stupid question here...
Chococat34
they are killed, I still think its wrong...
Anyways is that the same as a horse tail hair violin bow? Is there any cruelty
involved there in any way?
I was thinking about getting back into playing but now... ?
thanks
sarah
dh...@nomail.com
· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use
of wood and paper products, and roads and all types of
buildings, and by their own diet. What they try to avoid is
products which provide life (and death) for farm animals,
but even then they would have to avoid the following in order
to be successful:
_________________________________________________________
Tires, Buttons, Baseballs, Footballs, Surgical sutures, Matches
China, Soaps, Photographic film, Cosmetics, Brushes, Perfume,
Shaving cream, Paints, Candles, Crayon/Chalk, Toothpaste,
Deodorants, Mouthwash, Paper, Fabric printing/dying, Upholstery,
Paints, Floor waxes, Glass, Glue, Water Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer,
Antifreeze
http://www.aif.org/lvstock.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
Ceramics, Insecticides, Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic,
Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, Glucagon, Heparin, Insulin,
Pancreatin, Thrombin, Vasopressin, Vitamin B-12, Asphalt,
auto and jet lubricants, outboard engine oil, high-performance
greases, brake fluid
http://www.teachfree.com/student/wow_that_cow.htm
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die in it as they do
in any other habitat. They also depend on it for their
lives like the animals in any other habitat. If people
consume animal products from animals they think are
raised in decent ways, they will be promoting life for
more such animals in the future. ·
Johan Van Gompel
[Sarah's horse tail violin bow part snipped]
> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use
> of wood and paper products, and roads and all types of
> buildings, and by their own diet. What they try to avoid is
> products which provide life (and death) for farm animals,
> but even then they would have to avoid the following in order
> to be successful:
[further waste of bandwith snipped]
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=avoid+in+order+to+be+successful&hl=en&meta=group%3Dalt.food.vegan
You have been doing this for a looooong time, haven't you?
Do not feed the trolls. Just read the threads provided by the link above.
They should answer most if not all of your questions.
--
Johan Van Gompel
http://johanvg.dyndns.org
Debian GNU/Linux 2.4.13 on Athlon 1400/512 MB
T5NF
(snip)
>Anyways is that the same as a horse tail hair violin bow? Is there any
>cruelty
>involved there in any way?
>I was thinking about getting back into playing but now... ?
>
and I too need new bows.. I found this persons page which has some encouraging
info on it:
http://vegangirl.com/Violin.html
Though I think she might be surprised to find out that the US (not just China)
also raises horses for the Japanese & French food industry :-(
The good news is that synthetic bows can be had :-)
hth
Fritz
dh...@nomail.com
>dh...@nomail.com wrote:
>
>[Sarah's horse tail violin bow part snipped]
>> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use
>> of wood and paper products, and roads and all types of
>> buildings, and by their own diet. What they try to avoid is
>> products which provide life (and death) for farm animals,
>> but even then they would have to avoid the following in order
>> to be successful:
>[further waste of bandwith snipped]
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=avoid+in+order+to+be+successful&hl=en&meta=group%3Dalt.food.vegan
>
>You have been doing this for a looooong time, haven't you?
>Do not feed the trolls. Just read the threads provided by the link above.
>They should answer most if not all of your questions.
My post should answer some questions too...but I guess
they're not answers that you like?
Jon Janssen
answering the question, but it's not made up either.
I've known him from another board enough that we respect each other, and
even though he has different thoughts, he isn't one to bash or harass
As for the question, I was wondering this about dart boards that are
supposedly horsehair.
Of cpourse, horses wouldn't be raised and killed just for horse hair for
dart boards; the hair is a by product and the industry finds a use for it,
but it does give a few more $ to the industry. Find alternatives if you can
if my guess....
Without the dairy, meat, egg and fur industry, the slaughter by-products
wouldn't pay for the animals to continue being raised and killed. The
animal foods products are the main focus..
Jon
"Johan Van Gompel" <joh...@johanvg.dyndns.org> wrote in message
news:3bff6670$0$217$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
Jon Janssen
"T5NF" <t5...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011124154206...@mb-da.aol.com...
Johan Van Gompel
> dh-dl is sincere, so don't stereotype him, and his post isn't exactly
> answering the question, but it's not made up either.
> I've known him from another board enough that we respect each other, and
> even though he has different thoughts, he isn't one to bash or harass
Sigh. Okay, I'll grab the bait. I think the groups.google.com link I posted
earlier is clear enough: he is a copying & pasting troll. Numerous posts
with _exactly_ the same message over an extended period of time is not a
coincidence nor an attempt at constructive dialogue.
> As for the question, I was wondering this about dart boards that are
> supposedly horsehair.
>
> Of cpourse, horses wouldn't be raised and killed just for horse hair for
> dart boards; the hair is a by product and the industry finds a use for it,
> but it does give a few more $ to the industry. Find alternatives if you
> can if my guess....
>
> Without the dairy, meat, egg and fur industry, the slaughter by-products
> wouldn't pay for the animals to continue being raised and killed. The
> animal foods products are the main focus..
I fail to see how your little fact is suitable or relevant in a vegan
newsgroup. Most of us hold the opinion that we should try to _limit_ the
consumption of animal products _as much as humanly possible_ and try to
weave the rest of our life around that dogma, trying to lessen our impact
on the environment, trying to improve our health and thereby our lives,
etc. ad inf. dh-dl seems to assume though that we are all animal-loving
morons who are oblivious to the facts he holds to be true and that we need
to be educated.
MrFalafel
Buy your synthetic bow here:
http://www.musicbasics.com/vln-bw100.html
or here
http://www.violinspot.com/2450005.htm
or here
http://www.encoremusic.com/violin/2450005.htm
I'm going to be taking up 'the musical saw' and looked around for a vegan bow.
Not too hard to find at all!
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! ==-----
dh...@nomail.com
>Jon Janssen wrote:
>
>> dh-dl is sincere, so don't stereotype him, and his post isn't exactly
>> answering the question, but it's not made up either.
>> I've known him from another board enough that we respect each other, and
>> even though he has different thoughts, he isn't one to bash or harass
>
>Sigh. Okay, I'll grab the bait. I think the groups.google.com link I posted
>earlier is clear enough: he is a copying & pasting troll. Numerous posts
>with _exactly_ the same message over an extended period of time is not a
>coincidence
No, it has a purpose. I want to convey the same idea and facts from
time to time, and don't want to try to figure out a new way of presenting
the same exact info every time an issue comes up. So I've written up some
replies to use when I want to convey particular information and points.
>nor an attempt at constructive dialogue.
There is rarely any constructive dialogue between "AR" types and
those who oppose them, afaik. This for example...you seem bothered
by my method, which is not constructive or relevant imo.
>> As for the question, I was wondering this about dart boards that are
>> supposedly horsehair.
>>
>> Of cpourse, horses wouldn't be raised and killed just for horse hair for
>> dart boards; the hair is a by product and the industry finds a use for it,
>> but it does give a few more $ to the industry. Find alternatives if you
>> can if my guess....
>>
>> Without the dairy, meat, egg and fur industry, the slaughter by-products
>> wouldn't pay for the animals to continue being raised and killed. The
>> animal foods products are the main focus..
>
>I fail to see how your little fact is suitable or relevant in a vegan
>newsgroup. Most of us hold the opinion that we should try to _limit_ the
>consumption of animal products _as much as humanly possible_ and try to
>weave the rest of our life around that dogma, trying to lessen our impact
>on the environment, trying to improve our health and thereby our lives,
>etc. ad inf. dh-dl seems to assume though that we are all animal-loving
>morons who are oblivious to the facts he holds to be true and that we need
>to be educated.
Because I shared some facts with a person who was asking a question,
you have reached the conclusion that I assume you are all morons... As
I mentioned above: there is rarely any constructive dialogue between "AR"
types and those who oppose them, afaik.
MrFalafel
>. As
>I mentioned above: there is rarely any constructive dialogue between "AR"
>types and those who oppose them, afaik.
>
And yet you persist...year after year after year.
You have a saviour complex. You are hurling yourself into the onslaught of AR
nuts who are trying to destroy your way of life. You feel you are self created
martyr. You justify the reality of your lonely existence by putting yourself
into unwinnable arguments with people diameterically opposed to your views. By
being in constant conflict you can forget the pain of the loneliness of your
life.
You are trying to bury the guilt you feel for the animals that you have
slaughtered in the past. You do this by clinging to the notion that AR people
are inherently wrong. You will fight tooth and nail against AR instead of
dealing with your inner guilt at killing your 'friends' when you were a kid.
This was probably done and the insistence of your parents which leads into all
sorts of dangerous ground.
You spam totally un related newsgroups with bizarre, vile rantings against AR
people and also even more bizarrely, how wolves are dangerous to our
environment and even more weird stuff.
You need to go back to your bible studies and do some good in life instead of
shrieking out your psychosis on usenet.
Attention lurkers: you can set your newsreader to filter out unwanted ravings
of lunatics by configuring your newsreader to set up a 'killfile' which will
automatically delete any postings by people you specify. Read about it here:
http://www.impulse.net/~seanette/bitbucket.html
Marc in Oz
Thanks for all the fantastic recipes.
Marc
MrFalafel <MrFa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3c00d...@news.newsgroups.com...
Capybara cake guru
Ronny
Cobalt7
Thanks for the info Fritz! I emailed the fiddlestick bow shop from a link on
her page about the vegan bows she describes... Hope to hear back soon.
>Funny you should ask this as I was thinking about picking up my violin again
>and I too need new bows..
Good luck with starting back up! :)
sarah
*formerly chococat34
Cobalt7
rick etter
Johan Van Gompel wrote:
snips...
>
> I fail to see how your little fact is suitable or relevant in a vegan
> newsgroup. Most of us hold the opinion that we should try to _limit_ the
> consumption of animal products _as much as humanly possible_ and try to
> weave the rest of our life around that dogma, trying to lessen our impact
> on the environment,
-----------------------
Yes, is has been turned into a religious crusade. But, how do you know
you effects on the environment are being limited? I'd suggest that many
don't even care. Take some posts just here last week, someone from
backwoods Canada wanted to know how she could get veg*n foods up to her.
Now really, tell me how there is ANY environmental concerns in that
request at all. How about your posting to usenet? How is that veg*n?
And how are you lessening your impact on the environment by continuing
to increase the demand for power and communications? Have you really
thought this 'dogma' out, or are you just shooting from the hip because
it makes you feel good, or look cool? Because it really does nothing to
save animals or the environment.
Johan Van Gompel
> Johan Van Gompel wrote:
> snips...
>
>>
>> I fail to see how your little fact is suitable or relevant in a vegan
>> newsgroup. Most of us hold the opinion that we should try to _limit_ the
>> consumption of animal products _as much as humanly possible_ and try to
>> weave the rest of our life around that dogma, trying to lessen our impact
>> on the environment,
> -----------------------
> Yes, is has been turned into a religious crusade.
Dogma can mean two things, the non-religious meaning being 'something held
as an established opinion'. I'm an atheist so please don't mind me farting
in your general direction for mentioning the R-word. *grin*
> But, how do you know you effects on the environment are being limited?
> I'd suggest that many don't even care. Take some posts just here last
> week, someone from backwoods Canada wanted to know how she could get
> veg*n foods up to her. Now really, tell me how there is ANY environmental
> concerns in that request at all.
I have not seen the full post so I am not going to comment on this.
> How about your posting to usenet? How is that veg*n?
Just as veg*n as your posting I guess.
> And how are you lessening your impact on the environment by continuing
> to increase the demand for power and communications?
I am aware of the fact that power distribution towers and such kill a lot
of birds and stuff, but what can you do? You can only try to limit your own
energy consumption, embrace environmentally friendly solutions like
solar energy, wind energy, etc. and go out and exercise instead of hanging
in front of the TV all day. TRY is the key word here, as it is with
veganism.
Btw, you would not happen to be the same Etter who wrote "Signal Processing
- A Computer Approach", would you?
> Have you really thought this 'dogma' out, or are you just shooting from
> the hip because it makes you feel good, or look cool?
As I said before the 'dogma' you are refering to is 'an established opinion
among vegans'. I do not care about looking cool (some people even dare to
call me a nerd) nor do I say things for the single purpose of making me
feel good. I do feel good mind you, mostly due to my vegan diet and regular
exercise.
> Because it really does nothing to save animals or the environment.
Surely conscientiously trying to do something to save animals or the
environment has a more positive/less negative impact than not doing
anything at all.
E.g. keeping to a strict diet has a less negative impact on the environment
than eating candy, burgers, french fries, etc. Example: animal fats picked
up from fritures (burger & chips joints) and processed into animal feed
were responsible for the 'dioxin chicken crisis' in Belgium a few years
ago. Millions of chickens were 'processed' because of this 'national health
issue'. Helping to plant trees and bushes provides a habitat for numerous
animals and increases the lung capacity of our planet. Biking to work is
more environmentally friendly than driving your car to work. I can think of
many more examples but this post is long enough as it is. ^_^
--
Johan Van Gompel
http://johanvg.dyndns.org
Debian GNU/Linux 2.4.14 on Athlon 1400/512 MB
Capybara cake guru
Ronny
> I do not care about looking cool (some people even dare to
> call me a nerd) nor do I say things for the single purpose of making me
> feel good. > --
Johan Van Gompel
> You are not a nerd, you are a geek :)
I stand corrected: I am a geek. It is just that some real life people
around here keep calling me a nerd, although they really mean that I am a
geek. *grin* 'Nerd' having been assimilated into the dutch language and
'geek' not is very confusing at times.
Johan Van Gompel
[snip]
> You have a saviour complex. You are hurling yourself into the onslaught of
[snip]
MrFalafel you are, like, a gastronomically correct psycho-vegan. How many
other talents do you have up your sleeve? If I were gay, I would probably
want to marry you too. ;-)
--
Johan Van Gompel
http://johanvg.dyndns.org
dh...@nomail.com
>In article <3c00c0b7....@news.mindspring.com>, dh...@nomail.com wrote:
>>. As
>>I mentioned above: there is rarely any constructive dialogue between "AR"
>>types and those who oppose them, afaik.
>>
>
>And yet you persist...year after year after year.
Hi again Falafel.
>You have a saviour complex. You are hurling yourself into the onslaught of AR
>nuts who are trying to destroy your way of life. You feel you are self created
>martyr. You justify the reality of your lonely existence by putting yourself
>into unwinnable arguments with people diameterically opposed to your views. By
>being in constant conflict you can forget the pain of the loneliness of your
>life.
I notice that honesty is still not an important part of your ethicality.
>You are trying to bury the guilt you feel for the animals that you have
>slaughtered in the past. You do this by clinging to the notion that AR people
>are inherently wrong. You will fight tooth and nail against AR instead of
>dealing with your inner guilt at killing your 'friends' when you were a kid.
>This was probably done and the insistence of your parents which leads into all
>sorts of dangerous ground.
No truth in that either.
>You spam totally un related newsgroups with bizarre, vile rantings against AR
>people
Ah, a faint glimmer of honesty. I guess I've pointed out some of the
bizarre and vile beliefs and activities of "ARAs", in a couple of news
groups that possibly could be considered unrelated...even though the
elimination objective of "AR" would have an impact on everyone involved
in any news groups.
>and also even more bizarrely, how wolves are dangerous to our
>environment and even more weird stuff.
I've pointed out some of the problems that wolves have caused,
though doing so doesn't seem weird to me. I've also pointed out that
starvation, disease and nonhuman predators would not be easier on
prey animals than human hunting is, that they would be harder on baby
animals than human hunting is, and that none of those agents are
capable of trying to kill their victims humanely.
>You need to go back to your bible studies and do some good in life instead of
>shrieking out your psychosis on usenet.
Pointing out that veg*nism does not contribute to better lives for
farm animals, but that it does contribute to the deaths of wildlife like
every other lifestyle, is for the benefit of anyone who might actually
want to consider all the facts and promote better lives for farm animals.
It's not for people like yourself who want to ignore the facts that don't
promote veg*nism, and who are *opposed* to seeing anyone contribute
to better conditions for farm animals with their lifestyle.
>Attention lurkers: you can set your newsreader to filter out
Posts from people who point out things that you're unwilling to think
about.
rick etter
Johan Van Gompel wrote:
>
> rick etter wrote:
>
> > Johan Van Gompel wrote:
> > snips...
> >
> >>
> >> I fail to see how your little fact is suitable or relevant in a vegan
> >> newsgroup. Most of us hold the opinion that we should try to _limit_ the
> >> consumption of animal products _as much as humanly possible_ and try to
> >> weave the rest of our life around that dogma, trying to lessen our impact
> >> on the environment,
> > -----------------------
> > Yes, is has been turned into a religious crusade.
>
> Dogma can mean two things, the non-religious meaning being 'something held
> as an established opinion'. I'm an atheist so please don't mind me farting
> in your general direction for mentioning the R-word. *grin*
=====================
Nah, you(veg*ns) preach it like a religion, you may claim atheism, but
then again you also make the false claims that you care more about
animals and the environment.
>
> > But, how do you know you effects on the environment are being limited?
> > I'd suggest that many don't even care. Take some posts just here last
> > week, someone from backwoods Canada wanted to know how she could get
> > veg*n foods up to her. Now really, tell me how there is ANY environmental
> > concerns in that request at all.
>
> I have not seen the full post so I am not going to comment on this.
===================
Typical. The specifics aren't really important for any location.
Having non-local foods imported to replace local ones seems more than
counter-productive environmentally.
>
> > How about your posting to usenet? How is that veg*n?
>
> Just as veg*n as your posting I guess.
================
Ah, but my religion, er, dogma doesn't require that I make false claims
about doing all I can to 'save' animals from death and suffering. Yours
does, does it not, hypocrite?
>
> > And how are you lessening your impact on the environment by continuing
> > to increase the demand for power and communications?
>
> I am aware of the fact that power distribution towers and such kill a lot
> of birds and stuff, but what can you do?
=====================
Well, stop posting inane drivel to usenet. It's really not necessary,
except for your selfishness. Guess the animals come 2nd, eh killer?
You can only try to limit your own
> energy consumption, embrace environmentally friendly solutions like
> solar energy, wind energy, etc. and go out and exercise instead of hanging
> in front of the TV all day. TRY is the key word here, as it is with
> veganism.
==================
Try? You don't even do that. All you do is make claims about doing
something, yet here you are still causing unnecessary death and
suffering to animals, despite your religious, er, dogmatic claims!
>
> Btw, you would not happen to be the same Etter who wrote "Signal Processing
> - A Computer Approach", would you?
==============
No, different one.
>
> > Have you really thought this 'dogma' out, or are you just shooting from
> > the hip because it makes you feel good, or look cool?
>
> As I said before the 'dogma' you are refering to is 'an established opinion
> among vegans'. I do not care about looking cool (some people even dare to
> call me a nerd) nor do I say things for the single purpose of making me
> feel good. I do feel good mind you, mostly due to my vegan diet and regular
> exercise.
======================
Then why are you still posting? It's your dogma that says you have to
do all you can to reduce animal death and suffering.
>
> > Because it really does nothing to save animals or the environment.
>
> Surely conscientiously trying to do something to save animals or the
> environment has a more positive/less negative impact than not doing
> anything at all.
======================
No. Take the example I gave in previous post. Idiot, religious veg*n
wants to save animals and the environment by eating only veg*n food.
trouble is, there is none locally available without a high cost of
transportation, processing, storage. You can't convince me that they
would cause less death and suffering, or environmental damage than
eating meat from the local area. One moose, elk, caribou would feed
many with the death of one animal. Replace those 10000s of calories
with tofu, processed and transported to the hinterlands. I can hear the
local veg*n loon now, 'I don't kill animals because I only eat veggies,
you guys are all murderers'.
>
> E.g. keeping to a strict diet has a less negative impact on the environment
> than eating candy, burgers, french fries, etc. Example: animal fats picked
> up from fritures (burger & chips joints) and processed into animal feed
> were responsible for the 'dioxin chicken crisis' in Belgium a few years
> ago. Millions of chickens were 'processed' because of this 'national health
> issue'. Helping to plant trees and bushes provides a habitat for numerous
> animals and increases the lung capacity of our planet. Biking to work is
> more environmentally friendly than driving your car to work. I can think of
> many more examples but this post is long enough as it is. ^_^
======================
And some of those are not 'veg*n' ideas. What you eat is a false idea
of saving animals.
Jonathan Ball
at all, in a.f.v.; you ought to leave him to me, and
let the bullshit threads he starts die a quick death.
dh...@nomail.com wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Nov 2001 12:11:02 GMT, MrFa...@yahoo.com (MrFalafel) wrote:
>
>
>>In article <3c00c0b7....@news.mindspring.com>, dh...@nomail.com wrote:
>>
>>>. As
>>>I mentioned above: there is rarely any constructive dialogue between "AR"
>>>types and those who oppose them, afaik.
>>>
>>>
>>And yet you persist...year after year after year.
>>
>
> Hi again Falafel.
>
>
>>You have a saviour complex. You are hurling yourself into the onslaught of AR
>>nuts who are trying to destroy your way of life. You feel you are self created
>>martyr. You justify the reality of your lonely existence by putting yourself
>>into unwinnable arguments with people diameterically opposed to your views. By
>>being in constant conflict you can forget the pain of the loneliness of your
>>life.
>>
>
> I notice that honesty is still not an important part of your ethicality.
I think he's completely honest, Fuckwit.
He's actually going very easy on you. The truth of the
matter is, you're a sleazy dishonest fuckwit, and
*nothing but* a troll, at least in this newsgroup. You
don't have a single valid ethical point to make.
>
>
>>You are trying to bury the guilt you feel for the animals that you have
>>slaughtered in the past. You do this by clinging to the notion that AR people
>>are inherently wrong. You will fight tooth and nail against AR instead of
>>dealing with your inner guilt at killing your 'friends' when you were a kid.
>>This was probably done and the insistence of your parents which leads into all
>>sorts of dangerous ground.
>>
>
> No truth in that either.
>
>
>>You spam totally un related newsgroups with bizarre, vile rantings against AR
>>people
>>
>
> Ah, a faint glimmer of honesty. I guess I've pointed out some of the
> bizarre and vile beliefs and activities of "ARAs", in a couple of news
> groups that possibly could be considered unrelated...even though the
> elimination objective of "AR" would have an impact on everyone involved
> in any news groups.
>
>
>>and also even more bizarrely, how wolves are dangerous to our
>>environment and even more weird stuff.
>>
>
> I've pointed out some of the problems that wolves have caused,
You haven't. The "problems" are imaginary fairy
bullshit about "mother deer" feeling "sad" when they
"see" their fawns killed by wolves. You don't know
what the fuck you're talking about. Not a word.
> though doing so doesn't seem weird to me.
It's beyond weird, Fuckwit. It's utterly irrational
bullshit.
> I've also pointed out that
> starvation, disease and nonhuman predators would not be easier on
> prey animals than human hunting is,
No ethical dimension to any of that, Fuckwit.
> that they would be harder on baby
> animals than human hunting is,
No ethical dimension to any of that, Fuckwit.
> and that none of those agents are
> capable of trying to kill their victims humanely.
No ethical dimension to any of that, Fuckwit.
>
>
>>You need to go back to your bible studies and do some good in life instead of
>>shrieking out your psychosis on usenet.
>>
>
> Pointing out that veg*nism does not contribute to better lives for
> farm animals,
"Contributing to 'better lives' for farm animals" is
not a duty.
> but that it does contribute to the deaths of wildlife like
> every other lifestyle, is for the benefit of anyone who might actually
> want to consider all the facts and promote better lives for farm animals.
Your facts are trivial factoids. They merit nothing
but contempt, to the extent you offer them as having
moral significance. They have none.
"Promoting better lives for farm animals" is not some
kind of absolute ideal. It only matters *if* there are
farm animals. "Vegans" don't believe there should be
any farm animals. You have presented nothing to try to
persuade them they're wrong.
> It's not for people like yourself who want to ignore the facts that don't
> promote veg*nism, and who are *opposed* to seeing anyone contribute
> to better conditions for farm animals with their lifestyle.
No, "vegans" are *not* opposed to efforts to improve
the lives of farm animals...IF those animals already exist.
>
>
>>Attention lurkers: you can set your newsreader to filter out
>>
>
> Posts from people who point out things that you're unwilling to think
> about.
You point out nothing that merits further thought.
dh...@nomail.com
>dh...@nomail.com wrote:
>> I've pointed out some of the problems that wolves have caused,
>
>You haven't. The "problems" are imaginary fairy
>bullshit about "mother deer" feeling "sad" when they
>"see" their fawns killed by wolves. You don't know
>what the fuck you're talking about. Not a word.
_________________________________________________________
According to a front page article by John F. Burns entitled "In India, Attacks
by Wolves Spark Old Fears and Hatred" (in the Sunday, September 1, 1996
issue of the New York Times) wolves near Banbirpur, in the state of Uttar Pradesh,
India are killing children. The killings began five months ago. To date, 33 children
have been carried off and 20 others have been seriously mauled.
[...]
http://shade.grove.iup.edu/~wolf/attack2.htmlx
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
Jonathan Ball
Fuckwit?
> Pointing out that veg*nism does not contribute to
> better lives for farm animals,
"Contributing to 'better lives' for farm animals" is
not a duty.
Just for starters.
Sheryl Kirby
> > > But, how do you know you effects on the environment are being limited?
> > > I'd suggest that many don't even care. Take some posts just here last
> > > week, someone from backwoods Canada wanted to know how she could get
> > > veg*n foods up to her. Now really, tell me how there is ANY environmental
> > > concerns in that request at all.
> >
> > I have not seen the full post so I am not going to comment on this.
> ===================
> Typical. The specifics aren't really important for any location.
> Having non-local foods imported to replace local ones seems more than
> counter-productive environmentally.
It is. But do you know anyone that is eating *only* locally-grown foods?
Especially during the winter. And that includes any meat from a grocery store
or supermarket. Unless you go out and kill it yourself, it's trucked in from
somewhere, in Canada, usually Alberta.
> > Surely conscientiously trying to do something to save animals or the
> > environment has a more positive/less negative impact than not doing
> > anything at all.
> ======================
> No. Take the example I gave in previous post. Idiot, religious veg*n
> wants to save animals and the environment by eating only veg*n food.
> trouble is, there is none locally available without a high cost of
> transportation, processing, storage. You can't convince me that they
> would cause less death and suffering, or environmental damage than
> eating meat from the local area. One moose, elk, caribou would feed
> many with the death of one animal. Replace those 10000s of calories
> with tofu, processed and transported to the hinterlands. I can hear the
> local veg*n loon now, 'I don't kill animals because I only eat veggies,
> you guys are all murderers'.
I'll concede your point that many vegan foods, at least during the winter,
require considerable transport to get them from the area where they're grown
(in Canada in winter, we'll go with California) to the place where they'll be
consumed. Transportation causes environmental damage, and as much as possible,
we should all be buying locally. Again, considerably easier in summer than
winter. However, even if we were so inclined, not all of us are close enough
to a local moose population that it wouldn't also be environmentally
detrimental to get in a car and drive for hours to go a-huntin'. Even most
meat eaters don't make this effort, and find it far easier to hop in the car
and head to the local supermarket to buy pre-cut slabs of meat that was likely
kept on a feedlot thousands of miles from them (i.e. Alberta, Texas).
There's also something in this argument that I don't get, Rik, and haven't for
some time... you, and a few other anti-vegans that post here under the theory
that vegans cause just as much (if not more) death than meat-eaters do; do
none of you guys eat fruit and vegetables at all? All of the comparisons that
I have seen with regards to whose diet kills the most critters seem to compare
"meat" versus "vegetables". Do you not have, say, side dishes? No berries on
your cereal? A niced baked potato with that steak? Some broccoli? A few slices
of onion with that liver? Because unless you're existing wholly on meat
products with no fruit or vegetables (or grains) at all, aren't you just as
guilty of the collateral deaths caused by farming practices as we are?
Sheryl
--
According to the United Nations Food & Agriculture Organization (FAO),
approximately 35,600 children died from conditions of starvation on September
11th, 2001. - Utne Reader
Jonathan Ball
> rick etter wrote:
>
[...]
Yes. The big difference is, we never *did* claim that
our diets "minimized" anything. Over in t.p.a. and
a.a.e.v., I always chide my fellow omnivores for even
getting into this ridiculous counting and comparing
exercise in the first place. The difference for
omnivores is, we don't believe the collateral deaths
are intrinsically and seriously wrong to begin with, or
else we wouldn't be eating meat.
Rick's example of this woman somewhere 'way up north in
Canada wanting to assure her supply of "vegan" foods
during the winter is a perfect illustration of the
hypocrisy of "vegans" regarding their concern for
animals and the environment. I didn't see the post,
but no one on the pro-"vegan" side is challenging
Rick's synopsis of it, so I'll accept it at face value
for now. If the woman *really* were concerned (nb:
deliberate use of subjunctive tense) about collateral
deaths and broader environmental damage, she wouldn't
be living up there.
Sheryl Kirby
> Yes. The big difference is, we never *did* claim that
> our diets "minimized" anything.
Okay, that's fair. But your statement also makes the assumption that everyone
here in a.f.v. is vegan because of the "death" issue. I can't speak for anyone
else, but I for one, didn't change my diet based on animal death. I've never
claimed my choices minimize *anything*, although I do try to buy organic and
locally as much as possible, but I'm not naieve enough to believe that nothing
gets harmed in the process, and I don't think anyone else here is either. I
get the impression that you guys take the comments of one or two individuals
and attribute them to all of us.
<snip>
> Rick's example of this woman somewhere 'way up north in
> Canada wanting to assure her supply of "vegan" foods
> during the winter is a perfect illustration of the
> hypocrisy of "vegans" regarding their concern for
> animals and the environment. I didn't see the post,
> but no one on the pro-"vegan" side is challenging
> Rick's synopsis of it, so I'll accept it at face value
> for now. If the woman *really* were concerned (nb:
> deliberate use of subjunctive tense) about collateral
> deaths and broader environmental damage, she wouldn't
> be living up there.
I don't know if you can say that positively without knowing her and the life
she leads. There are probably lots of other circumstances that come into play
that we're not aware of. Some people build a straw-bale house, eat from their
own organic garden and generally leave a very small footprint on the earth;
however to do that, you're going to have to move out of the city, and various
trade-offs are going to be imperative, such as getting a vehicle, and having
some of your groceries shipped in from far away. Or she might have grown up in
that area and has just discovered she's interested in a different style of
eating. Is she supposed to pack her bags and move to Toronto in order to have
access to locally made tofu?
It amounts to a matter of balance and priority. I don't know anyone (vegan or
non) who is interested in spending each winter surviving on cabbage, squash,
potatoes and the few other vegetables that will survive until spring in a root
cellar. Certainly, buy local produce or other grocery items whenever possible,
but come winter, that's incredibly difficult, no matter where you are, in
Canada at least. There might be a bit more selection in, say, Vancouver, but
in northern Ontario or other northern provinces, just about everything in the
way of grocery items, vegan or not, is shipped in from somewhere. I'd rather
see people eating imported veggies and tofu than imported Cheetos and cola.
Jonathan Ball
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
>
>>Yes. The big difference is, we never *did* claim that
>>our diets "minimized" anything.
>>
>
> Okay, that's fair. But your statement also makes the assumption that everyone
> here in a.f.v. is vegan because of the "death" issue. I can't speak for anyone
> else, but I for one, didn't change my diet based on animal death.
You don't say why you do adhere to a vegetarian (not
"vegan") diet, but in my experience, and it's much
broader than people here typically want to credit me
with, everyone claiming to be "vegan" has a desire not
to "harm" animals as a - usually the primary -
motivation. I've been through it numerous times
before: if your main motivation is health, you rarely
would need to be "vegan" (avoiding *all* products that
are made with *or tested on* animals); being a dietary
vegetarian will suffice for that. If your motivation
is primarily aesthetic, then you still don't need to be
"vegan", and in fact, you have to try really hard to
avoid leather and wool, because they make very
beautiful garments indeed; and you have no reason
whatever to be concerned with testing of medicines and
cosmetics, except out of fanaticism.
> I've never
> claimed my choices minimize *anything*, although I do try to buy organic and
> locally as much as possible, but I'm not naieve enough to believe that nothing
> gets harmed in the process, and I don't think anyone else here is either. I
> get the impression that you guys take the comments of one or two individuals
> and attribute them to all of us.
Not without reason. The ones that the opponents repeat
occur ubiquitously, not just from one or two
individuals. In general, "vegans" appear to be far
more interested in following rules, than in ensuring
that those rules truly lead to some worthy objective.
And it's the never-ending *talking* about it that
drives omnivores crazy. You'll note that outside the
"vegan" and animal "rights"-related newsgroups and
other forums, no one ever declares himself an omnivore.
There is no "Omnivorous Times" newsletter, like
"Vegan Times" or "Vegetarian Times". There are no
explicitly omnivore-oriented newsgroups on usenet.
>
> <snip>
>
>>Rick's example of this woman somewhere 'way up north in
>>Canada wanting to assure her supply of "vegan" foods
>>during the winter is a perfect illustration of the
>>hypocrisy of "vegans" regarding their concern for
>>animals and the environment. I didn't see the post,
>>but no one on the pro-"vegan" side is challenging
>>Rick's synopsis of it, so I'll accept it at face value
>>for now. If the woman *really* were concerned (nb:
>>deliberate use of subjunctive tense) about collateral
>>deaths and broader environmental damage, she wouldn't
>>be living up there.
>>
>
> I don't know if you can say that positively without knowing her and the life
> she leads. There are probably lots of other circumstances that come into play
> that we're not aware of. Some people build a straw-bale house, eat from their
> own organic garden and generally leave a very small footprint on the earth;
> however to do that, you're going to have to move out of the city, and various
> trade-offs are going to be imperative, such as getting a vehicle, and having
> some of your groceries shipped in from far away. Or she might have grown up in
> that area and has just discovered she's interested in a different style of
> eating. Is she supposed to pack her bags and move to Toronto in order to have
> access to locally made tofu?
It's true that we don't know her complete story. We
only know what she has revealed here, which is
(apparently) a great concern with obtaining vegetarian
food in an area that doesn't lend itself very well to
that kind of a "lifestyle" in winter.
But Rick makes a great point, particularly if it's
coupled with an observation of yours, below: if she
were to eat those vegetables that could be readily
grown during the growing season up where she is, *plus*
some judiciously chosen meat from a large animal
(moose, caribou, etc.: one death = many meals for many
people), then she really *might* effect a serious
shrinking of her environmental footprint.
>
> It amounts to a matter of balance and priority. I don't know anyone (vegan or
> non) who is interested in spending each winter surviving on cabbage, squash,
> potatoes and the few other vegetables that will survive until spring in a root
> cellar.
But if she *does* have the minimization of animal
deaths as a major or primary motivation, might she not
be obliged to do just that? Over in a.a.e.v. and
t.p.a., there are so-called "ethical" vegetarians who
claim that "we" - everyone - ought to eschew meat not
just becaues it involves killing the animals we eat,
but also because of the collateral deaths involved in
feeding livestock. They claim, probably correctly,
that the CDs for that, plus the direct deaths of the
animals eaten, exceeds the death count for "vegans".
But if you're going to compare a vegetarian to a
non-vegetarian diet on this score, you are obliged to
compare alternative vegetarian diets by the same
rationale. Clearly, there are vegetarian diets that
involve much more harm to animals than other vegetarian
diets. If a person claiming to be "vegan" out of a
concern to minimize animal harm does not consider the
various vegetarian alternatives and choose the one with
the lowest death count behind it, then it invalidates
the entire premise of her "veganism".
> Certainly, buy local produce or other grocery items whenever possible,
> but come winter, that's incredibly difficult, no matter where you are, in
> Canada at least.
If reducing the harm to rights-bearing animals is the
motivation, and I believe that it is the primary
motivation for most who declare themselves "vegan",
then the difficulty of it is not an excuse for not
doing it.
> There might be a bit more selection in, say, Vancouver, but
> in northern Ontario or other northern provinces, just about everything in the
> way of grocery items, vegan or not, is shipped in from somewhere. I'd rather
> see people eating imported veggies and tofu than imported Cheetos and cola.
Again, you haven't said why
Johan Van Gompel
> Johan Van Gompel wrote:
>>
>> rick etter wrote:
>>
>> > Johan Van Gompel wrote:
>> > snips...
>>
>>[snip]
>> Dogma can mean two things, the non-religious meaning being 'something
>> held as an established opinion'. I'm an atheist so please don't mind me
>> farting in your general direction for mentioning the R-word. *grin*
> =====================
> Nah, you(veg*ns) preach it like a religion, you may claim atheism, but
> then again you also make the false claims that you care more about
> animals and the environment.
Now where did I specifically claim that vegans care more about the animals
and the environment? It may be a fact, but please stop putting words in my
mouth. Given your rather stern view of 'us(veg*ns)' it seems I had been
judged even before I tried to explain my point of view.
>> > But, how do you know you effects on the environment are being limited?
>> > I'd suggest that many don't even care. Take some posts just here last
>> > week, someone from backwoods Canada wanted to know how she could get
>> > veg*n foods up to her. Now really, tell me how there is ANY
>> > environmental concerns in that request at all.
>>
>> I have not seen the full post so I am not going to comment on this.
> ===================
> Typical. The specifics aren't really important for any location.
> Having non-local foods imported to replace local ones seems more than
> counter-productive environmentally.
I did not comment because for all I know she might live in a really barren
place with no eatable stuff around whatsoever.
>> > How about your posting to usenet? How is that veg*n?
>>
>> Just as veg*n as your posting I guess.
> ================
> Ah, but my religion, er, dogma doesn't require that I make false claims
> about doing all I can to 'save' animals from death and suffering. Yours
> does, does it not, hypocrite?
So now we resort to agressive name-calling?
[snip]
>> I am aware of the fact that power distribution towers and such kill a lot
>> of birds and stuff, but what can you do?
> =====================
> Well, stop posting inane drivel to usenet. It's really not necessary,
> except for your selfishness. Guess the animals come 2nd, eh killer?
ROFL.
> You can only try to limit your own
>> energy consumption, embrace environmentally friendly solutions like
>> solar energy, wind energy, etc. and go out and exercise instead of
>> hanging in front of the TV all day. TRY is the key word here, as it is
>> with veganism.
> ==================
> Try? You don't even do that. All you do is make claims about doing
> something, yet here you are still causing unnecessary death and
> suffering to animals, despite your religious, er, dogmatic claims!
I have given some examples of the things I personally try to do in the last
paragraph. I do not deny that even with a vegan diet there is probably
still unnecessary death/suffering/environmental damage but at least I am
trying to keep that to a minimum with the knowledge I have gathered
throughout the years, trying to look further and dig deeper than most
people would. Do I hold it against other people that they do not? No.
[snip]
>> > Have you really thought this 'dogma' out, or are you just shooting from
>> > the hip because it makes you feel good, or look cool?
>>
>> As I said before the 'dogma' you are refering to is 'an established
>> opinion among vegans'. I do not care about looking cool (some people even
>> dare to call me a nerd) nor do I say things for the single purpose of
>> making me feel good. I do feel good mind you, mostly due to my vegan diet
>> and regular exercise.
> ======================
> Then why are you still posting? It's your dogma that says you have to
> do all you can to reduce animal death and suffering.
That is not what I said. I am beginning to think that English is not your
native tongue. Either that or you are misinterpreting me because it sure is
not mine.
>> > Because it really does nothing to save animals or the environment.
>>
>> Surely conscientiously trying to do something to save animals or the
>> environment has a more positive/less negative impact than not doing
>> anything at all.
> ======================
> No. Take the example I gave in previous post. Idiot, religious veg*n
> wants to save animals and the environment by eating only veg*n food.
> trouble is, there is none locally available without a high cost of
> transportation, processing, storage. You can't convince me that they
> would cause less death and suffering, or environmental damage than
> eating meat from the local area. One moose, elk, caribou would feed
> many with the death of one animal. Replace those 10000s of calories
> with tofu, processed and transported to the hinterlands. I can hear the
> local veg*n loon now, 'I don't kill animals because I only eat veggies,
> you guys are all murderers'.
Are you upset because you came across one or more of those religious
ethical vegans on a Usenet crusade? All vegans I know are simply not like
that. Did I call you a murderer? No. I try not to judge people. To each his
own, I say.
>> E.g. keeping to a strict diet has a less negative impact on the
>> environment than eating candy, burgers, french fries, etc. Example:
>> animal fats picked up from fritures (burger & chips joints) and processed
>> into animal feed were responsible for the 'dioxin chicken crisis' in
>> Belgium a few years ago. Millions of chickens were 'processed' because of
>> this 'national health issue'. Helping to plant trees and bushes provides
>> a habitat for numerous animals and increases the lung capacity of our
>> planet. Biking to work is more environmentally friendly than driving your
>> car to work. I can think of many more examples but this post is long
>> enough as it is. ^_^
> ======================
> And some of those are not 'veg*n' ideas. What you eat is a false idea
> of saving animals.
I agree some of those are not vegan ideas per se. The latter conclusion is
rather illogical though. You could just as well say 'How you drive is a
false idea of saving animals'. IMHO doing more with less does the trick in
both cases.
--
Johan Van Gompel
http://johanvg.dyndns.org
Sheryl Kirby
> > Okay, that's fair. But your statement also makes the assumption that everyone
> > here in a.f.v. is vegan because of the "death" issue. I can't speak for anyone
> > else, but I for one, didn't change my diet based on animal death.
>
> You don't say why you do adhere to a vegetarian (not
> "vegan") diet, but in my experience, and it's much
> broader than people here typically want to credit me
> with, everyone claiming to be "vegan" has a desire not
> to "harm" animals as a - usually the primary -
> motivation.
I went veg because I started having really weird allergies, and it was
suggested that some of these allergies could be reactions to chemicals used in
animal feed. For the record, I switched to predominantly organic foods at the
same time. Originally, I switched to organic, free-range meat, but over time,
as my allergies worsened, certain smells started making me really sick. I
hadn't been able to handle lamb for many years and not long after I gave up
red meat, just the smell of chicken cooking would send me running to find
something to throw up into.
Now while I originally didn't go vegetarian for the AR issues, the more I read
about stuff in the process of trying to sort out my allergies, the more I was
repelled about the whole process of animal husbandry. I grew up with hunters
and went hunting myself as a teenager, and have no issue with people willing
to sit in the snow for hours, kill, gut and clean their own food. I probably
still wouldn't eat it if it was offered to me, but I find it far more natural
than picking up a shrink-wrapped package off a store shelf. But what I know
about the farming and meat-packing industry, and granted, it might not be as
much as I should/could know, repels me and I choose not to support that. I
also choose not to support corporations that make running shoes in Indonesia
or who put ads on the ceiling of taxicabs, either, though.
> I've been through it numerous times
> before: if your main motivation is health, you rarely
> would need to be "vegan" (avoiding *all* products that
> are made with *or tested on* animals); being a dietary
> vegetarian will suffice for that. If your motivation
> is primarily aesthetic, then you still don't need to be
> "vegan", and in fact, you have to try really hard to
> avoid leather and wool, because they make very
> beautiful garments indeed; and you have no reason
> whatever to be concerned with testing of medicines and
> cosmetics, except out of fanaticism.
Hmm, I think everyone has their own level of how far they'll go. And I know
I'm somewhere in between; I'm firmly against testing for cosmetics, but can't
bring myself to wholly oppose testing of medications if it will save lives in
the long run (unless of course, it's one of those companies that has found a
cure for some illness only found in third world countries and refuses to
manufacture it because there's no profit to be made by it... those guys can
rot in hell and deserve to have all their test subjects taken away and have
sharp fiery sticks shoved up their noses... but I digress...)
> > I've never
> > claimed my choices minimize *anything*, although I do try to buy organic and
> > locally as much as possible, but I'm not naieve enough to believe that nothing
> > gets harmed in the process, and I don't think anyone else here is either. I
> > get the impression that you guys take the comments of one or two individuals
> > and attribute them to all of us.
>
> Not without reason. The ones that the opponents repeat
> occur ubiquitously, not just from one or two
> individuals. In general, "vegans" appear to be far
> more interested in following rules, than in ensuring
> that those rules truly lead to some worthy objective.
I still don't think you can't paint everyone with the same brush. By
generalizing, you close the door to millions of individual stories and
motivations.
> And it's the never-ending *talking* about it that
> drives omnivores crazy. You'll note that outside the
> "vegan" and animal "rights"-related newsgroups and
> other forums, no one ever declares himself an omnivore.
> There is no "Omnivorous Times" newsletter, like
> "Vegan Times" or "Vegetarian Times". There are no
> explicitly omnivore-oriented newsgroups on usenet.
Been to rec.food.cooking lately?
There's no Straight Pride parade, either. Does that mean there's no need for
Gay Pride? Or Black History month?
Forums for vegetarian discussion exist because people, for whatever reason,
can't talk about them in the mainstream. It seems to make people nervous. So
it's natural that these folks are going to gravitate to places where there are
other people who they can share experiences, recipes, and other information
with. The same way that there are hunting and fishing magazines and groups
like the NRA.
And if you have such an issue with vegan and vegetarian newsgroups and forums,
why subscribe to them?
> It's true that we don't know her complete story. We
> only know what she has revealed here, which is
> (apparently) a great concern with obtaining vegetarian
> food in an area that doesn't lend itself very well to
> that kind of a "lifestyle" in winter.
Do we know that? All I saw in her post was that she lived in Northern Canada,
not that she lived in the wilderness. They do have supermarkets in Saskatoon
and Yellowknife, y'know. Without knowing much more about her, none of us can
really say how much of an imprint she's making on the earth at all.
> But Rick makes a great point, particularly if it's
> coupled with an observation of yours, below: if she
> were to eat those vegetables that could be readily
> grown during the growing season up where she is, *plus*
> some judiciously chosen meat from a large animal
> (moose, caribou, etc.: one death = many meals for many
> people), then she really *might* effect a serious
> shrinking of her environmental footprint.
Possibly. But maybe she doesn't have a real interest in going hunting. Most
omnivores don't (unless you considering hunting for a steak with some nice
marbling to count). If she's already vegetarian or vegan, then no matter how
preferable you consider your suggestion to be, it's unlikely she's going to be
interested.
> But if she *does* have the minimization of animal
> deaths as a major or primary motivation, might she not
> be obliged to do just that?
We don't know her motivations. Her post just asked about info on vegan food
items. I don't recall it specifically stating that she *was* vegan. Remember
that many people use the term fairly loosely. I'm not a "vegan" in the true
definition of the word, but I'll always use it in a restaurant to convey to my
server that there had damn well not be any dairy on my plate.
> Over in a.a.e.v. and
> t.p.a., there are so-called "ethical" vegetarians who
> claim that "we" - everyone - ought to eschew meat not
> just becaues it involves killing the animals we eat,
> but also because of the collateral deaths involved in
> feeding livestock. They claim, probably correctly,
> that the CDs for that, plus the direct deaths of the
> animals eaten, exceeds the death count for "vegans".
> But if you're going to compare a vegetarian to a
> non-vegetarian diet on this score, you are obliged to
> compare alternative vegetarian diets by the same
> rationale. Clearly, there are vegetarian diets that
> involve much more harm to animals than other vegetarian
> diets. If a person claiming to be "vegan" out of a
> concern to minimize animal harm does not consider the
> various vegetarian alternatives and choose the one with
> the lowest death count behind it, then it invalidates
> the entire premise of her "veganism".
Right. I'm not sure I see the point you're trying to make here. The typical
"vegan" diet does considerably less harm than say, a lacto-ovo vegetarian
diet. Anything stricter would have the person sitting under a tree waiting for
the fruit to fall off.
> > Certainly, buy local produce or other grocery items whenever possible,
> > but come winter, that's incredibly difficult, no matter where you are, in
> > Canada at least.
>
> If reducing the harm to rights-bearing animals is the
> motivation, and I believe that it is the primary
> motivation for most who declare themselves "vegan",
> then the difficulty of it is not an excuse for not
> doing it.
I was almost going to agree with you on this; certainly there are any number
of people on this group who do stick to their guns, eat vegetables grown
organically in their own garden, etc. But... there are certain parts of the
world where, for a good part of the year that's just not possible. Your email
addy shows you're posting from earthlink in... Nova Scotia? Hit the local
Sobey's, man, and see exactly how much *local* organic produce you can come up
with. I grew up in Halifax, and travel there frequently; the selection of
local produce (hell, even the selection of imported produce) sucks pretty hard
at this time of year.
> > There might be a bit more selection in, say, Vancouver, but
> > in northern Ontario or other northern provinces, just about everything in the
> > way of grocery items, vegan or not, is shipped in from somewhere. I'd rather
> > see people eating imported veggies and tofu than imported Cheetos and cola.
>
> Again, you haven't said why
If you're putting it on a truck and driving it a thousand miles anyway,
veggies and tofu are going to be far better to the human, and the environment
(assuming you compost and the veggies and tofu have minimal packaging) than
whatever chemicals, sugar and plastic packaging you get with fake
cheese-flavoured chips and brown liquid that can also be used to strip paint.
T5NF
>Thanks for the info Fritz! I emailed the fiddlestick bow shop from a link on
>her page about the vegan bows she describes... Hope to hear back soon.
You're welcome :-) I'd imagine that synthetic bows could be had locally as
well..
>>Funny you should ask this as I was thinking about picking up my violin again
>>and I too need new bows..
>
>Good luck with starting back up! :)
Thanks..I need it :-) I've still got the half sized violin I learned on when I
was 8 but it's too small for me to play anymore.. I've got two full sized ones
in various states of disrepair that need seeing to before I can pick it back up
again.. so much to do etc..
Fritz
T5NF
(snip links)
Thanks Mr.F...now that I've an idea of what they cost I'll have a look
locally..
>I'm going to be taking up 'the musical saw'
Cool! The sound they make reminds me of the sound you can get from a theremin
(electric rod type thingy that you don't actually touch to play..you just wave
your hands around it). Here's a site with some info:
http://mdcm.arts.unsw.edu.au/students98/BawdenH/innovate/1t.html
>and looked around for a vegan
>bow.
>Not too hard to find at all!
Thanks again
Fritz
rick etter
Sheryl Kirby wrote:
>
> rick etter wrote:
>
> > > > But, how do you know you effects on the environment are being limited?
> > > > I'd suggest that many don't even care. Take some posts just here last
> > > > week, someone from backwoods Canada wanted to know how she could get
> > > > veg*n foods up to her. Now really, tell me how there is ANY environmental
> > > > concerns in that request at all.
> > >
> > > I have not seen the full post so I am not going to comment on this.
> > ===================
> > Typical. The specifics aren't really important for any location.
> > Having non-local foods imported to replace local ones seems more than
> > counter-productive environmentally.
>
> It is. But do you know anyone that is eating *only* locally-grown foods?
> Especially during the winter. And that includes any meat from a grocery store
> or supermarket. Unless you go out and kill it yourself, it's trucked in from
> somewhere, in Canada, usually Alberta.
----------------------
Nope, it's raised right down the road. No grain, no hormones, no
anti-biotics. Just plain old pure meat. The main problem still
remains, you replace that with processed, transported veggies, and your
environmental concern just took a hike.
-----------------------
But you still failed to see the difference. THEY(meat-eaters) don't
make the claims that they 'do all they can' or that they make an 'extra
effort' because of a religion they claim as a belief. That IS what
AR/EVs do, and fail miserably at, because it really isn't about animals,
just demonization of the diet of others.
>
> There's also something in this argument that I don't get, Rik, and haven't for
> some time... you, and a few other anti-vegans that post here under the theory
> that vegans cause just as much (if not more) death than meat-eaters do; do
> none of you guys eat fruit and vegetables at all? All of the comparisons that
> I have seen with regards to whose diet kills the most critters seem to compare
> "meat" versus "vegetables". Do you not have, say, side dishes? No berries on
> your cereal? A niced baked potato with that steak? Some broccoli? A few slices
> of onion with that liver? Because unless you're existing wholly on meat
> products with no fruit or vegetables (or grains) at all, aren't you just as
> guilty of the collateral deaths caused by farming practices as we are?
----------------------
Yes, I eat veggies, but again, I don't make the claims that my 'ethics'
says animals have rights. EVs do! Get it yet? I don't make the claims
that I cause none/fewer/least CDs only because I eat veggies. Besides,
the meat I eat replaces 1000s of calories of from veggies that would
have far more CDs involved the the 1 cow, 1/4 pig, etc we live on for
most of a year.
rick etter
---------------------
And the fruitcakes abound. There are post right now about violin bows
and how bad it is that they are made of horse tails. Veg*ns obsess
about their life, yet really don't care about what their options cost in
the way of environment damage and animal death/suffering. Tell me that
you really believe synthetic bow fibers are more environmentally
friendly that using a natural, re-newable, cruelty-free product? This
stuff gets posted about *everything*. Shoes, clothes, toothpaste. You
name it and a veg*n has obsessed about it.
And I know
> I'm somewhere in between; I'm firmly against testing for cosmetics, but can't
> bring myself to wholly oppose testing of medications if it will save lives in
> the long run (unless of course, it's one of those companies that has found a
> cure for some illness only found in third world countries and refuses to
> manufacture it because there's no profit to be made by it... those guys can
> rot in hell and deserve to have all their test subjects taken away and have
> sharp fiery sticks shoved up their noses... but I digress...)
>
> > > I've never
> > > claimed my choices minimize *anything*, although I do try to buy organic and
> > > locally as much as possible, but I'm not naieve enough to believe that nothing
> > > gets harmed in the process, and I don't think anyone else here is either. I
> > > get the impression that you guys take the comments of one or two individuals
> > > and attribute them to all of us.
> >
> > Not without reason. The ones that the opponents repeat
> > occur ubiquitously, not just from one or two
> > individuals. In general, "vegans" appear to be far
> > more interested in following rules, than in ensuring
> > that those rules truly lead to some worthy objective.
>
> I still don't think you can't paint everyone with the same brush. By
> generalizing, you close the door to millions of individual stories and
> motivations.
=====================
They seem to repeat far more often than one in a million. :-)
======================
I think the term she used was being in the 'boonies'. Sounds more Sioux
Lookout than Toronto.
They do have supermarkets in Saskatoon
> and Yellowknife, y'know. Without knowing much more about her, none of us can
> really say how much of an imprint she's making on the earth at all.
>
> > But Rick makes a great point, particularly if it's
> > coupled with an observation of yours, below: if she
> > were to eat those vegetables that could be readily
> > grown during the growing season up where she is, *plus*
> > some judiciously chosen meat from a large animal
> > (moose, caribou, etc.: one death = many meals for many
> > people), then she really *might* effect a serious
> > shrinking of her environmental footprint.
>
> Possibly. But maybe she doesn't have a real interest in going hunting. Most
> omnivores don't (unless you considering hunting for a steak with some nice
> marbling to count). If she's already vegetarian or vegan, then no matter how
> preferable you consider your suggestion to be, it's unlikely she's going to be
> interested.
-----------------
Therefore, her concern about animals and the environment are not her
priorities. Just what I said.
----------------------
You have *any* numbers to back that up? I'd challenge you to show some
proof of that statement. I'd say I can find meat-eaters that have far
less impact than the 'typical' veg*n poster here.
Anything stricter would have the person sitting under a tree waiting for
> the fruit to fall off.
====================
If you're an EV(which I realize you aren't), then that truly is your
option, if you beliefs really mean anything.
>
> > > Certainly, buy local produce or other grocery items whenever possible,
> > > but come winter, that's incredibly difficult, no matter where you are, in
> > > Canada at least.
> >
> > If reducing the harm to rights-bearing animals is the
> > motivation, and I believe that it is the primary
> > motivation for most who declare themselves "vegan",
> > then the difficulty of it is not an excuse for not
> > doing it.
>
> I was almost going to agree with you on this; certainly there are any number
> of people on this group who do stick to their guns, eat vegetables grown
> organically in their own garden, etc. But... there are certain parts of the
> world where, for a good part of the year that's just not possible. Your email
> addy shows you're posting from earthlink in... Nova Scotia? Hit the local
> Sobey's, man, and see exactly how much *local* organic produce you can come up
> with. I grew up in Halifax, and travel there frequently; the selection of
> local produce (hell, even the selection of imported produce) sucks pretty hard
> at this time of year.
===================
Then animals and the environment have taken a back seat to your
selfishness and convenience.
>
> > > There might be a bit more selection in, say, Vancouver, but
> > > in northern Ontario or other northern provinces, just about everything in the
> > > way of grocery items, vegan or not, is shipped in from somewhere. I'd rather
> > > see people eating imported veggies and tofu than imported Cheetos and cola.
> >
> > Again, you haven't said why
>
> If you're putting it on a truck and driving it a thousand miles anyway,
> veggies and tofu are going to be far better to the human, and the environment
> (assuming you compost and the veggies and tofu have minimal packaging) than
> whatever chemicals, sugar and plastic packaging you get with fake
> cheese-flavoured chips and brown liquid that can also be used to strip paint.
========================
Not if it's inedible tofu. Why transport tofu to the boonies just to
make fake meat, when there is the real thing waiting to be eaten right
there, and would be more environmentally friendly?
rick etter
Johan Van Gompel wrote:
>
> rick etter wrote:
>
> > Johan Van Gompel wrote:
> >>
> >> rick etter wrote:
> >>
> >> > Johan Van Gompel wrote:
> >> > snips...
> >>
> >>[snip]
> >> Dogma can mean two things, the non-religious meaning being 'something
> >> held as an established opinion'. I'm an atheist so please don't mind me
> >> farting in your general direction for mentioning the R-word. *grin*
> > =====================
> > Nah, you(veg*ns) preach it like a religion, you may claim atheism, but
> > then again you also make the false claims that you care more about
> > animals and the environment.
>
> Now where did I specifically claim that vegans care more about the animals
> and the environment? It may be a fact, but please stop putting words in my
> mouth. Given your rather stern view of 'us(veg*ns)' it seems I had been
> judged even before I tried to explain my point of view.
======================
Hey, if you roll in crap, it's gonna make you smell too.
>
> >> > But, how do you know you effects on the environment are being limited?
> >> > I'd suggest that many don't even care. Take some posts just here last
> >> > week, someone from backwoods Canada wanted to know how she could get
> >> > veg*n foods up to her. Now really, tell me how there is ANY
> >> > environmental concerns in that request at all.
> >>
> >> I have not seen the full post so I am not going to comment on this.
> > ===================
> > Typical. The specifics aren't really important for any location.
> > Having non-local foods imported to replace local ones seems more than
> > counter-productive environmentally.
>
> I did not comment because for all I know she might live in a really barren
> place with no eatable stuff around whatsoever.
=====================
Where would that be?
>
> >> > How about your posting to usenet? How is that veg*n?
> >>
> >> Just as veg*n as your posting I guess.
> > ================
> > Ah, but my religion, er, dogma doesn't require that I make false claims
> > about doing all I can to 'save' animals from death and suffering. Yours
> > does, does it not, hypocrite?
>
> So now we resort to agressive name-calling?
=====================
Nope, just a true observation. I also note the observation in a
statement you make below. I do note here that you cannot refute the
observation though.
>
> [snip]
> >> I am aware of the fact that power distribution towers and such kill a lot
> >> of birds and stuff, but what can you do?
> > =====================
> > Well, stop posting inane drivel to usenet. It's really not necessary,
> > except for your selfishness. Guess the animals come 2nd, eh killer?
>
> ROFL.
========================
The animals you continue to kill unnecessarily, while claiming
otherwise, aren't laughing, chuckles.
>
> > You can only try to limit your own
> >> energy consumption, embrace environmentally friendly solutions like
> >> solar energy, wind energy, etc. and go out and exercise instead of
> >> hanging in front of the TV all day. TRY is the key word here, as it is
> >> with veganism.
> > ==================
> > Try? You don't even do that. All you do is make claims about doing
> > something, yet here you are still causing unnecessary death and
> > suffering to animals, despite your religious, er, dogmatic claims!
>
> I have given some examples of the things I personally try to do in the last
> paragraph. I do not deny that even with a vegan diet there is probably
> still unnecessary death/suffering/environmental damage but at least I am
> trying to keep that to a minimum with the knowledge I have gathered
> throughout the years, trying to look further and dig deeper than most
> people would. Do I hold it against other people that they do not? No.
-------------------
But looking and digging don't relate to 'saving' anything. Again, you
just made the statement, "...at least I am trying to keep that to a
minimum..." I've just shown that that is a false statement. You know
that your posting causes unnecessary death and suffering, yet you still
persist. You are *not* minimizing all you can!
>
> [snip]
> >> > Have you really thought this 'dogma' out, or are you just shooting from
> >> > the hip because it makes you feel good, or look cool?
> >>
> >> As I said before the 'dogma' you are refering to is 'an established
> >> opinion among vegans'. I do not care about looking cool (some people even
> >> dare to call me a nerd) nor do I say things for the single purpose of
> >> making me feel good. I do feel good mind you, mostly due to my vegan diet
> >> and regular exercise.
> > ======================
> > Then why are you still posting? It's your dogma that says you have to
> > do all you can to reduce animal death and suffering.
>
> That is not what I said. I am beginning to think that English is not your
> native tongue. Either that or you are misinterpreting me because it sure is
> not mine.
====================
Read the basis of the veg*n dogma in news groups. It's all about
animals and how they(veg*ns) claim to be saving the world. Check the
sanctimonious horse-hair thread right now.
>
> >> > Because it really does nothing to save animals or the environment.
> >>
> >> Surely conscientiously trying to do something to save animals or the
> >> environment has a more positive/less negative impact than not doing
> >> anything at all.
> > ======================
> > No. Take the example I gave in previous post. Idiot, religious veg*n
> > wants to save animals and the environment by eating only veg*n food.
> > trouble is, there is none locally available without a high cost of
> > transportation, processing, storage. You can't convince me that they
> > would cause less death and suffering, or environmental damage than
> > eating meat from the local area. One moose, elk, caribou would feed
> > many with the death of one animal. Replace those 10000s of calories
> > with tofu, processed and transported to the hinterlands. I can hear the
> > local veg*n loon now, 'I don't kill animals because I only eat veggies,
> > you guys are all murderers'.
>
> Are you upset because you came across one or more of those religious
> ethical vegans on a Usenet crusade? All vegans I know are simply not like
> that. Did I call you a murderer? No. I try not to judge people. To each his
> own, I say.
===================
Fine. Just don't promote the lies that veg*ns do.
>
> >> E.g. keeping to a strict diet has a less negative impact on the
> >> environment than eating candy, burgers, french fries, etc. Example:
> >> animal fats picked up from fritures (burger & chips joints) and processed
> >> into animal feed were responsible for the 'dioxin chicken crisis' in
> >> Belgium a few years ago. Millions of chickens were 'processed' because of
> >> this 'national health issue'. Helping to plant trees and bushes provides
> >> a habitat for numerous animals and increases the lung capacity of our
> >> planet. Biking to work is more environmentally friendly than driving your
> >> car to work. I can think of many more examples but this post is long
> >> enough as it is. ^_^
> > ======================
> > And some of those are not 'veg*n' ideas. What you eat is a false idea
> > of saving animals.
>
> I agree some of those are not vegan ideas per se. The latter conclusion is
> rather illogical though. You could just as well say 'How you drive is a
> false idea of saving animals'. IMHO doing more with less does the trick in
> both cases.
---------------------------
Then you're lost in the propaganda. Compare 1000 calories of range beef
to 1000s calories of processed, shrink wrapped rice? How many deaths
involved in each? The veg*n would claim the rice -- only because it
fills his agenda, without really knowing, or really caring either, about
the deaths involved.
Jon Janssen
"Johan Van Gompel" <joh...@johanvg.dyndns.org> wrote in message
news:3c009ff3$0$196$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
> Jon Janssen wrote:
>
> > dh-dl is sincere, so don't stereotype him, and his post isn't exactly
> > answering the question, but it's not made up either.
> > I've known him from another board enough that we respect each other, and
> > even though he has different thoughts, he isn't one to bash or harass
>
> Sigh. Okay, I'll grab the bait. I think the groups.google.com link I
posted
> earlier is clear enough: he is a copying & pasting troll. Numerous posts
> with _exactly_ the same message over an extended period of time is not a
> coincidence nor an attempt at constructive dialogue.
To introduce myself, I live a vegan lifstyle, and non-gmo, organic, at that.
I certainly think reality supports that a plant diet is much healthier,
environmental, and humane (my reason for moving towards veganism in the
first place). If you search for my name on google you'd see my repeated
posts...
I'm just saying that dh_dl Dave and I have had discussions and he isn't
about bashing or name-calling. I agree that his comments are related to
food, and the person asking about strings wasn't either.
I'm just stating the reality that he isn't what you may think he is.
Honest :)
Jon
>
> > As for the question, I was wondering this about dart boards that are
> > supposedly horsehair.
> >
> > Of cpourse, horses wouldn't be raised and killed just for horse hair for
> > dart boards; the hair is a by product and the industry finds a use for
it,
> > but it does give a few more $ to the industry. Find alternatives if you
> > can if my guess....
> >
> > Without the dairy, meat, egg and fur industry, the slaughter by-products
> > wouldn't pay for the animals to continue being raised and killed. The
> > animal foods products are the main focus..
>
> I fail to see how your little fact is suitable or relevant in a vegan
> newsgroup. Most of us hold the opinion that we should try to _limit_ the
> consumption of animal products _as much as humanly possible_ and try to
> weave the rest of our life around that dogma, trying to lessen our impact
> on the environment, trying to improve our health and thereby our lives,
> etc. ad inf. dh-dl seems to assume though that we are all animal-loving
> morons who are oblivious to the facts he holds to be true and that we need
> to be educated.
>
papos le grand balz ov the tiki tribe
T5NF wrote:
>
> Cool! The sound they make reminds me of the sound you can get from a theremin
> (electric rod type thingy that you don't actually touch to play..you just wave
> your hands around it). Here's a site with some info:
>
> http://mdcm.arts.unsw.edu.au/students98/BawdenH/innovate/1t.html
or check this page
I <3 my theremin.
--
----------------------
| papos ov thee balz |
----------------------
http://paposproductions.iuma.com <--recordings of strange occurances in
cyberspace. The decay of 2000 years of art.
http://jbrx.iuma.com <--lo-fi digital grindcore. A penetrating social commentary.
|----|
"...Encourage teens to pray for Reznor instead of wallowing in his ear-splitting
hopelessness."-Bob Waliszewski of family.org"
|----|
"...Vegetarians are the enemy of everything good and decent in the human spirit."
- David Stafford
MrFalafel
> Will you be playing 'air violin' to Motorhead, Mr F?
>
No, a musical saw is a real thing. You bow it while bending it around
and it makes a haunting tone which you can control. Yes, it's very
weird.
I'm moving to a small town with a bluegrass music society (in N
Wales?) and want to bring something other than the standard guitar or
banjo.
dh...@nomail.com
I agree Gonad (weird huh?). But even though you think that would
be a "bizarre direction" in which to move, and that it would be a more
"natural and logical conclusion" to want to eliminate farm animals instead,
it's possible that some people out there do want to promote better lives
for them.
Dutch
> On Sun, 25 Nov 2001 21:30:30 -0800, Jonathan Ball
<jon...@earthlink.NS.net> wrote:
>
> >What about the stuff you furtively tried to ignore,
> >Fuckwit?
> >
> >
> > > Pointing out that veg*nism does not contribute to
> > > better lives for farm animals,
> >
> > "Contributing to 'better lives' for farm animals" is
> > not a duty.
>
> I agree Gonad (weird huh?). But even though you think that would
> be a "bizarre direction" in which to move,
That's not a direction, he stated a negative. Like having a dozen
children is not a duty, it's not a direction just a statement of a
negative. It's very basic logic, yet it escapes you..
> and that it would be a more
> "natural and logical conclusion" to want to eliminate farm animals
instead,
> it's possible that some people out there do want to promote better
lives
> for them.
False dichotomy. Your position is based on a false dichotomy. Do you
even know what that means? Do you want to know?
Jonathan Ball
But this doesn't lead, out of logical necessity, to a
strictly vegetarian diet. It could, instead, lead one
to a more involved role in determining how animals are
treated; to a more active involvement in providing
one's meat (hunting?); to more involvement in animal
welfare groups.
Perhaps. But the generalizations are not necessarily
invalid, and are useful. We are generalizing
classifiers by nature, and it generally ;-) serves us well.
>
>
>
>>And it's the never-ending *talking* about it that
>>drives omnivores crazy. You'll note that outside the
>>"vegan" and animal "rights"-related newsgroups and
>>other forums, no one ever declares himself an omnivore.
>> There is no "Omnivorous Times" newsletter, like
>>"Vegan Times" or "Vegetarian Times". There are no
>>explicitly omnivore-oriented newsgroups on usenet.
>>
>
> Been to rec.food.cooking lately?
No. But I will bet money that if anyone identifies
himself as an "omnivore", it is strictly in response to
someone first identifying himself as a vegetarian or
"vegan"; almost certainly the latter.
>
> There's no Straight Pride parade, either. Does that mean there's no need for
> Gay Pride? Or Black History month?
Yes, there is absolutely no need for those. Those
things are horrible. Anything that promotes an
oppressive group identity, which both of those do, is
vile and loathsome. Identify politics is *the* worst
feature of American political life over the last 35
years. They are anathema to what the earlier civil
rights movement was all about.
>
> Forums for vegetarian discussion exist because people, for whatever reason,
> can't talk about them in the mainstream. It seems to make people nervous.
Other than the trading of recipes, and talking about
where to find stuff, which this group seems to do just
fine, what's there to talk about. What in the HELL is
a "vegetarian issue"?
> So
> it's natural that these folks are going to gravitate to places where there are
> other people who they can share experiences, recipes, and other information
> with. The same way that there are hunting and fishing magazines and groups
> like the NRA.
>
> And if you have such an issue with vegan and vegetarian newsgroups and forums,
> why subscribe to them?
My original main reason for participating here was very
different from the main reason I now stick around. At
no time was it to provoke and argue with "vegans". But
that is occasionally a secondary reason, and only when
a "vegan" starts spouting the usual sanctimonious nonsense.
>
>
>>It's true that we don't know her complete story. We
>>only know what she has revealed here, which is
>>(apparently) a great concern with obtaining vegetarian
>>food in an area that doesn't lend itself very well to
>>that kind of a "lifestyle" in winter.
>>
>
> Do we know that? All I saw in her post was that she lived in Northern Canada,
> not that she lived in the wilderness. They do have supermarkets in Saskatoon
> and Yellowknife, y'know. Without knowing much more about her, none of us can
> really say how much of an imprint she's making on the earth at all.
>
>
>>But Rick makes a great point, particularly if it's
>>coupled with an observation of yours, below: if she
>>were to eat those vegetables that could be readily
>>grown during the growing season up where she is, *plus*
>>some judiciously chosen meat from a large animal
>>(moose, caribou, etc.: one death = many meals for many
>>people), then she really *might* effect a serious
>>shrinking of her environmental footprint.
>>
>
> Possibly. But maybe she doesn't have a real interest in going hunting. Most
> omnivores don't (unless you considering hunting for a steak with some nice
> marbling to count).
She wouldn't need to. I've eaten a fair bit of rabbit
and venison in my life, and I'm not a hunter.
> If she's already vegetarian or vegan, then no matter how
> preferable you consider your suggestion to be, it's unlikely she's going to be
> interested.
I understand that.
>
>
>>But if she *does* have the minimization of animal
>>deaths as a major or primary motivation, might she not
>>be obliged to do just that?
You snipped out - I'll assume inadvertently - the part
of your post to which I was replying with that comment.
It now appears that I'm suggesting she would be
"obliged" to eat meat, in order to keep to her goal of
having a small environmental footprint. What I
actually was suggesting was that she might be obliged
to eat a boring, restricted diet of root vegatables and
cabbage in order to keep her small footprint.
>>
>
> We don't know her motivations. Her post just asked about info on vegan food
> items. I don't recall it specifically stating that she *was* vegan. Remember
> that many people use the term fairly loosely. I'm not a "vegan" in the true
> definition of the word, but I'll always use it in a restaurant to convey to my
> server that there had damn well not be any dairy on my plate.
That's the part that puzzles me. "Vegan" does not
describe your diet with any more specificity than
"vegetarian". If there are eggs, cheese, fish or any
of the other things that some vegetarian "cheaters"
indulge in, in a dish you order, then it isn't
vegetarian. You could always say "strict vegetarian".
The problem with "vegan" is that it is politically
provocative, one of those in-your-face words. And in
terms of diet, it doesn't add anything beyond "vegetarian".
>
>
>>Over in a.a.e.v. and
>>t.p.a., there are so-called "ethical" vegetarians who
>>claim that "we" - everyone - ought to eschew meat not
>>just becaues it involves killing the animals we eat,
>>but also because of the collateral deaths involved in
>>feeding livestock. They claim, probably correctly,
>>that the CDs for that, plus the direct deaths of the
>>animals eaten, exceeds the death count for "vegans".
>>But if you're going to compare a vegetarian to a
>>non-vegetarian diet on this score, you are obliged to
>>compare alternative vegetarian diets by the same
>>rationale. Clearly, there are vegetarian diets that
>>involve much more harm to animals than other vegetarian
>>diets. If a person claiming to be "vegan" out of a
>>concern to minimize animal harm does not consider the
>>various vegetarian alternatives and choose the one with
>>the lowest death count behind it, then it invalidates
>>the entire premise of her "veganism".
>>
>
> Right. I'm not sure I see the point you're trying to make here. The typical
> "vegan" diet does considerably less harm than say, a lacto-ovo vegetarian
> diet. Anything stricter would have the person sitting under a tree waiting for
> the fruit to fall off.
My point is pretty simple and straightforward. If
you're concern is to minimize, it can't be only across
broad categories (e.g., meat vs. vegetables); it has to
be *within* a chosen broad category (locally grown
picked fruit vs. imported berries). But the "vegans"
who don't realize this, or other hidden collateral or
even direct deaths, are legion. Just yesterday, over
in a.a.e.v., the wife of a "vegan" guy I regularly wind
up expressed her astonishment at learning that
Worcestershire sauce contains anchovies. The guy,
earlier, was completely unaware that rice is
practically awash in collateral deaths, due to the
flooding and drying out of fields. He thought that
eliminating meat was the end of the story, as far as
"minimizing" the death toll behind his diet. His
experience is far from unusual. In fact, it is the
norm among self proclaimed "vegans", if one can go by
what they start out saying in those groups.
This proves, to me, that most so-called "vegans" have
not really thought through the implications of their
stated beliefs very well at all.
>
>
>>>Certainly, buy local produce or other grocery items whenever possible,
>>>but come winter, that's incredibly difficult, no matter where you are, in
>>>Canada at least.
>>>
>>If reducing the harm to rights-bearing animals is the
>>motivation, and I believe that it is the primary
>>motivation for most who declare themselves "vegan",
>>then the difficulty of it is not an excuse for not
>>doing it.
>>
>
> I was almost going to agree with you on this; certainly there are any number
> of people on this group who do stick to their guns, eat vegetables grown
> organically in their own garden, etc. But... there are certain parts of the
> world where, for a good part of the year that's just not possible. Your email
> addy shows you're posting from earthlink in... Nova Scotia?
Los Angeles. About 1 mile away from Earthlink's
original headquarters and continuing main operations
site, but that's just a coincidence.
> Hit the local
> Sobey's, man, and see exactly how much *local* organic produce you can come up
> with. I grew up in Halifax, and travel there frequently; the selection of
> local produce (hell, even the selection of imported produce) sucks pretty hard
> at this time of year.
But that doesn't change the fact that if you're doing
this out of a belief in animal "rights", the difficulty
is simply irrelevant. It's much harder to control a
car on icy roads, too, and avoid accidents, but I can't
offer that as an excuse if I drive negligently and
cause *human* death or injury.
>
>
>>>There might be a bit more selection in, say, Vancouver, but
>>>in northern Ontario or other northern provinces, just about everything in the
>>>way of grocery items, vegan or not, is shipped in from somewhere. I'd rather
>>>see people eating imported veggies and tofu than imported Cheetos and cola.
>>>
>>Again, you haven't said why
>>
>
> If you're putting it on a truck and driving it a thousand miles anyway,
> veggies and tofu are going to be far better to the human,
This sounds suspiciously like an aesthetic, rather than
an ethical or environmental, concern.
> and the environment
> (assuming you compost and the veggies and tofu have minimal packaging) than
> whatever chemicals, sugar and plastic packaging you get with fake
> cheese-flavoured chips and brown liquid that can also be used to strip paint.
Well...de gustabus non disputandum est.
dh...@nomail.com
><dh...@nomail.com> wrote
>> On Sun, 25 Nov 2001 21:30:30 -0800, Jonathan Ball
><jon...@earthlink.NS.net> wrote:
>>
>> >What about the stuff you furtively tried to ignore,
>> >Fuckwit?
>> >
>> >
>> > > Pointing out that veg*nism does not contribute to
>> > > better lives for farm animals,
>> >
>> > "Contributing to 'better lives' for farm animals" is
>> > not a duty.
>>
>> I agree Gonad (weird huh?). But even though you think that would
>> be a "bizarre direction" in which to move,
>
>That's not a direction,
It would sure be a different direction for you.
>he stated a negative. Like having a dozen
>children is not a duty, it's not a direction just a statement of a
>negative. It's very basic logic, yet it escapes you..
>
>> and that it would be a more
>> "natural and logical conclusion" to want to eliminate farm animals
>instead,
>> it's possible that some people out there do want to promote better
>lives
>> for them.
>
>False dichotomy. Your position is based on a false dichotomy. Do you
>even know what that means? Do you want to know?
_________________________________________________________
Main Entry: di·chot·o·my
Pronunciation: dI-'kä-t&-mE also d&-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -mies
Etymology: Greek dichotomia, from dichotomos
Date: 1610
1 : a division or the process of dividing into two especially mutually
exclusive or contradictory groups or entities
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
My guess is you're pointing out that there are more than 2 possible
ways to go in regards to animal farming, and I agree. But I encourage
one, which is improving life for them. You veg*ns encourage another,
which is to eliminate animal farming. Those are the only 2 that I've
been discussing. The only other possibility afaik is to continue raising
them but not improve life for them. That would make it a trichotomy
unless there are more possibilities...if so, what are they?
Dutch
> On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 07:55:38 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>
> ><dh...@nomail.com> wrote
> >> On Sun, 25 Nov 2001 21:30:30 -0800, Jonathan Ball
> ><jon...@earthlink.NS.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >What about the stuff you furtively tried to ignore,
> >> >Fuckwit?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > Pointing out that veg*nism does not contribute to
> >> > > better lives for farm animals,
> >> >
> >> > "Contributing to 'better lives' for farm animals" is
> >> > not a duty.
> >>
> >> I agree Gonad (weird huh?). But even though you think that would
> >> be a "bizarre direction" in which to move,
> >
> >That's not a direction,
>
> It would sure be a different direction for you.
The implication being that since I don't eat meat I am ethically inferior,
since my diet doesn't support the breeding of livestock. You have simply
taken the AR fallacy and turned it around, what a dumb thing to do. Have you
not heard of the cd argument? My diet contains a lot of soya beans and
vegetables, I'll bet I support lots of cds in those crops.
> >he stated a negative. Like having a dozen
> >children is not a duty, it's not a direction just a statement of a
> >negative. It's very basic logic, yet it escapes you..
> >
> >> and that it would be a more
> >> "natural and logical conclusion" to want to eliminate farm animals
> >instead,
> >> it's possible that some people out there do want to promote better
> >lives
> >> for them.
> >
> >False dichotomy. Your position is based on a false dichotomy. Do you
> >even know what that means? Do you want to know?
> _________________________________________________________
> Main Entry: di·chot·o·my
> Pronunciation: dI-'kä-t&-mE also d&-
> Function: noun
> Inflected Form(s): plural -mies
> Etymology: Greek dichotomia, from dichotomos
> Date: 1610
> 1 : a division or the process of dividing into two especially mutually
> exclusive or contradictory groups or entities
>
> http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary
> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
> My guess is you're pointing out that there are more than 2 possible
> ways to go in regards to animal farming, and I agree.
You refer to only two possibilities, eliminate them, and continue to raise
them and support animal welfare.
I support peoples' right to do the second, or actually any of them. None are
ethically superior provided whatever animals that are born are treated well.
> But I encourage
> one, which is improving life for them.
So do I, provided they are born. If farmers decide not to raise them, that's
not an issue.
> You veg*ns encourage another,
> which is to eliminate animal farming.
Is there something wrong with that? Why would anyone want to raise livestock
animals if they weren't eaten? You are implying that humans have a moral
obligation to continue raising livestock, that's patently absurd.
> Those are the only 2 that I've
> been discussing. The only other possibility afaik is to continue raising
> them but not improve life for them. That would make it a trichotomy
> unless there are more possibilities...if so, what are they?
I''l mention just a few in general terms.. raise certain ones and not
others, raise less of some and more of others, address and correct some AW
problems but not others, raise some animals we don't raise now, raise none
at all. All options are morally identical provided AW is considered. You and
all your AR loon counterparts are just sucking wind.
dh...@nomail.com
><dh...@nomail.com>
>> On Tue, 27 Nov 2001 07:55:38 -0800, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> ><dh...@nomail.com> wrote
>> >> On Sun, 25 Nov 2001 21:30:30 -0800, Jonathan Ball
>> ><jon...@earthlink.NS.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >What about the stuff you furtively tried to ignore,
>> >> >Fuckwit?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > > Pointing out that veg*nism does not contribute to
>> >> > > better lives for farm animals,
>> >> >
>> >> > "Contributing to 'better lives' for farm animals" is
>> >> > not a duty.
>> >>
>> >> I agree Gonad (weird huh?). But even though you think that would
>> >> be a "bizarre direction" in which to move,
>> >
>> >That's not a direction,
>>
>> It would sure be a different direction for you.
>
>The implication being that since I don't eat meat I am ethically inferior,
>since my diet doesn't support the breeding of livestock.
That's the way you interpret it. It would be a different direction for
you is what I said, and you applied the rest to yourself.
>You have simply
>taken the AR fallacy and turned it around, what a dumb thing to do. Have you
>not heard of the cd argument? My diet contains a lot of soya beans and
>vegetables, I'll bet I support lots of cds in those crops.
So do I. And also by using paper and wood products, and roads
and buildings, etc...
Then why do you keep opposing my suggestion for people to contribute
to better farming conditions if they care about farm animals?
>> But I encourage
>> one, which is improving life for them.
>
>So do I, provided they are born.
What's wrong with encouraging people to contribute to
their birth?
>If farmers decide not to raise them, that's
>not an issue.
>
>> You veg*ns encourage another,
>> which is to eliminate animal farming.
>
>Is there something wrong with that?
Not that I know of.
>Why would anyone want to raise livestock
>animals if they weren't eaten? You are implying that humans have a moral
>obligation to continue raising livestock,
No I don't.
>that's patently absurd.
>
>> Those are the only 2 that I've
>> been discussing. The only other possibility afaik is to continue raising
>> them but not improve life for them. That would make it a trichotomy
>> unless there are more possibilities...if so, what are they?
>
>I''l mention just a few in general terms.. raise certain ones and not
>others,
That's all we can do. Raise them or not...I included those options.
>raise less of some and more of others,
See above.
>address and correct some AW
>problems but not others,
Improve their lives or not...that's the third option.
>raise some animals we don't raise now,
OK, maybe that could be considered a fourth option,
but I would stick it in the "raise them or not" category,
which is 1 and 2.
>raise none
>at all.
That's option 2.
>All options are morally identical provided AW is considered.
That brings us back to the dichotomy.
>You and
>all your AR loon counterparts are just sucking wind.
And all you're doing is blowing smoke...or trying to.
Jonathan Ball
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
[...]
>>And it's the never-ending *talking* about it that
>>drives omnivores crazy. You'll note that outside the
>>"vegan" and animal "rights"-related newsgroups and
>>other forums, no one ever declares himself an omnivore.
>> There is no "Omnivorous Times" newsletter, like
>>"Vegan Times" or "Vegetarian Times". There are no
>>explicitly omnivore-oriented newsgroups on usenet.
>>
>
> Been to rec.food.cooking lately?
I hadn't been, when I replied yesterday. I had a look
at it today. When I subscribed through Mindspring's
news server, it downloaded over 6900 message headers,
dating back to 11/04/2001. I did searches on the
entire set for the words "vegan", "vegetarian" and
"omnivore" in the subject lines. There were zero hits.
Maybe you can point me to a specific message that I
could look at through Google.
[...]
Jonathan Ball
I looked myself. Looked for the word "omnivore" in
rec.food.cooking as far back as Google maintains its
archives. I only examined the "hits" that were
returned on the first page (1 of 8). Every single
reference was either by a vegetarian in a mildly to
moderately disparaging usage, or by the omnivore
himself in reply to something in an explicitly
vegetarian thread.
I stand by my original claim: omnivores don't
gratuitously offer their dietary status for public
display, the way "vegans" frequently do.
This usually unsolicited declaration by "vegans" has as
its goal far, far more than the simple revelation of
what they eat. There is most often an entire political
identity being revealed. IOW: there are no "vegan"
Republicans ;-)
Laurie
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@earthlink.NS.net> wrote in message
news:3C052955...@earthlink.NS.net...
> I stand by my original claim: omnivores don't
> gratuitously offer their dietary status for public
> display, the way "vegans" frequently do.
Could it be that no one really cares about the deadly,
unscientifically-sound, medically-contraindicated, culturally-conditioned
omnivore diet?
That's why there are not any corpse-eater or hamburger-helper ng's;
however, the existence of many veg*n ng's and mailing lists and hundreds of
thusands of veg*n websites clearly indicates that millions of folks ARE
interested in sharing veg*n information and experiences?
A quick search on google indicates that there are ~ 461,000 hits for
'vegan OR vegetarian' and ~ 610,000 for 'meat' with a system-limited attempt
to ignore pages of the meat industry and various music groups. So, given
the relative percentages on veg*ns and meatarians in the general population,
the veg*ns obviously have a lot more to communicate.
Why don't you and your misologistic meatarian biddies start your own
meaty newsgroup, so you can wallow in your shared fantasies without being
disturbed with facts and logic? news:alt.config will tell you how.
You could even have your own uniform, starting with
http://www.hatsofmeat.com/HatsofMeat/index.html
Laurie
_____
Get my diet articles: http://www.ecologos.org/articles.htm
news:alt.food.vegan.science Scientifically credible info on veg*n diets.
Bust SPAMMERS! http://spamcop.net/ u...@ftc.gov
Newsgroups: change "bitch" to "beach" for legit e-mail.
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@earthlink.NS.net> wrote in message
> news:3C052955...@earthlink.NS.net...
>
>
>>I stand by my original claim: omnivores don't
>>gratuitously offer their dietary status for public
>>display, the way "vegans" frequently do.
>>
> Could it be that no one really cares about the deadly,
Wrong.
> unscientifically-sound,
Wrong.
> medically-contraindicated,
Wrong, and you can't offer a bit of support.
> culturally-conditioned
> omnivore diet?
Culturally conditioned? When? What and when was the
original conditioning, you deliberately ignorant twit?
> That's why there are not any corpse-eater or hamburger-helper ng's;
> however, the existence of many veg*n ng's and mailing lists and hundreds of
> thusands of veg*n websites clearly indicates that millions of folks ARE
> interested in sharing veg*n information and experiences?
> A quick search on google indicates that there are ~ 461,000 hits for
> 'vegan OR vegetarian' and ~ 610,000 for 'meat' with a system-limited attempt
> to ignore pages of the meat industry and various music groups. So, given
> the relative percentages on veg*ns and meatarians in the general population,
> the veg*ns obviously have a lot more to communicate.
Non sequitur.
> Why don't you and your misologistic meatarian biddies start your own
> meaty newsgroup, so you can wallow in your shared fantasies without being
> disturbed with facts and logic?
You are the epitome of one who is never disturbed by
facts and logic. There isn't one scientifically sound
thing on your bullshit "ecologos" site, beginning with
that horseshit definition of "omnivore" that your
recent disciple ~~Illweed~~ cribbed and posted in
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian.
> news:alt.config will tell you how.
> You could even have your own uniform, starting with
> http://www.hatsofmeat.com/HatsofMeat/index.html
>
>
> Laurie
> _____
> Get my diet articles: http://www.ecologos.org/articles.htm
No science there; not a shred of it.
Laurie
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@earthlink.NS.net> wrote in message
news:3C067147...@earthlink.NS.net...
> > medically-contraindicated,
> Wrong, and you can't offer a bit of support.
Really, there are thousands of scientific articles that clearly indicate
that meat-eating is the primary cause of all the most popular "degenerative
diseases", and that changing to a plant-based diet reverses said "diseases".
There are dozens of research abstracts linked from
http://www.ecologos.org/ttdd.htm
YOU are the one that can not offer ANY scientifically-credible support
for your beliefs. That's why you have never done so.
> > culturally-conditioned omnivore diet?>
> Culturally conditioned? When?
YOU were culturally-conditioned to do so as an infant by your ignorant
parents, who now, no doubt, are experiencing the inevetable results, like we
all were. You certainly did not -intelligently decide- to eat meat.
> What and when was the
> original conditioning, you deliberately ignorant twit?
Probably started with pre-humans that foolishly abandoned their proper
ecological niche and thus deprived themselves of their proper food. The
error of leaving our tropical home resulted in a cascade of
health-destroying errors.
Your compulsive need to call people names, in willful violation of
accepted newsgroup standards, underscores the fact that you can not support
your beliefs with polite academic discussion or rational analysis.
> > That's why there are not any corpse-eater or hamburger-helper ng's;
> > however, the existence of many veg*n ng's and mailing lists and hundreds
of
> > thusands of veg*n websites clearly indicates that millions of folks ARE
> > interested in sharing veg*n information and experiences?
> > A quick search on google indicates that there are ~ 461,000 hits for
> > 'vegan OR vegetarian' and ~ 610,000 for 'meat' with a system-limited
attempt
> > to ignore pages of the meat industry and various music groups. So,
given
> > the relative percentages on veg*ns and meatarians in the general
population,
> > the veg*ns obviously have a lot more to communicate.
> Non sequitur.
Be specific. Unsupported, blanket denials are another boringly common
technique of those who can not craft a reasonable argument.
> > Why don't you and your misologistic meatarian biddies start your own
> > meaty newsgroup, so you can wallow in your shared fantasies without
being
> > disturbed with facts and logic?
> You are the epitome of one who is never disturbed by
> facts and logic. There isn't one scientifically sound
> thing on your bullshit "ecologos" site, beginning with
> that horseshit definition of "omnivore" ...
Why don't you formulate ONE scientifically-credible counterargument to
ANY concept you think is incorrect, and then we will see just how brilliant
you really are. Unsupported blanket denials and vulgar language; however,
have already revealed the severe limits of your intellect.
Laurie
_____
Get my diet articles: http://www.ecologos.org/articles.htm
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@earthlink.NS.net> wrote in message
> news:3C067147...@earthlink.NS.net...
>
>
>>>medically-contraindicated,
>>>
>>Wrong, and you can't offer a bit of support.
>>
> Really, there are thousands of scientific articles
You haven't read any. At best, you've read *of* them
from other politicized, dishonest "vegan" web sites.
That's all you nutters do: crib stuff from one
another's sites.
> that clearly indicate
> that meat-eating is the primary cause of all the most popular "degenerative
> diseases", and that changing to a plant-based diet reverses said "diseases".
> There are dozens of research abstracts linked from
> http://www.ecologos.org/ttdd.htm
That's your site, and it's full of crap. As soon as I
see the word "meatarian", I know I'm looking at the
work of a rabid, pseudo-scientific polemicist. I
pursued some of the links on that page, and found gems
like:
Meatarians, in their never-ending, but always
irrational and fruitless, attempts to justify human
flesh-eating often use the claim that "chimps eat
meat, so we should also".
Very "scientific", Larry: "meatarian", and a bald
faced lie by you. No omnivore claims that "chimps eat
meat, so we should also". The example of chimps eating
meat is offered as a disproof of crap thrown up by
polemical bullshitters like you to the effect that our
"natural" diet doesn't and shouldn't include meat.
You are the science challenged one here, Larry. You
have no scientific backing whatever for your claim that
humans' "natural" diet does not include meat.
Do you understand anything at all about burden of
proof, both logically and scientifically, Larry?
Clearly not. You are making a claim - a bullshit claim
- about man's "natural" diet. The burden of proof is
entirely on you to support the claim. Neither
logically nor scientifically am I obliged to show that
our "natural" diet *does* include meat.
Quit pissing away time on that obvious bullshit page of
yours and start assembling some support for your claim.
We'll be reading your obituary long before you could
conceivably get back to us.
> YOU are the one that can not offer ANY scientifically-credible support
> for your beliefs. That's why you have never done so.
I don't have to offer support for my beliefs when all I
am tasked to do is show that there is none for yours.
You're making the claim; you have the burden of proof.
You've dropped it completely.
>
>
>>>culturally-conditioned omnivore diet?>
>>>
>>Culturally conditioned? When?
>>
> YOU were culturally-conditioned to do so as an infant by your ignorant
> parents, who now, no doubt, are experiencing the inevetable results, like we
> all were. You certainly did not -intelligently decide- to eat meat.
That's not really what I was asking. See below.
>
>
>>What and when was the
>>original conditioning, you deliberately ignorant twit?
>>
> Probably started with pre-humans that foolishly
Ooohhh. Not very scientific terminology, Larry, you
lousy polemical sophist.
> abandoned their proper ecological niche
Not proved. This is the crux of the matter, you
wheezing lying sophist. You assert that, with no
evidence for it. You know there *is* none.
This is wholly some kind of a moral/aesthetic judgment
of yours. There is absolutely zero science behind it.
> and thus deprived themselves of their proper food.
Another unsupported aesthetic judgment masquerading as
a moral one. You can't define "proper" except circularly.
> The error
More of the same.
> of leaving our tropical home resulted in a cascade of
> health-destroying errors.
> Your compulsive need to call people names,
No, you sleazy lying sophist: YOUR need: "meatarian".
> in willful violation of
> accepted newsgroup standards, underscores the fact that you can not support
> your beliefs with polite academic discussion or rational analysis.
You're in no position to lecture anyone about "polite
academic discussion", Larry. You're not an academic,
and are absolutely out of your depth on this "natural
diet" crapola.
>
>
>>> That's why there are not any corpse-eater or hamburger-helper ng's;
>>>however, the existence of many veg*n ng's and mailing lists and hundreds
>>>
> of
>
>>>thusands of veg*n websites clearly indicates that millions of folks ARE
>>>interested in sharing veg*n information and experiences?
>>> A quick search on google indicates that there are ~ 461,000 hits for
>>>'vegan OR vegetarian' and ~ 610,000 for 'meat' with a system-limited
>>>
> attempt
>
>>>to ignore pages of the meat industry and various music groups. So,
>>>
> given
>
>>>the relative percentages on veg*ns and meatarians in the general
>>>
> population,
>
>>>the veg*ns obviously have a lot more to communicate.
>>>
>>Non sequitur.
>>
> Be specific. Unsupported, blanket denials are another boringly common
> technique of those who can not craft a reasonable argument.
Go learn some Latin, Larry. I'm too busy to teach you.
>
>
>>> Why don't you and your misologistic meatarian biddies start your own
>>>meaty newsgroup, so you can wallow in your shared fantasies without
>>>
> being
>
>>>disturbed with facts and logic?
>>>
>>You are the epitome of one who is never disturbed by
>>facts and logic. There isn't one scientifically sound
>>thing on your bullshit "ecologos" site, beginning with
>>that horseshit definition of "omnivore" ...
>>
> Why don't you formulate ONE scientifically-credible counterargument to
> ANY concept you think is incorrect, and then we will see just how brilliant
> you really are. Unsupported blanket denials and vulgar language; however,
> have already revealed the severe limits of your intellect.
A continued refusal to attempt to support your crapola
claim that our "natural" diet doesn't include meat are
all anyone needs to know about you, Larry. You have
enough exposure to physics and electronics to be able
to present a "scientific" facade, but that's all it is.
I don't have to know a bit of science to know I'm
dealing with a fraud and charlatan in Larry Forti.
Connie Deighan
> Laurie wrote:
> > culturally-conditioned omnivore diet?
Gosh. You mean your mom and dad didn't feed you meat growing up?
I find that very hard to beleive, Jonathan.
-c
Jonathan Ball
Come on, Connie. No need to play dumb.
Larry seems to feel that all meat eating is the result
of cultural conditioning. (On one of his amateurish
and sophomoric web pages, he also describes it, without
offering any evidence, as "social pathology".) But how
did it *ever* get to be part of the "culture" in the
first place? That's what I'm really asking, not how
did any recent person receive it as cultural conditioning.
But it brings up an interesting point. I have a friend
from India. He is strictly vegetarian, and brought his
children up that way, but in the U.S. I now work with
one of his grown sons, who is approximately 30. That
guy devours hamburgers, steaks and the like. This
supposed "cultural conditioning" must not be too
powerful, particularly if the likes of Larry Forti can
seemingly discard it.
Johan Van Gompel
[snip]
> I don't have to offer support for my beliefs when all I
> am tasked to do is show that there is none for yours.
> You're making the claim; you have the burden of proof.
> You've dropped it completely.
[snip]
Please do offer support for your beliefs. You are claiming that all of
Laurie Forti's statements are false and I am very eager to know which is
your exact position on these matters. Right now, you are making about as
much sense as a Windows advocate spreading Linux FUD. The high swear word
content does not help you either.
--
Johan Van Gompel
http://johanvg.dyndns.org
Debian GNU/Linux 2.4.14 on Athlon 1400/512 MB
Jonathan Ball
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
> [snip]
> > I don't have to offer support for my beliefs when all I
> > am tasked to do is show that there is none for yours.
> > You're making the claim; you have the burden of proof.
> > You've dropped it completely.
> [snip]
>
> Please do offer support for your beliefs. You are claiming that all of
> Laurie Forti's statements are false and I am very eager to know which is
> your exact position on these matters.
No, Johan. You clearly don't get it. My beliefs aren't at all
important - in fact, they're entirely irrelevant - when it comes to
showing that Larry has sloppily tried to "support" his claim.
Larry makes an extravagant - and entirely unsupported - claim about
humans' "natural" diet (those are quotes of derision, in case you don't
get that either.) I think his claim is wrong. But his claim could
hypothetically be correct, and I *still* could take issue with his
sloppy, sophomoric attempts to "prove" it.
> Right now, you are making about as
> much sense as a Windows advocate spreading Linux FUD.
That's pretty funny.
Wherever
----
> Could it be that no one really cares about the deadly,
> unscientifically-sound, medically-contraindicated, culturally-conditioned
> omnivore diet?
It must be the sound of a loon calling....
> That's why there are not any corpse-eater or hamburger-helper ng's;
alt.food.barbecue
alt.food.burgerchef
alt.food.hamburger
-----
Wherever
----
> Really, there are thousands of scientific articles that clearly indicate
> that meat-eating is the primary cause of all the most popular "degenerative
> diseases",
There are exactly *zero* articles in peer-reviewed legitimate
journals that demonstrate such a claim.
----
Johan Van Gompel
> Johan Van Gompel wrote:
>>
>> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>> > I don't have to offer support for my beliefs when all I
>> > am tasked to do is show that there is none for yours.
>> > You're making the claim; you have the burden of proof.
>> > You've dropped it completely.
>> [snip]
>>
>> Please do offer support for your beliefs. You are claiming that all of
>> Laurie Forti's statements are false and I am very eager to know which is
>> your exact position on these matters.
>
> No, Johan. You clearly don't get it. My beliefs aren't at all
> important - in fact, they're entirely irrelevant - when it comes to
> showing that Larry has sloppily tried to "support" his claim.
But I asked you about your exact position about these matters because you
might be able to enlighten me. You clearly have or think you have a firm
grasp of things so I am still interested in your beliefs, Lauri Forti
notwithstanding. So I will ask you again: please, do offer support for your
beliefs.
> Larry makes an extravagant - and entirely unsupported - claim about
> humans' "natural" diet (those are quotes of derision, in case you don't
> get that either.) I think his claim is wrong. But his claim could
> hypothetically be correct, and I *still* could take issue with his
> sloppy, sophomoric attempts to "prove" it.
I saw an episode of 'Walking with Beasts' (the follow-up to 'Walking with
Dinosaurs') on BBC1 last Thursday. At the end of the episode they showed a
small spoiler with the first apes walking upright. I think some of them
were eating leaves. The narrator also mentioned they were prey. I think
Lauri is mostly referring to what those first human apes ate. Obviously a
mostly plant-based (and like the chimpanzees nowadays probably along with
some insects and small animals) diet was the 'natural' diet for them at the
time but along the way one of those apes got tired of being prey and
decided to put a stick in one of their predators. That one ape set
something in motion that brought us on top of the food chain and that
enabled us to develop society as it is today.
Now, do I think a raw food, vegan or omnivorous diet is humans' 'natural'
diet? No.There is no such thing as a 'natural' diet IMHO. Diet has always
been a nutrient gathering endeavour highly subjective to a number of
factors. E.g. hunter-gatherer tribes in Europa had a diet of meat, fish,
leaves, nuts and seeds. A mere 10000 years ago humans developed a little
thing called agriculture and became more sedentiary, altering their
nutritional needs. Their diet became more planned instead of opportunistic.
Another 7000 years later 'modern' religions, ethics, etc. developed, some
of which introduced vegetarianism because of non-violence (remember
Ghandi?). Nutritional science was developed only a couple of 100 years ago.
Fact of the matter is that before agriculture most humans ate meat and that
after that plants were 'customized' to human consumption in the same way
animals were. Furthermore, a couple of 10000 years before the agricultural
turning point the hunter-gatherers started to cook their food, slowly
loosing their tolerance for raw meat in the process. At that point the
arguably ideal paleodiet diet became a non-issue. Nutritional science and
thousands of years of regionalized vegetarianism (e.g. India) learned us
that you can gather most, if not all nutrients from a plant-based diet just
as well as you can from any other diet. The only thing that vegans try to
do compared to vegetarians is strenghtening their non-violence stance by
refusing to consume any product of animal origin at all. Sometimes we also
like to stress the positive health and/or environmental factors but those
are inherent to the diet IMHO.
AFAIC, I started out as a vegetarian mainly because of health reasons. You
see, I had to barf every time I had eaten e.g. ham or other porc meat. I
also suffered from severe diarrhea. A number of clueless doctors and a
surgery later I decided to take things into my own hands and typed the
words 'no meat' in a search engine and there was that word: vegetarian.
Lots of stories about how evil meat was to your intestines. It made sense.
So I joined their little community of sorts and reaped the benefits. Well,
not quite. Because I was still eating way too much dairy products and bad
fats I was not feeling too well at times to say the least. I still had
severe diarrhea at times. A doctor diagnosed me with having a 'spastic
colon' or something. I suffered yet again until some friendly person from
alt.food.vegan pointed out to me that I was heading in the wrong direction.
After changing my diet to a vegan one and learning more about nutrients the
only problem that remains is some mild flatulency, which is a lot better
than barfing and severe diarrhea.
Sorry about the lenghty rationalization. I tought it might help some people
lurking in these newsgroups or searching via groups.google.com.
>> Right now, you are making about as
>> much sense as a Windows advocate spreading Linux FUD.
>
> That's pretty funny.
In what way?
--
Johan Van Gompel
http://johanvg.dyndns.org
Lotus
[..]
> I saw an episode of 'Walking with Beasts' (the follow-up to 'Walking with
> Dinosaurs') on BBC1 last Thursday. At the end of the episode they showed a
> small spoiler with the first apes walking upright. I think some of them
> were eating leaves. The narrator also mentioned they were prey. I think
> Lauri is mostly referring to what those first human apes ate. Obviously a
> mostly plant-based (and like the chimpanzees nowadays probably along with
> some insects and small animals) diet was the 'natural' diet for them at the
> time but along the way one of those apes got tired of being prey and
> decided to put a stick in one of their predators. That one ape set
> something in motion that brought us on top of the food chain and that
> enabled us to develop society as it is today.
About humans, animals, lifestyles and society ..........
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/7672/beast2.html
> Now, do I think a raw food, vegan or omnivorous diet is humans' 'natural'
> diet? No.There is no such thing as a 'natural' diet IMHO.
About *humans* *natural* diet..... (with respect;)
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm
> Diet has always
> been a nutrient gathering endeavour highly subjective to a number of
> factors. E.g. hunter-gatherer tribes in Europa had a diet of meat, fish,
> leaves, nuts and seeds. A mere 10000 years ago humans developed a little
> thing called agriculture and became more sedentiary, altering their
> nutritional needs. Their diet became more planned instead of opportunistic.
> Another 7000 years later 'modern' religions, ethics, etc. developed, some
> of which introduced vegetarianism because of non-violence (remember
> Ghandi?). Nutritional science was developed only a couple of 100 years ago.
> Fact of the matter is that before agriculture most humans ate meat and that
> after that plants were 'customized' to human consumption in the same way
> animals were. Furthermore, a couple of 10000 years before the agricultural
> turning point the hunter-gatherers started to cook their food, slowly
> loosing their tolerance for raw meat in the process. At that point the
> arguably ideal paleodiet diet became a non-issue. Nutritional science and
> thousands of years of regionalized vegetarianism (e.g. India) learned us
> that you can gather most, if not all nutrients from a plant-based diet just
> as well as you can from any other diet.
Unlike any other diet, to obtain IDEALLY suited nutrients.
> The only thing that vegans try to
> do compared to vegetarians is strenghtening their non-violence stance by
> refusing to consume any product of animal origin at all. Sometimes we also
> like to stress the positive health and/or environmental factors but those
> are inherent to the diet IMHO.
Agreed.
> AFAIC, I started out as a vegetarian mainly because of health reasons. You
> see, I had to barf every time I had eaten e.g. ham or other porc meat. I
> also suffered from severe diarrhea. A number of clueless doctors and a
> surgery later I decided to take things into my own hands and typed the
> words 'no meat' in a search engine and there was that word: vegetarian.
> Lots of stories about how evil meat was to your intestines. It made sense.
> So I joined their little community of sorts and reaped the benefits. Well,
> not quite. Because I was still eating way too much dairy products and bad
> fats I was not feeling too well at times to say the least. I still had
> severe diarrhea at times. A doctor diagnosed me with having a 'spastic
> colon' or something. I suffered yet again until some friendly person from
> alt.food.vegan pointed out to me that I was heading in the wrong direction.
> After changing my diet to a vegan one and learning more about nutrients the
> only problem that remains is some mild flatulency, which is a lot better
> than barfing and severe diarrhea.
Exactly. Our physiology remains that of a Frugivore. (See link above).
> Sorry about the lenghty rationalization. I tought it might help some people
> lurking in these newsgroups or searching via groups.google.com.
Ditto.
Jonathan Ball
>
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
[...]
> >> Please do offer support for your beliefs. You are claiming that all of
> >> Laurie Forti's statements are false and I am very eager to know which is
> >> your exact position on these matters.
> >
> > No, Johan. You clearly don't get it. My beliefs aren't at all
> > important - in fact, they're entirely irrelevant - when it comes to
> > showing that Larry has sloppily tried to "support" his claim.
>
> But I asked you about your exact position about these matters because you
> might be able to enlighten me. You clearly have or think you have a firm
> grasp of things so I am still interested in your beliefs, Lauri Forti
> notwithstanding. So I will ask you again: please, do offer support for your
> beliefs.
Fair enough. See below. But I hope you do realize that my beliefs
aren't at all important for showing that Larry Forti hasn't supported
his.
By the way, I don't know why the twit posts as "Laurie". His name is
Lawrence Forti, and "Laurie" is not a common diminutive for Lawrence. I
also don't know why he makes his posting i.d. "Laurie the bitch", but it
does provide a great opportunity to make fun of him.
>
> > Larry makes an extravagant - and entirely unsupported - claim about
> > humans' "natural" diet (those are quotes of derision, in case you don't
> > get that either.) I think his claim is wrong. But his claim could
> > hypothetically be correct, and I *still* could take issue with his
> > sloppy, sophomoric attempts to "prove" it.
>
[snip most of accurate synopsis of dietary anthropology, except for:]
> Nutritional science and
> thousands of years of regionalized vegetarianism (e.g. India) learned us
> that you can gather most, if not all nutrients from a plant-based diet just
> as well as you can from any other diet.
Just one small vocabulary quibble: like most Dutch, your English is
practically perfect. But unlike French and (if I remember correctly)
German, "learn" in English can't be used for "teach". I know for
certain that "apprendre" is used in French both for "to learn" and, with
a pronoun, "to teach": "la science alimentaire nous a appris..." But
not in English: "nutritional science...has *taught* us...".
Just thought you'd like to know.
Anyway, my thoughts: I have long believed the anthropological picture
you described is historically accurate. I learned in university
anthropology classes (undergraduate only) that the consensus among
anthropologists is that the first homo, h. habilis, as well as the later
australopithecines, ate meat as a substantial part of the diet. Larry
Forti has done nothing to challenge that consensus.
Furthermore, I don't believe there is any useful meaning to the term
"natural diet". People like Forti and, if you follow the [ahem] debates
in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian at all, a major-league goof who posts
under the sappy pseudonym "Lotus", desperately want to try to create
something called "natural diet" in order to try to provide "scientific"
justification for their beliefs. But their beliefs very clearly are
religious in nature, not scientific. The proof of that is the
relentless moral judgment and judgmentalism present in all their writing
on the subject.
[snip explanation of your personal vegetarianism]
>
> Sorry about the lenghty rationalization. I tought it might help some people
> lurking in these newsgroups or searching via groups.google.com.
There's no arguing with your health reasons for following a vegetarian
diet. But the bizarre leap from vegetarian diet to "vegan" lifestyle is
completely unnecessary in terms of your health.
>
> >> Right now, you are making about as
> >> much sense as a Windows advocate spreading Linux FUD.
> >
> > That's pretty funny.
>
> In what way?
Because it's a bad comparison.
Johan Van Gompel
> Johan Van Gompel wrote:
>>
>> Jonathan Ball wrote:
>
> [snip most of accurate synopsis of dietary anthropology, except for:]
>
>> Nutritional science and
>> thousands of years of regionalized vegetarianism (e.g. India) learned us
>> that you can gather most, if not all nutrients from a plant-based diet
>> just as well as you can from any other diet.
>
> Just one small vocabulary quibble: like most Dutch, your English is
> practically perfect. But unlike French and (if I remember correctly)
> German, "learn" in English can't be used for "teach". I know for
> certain that "apprendre" is used in French both for "to learn" and, with
> a pronoun, "to teach": "la science alimentaire nous a appris..." But
> not in English: "nutritional science...has *taught* us...".
I am Belgian, not Dutch. We have a lot of jokes about Dutch people trying
to speak foreign languages (especialy French and German) so it is hard to
believe that most are _that_ proficient in English. Thanks for the language
lesson though. I think my English is crap by the way, but I may be wrong.
> Just thought you'd like to know.
>
> Anyway, my thoughts: I have long believed the anthropological picture
> you described is historically accurate. I learned in university
> anthropology classes (undergraduate only) that the consensus among
> anthropologists is that the first homo, h. habilis, as well as the later
> australopithecines, ate meat as a substantial part of the diet. Larry
> Forti has done nothing to challenge that consensus.
Substantial is rather subjective. Personally, I believe that at first it
mostly consisted of fruits, leaves and nuts along with insects and some
small animals (akin to the chimpanzees today). But as they (pre-homo
habilis) started to get out of the woods quite literally they started
eating more meat mainly because of availability. Meat was available
everywhere and their fruits, leaves and nuts were not.
> Furthermore, I don't believe there is any useful meaning to the term
> "natural diet". People like Forti and, if you follow the [ahem] debates
> in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian at all, a major-league goof who posts
> under the sappy pseudonym "Lotus", desperately want to try to create
> something called "natural diet" in order to try to provide "scientific"
> justification for their beliefs. But their beliefs very clearly are
> religious in nature, not scientific. The proof of that is the
> relentless moral judgment and judgmentalism present in all their writing
> on the subject.
>
> [snip explanation of your personal vegetarianism]
>
>>
>> Sorry about the lenghty rationalization. I tought it might help some
>> people lurking in these newsgroups or searching via groups.google.com.
>
> There's no arguing with your health reasons for following a vegetarian
> diet. But the bizarre leap from vegetarian diet to "vegan" lifestyle is
> completely unnecessary in terms of your health.
Perhaps. Maybe taking it easy on the dairy products would have solved my
problems just as well but I also accustomed myself to a vegan lifestyle
because I gradually came to the conclusion that the products vegans did not
consume when compared to vegetarians were completely unnecessary and could
easily be replaced by plant-based sources. And of course there was the
non-violence thing as well. Personally having viewed pigs and other small
farm animals slit their throats and squealing for what sometimes seemed
like hours on end as a child tends to leave a very deep impression on you.
>> >> Right now, you are making about as
>> >> much sense as a Windows advocate spreading Linux FUD.
>> >
>> > That's pretty funny.
>>
>> In what way?
> Because it's a bad comparison.
I see.
--
Johan Van Gompel
http://johanvg.dyndns.org
Catherine Caruso
>
> On Sun, 25 Nov 2001 08:40:50 +0100, Johan Van Gompel <joh...@johanvg.dyndns.org> wrote:
<snip>
> >I think the groups.google.com link I posted
> >earlier is clear enough: he is a copying & pasting troll. Numerous posts
> >with _exactly_ the same message over an extended period of time is not a
> >coincidence
>
> time to time, and don't want to try to figure out a new way of presenting
> the same exact info every time an issue comes up. So I've written up some
> replies to use when I want to convey particular information and points.
>
> >nor an attempt at constructive dialogue.
>
> those who oppose them, afaik. This for example...you seem bothered
> by my method, which is not constructive or relevant imo.
>
You know, public relations execs who copy paste, and send their "talking
points" for the products they are pitching fax crap to my office all the
time. The more they annoy me or insult my intelligence by carpet-bombing
the receptionist with the same exact crap, the more likely their appeals
on behalf of their clients are to end up in my circular file. You won;
win interest by boring us- if we'ce said no once, we've said it a
thousand times already. The answer won;t change because you repeated it
for the 1001st time.
Laurie
"Wherever" <yolk.white...@spam.net> wrote in message
news:3C085AD2...@spam.net...
http://www.ecologos.org/ttdd.htm
Aynon
>
> "Wherever" <yolk.white...@spam.net> wrote in message
> news:3C085AD2...@spam.net...
> > Laurie wrote:
> > > Really, there are thousands of scientific articles that clearly
> > > indicate
> > > that meat-eating is the primary cause of all the most popular
> > > "degenerative diseases",
> > There are exactly *zero* articles in peer-reviewed legitimate
> > journals that demonstrate such a claim.
> There are dozens in the Research section at:
> http://www.ecologos.org/ttdd.htm
Nope. There are none there at all that actually support your
bizarre assertion.
As usual, you are misrepresenting the actual research for your
own religious and bigoted views.
-
Laurie
"Aynon" <ay...@foils.ya> wrote in message news:3C13BEC4...@foils.ya...
> Laurie wrote:
> >
> > "Wherever" <yolk.white...@spam.net> wrote in message
> > news:3C085AD2...@spam.net...
> > > Laurie wrote:
> > > > Really, there are thousands of scientific articles that clearly
> > > > indicate
> > > > that meat-eating is the primary cause of all the most popular
> > > > "degenerative diseases",
> > > There are exactly *zero* articles in peer-reviewed legitimate
> > > journals that demonstrate such a claim.
> > There are dozens in the Research section at:
> > http://www.ecologos.org/ttdd.htm
>
> Nope. There are none there at all that actually support your
> bizarre assertion.
Here's just one:
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2001 Oct;10(10):1055-62
Nutrient intake and risk of subtypes of esophageal and gastric cancer.
"Higher intake of nutrients found primarily in plant-based foods was
associated with a reduced risk of adenocarcinomas of the esophagus and
gastric cardia, whereas higher intake of nutrients found primarily in foods
of animal origin was associated with an increased risk"
Let's see: more plant-based nutrients -reduced- adenocarcinomas, and,
conversely, more animal foods increased the risk.
Seems pretty cause and effect to me.
Aynon
That's nice. But it doesn't support your bizarre claim.
"meat-eating is the primary cause of all the most popular
"degenerative diseases","
You confuse "higher intake" with 'eating meat'. Increased risk
is not cause and effect. It is also not a linear function that
starts at zero.
----
---
Laurie
> Connie Deighan wrote:
>
> >>From: Jonathan Ball <jon...@earthlink.NS.net>
> >>Laurie wrote:
> >>>culturally-conditioned omnivore diet?
> > Gosh. You mean your mom and dad didn't feed you meat growing up?
> > I find that very hard to beleive, Jonathan.
> Come on, Connie. No need to play dumb.
a veg*n household and after conclusive study of the scientific research you
INTENTIONALLY made the decision to eat meat, or is the truth that you were
conditioned to eat it from the age of less than one year by your ignorant
parents?
> ...seems to feel that all meat eating is the result
> of cultural conditioning. (On one of his amateurish
> and sophomoric web pages, he also describes it, without
> offering any evidence, as "social pathology".)
Actually, I drew the similarity from the chimp's obvious social
pathology of such a practice. Clearly, humans also do it because of social,
not nutritional reasons, and the pathology of such a practice is
unmistakenly shown in the epidemiology.
> But how did it *ever* get to be part of the "culture" in the
> first place? That's what I'm really asking, not how
> did any recent person receive it as cultural conditioning.
So simple, even you should know it. The human 'evolved' as a tropical
ape in Tropical Africa. Some then migrated out of their natural ecological
niche, and as a result the natural food for our species was not available (I
know you do not believe we have a natural diet, but the fact is that EVERY
species does, and every species has a proper ecological niche), and as such
wanderings led the foolish explorers to a very cold climate where there was
no plant material in the winter, then eating animals was the only
alternative to starvation.
> But it brings up an interesting point. I have a friend
> from India. He is strictly vegetarian, and brought his
> children up that way, but in the U.S. I now work with
> one of his grown sons, who is approximately 30. That
> guy devours hamburgers, steaks and the like. This
> supposed "cultural conditioning" must not be too
> powerful, ...
Why don't you present statistics on how many culturally-conditioned
meatarians intentionally choose a plant-based diet, vs. how many
culturally-conditioned veg*ns intentionally choose an animal-based diet?
Also, one example means nothing; in addition, this choice was also
culturally-conditioned by the local meatarian culture.
Laurie
"Johan Van Gompel" <joh...@johanvg.dyndns.org> wrote in message
news:3c074ba7$0$24153$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
> Please do offer support for [Jonathan Ball's] beliefs. You are claiming
> that all of Laurie Forti's statements are false and I am very eager to
> know which is your exact position on these matters.
Johan, you must be new, here. Ball takes NO legitimate position on any
issue; as you will notice, all he is capable of is issuing unsupported,
blanket denials peppered with personal insults, name-calling, and volumes of
vulgarity. He simply does not have the intellectual capability to discuss
any issue in a polite, rational, or credible manner.
> The high swear word content does not help you either.
Not being educated or rational, that's all he can do. Yes, he is
incapable of understanding the simple concept that vulgarity completely
destroys his credibility.
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@earthlink.NS.net> wrote in message
> news:3C0693AF...@earthlink.NS.net...
>
>>Connie Deighan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>From: Jonathan Ball <jon...@earthlink.NS.net>
>>>>Laurie wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>culturally-conditioned omnivore diet?
>>>>>
>>>Gosh. You mean your mom and dad didn't feed you meat growing up?
>>>I find that very hard to beleive, Jonathan.
>>>
>>Come on, Connie. No need to play dumb.
>>
> Who's playing dumb, Johnathan, are YOU claiming that you were raised in
> a veg*n household and after conclusive study of the scientific research you
> INTENTIONALLY made the decision to eat meat, or is the truth that you were
> conditioned to eat it from the age of less than one year by your ignorant
> parents?
>
>
>>...seems to feel that all meat eating is the result
>>of cultural conditioning. (On one of his amateurish
>>and sophomoric web pages, he also describes it, without
>>offering any evidence, as "social pathology".)
>>
> Actually, I drew the similarity from the chimp's obvious social
> pathology of such a practice.
You are not only incompetent to label it "the chimp's
*obvious* social pathology", you are incompetent to
discuss chimp behavior at all.
You call it "pathologly" because, for unstated and
unsupported religious reasons, you consider it "wrong".
> Clearly,
No, twit, not "clearly" at all. You have done nothing
but assert it, with no support. That's all you *ever* do.
> humans also do it because of social,
> not nutritional reasons, and the pathology of such a practice is
> unmistakenly shown in the epidemiology.
You are not competent to discuss "epidemiology",
either. You are making it up as you go along.
>
>
>>But how did it *ever* get to be part of the "culture" in the
>>first place? That's what I'm really asking, not how
>>did any recent person receive it as cultural conditioning.
>>
> So simple, even you should know it. The human 'evolved' as a tropical
> ape in Tropical Africa. Some then migrated out of their natural ecological
> niche, and as a result the natural food for our species was not available (I
> know you do not believe we have a natural diet, but the fact is that EVERY
> species does,
This is mere assertion on your part. Also, you are
reading some kind of spiritual bullshit meaning into
"natural diet". You think we don't notice, but we do.
> and every species has a proper ecological niche),
That's meaningless ecologobabble.
> and as such
> wanderings led the foolish explorers to a very cold climate where there was
> no plant material in the winter, then eating animals was the only
> alternative to starvation.
This is entirely unscientific bullshit. No science
would ever refer to members of a species leaving their
"natural" environment as "foolish".
You give your agenda away at every turn.
>
>
>>But it brings up an interesting point. I have a friend
>>from India. He is strictly vegetarian, and brought his
>>children up that way, but in the U.S. I now work with
>>one of his grown sons, who is approximately 30. That
>>guy devours hamburgers, steaks and the like. This
>>supposed "cultural conditioning" must not be too
>>powerful, ...
>>
> Why don't you present statistics on how many culturally-conditioned
> meatarians
There is no such thing as a "meatarian". It's an
invented pejorative word, used by angry "vegan"
zealots. It has no analytical meaning.
> intentionally choose a plant-based diet, vs. how many
> culturally-conditioned veg*ns intentionally choose an animal-based diet?
> Also, one example means nothing; in addition, this choice was also
> culturally-conditioned by the local meatarian culture.
You're full of crap.
>
Laurie
> > Actually, I drew the similarity from the chimp's obvious social
> > pathology of such a practice.
> You are not only incompetent to label it "the chimp's
> *obvious* social pathology", you are incompetent to
> discuss chimp behavior at all.
all you have to offer is juvenile insults and your always-unsupported,
hollow opinions.
The references cited clearly state the SOCIAL, not nutritional aspects,
of the behavior, and clearly the perversion of natural sexual processes by
the offering of "food" is a social pathology.
You uniformly substitute insult for reason, because you have no ability
to reason. You can NOT discuss any issue in a a polite manner; you never
have, you never will.
> You call it "pathologly" because, for unstated and
> unsupported religious reasons, you consider it "wrong".
Oh, now you can read my mind? The claim of a very confused person.
In the human, the "pathology" is clearly evidenced by the epidemiology,
which you choose to ignore much to your own detriment.
> No, twit, not "clearly" at all. You have done nothing
> but assert it, with no support. That's all you *ever* do.
Of course, really intelligent people always use name-calling to
support -their- brilliant analysis. YOU are the one who NEVER can support
anything you say, while my analysis is clearly given on the web page.
> > humans also do it because of social,
> > not nutritional reasons, and the pathology of such a practice is
> > unmistakenly shown in the epidemiology.
> You are not competent to discuss "epidemiology",
> either. You are making it up as you go along.
There are dozens of abstracts from the scientific literature regarding
the epidemiology of meat-eating on my site. They do not disappear just
because you ignorantly choose to ignore this data.
"Ignorance and arrogance pave the road to self-destruction!" LauFo
> >>But how did it *ever* get to be part of the "culture" in the
> >>first place? That's what I'm really asking, not how
> >>did any recent person receive it as cultural conditioning.
> > So simple, even you should know it. The human 'evolved' as a
tropical
> > ape in Tropical Africa. Some then migrated out of their natural
ecological
> > niche, and as a result the natural food for our species was not
available (I
> > know you do not believe we have a natural diet, but the fact is that
EVERY
> > species does,
> This is mere assertion on your part.
Actually, that is what consensus science says, why don't you present
YOUR brilliant analysis of the issue? You can NOT discuss the ISSUES, all
you can do is insult people and assert your own always-unsupported,
groundless opinions. Curiously, you are accusing ME of YOUR worst failing.
Humorously, you are criticizing your own behavior, and you are too vacuous
to even realize that.
Now, why don't YOU present an answer to your own question regarding how
humans FIRST started eating flesh??
> Also, you are reading some kind of spiritual bullshit meaning into
> "natural diet". You think we don't notice, but we do.
Mind-reading again? I have said NOthing the slightest bit "spiritual"
at all, you are making false accusations, again.
Is the "we" an admission of schizophrenia?
> > and every species has a proper ecological niche),
> That's meaningless ecologobabble.
It happens to be a fact, well known by people who have a knowledge of
ecoscience, unlike yourself. E.g mangoes grow in Florida, not in Maine; and
apples grow in Maine, but not Florida. The concept of ecological niche is
well established; read any book on ecoscience.
Here are a couple of ~10,000 hits for "ecological niche".
http://www.racerocks.com/pearson/transect/econiche/econiche.htm
http://www.ento.vt.edu/~sharov/PopEcol/lec11/niche.html
http://www.geog.ouc.bc.ca/physgeog/contents/9g.html
Your ignorance, Sir, is boundlessly profound, and your vapid, vulgar,
verbiage is firmly based thereon.
> This is entirely unscientific bullshit. No science
> would ever refer to members of a species leaving their
> "natural" environment as "foolish".
The fact that humans have unnecessarily become the most diseased species
on the planet is, in my view, foolish. They were, indeed, fools, in the
sense of not having enough information or the ability to process that
information such as to be able to predict the inevitable decline in health
resulting from such activity.
They were innocently foolish; you are willfully so.
> You give your agenda away at every turn.
My agenda is polite, rational discussion of the issues; an agenda in
which you obviously are not equipped to participate. OTOH, your agenda is
clear: personal insults, unsupportable blanket denials, name-calling, and
verbal vulgarity.
> There is no such thing as a "meatarian".
Nice dodge, let's change the word to "culturally-conditioned human
meat-eaters"; now, provide the data, please.
> It's an invented pejorative word, used by angry "vegan"
> zealots.
"Angry"; failing at mind-reading-by-modem, again?? Aren't YOU jumping
into the "spiritual" domain with these erroneous claims of mental
telepathy??
"Vegetarian" is an invented word, too. Oh, wait, ALL words are
invented, aren't they? So, what's the point: as usual, there isn't one.
If vegetarian is not pejorative to people who choose to eat vegetable
matter, why would meatarian be pejorative to those who choose to eat meat??
Be specific.
> You're full of crap.
Is this an attempt to display your brilliant intellect and outstanding
education to the public??
To review: you have NOT presented ANY logical attempt to refute anything
I said, because you can not; all you can do is issue unsupported blanket
denials, personal insults, and vulgarity. Your behavior is that of the
grammar school Playground Bully; you simply never matured past that point.
Laurie
"Aynon" <ay...@foils.ya> wrote in message news:3C13E08B...@foils.ya...
> That's nice. But it doesn't support your bizarre claim.
> "meat-eating is the primary cause of all the most popular
> "degenerative diseases","
> You confuse "higher intake" with 'eating meat'. Increased risk
> is not cause and effect. It is also not a linear function that
> starts at zero.
Increased manifestation, however does.
http://www.ecologos.org/meatcan.htm
http://www.ecologos.org/meat-heart-death.htm
Aynon
>
> "Aynon" <ay...@foils.ya> wrote in message news:3C13E08B...@foils.ya...
>
> > That's nice. But it doesn't support your bizarre claim.
> > "meat-eating is the primary cause of all the most popular
> > "degenerative diseases","
> > You confuse "higher intake" with 'eating meat'. Increased risk
> > is not cause and effect. It is also not a linear function that
> > starts at zero.
> Increased manifestation, however does.
You just cut and snip to your heart's content, don't you?
"increased manifestation" is one of the more bizarre and
meaningless phrases you've spit out.
Like a lot of people have said, you really don't understand
science and can't seem to understand real scientific
literature.
Here's what a couple of vegans think about you and your claims
-
"Try looking up REAL scientific evidence for a change!
Pubmed. NLM site. Anything but your propagandized nonsense."
- Marie Crandall
"What complete utter horse hooey!" - Donna Schakelaar
---
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@earthlink.NS.net> wrote in message
> news:3C142729...@earthlink.NS.net...
>
>>> Actually, I drew the similarity from the chimp's obvious social
>>>pathology of such a practice.
>>>
>>You are not only incompetent to label it "the chimp's
>>*obvious* social pathology", you are incompetent to
>>discuss chimp behavior at all.
>>
> And you are obviously incompetent to -discuss- any issue at all, because
> all you have to offer is juvenile insults and your always-unsupported,
> hollow opinions.
No, Larry, I have quite a bit more than that. I have
my correct observation that you have no qualification
to be making the claims you do. You not only have
*not* read the literature to which you make fatuous
reference; you CANNOT read it!
> The references cited clearly state the SOCIAL, not nutritional aspects,
> of the behavior, and clearly the perversion of natural sexual processes by
> the offering of "food" is a social pathology.
No, Larry, that isn't clear at all. None of it. You
haven't shown "perversion"; you haven't defined or
demonstrated "natural sexual processes"; and you
haven't demonstrated that anything in it represents
"pathology".
Instead, you've cribbed material that *asserts* all of
this from equally partisan, scientifically worthless
websites like your own. This is simply the equivalent
of taking in one another's laundry and mistakenly
thinking you're earning a living.
> You uniformly substitute insult for reason, because you have no ability
> to reason. You can NOT discuss any issue in a a polite manner; you never
> have, you never will.
You are flatly wrong, and you know it. You are quite
understandably unhappy that I've pointed out you don't
know what you're talking about.
>
>
>>You call it "pathologly" because, for unstated and
>>unsupported religious reasons, you consider it "wrong".
>>
> Oh, now you can read my mind? The claim of a very confused person.
No, I read what you reveal.
> In the human, the "pathology" is clearly evidenced by the epidemiology,
> which you choose to ignore much to your own detriment.
Larry, you are not competent to discuss either
"pathology" *or* epidemiology. You are making stuff up
to support a political position.
>
>
>>No, twit, not "clearly" at all. You have done nothing
>>but assert it, with no support. That's all you *ever* do.
>>
> Of course, really intelligent people always use name-calling to
> support -their- brilliant analysis. YOU are the one who NEVER can support
> anything you say, while my analysis is clearly given on the web page.
There is no "analysis" on your web page. There is
unsubstantiated assertion, and there is your willful
misrepresentation of "scientific" material that is
fraudulent. You are not competent to discuss a bit of it.
>
>
>>>humans also do it because of social,
>>>not nutritional reasons, and the pathology of such a practice is
>>>unmistakenly shown in the epidemiology.
>>>
>>You are not competent to discuss "epidemiology",
>>either. You are making it up as you go along.
>>
> There are dozens of abstracts from the scientific literature regarding
> the epidemiology of meat-eating on my site.
As Aynon pointed out, neither the abstracts nor the
scientific literature from which they are drawn support
your points about "natural diet", "foolish wanderers",
or any other of your overtly political/religious
nonsensical assertions.
You are LYING, Larry, in asserting that they do. They
do not, and you simply are UNQUALIFIED to discuss
whatever they do claim.
> They do not disappear just
> because you ignorantly choose to ignore this data.
The "support" for your position *does* disappear when
you willfully and sleazily misrepresent the papers.
> "Ignorance and arrogance pave the road to self-destruction!" LauFo
>
>
>>>>But how did it *ever* get to be part of the "culture" in the
>>>>first place? That's what I'm really asking, not how
>>>>did any recent person receive it as cultural conditioning.
>>>>
>>> So simple, even you should know it. The human 'evolved' as a
>>>
> tropical
>
>>>ape in Tropical Africa. Some then migrated out of their natural
>>>
> ecological
>
>>>niche, and as a result the natural food for our species was not
>>>
> available (I
>
>>>know you do not believe we have a natural diet, but the fact is that
>>>
> EVERY
>
>>>species does,
>>>
>>This is mere assertion on your part.
>>
> Actually, that is what consensus science says, why don't you present
> YOUR brilliant analysis of the issue? You can NOT discuss the ISSUES, all
> you can do is insult people and assert your own always-unsupported,
> groundless opinions. Curiously, you are accusing ME of YOUR worst failing.
> Humorously, you are criticizing your own behavior, and you are too vacuous
> to even realize that.
> Now, why don't YOU present an answer to your own question regarding how
> humans FIRST started eating flesh??
Why don't YOU present some scientifically credible
evidence regarding "natural" diet and "foolish
wanderers"? You can't, because there is none: no
scientist would use that terminology, especially not as
you have used it.
>
>
>>Also, you are reading some kind of spiritual bullshit meaning into
>>"natural diet". You think we don't notice, but we do.
>>
> Mind-reading again?
No.
> I have said NOthing the slightest bit "spiritual"
> at all, you are making false accusations, again.
No, I am correctly interpreting your misuse of the word
"natural".
> Is the "we" an admission of schizophrenia?
No. It is pointing out that everyone reading the
newsgroup can see that you're an incompetent fraud.
>
>
>>>and every species has a proper ecological niche),
>>>
>>That's meaningless ecologobabble.
>>
> It happens to be a fact, well known by people who have a knowledge of
> ecoscience, unlike yourself. E.g mangoes grow in Florida, not in Maine; and
> apples grow in Maine, but not Florida. The concept of ecological niche is
> well established; read any book on ecoscience.
The ecolobabble concerns your use of the word "proper".
It is not a scientific term, as you are misusing it.
You clearly are making an unscientific normative
judgment. In fact, it's worse than unscientific: it's
positively anti-scientific.
> Here are a couple of ~10,000 hits for "ecological niche".
> http://www.racerocks.com/pearson/transect/econiche/econiche.htm
> http://www.ento.vt.edu/~sharov/PopEcol/lec11/niche.html
> http://www.geog.ouc.bc.ca/physgeog/contents/9g.html
> Your ignorance, Sir, is boundlessly profound, and your vapid, vulgar,
> verbiage is firmly based thereon.
Your lousy alliteration is just empty handwaving.
It is only your normative use of the word "proper" with
which I'm taking issue.
>
>
>>This is entirely unscientific bullshit. No science
>>would ever refer to members of a species leaving their
>>"natural" environment as "foolish".
>>
> The fact that humans have unnecessarily become the most diseased species
> on the planet
One, you are not competent to make any assertion about
"most diseased"; it's a completely unsubstantiated
claim, again.
Two, your use of the normative "unnecessarily" again
gives away your game.
> is, in my view, foolish.
That's a normative, moral judgment. Not the stuff of
science, not contained anywhere in any of your
"abstracts", and not a conclusion any scientist would draw.
> They were, indeed, fools, in the
> sense of not having enough information or the ability to process that
> information such as to be able to predict the inevitable decline in health
> resulting from such activity.
> They were innocently foolish; you are willfully so.
Heh.
>
>
>>You give your agenda away at every turn.
>>
> My agenda is polite, rational discussion of the issues; an agenda in
> which you obviously are not equipped to participate.
Your agenda is a zealous, irrational, religious belief
in dietary rules, unsupported by any scientific evidence.
> OTOH, your agenda is
> clear: personal insults, unsupportable blanket denials, name-calling, and
> verbal vulgarity.
My agenda is showing that you're an unethical, sleazy
liar. I'm doing quite well at it.
>
>
>>There is no such thing as a "meatarian".
>>
> Nice dodge, let's change the word to "culturally-conditioned human
> meat-eaters"; now, provide the data, please.
But it *isn't* a dodge, Larry. It's proof that you are
on a religious quest, and need bogeymen with pejorative
names. Why don't you just come out and refer to them
as Great Satans? There would be no difference in your
intent.
Any why on earth would you challenge me to "provide
data" to support my claim that you are engaging in
angry invective by the use of "meatarian"?
>
>
>>It's an invented pejorative word, used by angry "vegan"
>>zealots.
>>
> "Angry"; failing at mind-reading-by-modem, again?? Aren't YOU jumping
> into the "spiritual" domain with these erroneous claims of mental
> telepathy??
No. Anger leaps out from your pages as well as from
your posts.
> "Vegetarian" is an invented word, too. Oh, wait, ALL words are
> invented, aren't they? So, what's the point: as usual, there isn't one.
Your word is invented in the heat of zealotry, to make
a political point. It isn't a word. "Vegetarian" is.
> If vegetarian is not pejorative to people who choose to eat vegetable
> matter, why would meatarian be pejorative to those who choose to eat meat??
> Be specific.
Because vegetarians use "vegetarian" to describe
themselves. They're happy with it, and they clearly
aren't using it in a pejorative sense. "Meatarian" is
a word you sneeringly use to describe those who eat
meat. People who eat meat don't use it themselves.
Why don't you make a case for blacks not to be offended
by whites using "nigger", you sleazy hack?
>
>
>>You're full of crap.
>>
> Is this an attempt to display your brilliant intellect and outstanding
> education to the public??
No. It's a statement of fact. Your pseudo-scientific
blather is crap. Pure crap.
>
> To review: you have NOT presented ANY logical attempt to refute anything
> I said, because you can not;
You're wrong. I have. I have pointed out that your
own crap logically doesn't support what you've said.
I've pointed out that most of what you've said is
normative judgment, not scientific fact.
You're a lousy, sleazy hack.
> all you can do is issue unsupported blanket
> denials, personal insults, and vulgarity. Your behavior is that of the
> grammar school Playground Bully; you simply never matured past that point.
You call me whatever makes you happy, Larry. Just
don't call yourself a scientist.
Donna Schakelaar
:
: You just cut and snip to your heart's content, don't you?
:
: "increased manifestation" is one of the more bizarre and
: meaningless phrases you've spit out.
:
: Like a lot of people have said, you really don't understand
: science and can't seem to understand real scientific
: literature.
:
: Here's what a couple of vegans think about you and your claims
: -
:
: "Try looking up REAL scientific evidence for a change!
: Pubmed. NLM site. Anything but your propagandized nonsense."
: - Marie Crandall
:
: "What complete utter horse hooey!" - Donna Schakelaar
I'm not vegan. I was the ng's resident friendly omnivore for a long time and
am lacto-ovo vegetarian now.
I came here for the recipes. What's your excuse?
Donna
Aynon
----
> I'm not vegan. I was the ng's resident friendly omnivore for a long time and
> am lacto-ovo vegetarian now.
>
> I came here for the recipes. What's your excuse?
Pretty much the same thing.
Catherine Caruso
<snip
> Transportation causes environmental damage, and as much as possible,
> we should all be buying locally. Again, considerably easier in summer than
> winter. However, even if we were so inclined, not all of us are close enough
> to a local moose population that it wouldn't also be environmentally
> detrimental to get in a car and drive for hours to go a-huntin'.
Hey- don't forget permits. 'Round here, there are lotteries for permits
and resticted seasons and limits on how many animals a person with a
permit can bag. If everyone in my neck of the woods relied on local
hunting for their food, we'd decimate the population in a season and
starve.
Catherine Caruso
> Rick's example of this woman somewhere 'way up north in
> Canada wanting to assure her supply of "vegan" foods
> during the winter is a perfect illustration of the
> hypocrisy of "vegans" regarding their concern for
> animals and the environment. I didn't see the post,
> but no one on the pro-"vegan" side is challenging
> Rick's synopsis of it, so I'll accept it at face value
> for now. If the woman *really* were concerned (nb:
> deliberate use of subjunctive tense) about collateral
> deaths and broader environmental damage, she wouldn't
> be living up there.
I didn't respond because I hate to perpetuate this fantasyland of Rick's
argument- but Rick specifically spoke of tofu trucked in from 1000's of
miles away. It's perfectly possible to go an entire winter- an entire
lifetime, in fact- without tofu. Any pole or bush beans will provide all
the protein any vegan could want, they come in millions of varieties,
and they are unbelievably easy to grow- even in northern Canada. Leave
them on a damp paper towel, and you'll start growing them by accident,
for god's sakes. Black beans, kidney beans, shell peas, pinto beans,
black-eye peas, red beans, Cannellini... even soybeans. Which brings me
to my second point- in the absence of a local tofu maker, an extremely
isolated person who _really_ wanted tofu could just make their own.
Sheryl Kirby
Ah, yes. I recall the frustration on my father's face everytime a deer
wandered into his yard out of season. "There's good eatin' right there in the
yard and I've used up my quota for the season!" Never mind that he lives
inside the city limits and can't actually shoot the deer in his yard anyway.
Sheryl
--
According to the United Nations Food & Agriculture Organization (FAO),
approximately 35,600 children died from conditions of starvation on September
11th, 2001. - Utne Reader
rick etter
"Catherine Caruso" <cca...@metrocast.net> wrote in message
news:3C35AFE4...@metrocast.net...
> Jonathan Ball wrote:
> > Rick's example of this woman somewhere 'way up north in
> > Canada wanting to assure her supply of "vegan" foods
> > during the winter is a perfect illustration of the
> > hypocrisy of "vegans" regarding their concern for
> > animals and the environment. I didn't see the post,
> > but no one on the pro-"vegan" side is challenging
> > Rick's synopsis of it, so I'll accept it at face value
> > for now. If the woman *really* were concerned (nb:
> > deliberate use of subjunctive tense) about collateral
> > deaths and broader environmental damage, she wouldn't
> > be living up there.
>
> I didn't respond because I hate to perpetuate this fantasyland of Rick's
> argument-
No fantasy involved, except for yours. We're talking one person, one who
claims to be a veg*n. No matter how you want to slice it, you will import
veggies to northern Canada. that importation causes more animal
death/suffering than killing 1 moose and living on that. The only fantasy
is veg*ns belief that somehow by only eating they can 'save' animals from
death and suffering.
but Rick specifically spoke of tofu trucked in from 1000's of
> miles away. It's perfectly possible to go an entire winter- an entire
> lifetime, in fact- without tofu. Any pole or bush beans will provide all
> the protein any vegan could want, they come in millions of varieties,
> and they are unbelievably easy to grow- even in northern Canada. Leave
> them on a damp paper towel, and you'll start growing them by accident,
> for god's sakes.
=====================================
Right, and you'll grow enough to survive the winter that way? And where do
all those paper towels come from? How 'cruelty-free' are they? LOL
Black beans, kidney beans, shell peas, pinto beans,
> black-eye peas, red beans, Cannellini... even soybeans. Which brings me
> to my second point- in the absence of a local tofu maker, an extremely
> isolated person who _really_ wanted tofu could just make their own.
==========================
Again, off imported products.