -
for them, diet related illnesses should be treated as self-inflicted wounds.
which it is, provided I am not forced to pay
> for their health problems caused by their meat eating. And provided
> medical personnel are not forced to save them from heart attacks.
> Every libertarian and proponent of self-responsibility
> would agree with me.
>
> There is nothing more wrong with "genetic engineering" or "cloning"
> of humans or animals than there is with breeding them the old-fashioned
> way.
Yes there is. It's far more artificial and therefore far more dangerous.
nemo
I see how ignorant yours are, Sick Etter, and so does everyone else. You
should feel embarrassed and very, very vulnerable.
and that you send them around the world for all to
> see, contributing to even more animal death and suffering for no more
reason
> than your entertainment. And ours, actually, since your stupidity is so
> much fun to watch,
That's why I watch you - very, very closely indeed!
> mush brain...
>
You're brain couldn't "mush" if you put four thousand Volts through it! It's
bleedin' demised - bereft of life it rests in peace - this is an ex-
brain!!!
rick etter
"nemo" <ne...@naughtylass2.wet> wrote in message
Shouild make you feel very, very inferior, since you cannot refute anything
I've said.
Why is that? Your ignorance become terminal, has it killer?
>
> and that you send them around the world for all to
> > see, contributing to even more animal death and suffering for no more
> reason
> > than your entertainment. And ours, actually, since your stupidity is so
> > much fun to watch,
>
> That's why I watch you - very, very closely indeed!
=====================
No, you don't. You need to watch just to be sure what you don't want to try
to answer or refute.
That would really get you into trouble, what with the small amount of mental
capcity you have now,
doing anything like a real response would just about kill all the brain
cells you have left.
>
> > mush brain...
> >
> You're brain couldn't "mush" if you put four thousand Volts through it!
It's
> bleedin' demised - bereft of life it rests in peace - this is an ex-
> brain!!!
==================
You're the one that mentioned yours first, hypocrite.
Now, go have that nice blood-drenched breakfast, killer.
>
>
rick etter
"nemo" <ne...@naughtylass2.wet> wrote in message
I se that, as usual, you have no response...
> > What a bucnh of losers! And, you're the only one talking about how
little
> > your tallywacker is.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Instead of worrying about these types, just look back over the years.
> When
> > I
> > > became veggie in 1962 I think it was, people said I would die, I was
> mad,
> > > and what else was there to eat. There were very few veggie
restaurants,
> no
> > > food labelling regulations and people including my parents and most of
> my
> > > relations were dropping like flies from cardio-vascular disease with
> > doctors
> > > swearing blind that there was no dietary connection.
> > ==================
> > You have obviously gotten dumber. Must be the diet, eh killer?
======================
I se that, as usual, you can't refute this...
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Now we've got the entire medical profession recommending a balanced
diet
> > > with not too much red meat and fat, there are more veggie restaurants
> than
> > > you can shake a stick at, and nowadays, if I tell someone I'm Vegan,
> they
> > > don't say I'm barmey; instead they say: how interesting and ask for
> > > recipes!!
> > =====================
> > Imagine that. "A balanced" diet. And they still recommend meat. Too
bad
> > your ignorance doesn't allow you to see the idiocy of your posts.
====================
I see that, as usual, you have no response. Typical vegan brain-dead loony.
=======================
Yep, sure. Why is it then that *you* are so predictable killer? You
*never* respond with anything even remotely
about refuting the cruelty of your diet. Too bad for the animals. Oh,
wait, you claim to care about them, don't you?
uess you've been caught, again, in the typical vegan ly. Why is it that you
can't tell the truth, killer? Oh, yeah, you
don't know what that is anymore.
rick etter
"nemo" <ne...@naughtylass2.wet> wrote in message
I see that you agree about your lack of stamina, eh? Again, you cannot
refute what i say. You really are too stupid for this, aren't you?
Must be the diet. Besides, belittling? It's your own header you ignorant
fool.
>
>
rick etter
"tortrix" <tor...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:9327eab3.03110...@posting.google.com...
> windst...@hotmail.com (Rubystars) wrote in message
news:<669fe9ea.03110...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > That's not very compassionate. What's the point in having a respect
> > for life (all life) if you tell someone that you wish they would drop
> > dead from a heart attack?
>
> Piddock never claimed to have "respect for all life".
> Why should he be forced to "respect all life" any more than
> you or Rick Etter or Usual Suspect?
> You don't go preaching to somebody who is ALREADY showing more
> respect for life by going vegetarian than the average person.
Again, a statement that has never been proven or backed up with any kind of
evidence.
Why do you loons keep spewing this ly?
> You tell and preach your pro-life philosophies to the WORST
> offenders: Saddam Hussein, Al-Qaeda, Rick Etter, Usual Suspect.
> Trying to squeeze more sacrifice and "respect"
> out of those who have already changed their lifestyles
> is idiotic, pointless, useless, and counterproductive for everyone.
======================
Anything that requires thought is far beyond you and pissant.
>
> > I may get flamed for saying this, but isn't a human life of more value
> > than a cow's? It is in my opinion. Why would you be happy if Rick died
> > but sad when a cow died?
>
> Why are you sad at the possibility that Rick Etter or Usual Suspect
> might be forced to give up meat? But you are not sad at the prospect
> of poor people dying from either malnutrition or lack of medical services,
> since you obviously do not give all your money away to them?
====================
Anaolgies are really really hard for you, aren't they?
>
> Why do you defend rich people getting even richer,
> even though they do less work than the average person,
=================
LOL Anybody works harder than you do, fool. Unless you count those prison
orgies you lead as work...
> and even though forcing rich people through law
> to give up their money and luxury to poor people
> would have far greater benefit than cost?
=====================
No, you fool. It wouldn't.
> Obviously, you believe the value of a rich person's
> unearned money (the millions above the first 100K they earned)
> is greater than the value of the life of a poor person
> if you do not support mandatory wealth equalization.
==================
No, the problem is, you support non-work by the likes of you and still want
the benefits of those that do the work.
That's why you'll be in prison forever.
Dutch
[..]
> > Just go eat your carrots, you're out of your depth.
> >
> >
> It's: "Just go AND eat your carrots. You're out of your depth," you pratt!
> Learn some grammar.
Horrors, a grammar-nanny!
The word is "prat" btw...
Jendev
"rick etter" <rette...@bright.net> wrote in message
news:NLOdnY5HRpL...@bright.net...
>
> "Rubystars" <windst...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:669fe9ea.03110...@posting.google.com...
> > "rick etter" <rette...@bright.net> wrote in message
> news:<0p-dnVM0-tt...@bright.net>...
> > > "Rubystars" <windst...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:669fe9ea.03110...@posting.google.com...
> > > > pid...@comcast.net (piddock) wrote in message
> > > news:<c93ec7ed.03110...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > "rick etter" <rette...@bright.net> wrote in message
> news:<clWpb.1601
> > >
> > <snip lots of stuff>
> >
> > I just want to remind you Rick that I'm not a vegan and I'm not even a
> > vegetarian yet, though I eat a lot less meat than I used to. I think
> > most of what PETA says is pure BS, but I'm also skeptical of what you
> > are saying. I don't think anyone has the complete truth. I do think
> > that it's common sense that if you really have a moral objection to
> > eating meat you shouldn't do it.
> ================
> Then don't. Nobody has ever said that anyone here *has* to eat meat. The
> reverse cannot be said of vegan loons here though. Just don't try to tell
> everyone it's because you're 'saving' animals.
* Then why are you in a vegetarian newsgroup? What exactly did you expect?
If you don't like the heat stay out of the kitchen. And if you don't like
people telling you not to eat meat, stay out of the vegetarian groups.
>
> >
> > Rats and mice are pests, and there's no shortage of them (quite the
> > contrary).
> ==================
> Ther's no shortage of cows or chickens either. Is that the only critiria
> you have? Or is it just their size makes them less important as far as
> animal death and suffering are concerned?
>
>
> I don't think they should be tortured, but I don't see how
> > getting chopped up in a machine (a harvester or a grain processor)
> > could possibly be worse than the rat poison, coca cola, and flour
> > mixed with concrete they're subjected to when they invade people's
> > properties. It's probably a LOT more humane than that.
> ======================
> Why these comparisons? the one you should be comparing them to are the
> animals that die in slaughterhouses.
> I'd say that those animals die a more humane death than any of the ones
you
> mentioned.
>
>
> >
> > I think what a lot of vegetarians object to is the fact that animals
> > are raised for the express purpose of killing them. I don't really
> > have a problem with that, if the animals are treated humanely in life
> > and killed with little pain.
> ====================
> As many are. The problem is your crop fields are just the ticket for fast
> population explosions of many animals. You can say they are raised
> expressly because of your food production. Increases that would not occur
> without your crops providing easy food and cover. then, just when the
> populations are at their peak, you take away all the food and cover. What
> do you think happens to these animals, that they just mosey over to the
> next field that's cut down? They are left without food and cover to die
> from starvation and predation. they all can't just go into the
surrounding
> area because those areas will already be at their carrying capacity.
>
>
> > However I do think that it's sad that people eat as much meat as they
> > do.
> ======================
> Do you really know how much? Or are you just guessing with your delusions
> from PeTA and their ilk? Even the typical American diet contains far more
> plant material than meats. About 200lbs of meat. about 400lbs of
veggies,
> 200lbs of grains and cerials, and 100lbs of fruit. There is also 500+lbs
of
> dairy, but that's neither meat nor veggie.
>
>
> It's really not necessary to eat meat 3 or more times a day, and
> > it's not healthy either. I may or may not go vegetarian later but I
> > don't think that I'm going to be increasing animal suffering if I
> > choose to do that. I really don't.
> ====================
> But you refuse to even consider that as a possibility, nor will you even
try
> to check it out, will you? Why? Afraid of what you'll discover?
> That's also part of the point. Vegans won't even try to determine which
of
> their own foods cause less or more animals death and suffering. They just
> assume that it's all nice and cruelty free.
>
> >
> > The reason I replied though is that I was surprised at the fanatical
> > responses you're getting. I guess I shouldn't be though. I knew if I
> > thought someone was saying things to get a rise out of me I'd probably
> > ignore them.
> ========================
> Nope. I'm not replying to get a 'rise' out of any body. I just want to
> present the truth. Something vegans are ashamed of apparently since all
> they spew are lys and delusions.
>
> >
> >
> > > He can't. His hatred is all he has. He knows his 'ethics' are a
sham.
> so
> > > he has to hate those that remind him of that fact.
> >
> > I just think that if he wants to put a postive face on vegetarianism
> > or veganism that he should treat other people nicely, even those he
> > isn't fond of. I know that's not always easy and some flaming back and
> > forth is probably permissible (since this is Usenet) but telling
> > someone to drop dead from a heart attack goes way too far, IMO. I
> > mean, we are talking about food here, it's not THAT darn important.
> =====================
> But that's part of the point. Vegans will claim that their diet 'saves'
all
> those animals. They've never checked it out, and can't prove it, but they
> make the claims anyway. the fact is, their, and your, and my diets are
far
> from having the greatest impact on animal death and suffering. There are
> far more things in our lifestyles that contribute to animal death and
> suffering than just from whatever we eat. case in point, your posts to
> usenet are not cruelty free.
>
> >
> > -Rubystars
>
>
usual suspect
<snip>
>>>I just want to remind you Rick that I'm not a vegan and I'm not even a
>>>vegetarian yet, though I eat a lot less meat than I used to. I think
>>>most of what PETA says is pure BS, but I'm also skeptical of what you
>>>are saying. I don't think anyone has the complete truth. I do think
>>>that it's common sense that if you really have a moral objection to
>>>eating meat you shouldn't do it.
>>
>>================
>>Then don't. Nobody has ever said that anyone here *has* to eat meat. The
>>reverse cannot be said of vegan loons here though. Just don't try to tell
>>everyone it's because you're 'saving' animals.
>
> * Then why are you in a vegetarian newsgroup? What exactly did you expect?
I won't speak for Rick, but I'm vegetarian. I also expect the truth.
Many vegetarians make specific claims about morals and ethics which are
unreasonable, unsupportable, and simply wrong.
Animals die during every agricultural step from planting to harvesting
to storing to processing to transporting even *vegetarian* food. The
only animals that are "saved" are the ones you don't actually eat; the
rest -- far in excess of what are eaten by those who choose to eat meat
-- simply rot or are rendered into petfood or other products.
Most veg-ns assume that no animals die for their food simply because
they don't actually eat animals. They're flat out wrong. Rick is well
within his rights to inform and educate others about the real cost of
their "compassionate" food choices.
> If you don't like the heat stay out of the kitchen.
I think you should consider your own advice.
> And if you don't like
> people telling you not to eat meat, stay out of the vegetarian groups.
This thread is cross-posted to three groups. Not all the groups are
entirely dedicated to vegetarianISM. If you don't like it when others
speak the truth, just bury your head a little deeper in the sand.
rick etter
"Jendev" <veganb...@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
news:WaUrb.117014$mZ5.789708@attbi_s54...
To enlighten the terminally ignorant who seem to inhabit this group. But
then, it's also an 'ethics' group, so why your concern,
or did you not look to see the groups you're posting to?
What exactly did you expect?
> If you don't like the heat stay out of the kitchen. And if you don't like
> people telling you not to eat meat, stay out of the vegetarian groups.
======================
LOL Vegans putting heat on somebody? What a hoot! Nothing but lys and
delusions coming from them here.
Tell me, you believe your diet is cruelty-free?
>
snippage...
usual suspect
>>>* Then why are you in a vegetarian newsgroup? What exactly did you expect?
>>
>>I won't speak for Rick, but I'm vegetarian. I also expect the truth.
>
> on being a vegan?
Dreck, we often use certain adjectives for ourselves only to determine
later that they're inappropriate. What's more important are core beliefs
-- not labels. My core beliefs remain unchanged despite the use of
certain labels.
I'm quite conservative; vegans are quite liberal (radical even). I don't
believe animals have rights, nor shout they; such is an article of faith
for vegans. I understand the role of predation in nature, and I don't
separate man from nature; vegans are opposed to predation and separate
man from nature. I love other humans; vegans despise their own humans. I
favor animal testing; vegans don't. Etc.
Of course, this may be unreasonable to an obese and obtuse crippled
greasemonkey with nothing better to do than pester others all day and
night. It's okay with me since even your own people have disowned you,
and left you to incessantly chat with your sock puppets. You truly are
persona non grata. Now piss off.
usual suspect
> You've switched back and forth on this issue at least
> 3 documented times in 462 days, and then had the
> nerve to claim your views have been consistent.
Views, yes. Labels, no. Tough shit, fat slob.
> Not only are you a bare faced liar, you're one Hell of a
> confused little puppy as well.
Pretty rich from one carrying on a lengthy dialogue with sock puppets,
even offering to share usenet accounts. Does your beleaguered and
longsuffering wife know how far you've fallen in recent weeks, Dreck?
tofubar
changes back to an omnivorous diet after all the health problems
caused by being one.
Jendev
"usual suspect" <w...@where.how> wrote in message
news:RGWrb.60765$KY1....@twister.austin.rr.com...
> Jendev wrote:
> <snip>
> >>>I just want to remind you Rick that I'm not a vegan and I'm not even a
> >>>vegetarian yet, though I eat a lot less meat than I used to. I think
> >>>most of what PETA says is pure BS, but I'm also skeptical of what you
> >>>are saying. I don't think anyone has the complete truth. I do think
> >>>that it's common sense that if you really have a moral objection to
> >>>eating meat you shouldn't do it.
> >>
> >>================
> >>Then don't. Nobody has ever said that anyone here *has* to eat meat.
The
> >>reverse cannot be said of vegan loons here though. Just don't try to
tell
> >>everyone it's because you're 'saving' animals.
> >
> > * Then why are you in a vegetarian newsgroup? What exactly did you
expect?
>
> I won't speak for Rick, but I'm vegetarian. I also expect the truth.
> Many vegetarians make specific claims about morals and ethics which are
> unreasonable, unsupportable, and simply wrong.
>
I understand that. But I was referring to the claim that meat eaters (for
lack of a better term) don't come here and tell veggies to eat meat whereas
"vegan loons" do tell meat eaters not to eat meat. I found this claim
hilarious given the title of the group. btw nice to see you again usual :)
Jenae
Jendev
kindness radiates from you doesn't it? lol
But
> then, it's also an 'ethics' group, so why your concern,
> or did you not look to see the groups you're posting to?
>
Funny, I thought it was you who forgot to check the title.
>
> What exactly did you expect?
> > If you don't like the heat stay out of the kitchen. And if you don't
like
> > people telling you not to eat meat, stay out of the vegetarian groups.
> ======================
> LOL Vegans putting heat on somebody?
The second one was meant for this situation....not the first (shakes her
head).
What a hoot! Nothing but lys and
what exactly is a ly?
> delusions coming from them here.
> Tell me, you believe your diet is cruelty-free?
>
I believe that I am simply not supporting something I believe to be wrong
(i.e. the industrialization of animals...which is why i am vegan and not
just vegetarian). On a more relevant note to your "saving animals" comment,
I believe it is wrong to kill when it is not necessary and if it is
necessary that it should be done only in the most humane ways possible.
Jen
Jendev
"tofubar" <tof...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:690c4878.03111...@posting.google.com...
> I'd also like to point out that sooner or later every vegan I've known
> changes back to an omnivorous diet after all the health problems
> caused by being one.
health problems come from a bad diet....not a type of diet. Veganism is
healthy when done correctly...just like it is possible for a college student
to eat healthy but most of them don't. (no, folks, potato chips don't count
as your starch for the day)
Oh, and I had terrible health problems before I became vegan...everything
just sort of faded once I became vegan.
Jenae
Jendev
> Actually I'm not Jonathan. I've really seen people seem to become more
> depressed on a vegan diet, even with all sorts of variety and
> supplementation. This was my first post to these groups.
as a diagnosed "clinically depressive" I would like to point out that
feeling better health wise usually makes a big difference in how depressed
you are. When I began my healthy vegan diet (i say healthy because vegan
diets can be either healthy or unhealthy) I began feeling less depressed.
Jen
rick etter
Yes, it does. I'm here to help you overcome that ignorance. Now, if you
want an example of the vegan compassion
read some of expositories, or pissants, etals diatribes... They'll wish
people dead.
>
> But
> > then, it's also an 'ethics' group, so why your concern,
> > or did you not look to see the groups you're posting to?
> >
> Funny, I thought it was you who forgot to check the title.
==================
No deary, that must be you. "ethics" means a discussion of the idea, not
just a backslapping good-ol-boy get together
telling each other how superior you are.
>
> >
> > What exactly did you expect?
> > > If you don't like the heat stay out of the kitchen. And if you don't
> like
> > > people telling you not to eat meat, stay out of the vegetarian groups.
> > ======================
> > LOL Vegans putting heat on somebody?
>
> The second one was meant for this situation....not the first (shakes her
> head).
>
> What a hoot! Nothing but lys and
>
> what exactly is a ly?
======================
You know, a falshood, a delusion told as if you think others are supposed to
believe it.
It's in honor of one of the looniest vegans around who used that as her name
for a while.
Quite appropriate really, since she spewed on about inner-earth beings
living under a mountain in California,
the earth being hollow, and any other number of delusions. Her speciality
seems to be quack medicine.
>
> > delusions coming from them here.
> > Tell me, you believe your diet is cruelty-free?
> >
> I believe that I am simply not supporting something I believe to be wrong
> (i.e. the industrialization of animals...which is why i am vegan and not
> just vegetarian).
=====================
You didn't answer the question. Why is that? Let me ask in your terms
then.
Do you believe that by not supporting the "industrialization of animals"
that your diet is now
somehow cruelty free? By the way, there are no real vegans here on
usenet...
On a more relevant note to your "saving animals" comment,
> I believe it is wrong to kill when it is not necessary and if it is
> necessary that it should be done only in the most humane ways possible.
======================
No you don't. You believe no such thing, and your continued posting to
usenet proves that, killer.
Now, go have that nice blood-drenched breakfast, hypocrite.
>
> Jen
>
>
rick etter
>
> "tofubar" <tof...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:690c4878.03111...@posting.google.com...
> > I'd also like to point out that sooner or later every vegan I've known
> > changes back to an omnivorous diet after all the health problems
> > caused by being one.
>
> health problems come from a bad diet....not a type of diet. Veganism is
> healthy when done correctly..
Not without supplements...
The production of which causes animal death and suffering...
.just like it is possible for a college student
> to eat healthy but most of them don't. (no, folks, potato chips don't
count
> as your starch for the day)
> Oh, and I had terrible health problems before I became vegan...everything
> just sort of faded once I became vegan.
=====================
Maybe you didn't have that balanced diet you claim you need to be healthy,
eh?
> Jenae
>
>
usual suspect
>>I won't speak for Rick, but I'm vegetarian. I also expect the truth.
>>Many vegetarians make specific claims about morals and ethics which are
>>unreasonable, unsupportable, and simply wrong.
>
> I understand that. But I was referring to the claim that meat eaters (for
> lack of a better term) don't come here and tell veggies to eat meat whereas
> "vegan loons" do tell meat eaters not to eat meat. I found this claim
> hilarious given the title of the group. btw nice to see you again usual :)
Nice to see you, too, Jenae. Have you settled in with your boyfriend?
Did you alter the taxidermy yet? :-)
Jendev
apparently don't wish to have a discussion at all but rather a
monologue...well please continue, but without me. I would also prefer that
you not assume things about me only because I am vegan since I have returned
that favor already by not assuming things about you.
Peace, love and light
Jen
"rick etter" <rette...@bright.net> wrote in message
news:PsSdnQiBlZO...@bright.net...
Jendev
"usual suspect" <w...@where.how> wrote in message
there. Still having some rough problems with the roommates but that problem
has been resolved. Thanks for asking, how are things going with you now
days? I hope to be back in the newsgroups more when my job/school/etc life
slows down a bit...not sure when that will be though!
Jenae
Rubystars
> I'd also like to point out that sooner or later every vegan I've known
> changes back to an omnivorous diet after all the health problems
> caused by being one.
I'm interested in knowing what kind of health issues your friends were
having. I've been trying to read up as much as I can on vegetarian and
vegan diets over the past couple of years.
-Rubystars
rick etter
> I can see by your name calling that discussion with you is pointless as
you
> apparently don't wish to have a discussion at all but rather a
> monologue...well please continue, but without me.
Ah yes, the ducking out now because somebody told the truth.
I notice this happens prior to any vegan ever answering the tough questions.
Why is it you can't answer? Your religion letting you down?
You really are transparent, you know that killer?
Besides, what 'name calling' do you think took place. "killer" and
"hypocrite" are very factual descriptions, not name calling.
If you really think they aren't factual, then answer the questions and tell
us how they aren't. You won't though, because you can't.
I would also prefer that
> you not assume things about me only because I am vegan since I have
returned
> that favor already by not assuming things about you.
=====================
Haven't assumed anything deary. Being a self described vegan says it all.
You are full of lys, delusions and idiocy that you pass off as somehow more
'ethical' than anybody that would even consider eating meat. It's a
religion based on a fallacy.
usual suspect
> Thanks for asking, how are things going with you now
> days?
Pretty good, thanks.
> I hope to be back in the newsgroups more when my job/school/etc life
> slows down a bit...not sure when that will be though!
It'll all still be here when you're ready for it, and even if you're not.
usual suspect
> I'm interested in knowing what kind of health issues your friends were
> having. I've been trying to read up as much as I can on vegetarian and
> vegan diets over the past couple of years.
Veg-ns tend to suffer from anemia (iron deficiency), pernicious anemia
(B12 deficiency), and other such vitamin and mineral deficiencies. Also,
they're at risk of clinical eating disorders (anorexia). Age at start of
veg-nism appears to play a role in the latter.
Jendev
"usual suspect" <w...@where.how> wrote in message
Vegans at risk for anorexia? that's a new one. The others are obvious if
you don't eat a balanced diet...but of course I was anemic as a meat eater
so mostly a general balanced nutritian is important.
jen
Rubystars
I was thinking that veganism probably doesn't cause anorexia or other
eating disorders. More likely, those who developed it were already
obsessive about food or pre-disposed to eating disorders and that's
why they were searching out a restrictive diet to begin with.
I wouldn't think that a kid raised from childhood on a vegan diet with
parents who didn't obsess about weight, etc. would probably have as
good a chance as anyone else of not developing eating disorders. I
also wouldn't think that an adult person who was comfortable with
their body image who took up veganism for ethical reasons (or just for
better health) would develop anorexia. I guess teens would probably be
the at-risk group.
If someone eats eggs and dairy, do they have deficiencies? I thought
eggs were nutritional powerhouses.
-Rubystars
usual suspect
> "usual suspect" <w...@where.how> wrote in message
> news:uLrsb.39934$PH6....@twister.austin.rr.com...
>
>>Rubystars wrote:
>>
>>>I'm interested in knowing what kind of health issues your friends were
>>>having. I've been trying to read up as much as I can on vegetarian and
>>>vegan diets over the past couple of years.
>>
>>Veg-ns tend to suffer from anemia (iron deficiency), pernicious anemia
>>(B12 deficiency), and other such vitamin and mineral deficiencies. Also,
>>they're at risk of clinical eating disorders (anorexia). Age at start of
>>veg-nism appears to play a role in the latter.
>
> Vegans at risk for anorexia? that's a new one.
Not really, and it can work either way. Anorexics can use vegetarianism
as a cover for their disorder. Vegetarians can get flaky about certain
foods and develop the disorder.
http://www.anorexiatruth.com/display.php?page=Vegetarianism%20and%20Anorexia
http://www.vegetarian-diet.info/anorexia-vegetarians.htm
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m0820/1999_Sept/55512109/p1/article.jhtml
Etc.
> The others are obvious if
> you don't eat a balanced diet...but of course I was anemic as a meat eater
> so mostly a general balanced nutritian is important.
Agreed.
usual suspect
> I was thinking that veganism probably doesn't cause anorexia or other
> eating disorders. More likely, those who developed it were already
> obsessive about food or pre-disposed to eating disorders and that's
> why they were searching out a restrictive diet to begin with.
It works both ways, but I think it can be objectively argued that many
vegans are disposed toward eating disorders anyway. I pasted in some
links in my reply to Jenae.
> I wouldn't think that a kid raised from childhood on a vegan diet with
> parents who didn't obsess about weight, etc. would probably have as
> good a chance as anyone else of not developing eating disorders.
I'd argue that children raised in such rare circumstances wouldn't be
immune from peer pressure and other cultural pressures about diet and
image. Many people into exercise are the same with with diet and image
issues.
> I also wouldn't think that an adult person who was comfortable with
> their body image who took up veganism for ethical reasons (or just for
> better health) would develop anorexia. I guess teens would probably be
> the at-risk group.
Teens are predominantly at risk for eating disorders, but they're not
the only age group affected by them. Nor are females the only ones at
risk. Do a Google search of adult-onset anorexia and you might be
surprised what you find. Among other information I found on one site:
The oldest reported patient was a 68-year-old woman with no prior
history of eating disturbance.
Adult-onset cases usually come from upper-middle class families.
Anorexia nervosa in susceptible patients include those with multiple
surgical procedures or illnesses, stress secondary to childbirth or
marriage, or death of a spouse.
(http://www.ltspeed.com/bjblinder/publications/7.htm)
> If someone eats eggs and dairy, do they have deficiencies? I thought
> eggs were nutritional powerhouses.
It depends on variety. Full-fat dairy or skim? Any other foods or just
dairy and eggs? I have friends at the gym whose diets revolve around egg
whites, tuna (fresh, bagged, canned), skinless breast meat, and fat-free
dairy. They also eat fresh vegetables (cooked and raw), as well as fruit
in moderation and whole grains less often. They also take a lot of
supplements, so I doubt they have any net deficiencies.
Variety is the key to avoiding deficiencies.
Dutch
news:x9ysb.34933$Mc....@twister.austin.rr.com...
Vegans are at risk for other eating disorders such as "orthorexia nervosa",
an obsessive concern that everything in one's be "healthy", and one I have
defined, "ethixsia nervosa", manifested in symptoms like a neurotic fear
that microscopic particles of animal cells might be in one's food, and the
unshakable perception that killing animals for meat is immoral.
Rubystars
<snip>
> I'd argue that children raised in such rare circumstances wouldn't be
> immune from peer pressure and other cultural pressures about diet and
> image. Many people into exercise are the same with with diet and image
> issues.
Yeah that's true.
<snip>
> Teens are predominantly at risk for eating disorders, but they're not
> the only age group affected by them. Nor are females the only ones at
> risk. Do a Google search of adult-onset anorexia and you might be
> surprised what you find. Among other information I found on one site:
I have heard of adults and males being affected before. I'm thinking
it's not necessarily the vegan diet that's the risk factor, but
non-mainstream diets in general that may be a risk factor: if only
because it puts someone's focus more on finding and avoiding certain
foods than other people.
<Snip>
> It depends on variety. Full-fat dairy or skim? Any other foods or just
> dairy and eggs? I have friends at the gym whose diets revolve around egg
> whites, tuna (fresh, bagged, canned), skinless breast meat, and fat-free
> dairy. They also eat fresh vegetables (cooked and raw), as well as fruit
> in moderation and whole grains less often. They also take a lot of
> supplements, so I doubt they have any net deficiencies.
>
> Variety is the key to avoiding deficiencies.
The vegetarians claim they have a more diverse diet than meat eaters
because they've explored more plant options than most meat eaters ever
do. I'm thinking that is probably true, since they need to be able to
create meals that don't get boring instead of just doubling up on
traditional "side dishes".
-Rubystars
Rubystars
<snip>
> Vegans are at risk for other eating disorders such as "orthorexia nervosa",
> an obsessive concern that everything in one's be "healthy", and one I have
> defined, "ethixsia nervosa", manifested in symptoms like a neurotic fear
> that microscopic particles of animal cells might be in one's food, and the
> unshakable perception that killing animals for meat is immoral.
I did a search on orthorexia nervosa and I found this page which was
pretty enlightening as to how people can become far too obsessed with
food. It made me think of piddock when I was reading some parts of it,
how he wants other people to drop dead from heart attacks, etc.
http://www.chetday.com/billings.html
-Rubystars
pearl
> news:uLrsb.39934$PH6....@twister.austin.rr.com...
> Veg-ns tend to suffer from anemia (iron deficiency), pernicious anemia
> (B12 deficiency), and other such vitamin and mineral deficiencies.
'An American study found that organically grown food contained
much higher average levels of minerals than non-organic food. For
example, there was 63 per cent more calcium, 73 per cent more iron,
125 per cent more potassium and 60 per cent more zinc in the
organically produced foods. There was also 29 per cent less of the
toxic element mercury.'
http://www.ekolantbruk.se/PDFer/Myth%20and%20reality.pdf
B12 is present in non-cobalt depleted 'cide-sterilized healthy soil,
and taken up by plants. Enteric bacteria in a healthy (non-antibiotic
treated) small intestine also produce vitamin B12, as long as the
plants we eat contain cobalt - which is also taken up from soil.
Rubystars
> an obsessive concern that everything in one's be "healthy", and one I have
> defined, "ethixsia nervosa", manifested in symptoms like a neurotic fear
> that microscopic particles of animal cells might be in one's food, and the
> unshakable perception that killing animals for meat is immoral.
Whether killing animals for meat is immoral or not is really a
personal decision people have to make for themselves. I don't think
it's fair to hate or look down on other people for feeling differently
than one's self on the matter though. It's similar to differing
feelings on the death penalty.
As for the "microscopic particles" bit, I see two sides to it. One I
can understand, that if someone is vegetarian, they're not going to
want to eat food that has gelatin in it, or vegetables cooked in bacon
grease. If vegan they're not going to be eating foods with whey.
That's common sense to me.
However there's another side to it. I saw a girl on MTV's "The Real
World" back when I watched that show as a teenager. She was a
self-described vegan. The group all went out to this Hawaiian luau
where a pig had been roasted. (Apparently, the producers of the show
wanted to set her up for a dramatic scene, and in that way, I
sympathize with her.)She showed disgust at the idea of roasting a
whole pig, but as far as I can remember, she didn't get overly
preachy. I think she wanted to hang out with her new friends so she
participated in the luau by eating some steamed greens that were
available as a side dish. After she had eaten a whole bowl of it,
someone informed her that the greens had pig fat in them. I can
understand her being upset, but what she did I think was a sign that
veganism had become an eating disorder in her case. She prompty went
to the public bathroom nearby and vomited her meal.
I don't see how that helped her, the pig, or anyone else, other than
to make people avoid the kind of strict diet she was apparently a part
of. All it did was waste food and damage herself. I sincerely hope
that most vegans wouldn't do that kind of thing.
I also don't understand some people's peculiar need to have meat and
other food cooked in separate pots and utensils (or even a separate
room) even though they were washed. That seems too obsessive to me.
-Rubystars
Dutch
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message > Vegans are at risk for other
eating disorders such as "orthorexia nervosa",
> > an obsessive concern that everything in one's be "healthy", and one I
have
> > defined, "ethixsia nervosa", manifested in symptoms like a neurotic fear
> > that microscopic particles of animal cells might be in one's food, and
the
> > unshakable perception that killing animals for meat is immoral.
>
> Whether killing animals for meat is immoral or not is really a
> personal decision people have to make for themselves.
Vegan/ARAs don't look at it that way, if they did there would be no debate.
> I don't think
> it's fair to hate or look down on other people for feeling differently
> than one's self on the matter though. It's similar to differing
> feelings on the death penalty.
>
> As for the "microscopic particles" bit, I see two sides to it. One I
> can understand, that if someone is vegetarian, they're not going to
> want to eat food that has gelatin in it, or vegetables cooked in bacon
> grease. If vegan they're not going to be eating foods with whey.
> That's common sense to me.
Those are more than microscopic particles.
> However there's another side to it. I saw a girl on MTV's "The Real
> World" back when I watched that show as a teenager. She was a
> self-described vegan. The group all went out to this Hawaiian luau
> where a pig had been roasted. (Apparently, the producers of the show
> wanted to set her up for a dramatic scene, and in that way, I
> sympathize with her.)She showed disgust at the idea of roasting a
> whole pig, but as far as I can remember, she didn't get overly
> preachy. I think she wanted to hang out with her new friends so she
> participated in the luau by eating some steamed greens that were
> available as a side dish. After she had eaten a whole bowl of it,
> someone informed her that the greens had pig fat in them. I can
> understand her being upset, but what she did I think was a sign that
> veganism had become an eating disorder in her case. She prompty went
> to the public bathroom nearby and vomited her meal.
She may have been bulemic anyway, or I wonder if she would have puked if she
hadn't been told.
> I don't see how that helped her, the pig, or anyone else, other than
> to make people avoid the kind of strict diet she was apparently a part
> of. All it did was waste food and damage herself. I sincerely hope
> that most vegans wouldn't do that kind of thing.
Vegans will make a scene about restaurant condiments that *may* contain
small amounts of anchovy paste, etc..
> I also don't understand some people's peculiar need to have meat and
> other food cooked in separate pots and utensils (or even a separate
> room) even though they were washed. That seems too obsessive to me.
Veganism starts as a diet and morphs gradually into an intolerant religion.
piddock
> Whether killing animals for meat is immoral or not is really a
> personal decision people have to make for themselves.
So you defend needless murder and torture of animals just because
you think tasting good is more important?
I will still lobby for laws to throw people in prison for it.
Taking marijuana and cocaine, suicide, prostitution, and
pornography are personal decisions which people
should be allowed to make for themselves.
> I don't think
> it's fair to hate or look down on other people for feeling differently
> than one's self on the matter though. It's similar to differing
> feelings on the death penalty.
Fine. But then you should not look down on adults who want to have
sex with children. Nor should you look down on those who favor
euthanizing disabled babies or elderly. Whether or not you agree
with them or not is not the issue.
> I don't see how that helped her, the pig, or anyone else, other than
I agree. It doesn't. But there was still no reason to kill a pig for
a stupid television show.
> I also don't understand some people's peculiar need to have meat and
> other food cooked in separate pots and utensils (or even a separate
> room) even though they were washed. That seems too obsessive to me.
I agree with that, too. After the fact does not help.
That is why it is important to shut down the factory farms and breeding
facilities, at the source.
You, Rubystars, is the one obsessed with people's eating habits,
defending any of them. I saw on the news that the Fiji Islanders
made an official apology for their ancestors cannibalizing a
Christian missionary. That is a nice gesture, but it is too late
and does nothing to help that missionary their ancestors ate.
piddock
> It works both ways, but I think it can be objectively argued that
<bullshit snipped>
There is nothing to debate here. Veganism & vegetarianism have
nothing to do with eating disorders or any psychological disorders.
For one thing, there is no such thing as an "eating disorder".
Rubystar and Usual Suspect agree and believe that anorexia nervosa
is a lifestyle choice. It is those who push meat on their kids all the
time who have the mental disorders.
> Anorexia nervosa in susceptible patients include those with multiple
> surgical procedures or illnesses, stress secondary to childbirth or
> marriage, or death of a spouse.
There is no such thing as an "eating disorder".
Just because you do not have anorexia nervosa does not mean
you should look down on those who do or judge them to have
"psychological problems".
tortrix
> > Why do you defend rich people getting even richer,
> She didn't.
That was a "she"? Thanks!
> Bullshit. The way most people become wealthy is by working harder and
> smarter than slugs like you who punch in and punch out reflexively.
Bullshit. Many get rich through billions of dollars in corporate
welfare, paid for by taxes. Social welfare is an insignificant amount
compared to that. But, given your inability to understand the way
the agricultural world works, and the numbers of animals killed,
there is no reason anyone should take your insane economic ramblings
seriously.
> Redistribution schemes help
> no one, including the recipient. The welfare state has created
> dependency, not independence, for recipients. It has increased crime.
That is YOUR opinion. It is YOUR opinion because it does not follow
DIRECTLY what someone CHOOSES to do with the money!! It does not
follow DIRECTLY that....
> dependency, poverty, out-of-wedlock births, nonemployment,
> abortion, and violent crime
etc. will follow!
In total contrast, vegetarians kill far fewer animals than meat-eaters!
They pollute less than meat-eaters! They consume less energy, put
LESS pressure on the PHYSICAL environment, and therefore cause
FEWER HUMAN DEATHS as a result of their eating habits than meat-eaters!
These are PHYSICALLY DETERMINISTIC CONSEQUENCES of eating lower on
the food chain!
> People earn every cent, not just their first $100,000. Contrary to what
> you seem to believe, most millionaires in the US earned their own
> fortunes recently (within the last 10 years).
Not if they tortured and murdered millions of animals to do it.
> Nobody is holding poor people from earning more income than they do.
Ok. Then don't complain if the poor people take over land and resources
from the rich people, just like animals kill other animals in the wild
to gain an advantage. The world is a finite space, there is finite
amount of resources for everybody, animal or human.
> Some of the greatest success stories in business continue to come from
> immigrants who arrive with literally the clothes on their backs but who
> go on with their dreams and hard work and become quite wealthy.
So what? So some get lucky. And millions of others worked even harder
but could not get rich.
It is this simple: YOU support deliberately encroaching upon and
interfering with the lives of animals to gain some slight advantage.
You do not just support doing this for truly necessary reasons, but
you deliberately support even the worst cruelest unnecessary killing
or imposition upon animals' lives.
Yet you self-righteously demand that humans not interfere with each
others' lives, even if taking away some land and resouces
from the lazy rich and giving it to
those who are squeezed out of resources on
an overpopulated planet has far greater benefits than negative
consequences.
I certainly will not judge somebody who kills you to acquire a
higher standard of living, and I would do everything to acquit them.
It is the law of the jungle EVERYwhere.
rick etter
"piddock" <pid...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:c93ec7ed.03111...@posting.google.com...
> windst...@hotmail.com (Rubystars) wrote in message
news:<669fe9ea.0311...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > Whether killing animals for meat is immoral or not is really a
> > personal decision people have to make for themselves.
>
> So you defend needless murder and torture of animals just because
> you think tasting good is more important?
So what? You defend AND support needless cruelty and torture of animals for
nothing more than *your* usnet entertainment.
I suggest you take up watching bullfighting for your pleasure. Far fewer
animals die there than for your contributions to usenet.
>
> I will still lobby for laws to throw people in prison for it.
> Taking marijuana and cocaine, suicide, prostitution, and
> pornography are personal decisions which people
> should be allowed to make for themselves.
=====================
Prison? Where you are now, right stupid?
>
> > I don't think
> > it's fair to hate or look down on other people for feeling differently
> > than one's self on the matter though. It's similar to differing
> > feelings on the death penalty.
>
> Fine. But then you should not look down on adults who want to have
> sex with children. Nor should you look down on those who favor
> euthanizing disabled babies or elderly. Whether or not you agree
> with them or not is not the issue.
>
> > I don't see how that helped her, the pig, or anyone else, other than
>
> I agree. It doesn't. But there was still no reason to kill a pig for
> a stupid television show.
=================
There were no good reason for you to kill animals to post this ignorant
nonsense to usenet either, but you still did it. Why is that killer?
Just like the blood on you habds and the bloody footprints you track around
the world for your stupidity?
>
> > I also don't understand some people's peculiar need to have meat and
> > other food cooked in separate pots and utensils (or even a separate
> > room) even though they were washed. That seems too obsessive to me.
>
> I agree with that, too. After the fact does not help.
> That is why it is important to shut down the factory farms and breeding
> facilities, at the source.
>
> You, Rubystars, is the one obsessed with people's eating habits,
> defending any of them. I saw on the news that the Fiji Islanders
> made an official apology for their ancestors cannibalizing a
> Christian missionary. That is a nice gesture, but it is too late
> and does nothing to help that missionary their ancestors ate.
----------------------
Just as your 'claiming' to be a compassionate vegan does nothing for all the
animals you kill merely for you entertainment and selfish convenience.
What a hypocrite. A sanctimonious, windbag, hypocrite...
Now, go have that nice blood-drenched lunch, killer...
usual suspect
>>It works both ways, but I think it can be objectively argued that
>
> <bullshit snipped>
It wasn't bullshit, it's affirmed by science.
> There is nothing to debate here.
Then why are you snipping what you can't refute?
> Veganism & vegetarianism have
> nothing to do with eating disorders or any psychological disorders.
They've everything to do with disorders.
> For one thing, there is no such thing as an "eating disorder".
Ipse dixit. Prove it.
> Rubystar and Usual Suspect agree and believe that anorexia nervosa
> is a lifestyle choice.
I don't think either of us ever said that. I know *I* didn't.
> It is those who push meat on their kids all the
> time who have the mental disorders.
I think the ones with mental orders are totalitarians -- dietary
fascists -- who'd ban meat altogether. You're certainly intolerant, but
I think your intolerance is a symptom of deeper issues.
>>Anorexia nervosa in susceptible patients include those with multiple
>>surgical procedures or illnesses, stress secondary to childbirth or
>>marriage, or death of a spouse.
>
> There is no such thing as an "eating disorder".
Ipse dixit. Prove it.
> Just because you do not have anorexia nervosa does not mean
> you should look down on those who do or judge them to have
> "psychological problems".
I look down on you. WAY down.
usual suspect
>>>Why do you defend rich people getting even richer,
>>
>>She didn't.
>
> That was a "she"? Thanks!
Yes, she's a she.
>>Bullshit. The way most people become wealthy is by working harder and
>>smarter than slugs like you who punch in and punch out reflexively.
>
> Bullshit.
Nope, it's the truth.
> Many get rich through billions of dollars in corporate
> welfare,
No. You've been reading too much propagandist fiction.
> paid for by taxes.
Most "corporate welfare" isn't paid for by taxes, per se, but rather in
the form of tax credits and tax cuts. I think stimulating commerce is a
good thing. It provides jobs and tax *revenues* often rise above levels
"lost" in the credits and/or cuts. It also has multiplier effects --
growth in one area causes other areas to grow. It's a win-win-win-win
situation for government, business, workers, and the rest of the community.
> Social welfare is an insignificant amount
> compared to that.
It also has very little effect on the economy since the parasites who
receive it offer nothing in return to society. Indeed, all those studies
you snipped show that welfare ends up costing society a lot more in
terms of criminal activity, jails, special schools, etc.
> But, given your inability to understand the way
> the agricultural world works,
Since I've worked in the "agricultural world," I bet I have a better
idea how it works than you ever will.
> and the numbers of animals killed,
Do you have ANY evidence to the contrary?
> there is no reason anyone should take your insane economic ramblings
> seriously.
Actually, there is reason why you should take it seriously. I offered
substantive information to corroborate my claims. You've yet to follow suit.
>>Redistribution schemes help
>>no one, including the recipient. The welfare state has created
>>dependency, not independence, for recipients. It has increased crime.
>
> That is YOUR opinion.
No, that's based on studies by people who know a lot more about it than
you do.
> It is YOUR opinion because it does not follow
> DIRECTLY what someone CHOOSES to do with the money!!
It's not just what they do with money, it's the behaviors it spawns.
> It does not
> follow DIRECTLY that....
LOL... qualifying your statement. You know the truth, you're just too
chickenshit to admit you're wrong.
>> dependency, poverty, out-of-wedlock births, nonemployment,
>> abortion, and violent crime
>
> etc. will follow!
Study after study shows that to be the case. Name one study that shows
positive benefits flowing from income redistribution. And where are the
*clean* and *well-kept* slums and ghettos?
> In total contrast, vegetarians kill far fewer animals than meat-eaters!
Ipse dixit.
> They pollute less than meat-eaters!
Ipse dixit.
> They consume less energy,
Ipse dixit.
> put LESS pressure on the PHYSICAL environment,
Ipse dixit.
> and therefore cause
> FEWER HUMAN DEATHS as a result of their eating habits than meat-eaters!
Ipse dixit.
> These are PHYSICALLY DETERMINISTIC CONSEQUENCES of eating lower on
> the food chain!
Ipse dixit. You've not proven a thing.
>>People earn every cent, not just their first $100,000. Contrary to what
>>you seem to believe, most millionaires in the US earned their own
>>fortunes recently (within the last 10 years).
>
> Not if they tortured and murdered millions of animals to do it.
Yes, they did.
>>Nobody is holding poor people from earning more income than they do.
>
> Ok. Then don't complain if the poor people take over land and resources
> from the rich people,
I'll complain about their theft just as I do now. Why can't THEY produce
something? Why can't THEY participate in the economy rather than
siphoning money off from those who earn?
> just like animals kill other animals in the wild
> to gain an advantage.
I know misanthropes like you savor the idea of barbarism. It's endemic
to your way of thinking. More of your ersatz compassion.
> The world is a finite space, there is finite
> amount of resources for everybody, animal or human.
Not everything is zero-sum, though. That's where you leftwing assholes
screw up every time.
>>Some of the greatest success stories in business continue to come from
>>immigrants who arrive with literally the clothes on their backs but who
>>go on with their dreams and hard work and become quite wealthy.
>
> So what? So some get lucky.
Luck has very little to do with it. Effort is the biggest factor.
> And millions of others worked even harder
> but could not get rich.
Smart work goes along with hard work.
> It is this simple: YOU support deliberately encroaching upon and
> interfering with the lives of animals to gain some slight advantage.
Animals are irrelevant to the issue of income redistribution.
> You do not just support doing this for truly necessary reasons,
Yes I do.
> but
> you deliberately support even the worst cruelest unnecessary killing
> or imposition upon animals' lives.
Ipse dixit. You're completely clueless about what I support, and you
have to exaggerate because the truth is far more flattering than you
want it to be.
> Yet you self-righteously demand that humans not interfere with each
> others' lives,
It's not self-righteous. It has to do with rights and liberty. Your
schemes turn one group of people (those who work) into slaves for a
class that doesn't (welfare recipients).
> even if taking away some land and resouces
Theft.
> from the lazy rich
Ipse dixit. The "lazy rich" tend to be Democrats of the most extreme
liberal bent -- the Ted Kennedys, Jay Rockefellers, et al.
> and giving it to
> those who are squeezed out of resources on
> an overpopulated planet has far greater benefits than negative
> consequences.
You're not Robin Hood, you just have extreme leftist and totalitarian
leanings. If you want to be a philanthropist, go earn your *own* fortune
and distribute it as you see fit. But let the rest of us enjoy the
fruits of our own labor and distribute it as we want. You're so generous
with other people's money -- you're a hypocrite.
> I certainly will not judge somebody who kills you to acquire a
> higher standard of living, and I would do everything to acquit them.
Does your daddy know that you post these kinds of threats on the internet?
You're a sick little punk who hates your fellow man and threatens to
skin him alive or kill him outright, or wishes him to have a heart
attack. You're not compassionate at all.
> It is the law of the jungle EVERYwhere.
What goes around comes around.
Rubystars
> you think tasting good is more important?
It's not really even about taste. Yeah, meat is tasty. *L* Still, I
think the major reason people eat meat around the world is because
it's nutritious.
Humans are natural omnivores. It's the way our ancestors have lived
for a long, long time.
You don't rage and complain when a raccoon eats Crawfish, insects,
birds, eggs, fish, and rabbits. Why should you rage and complain when
a human does it?
Veganism is a non-mainstream choice of diet with risks of improper
nutrition if done incorrectly, and some who do "all the right things"
still end up having to go off the diet.
I had a very good friend who was a vegetarian (not even a vegan) and
she ended up with an iron deficiency, and her doctor ordered her to
eat a little meat every day. She said it grossed her out
(understandably) but she did it and her health improved.
Whether your body's natural tendency is to be omnivorous or not is not
a choice. It's part of humanity's natural history.
Whether or not you eat an omnivorous diet is a choice, however.
Veganism is a choice that is non-mainstream because most people follow
their natural tendencies.
The reason then, that I said killing animals for meat is a personal
choice whether you consider it immoral or not, is that if it bothers
you (or at least if current methods bother you), you shouldn't
contribute to it.
> I will still lobby for laws to throw people in prison for it.
> Taking marijuana and cocaine, suicide, prostitution, and
> pornography are personal decisions which people
> should be allowed to make for themselves.
I see you're either a liberal or a libertarian.
> Fine. But then you should not look down on adults who want to have
> sex with children.
Now you're just being silly. You're comparing the rape of a child to
the humane slaughter of a cow.
>Nor should you look down on those who favor
> euthanizing disabled babies or elderly.
> Whether or not you agree
> with them or not is not the issue.
Well since I'm pro life I certainly don't agree with that but even
most liberals I know wouldn't want to harm babies that were already
born or elderly people who can't defend themselves. However, I could
be wrong and the morality of most of them could have departed from
what I hold to be right and wrong even further than I'd ever imagined.
> I agree. It doesn't. But there was still no reason to kill a pig for
> a stupid television show.
I don't like it when animals are killed just for tv shows either. That
"Fear Factor" show is awful, for example. I was flipping channels and
saw this exotic animal I was considering buying as an arthropod pet
one day, a whip scorpion (no sting) that's from Thailand. This girl
chewed it up for a chance to get some money. An interesting and exotic
animal crushed for mass entertainment. Sickening.
In the case of the Real World show however, I think there was already
going to be the luau, and they were just scheduled to attend it.
> I agree with that, too. After the fact does not help.
> That is why it is important to shut down the factory farms and breeding
> facilities, at the source.
Are you against factory farms, or all farms that raise animals for
meat?
> You, Rubystars, is the one obsessed with people's eating habits,
> defending any of them.
I don't think that I have to make any excuses or apologize for what I
eat. I see nothing wrong with it. I also don't care what you or other
people eat. I feel like everyone should follow their own principles
and desires.
You're the one who wants to throw people in jail for eating meat. If
that's not policing other people's personal lives, I don't know what
is.
>I saw on the news that the Fiji Islanders
> made an official apology for their ancestors cannibalizing a
> Christian missionary. That is a nice gesture, but it is too late
> and does nothing to help that missionary their ancestors ate.
The missionary was a human being. You keep trying your hardest to
pretend like human beings are morally equivalent to other animals.
Maybe you believe that, and I suppose you'll believe whatever you
want, but I certainly disagree.
-Rubystars
Jonathan Ball
> usual suspect <sup...@our.troops> wrote in message news:<Kvysb.35021$Mc.1...@twister.austin.rr.com>...
>
>
>>It works both ways, but I think it can be objectively argued that
>
>
> <bullshit snipped>
>
> There is nothing to debate here. Veganism & vegetarianism have
> nothing to do with eating disorders or any psychological disorders.
Wrong. "veganism", at least, IS an eating disorder per se.
> For one thing, there is no such thing as an "eating disorder".
Wrong again.
Rubystars
> nothing to do with eating disorders or any psychological disorders.
Generally, I agree with you. However, any special diets may be
something that people use to cover their eating disorders. If they
begin to think that certain foods are "evil" or "toxic" and they get
too obssessed with it, I think it could form into an eating disorder.
> For one thing, there is no such thing as an "eating disorder".
> Rubystar and Usual Suspect agree and believe that anorexia nervosa
> is a lifestyle choice. It is those who push meat on their kids all the
> time who have the mental disorders.
I don't think anorexia is a lifestyle choice at all (though it may
have started out that way). It's a disease and people need help to get
better, and may never be cured.
Vegetarianism/Veganism is a lifestyle choice. I think that was
probably what you meant but I wanted to make that clear.
I disagree with you that there is no such thing as an eating disorder.
Those people who have to live through the hell of having them (losing
teeth, losing hair, becoming infertile, suffering deficiencies,
thinking they're fat even though they're under 100 lbs.) are not
choosing to be that way.
> There is no such thing as an "eating disorder".
> Just because you do not have anorexia nervosa does not mean
> you should look down on those who do or judge them to have
> "psychological problems".
Have you ever seen the skeletal images of people who are around 85
lbs. and still consider themselves to be huge? That is a psychological
problem, as well as a medical issue.
-Rubystars