more questions
Kelolo
from your diet for ethical reasons or health reasons?
Are there ethical-type vegans who would say that health-type vegans aren't
vegans at all?
Does being vegan, to some people, necessitate the non-dietary practices too
(such as not using leather, etc.)?
Just trying to get it all straight here. :)
William Hershman
of animal origin. I respect those who do not use such products for whatever
reason(s), but my personal reason for eating non-animal foods is my personal
health. Quite possibly, this may make me selfish.
I can deal with that.
What I can't deal with is the baiting of ethical vegans that goes on here.
I hope that isn't what's happening here.
It just gets old.
"Kelolo" <kelo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ktZ48.37676$Dm6.3017923729@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
Jenzie
"Kelolo" <kelo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ktZ48.37676$Dm6.3017923729@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> from your diet for ethical reasons or health reasons?
I am a vegan for ethical reasons, with healthful effects being a nice side
benefit :) I refuse to use products which cause animal death, such as
leather, and am working on eliminating other animal bi-products in my life
as well.
just my thoughts,
Jen
Jonathan Ball
> "Kelolo" <kelo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ktZ48.37676$Dm6.3017923729@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>
>>Are most of you who consider yourselves vegans eliminating animal products
>>from your diet for ethical reasons or health reasons?
>>
> <snip>
>
> I am a vegan for ethical reasons, with healthful effects being a nice side
> benefit :) I refuse to use products which cause animal death,
Is that so?
Then you refuse to use any western medicine, right?
Ones that were tested on animals?
Actually, you must refuse to eat, too. Unless you grow
your own food hydroponically, virtually everything you
eat caused the deaths of animals along the way.
You are committing a logical fallacy, denying the
antecedent.
Kelolo
news:KN%48.3354$4t4.9127@rwcrnsc54...
> Health for me. I use leather, wool, and probably countless other
products
> of animal origin. I respect those who do not use such products for
whatever
> reason(s), but my personal reason for eating non-animal foods is my
personal
> health. Quite possibly, this may make me selfish.
> I can deal with that.
> What I can't deal with is the baiting of ethical vegans that goes on here.
> I hope that isn't what's happening here.
Just a friendly curiosity, I assure you. :)
Kelolo
news:3C548C73...@earthlink.NS.net...
> Jenzie wrote:
>
> > "Kelolo" <kelo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:ktZ48.37676$Dm6.3017923729@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> >>Are most of you who consider yourselves vegans eliminating animal
products
> >>from your diet for ethical reasons or health reasons?
> >>
> > <snip>
> >
> > I am a vegan for ethical reasons, with healthful effects being a nice
side
> > benefit :) I refuse to use products which cause animal death,
>
> Is that so?
>
> Then you refuse to use any western medicine, right?
> Ones that were tested on animals?
>
> Actually, you must refuse to eat, too. Unless you grow
> your own food hydroponically, virtually everything you
> eat caused the deaths of animals along the way.
*Caused* the deaths.. or *benefitted from* the deaths?
To me, it's all just different points along a continuum. You cannot live on
this planet without benefitting from the deaths of animals, but you can
certainly avoid causing their deaths directly. My impression is that Jen is
just trying to live her life as close to one end of that continuum as
possible.
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@earthlink.NS.net> wrote in message
> news:3C548C73...@earthlink.NS.net...
>
>>Jenzie wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Kelolo" <kelo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:ktZ48.37676$Dm6.3017923729@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Are most of you who consider yourselves vegans eliminating animal
>>>>
> products
>
>>>>from your diet for ethical reasons or health reasons?
>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>I am a vegan for ethical reasons, with healthful effects being a nice
>>>
> side
>
>>>benefit :) I refuse to use products which cause animal death,
>>>
>>Is that so?
>>
>>Then you refuse to use any western medicine, right?
>>Ones that were tested on animals?
>>
>>Actually, you must refuse to eat, too. Unless you grow
>>your own food hydroponically, virtually everything you
>>eat caused the deaths of animals along the way.
>>
>
> *Caused* the deaths.. or *benefitted from* the deaths?
Caused. Animals are killed in the course of tilling
fields.
>
> To me, it's all just different points along a continuum.
What a load of crap.
> You cannot live on
> this planet without benefitting from the deaths of animals, but you can
> certainly avoid causing their deaths directly.
The directness of it is irrelevant. She said that she
refuses to use products that cause animal death. Meat,
leather, wool, dairy products (!) and others do not
"cause" animal death.
> My impression is that Jen is
> just trying to live her life as close to one end of that continuum as
> possible.
My impression is that she has fallen for a simple,
silly logical fallacy.
Kelolo
> >>>I am a vegan for ethical reasons, with healthful effects being a nice
> >>>side benefit :) I refuse to use products which cause animal death,
Jonathan wrote
> >>Is that so?
> >>
> >>Then you refuse to use any western medicine, right?
> >>Ones that were tested on animals?
> >>
> >>Actually, you must refuse to eat, too. Unless you grow
> >>your own food hydroponically, virtually everything you
> >>eat caused the deaths of animals along the way.
Kelolo wrote
> > *Caused* the deaths.. or *benefitted from* the deaths?
>
> Caused. Animals are killed in the course of tilling fields.
Yes, yes, and we kill microscopic critters with every shower and with every
step. We know.
> > To me, it's all just different points along a continuum.
>
> What a load of crap.
Does that translate to "I acknowledge no difference between one who kills
intensionally and one who kills accidentally"?
> > You cannot live on
> > this planet without benefitting from the deaths of animals, but you can
> > certainly avoid causing their deaths directly.
>
> The directness of it is irrelevant. She said that she
> refuses to use products that cause animal death. Meat,
> leather, wool, dairy products (!) and others do not
> "cause" animal death.
You don't think that parasites on the sheep, or the cattle, or the dairy
animals get killed in the process of those products coming to market?
> > My impression is that Jen is just trying to live her life as close
> > to one end of that continuum as possible.
>
> My impression is that she has fallen for a simple,
> silly logical fallacy.
I think that the worst thing that can be said about Jen's statements is that
she didn't choose her words as carefully as she could have. But her meaning
is clear, isn't it? She believes [Correct me if I'm wrong here, Jen.] that
effort and intension mean something and that killing of animals is something
to be avoided whenever possible, even if the ultimate goal of complete
separation of oneself from animal death can never be achieved.
You and Jen are very similar, in a way. In my short time here, I have seen
ample evidence that you have the goal of showing everyone in this group how
smart you are. Although you are not succeeding, you continue to try.
Clearly you see *some* value in expending effort in the pursuit of an
unattainable goal.
Jonathan Ball
> Jen wrote
>
>>>>>I am a vegan for ethical reasons, with healthful effects being a nice
>>>>>side benefit :) I refuse to use products which cause animal death,
>>>>>
>
> Jonathan wrote
>
>>>>Is that so?
>>>>
>>>>Then you refuse to use any western medicine, right?
>>>>Ones that were tested on animals?
>>>>
>>>>Actually, you must refuse to eat, too. Unless you grow
>>>>your own food hydroponically, virtually everything you
>>>>eat caused the deaths of animals along the way.
>>>>
>
> Kelolo wrote
>
>>>*Caused* the deaths.. or *benefitted from* the deaths?
>>>
>>Caused. Animals are killed in the course of tilling fields.
>>
>
> Yes, yes, and we kill microscopic critters with every shower and with every
> step. We know.
No, it goes far beyond microscopic critters. The
animals killed in the course of farming are mammals and
birds, among others: two of the very classes of
animals "vegans" claim not to be killing by their diet.
>
>
>>>To me, it's all just different points along a continuum.
>>>
>>What a load of crap.
>>
>
> Does that translate to "I acknowledge no difference between one who kills
> intensionally and one who kills accidentally"?
No, it translates to calling your obfuscating
psychobabble about "points along a continuum" a load of
crap.
>
>
>>>You cannot live on
>>>this planet without benefitting from the deaths of animals, but you can
>>>certainly avoid causing their deaths directly.
>>>
>>The directness of it is irrelevant. She said that she
>>refuses to use products that cause animal death. Meat,
>>leather, wool, dairy products (!) and others do not
>>"cause" animal death.
>>
>
> You don't think that parasites on the sheep, or the cattle, or the dairy
> animals get killed in the process of those products coming to market?
>
>
>>>My impression is that Jen is just trying to live her life as close
>>>to one end of that continuum as possible.
>>>
>>My impression is that she has fallen for a simple,
>>silly logical fallacy.
>>
>
> I think that the worst thing that can be said about Jen's statements is that
> she didn't choose her words as carefully as she could have. But her meaning
> is clear, isn't it? She believes [Correct me if I'm wrong here, Jen.] that
> effort and intension
Intent
> mean something and that killing of animals is something
> to be avoided whenever possible,
Well, here we go, then. It is almost certainly
possible for her to pursue a diet that kills fewer
animals than those that are killed by her current diet.
You are edging close to saying that she is "minimizing"
animal deaths caused by her diet. We both know this is
bullshit:
1. She hasn't counted; nor has any other "vegan".
Without a count, you can't make a numerical claim.
2. Even *within* the broad category of "fruits and
vegetables", it is obvious that some combinations
cause fewer deaths than others. She has not made
any effort, nor has any "vegan", to ensure that her
particular combination causes the minimum.
> even if the ultimate goal of complete
> separation of oneself from animal death can never be achieved.
>
> You and Jen are very similar, in a way. In my short time here, I have seen
> ample evidence that you have the goal of showing everyone in this group how
> smart you are.
No, that's false.
> Although you are not succeeding, you continue to try.
> Clearly you see *some* value in expending effort in the pursuit of an
> unattainable goal.
I see some value in continuing to tell people who adopt
false ethical stances that their stances are false. At
least one participant who came into
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian abandoned his claim of
ethical virtue based solely on being vegetarian. He
never credited me directly, and it wouldn't matter to
me if he had; it was apparent that the cumulative
weight of opinion of those opponents of "AR" and its
close cousin, "veganism", helped to persuade him that
the claim to being "virtuous" was false.
>
>
>
>
Jenzie
okay, rephrasing. I'm not a complete vegan, since I use some animal
products which i am not aware of using (ingredients in things with animal
origin, since I am still learning, as we all are). I am also not a perfect
vegan because it is impossible, technically, to exist without killing
something through the majority of my actions. But, I am trying, as much as
possible in my current situation, to support the principal behind veganism.
I interpret that principal as ending animal exploitation, and cruelty
towards animals. I support the principal by not eating any animal derived
food, and trying to avoid other animal products. The end of animal
suffering will not happen in my lifetime, I'm sure, but i am doing the best
I can.
Or, more simply, I am a vegan for ethical reasons. Period. That probably
would've answered the question better while avoiding all this squabble.
Hopefully i chose my words a bit more carefully this time, but I probably
didnt spend as much time on this message as Jonathan or Kelolo did on
theirs, so forgive me in advance.
and as I said before, "Just my thoughts," no need to agree,
Jen
Kelolo
> >>>>>I am a vegan for ethical reasons, with healthful effects being a nice
> >>>>>side benefit :) I refuse to use products which cause animal death,
> >
> > Jonathan wrote
> >>>>Is that so?
> >>>>
> >>>>Then you refuse to use any western medicine, right?
> >>>>Ones that were tested on animals?
> >>>>
> >>>>Actually, you must refuse to eat, too. Unless you grow
> >>>>your own food hydroponically, virtually everything you
> >>>>eat caused the deaths of animals along the way.
> >
> > Kelolo wrote
> >>>*Caused* the deaths.. or *benefitted from* the deaths?
>>>
> >>Caused. Animals are killed in the course of tilling fields.
> >
> > Yes, yes, and we kill microscopic critters with every shower and with
every
> > step. We know.
>
> No, it goes far beyond microscopic critters.
You misunderstand me. I'm not saying that only microscopic critters are
killed in the fields. I'm just saying that it's neverending. Some animal
is always being killed, even in the most mundane and seemingly harmless
activities, directly or indirectly. Anyone who thinks about it for a little
while knows that. Ethical-type vegans are just trying to distance
themselves from that killing as much as they reasonably can.
> The
> animals killed in the course of farming are mammals and
> birds, among others: two of the very classes of
> animals "vegans" claim not to be killing by their diet.
Let's say then that numbers of mammals and birds killed is all that matters
here (for the moment). Do you think more mammals and birds are killed in
the vegetable fields than in the slaughterhouses?
If these vegans were asked whether they have any connection to any animal
killing whatsoever, do you really believe they would claim that they did
not? I don't think many of them would. Those who would make that claim
would be answering without thinking. But there is nothing wrong with
working towards an unreachable goal.
> >>>To me, it's all just different points along a continuum.
> >>>
> >>What a load of crap.
> >
> > Does that translate to "I acknowledge no difference between one who
kills
> > intensionally and one who kills accidentally"?
>
> No, it translates to calling your obfuscating
> psychobabble about "points along a continuum" a load of
> crap.
LOL! Do you honestly think that the concept of a continuum is psychobabble?
> >>>You cannot live on
> >>>this planet without benefitting from the deaths of animals, but you can
> >>>certainly avoid causing their deaths directly.
> >>>
> >>The directness of it is irrelevant. She said that she
> >>refuses to use products that cause animal death. Meat,
> >>leather, wool, dairy products (!) and others do not
> >>"cause" animal death.
> >
> > You don't think that parasites on the sheep, or the cattle, or the dairy
> > animals get killed in the process of those products coming to market?
> >
> >>>My impression is that Jen is just trying to live her life as close
> >>>to one end of that continuum as possible.
> >>>
> >>My impression is that she has fallen for a simple,
> >>silly logical fallacy.
> >>
> > I think that the worst thing that can be said about Jen's statements is
that
> > she didn't choose her words as carefully as she could have. But her
meaning
> > is clear, isn't it? She believes [Correct me if I'm wrong here, Jen.]
that
> > effort and intension
>
> Intent
Yup, that's the word I meant. (I didn't even spell the wrong word right!)
> > mean something and that killing of animals is something
> > to be avoided whenever possible,
>
> Well, here we go, then. It is almost certainly
> possible for her to pursue a diet that kills fewer
> animals than those that are killed by her current diet.
But isn't that the whole idea in a nutshell? Why all this nitpicking?
> You are edging close to saying that she is "minimizing"
> animal deaths caused by her diet.
I didn't say "minimizing", as you know, but let's just pretend that I did.
You seem to be just itching to cover this point.
> We both know this is bullshit:
>
> 1. She hasn't counted; nor has any other "vegan".
> Without a count, you can't make a numerical claim.
To claim to minimize is not to make a numerical claim. According to my
dictionaries, to minimize is to reduce or keep to a minimum, to lessen.
There is nothing in lessening that requires counting. You don't have to
know how many marbles are in the fish bowl to know that there are fewer
after you remove some. (And who's to say that I'm finished? I could
continue to lessen until I reach the true numerical minimum. By your
definition, would that make all my previous reductions along the way stages
in minimization?)
> 2. Even *within* the broad category of "fruits and
> vegetables", it is obvious that some combinations
> cause fewer deaths than others. She has not made
> any effort, nor has any "vegan", to ensure that her
> particular combination causes the minimum.
To minimize is not only, as you seem to think, to achieve the minimum
possible. See any decent dictionary.
> > even if the ultimate goal of complete
> > separation of oneself from animal death can never be achieved.
> >
> > You and Jen are very similar, in a way. In my short time here, I have
seen
> > ample evidence that you have the goal of showing everyone in this group
how
> > smart you are.
>
> No, that's false.
It may be false that that's your goal, but it isn't false that I have seen
what I consider to be evidence to the contrary. That judgment is up to me.
> > Although you are not succeeding, you continue to try.
> > Clearly you see *some* value in expending effort in the pursuit of an
> > unattainable goal.
>
> I see some value in continuing to tell people who adopt
> false ethical stances that their stances are false.
And what value do you see in doing that in an obnoxious way? If the value
is in educating people about the falseness of their ethical stances, don't
you think you're reducing the value of your own actions by putting people on
the defensive with personal attacks? "You'll catch more flies with honey
than with vinegar, Sonny Jim."
> At least one participant who came into
> alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian abandoned his claim of
> ethical virtue based solely on being vegetarian. He
> never credited me directly, and it wouldn't matter to
> me if he had; it was apparent that the cumulative
> weight of opinion of those opponents of "AR" and its
> close cousin, "veganism", helped to persuade him that
> the claim to being "virtuous" was false.
I think you'd have many more success stories to tell if you had better
manners. You are your arguments' worst enemy.
Mike Jones
> I didn't say "minimizing", as you know, but let's just pretend that I did.
> I think you'd have many more success stories to tell if you had better
> manners. You are your arguments' worst enemy.
Jon & Rick keep trying to attack vegans here, we (generally) try to ignore
them. If you want to see how far you can convince them of their folly, take it
to news:alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Otherwise use your killfile.
Catherine Caruso
<snip>
> and as I said before, "Just my thoughts," no need to agree,
> Jen
IMHO, no need to explain yourself, either, particularly to Jon- he just
doesn't listen, it's like talking to a a quote-generator. :-)
Jonathan Ball
> Jenzie wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>and as I said before, "Just my thoughts," no need to agree,
>>Jen
>>
>
> IMHO, no need to explain yourself, either, [...]
"Vegans" are among those arrogant few who think they
have it all figured out, and never need to explain
anything.
William Hershman
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@mindspring.NS.com> wrote in message
news:3C56E8E3...@mindspring.NS.com...
>
> "Vegans" are among those arrogant few who think they
> have it all figured out, and never need to explain
> anything.
>
So why would you choose to engage in discussions if that is your take on
"vegans"?
Jonathan Ball
To let them know they're not fooling anyone but themselves.
Jadelee111512
>From: Jonathan Ball
>To let them know they're not fooling anyone but themselves.
>
>
Okay then...so now we all not that we're not fooling anyone but ourselves.
Isn't it time to move on? ;-)
William Hershman
OK Thank you. Pin a rose on yourself for a job well done!! :)
Your services are no longer required.
Jonathan Ball
Ah, but there are new delusionals here every day, and
many others like GenderConfused who deliberately cling
to their delusions.
Jonathan Ball
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@earthlink.NS.net> wrote in message
> news:3C56EE23...@earthlink.NS.net...
>
>>William Hershman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@mindspring.NS.com> wrote in message
>>>news:3C56E8E3...@mindspring.NS.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Vegans" are among those arrogant few who think they
>>>>have it all figured out, and never need to explain
>>>>anything.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>So why would you choose to engage in discussions if that is your take on
>>>"vegans"?
>>>
>>To let them know they're not fooling anyone but themselves.
>>
>>
>
> OK Thank you. Pin a rose on yourself for a job well done!! :)
> Your services are no longer required.
Oh, but they are. GenderConfused and many others - you
included - are still following a double standard; a
sleazy, dishonest, unethical double standard.
I think my services will be required here for years to
come.
William Hershman
> > Your services are no longer required.
>
> Oh, but they are. GenderConfused and many others - you
> included - are still following a double standard; a
> sleazy, dishonest, unethical double standard.
>
> I think my services will be required here for years to
> come.
>
Ok Jonathan, I'm a pretty open-minded person. You tell me about the
standard I'm following, and please be specific. You may cite anything I've
ever written, or anything I've ever said. Show me how it is, exactly, that
you come to the conclusion that I am following a "sleazy, dishonest,
unethical double standard." I am not interested in generalizations, since
you've included ME in your indictment.
I would suggest that going forward, you not make unsubstantiated claims,
such as the one above.
rick etter
"Mike Jones" <ad...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:1X858.40991$Ph2.6...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
=================================
And you should know folly well! it's all your religious agenda
promotes.
Now, go have that nice blood-drenched dinner.
--
CANOE NORTH!
Rick Etter
http://www.bright.net/~retter
YOU MEN WHO LIVE IN CITIES - Who toil, day in and out, in the thick
of noisy, teeming multitudes, under artificial lights, under roofs,
behind glass, in offices and factories far away from the sun and the
air, the light and the wind - don't you feel at times something tugging
at your heartstrings?
......It is the "Call of the Wild", the oldest call of all - the call
coming to you through generations and generations who have ignored it.
Captain Thierry Mallet
rick etter
"Jenzie" <darke...@home.com> wrote in message
news:M0258.10536$vc.15...@news1.rdc1.az.home.com...
> <big snip>
>
> okay, rephrasing. I'm not a complete vegan, since I use some animal
> products which i am not aware of using (ingredients in things with
animal
> origin, since I am still learning, as we all are). I am also not a
perfect
> vegan because it is impossible, technically, to exist without killing
> something through the majority of my actions. But, I am trying, as
much as
> possible in my current situation, to support the principal behind
veganism.
> I interpret that principal as ending animal exploitation, and cruelty
> towards animals. I support the principal by not eating any animal
derived
> food, and trying to avoid other animal products. The end of animal
> suffering will not happen in my lifetime, I'm sure, ...
....but i am doing the best
> I can.
--------------------------------
Yet again, the typical veg*n ly. You obviously are not doing 'the best
you can' as you are posting this to usenet around the world. I'd say
that making yourself feel better by looking for validation is more
important than actually doing anything to reduce animal death and
suffering, which is why you are here.
>
> Or, more simply, I am a vegan for ethical reasons. Period. That
probably
> would've answered the question better while avoiding all this
squabble.
>
> Hopefully i chose my words a bit more carefully this time, but I
probably
> didnt spend as much time on this message as Jonathan or Kelolo did on
> theirs, so forgive me in advance.
>
> and as I said before, "Just my thoughts," no need to agree,
> Jen
>
>
rick etter
By doing what? Making the proclamation, 'I'm veg*n, therefore I don't
kill?' Doesn't really work that way in real life. Many try to deny
they even cause death and suffering. Then, when called on it, they
change to reducing/minimizing/avoiding animal death and suffering. What
they mostly do though, is ignore their own contributions to animal death
and suffering, and focus on the supposed failure of others to live up to
the 'ethics' they themselves fail at. Actually, you can tell they are
lying about doing 'all they can' to reduce animal death and suffering
because they are still here, posting their inanities around the world.
>
> > The
> > animals killed in the course of farming are mammals and
> > birds, among others: two of the very classes of
> > animals "vegans" claim not to be killing by their diet.
>
> Let's say then that numbers of mammals and birds killed is all that
matters
> here (for the moment). Do you think more mammals and birds are killed
in
> the vegetable fields than in the slaughterhouses?
============================
Which fields, and which slaughterhouses? But, for the most part, yes, i
do believe that that can be true.
>
> If these vegans were asked whether they have any connection to any
animal
> killing whatsoever, do you really believe they would claim that they
did
> not?
========================
Yes, we've seen it over and over on newsgroups.
> I don't think many of them would. Those who would make that claim
> would be answering without thinking.
=======================
Which, of course, is what many veg*ns do.
But there is nothing wrong with
> working towards an unreachable goal.
========================
But at what costs? Any? If animal death and suffering were really a
veg*ns true concern, they wouldn't be posting their stupidity for all to
see.
=======================
Because one such possiby diet is a meat-included diet. Why eliminate
that diet as a possibility if your 'real' concern is to cause the least
amount of animal death and suffering? Why is the consumption of the
animal worse than just killing it and leaving it to rot?
>
> > You are edging close to saying that she is "minimizing"
> > animal deaths caused by her diet.
>
> I didn't say "minimizing", as you know, but let's just pretend that I
did.
> You seem to be just itching to cover this point.
>
> > We both know this is bullshit:
> >
> > 1. She hasn't counted; nor has any other "vegan".
> > Without a count, you can't make a numerical claim.
>
> To claim to minimize is not to make a numerical claim. According to
my
> dictionaries, to minimize is to reduce or keep to a minimum, to
lessen.
==============================
Lesser than what? She, and you, have no basis for making the
determination.
> There is nothing in lessening that requires counting. You don't have
to
> know how many marbles are in the fish bowl to know that there are
fewer
> after you remove some.
-----------------------------------------
So, where's the big pile of bodies you are making your comparisons with?
Your example still has a numerical context.
(And who's to say that I'm finished? I could
> continue to lessen until I reach the true numerical minimum. By your
> definition, would that make all my previous reductions along the way
stages
> in minimization?)
>
> > 2. Even *within* the broad category of "fruits and
> > vegetables", it is obvious that some combinations
> > cause fewer deaths than others. She has not made
> > any effort, nor has any "vegan", to ensure that her
> > particular combination causes the minimum.
>
> To minimize is not only, as you seem to think, to achieve the minimum
> possible. See any decent dictionary.
==========================
To minimize also means not to limit your possible ways to acheive this
'minimization'. Yet, she will not even consider some very easy ways to
help that minimization.
Kelolo
> > I'm not saying that only microscopic critters are
> > killed in the fields. I'm just saying that it's neverending
> > and seemingly harmless activities, directly or indirectly.
> > Anyone who thinks about it for a little while knows that.
> > Ethical-type vegans are just trying to distance themselves
> > from that killing as much as they reasonably can.
Rick wrote
> By doing what? Making the proclamation, 'I'm veg*n, therefore I don't
> kill?'
By doing the things that define someone as a vegan.
> Doesn't really work that way in real life. Many try to deny
> they even cause death and suffering.
When they do that, they are probably talking about causing death and
suffering directly. Either that or, like I said before, they just aren't
thinking too deeply about it.
> Then, when called on it, they change to reducing/minimizing/avoiding
> animal death and suffering.
There's nothing wrong with correcting a poor answer caused by a poor
understanding of the question being asked.
> What they mostly do though, is ignore their own contributions to animal
death
> and suffering, and focus on the supposed failure of others to live up to
> the 'ethics' they themselves fail at. Actually, you can tell they are
> lying about doing 'all they can' to reduce animal death and suffering
> because they are still here, posting their inanities around the world.
Are you talking here about the indirect animal suffering caused by the use
of Usenet, or are you saying that they should kill themselves to completely
eliminate their contribution to animal suffering and death, or what?
> > Let's say then that numbers of mammals and birds killed is all that
> > matters here (for the moment). Do you think more mammals and birds
> > are killed in the vegetable fields than in the slaughterhouses?
>
> Which fields, and which slaughterhouses? But, for the most part, yes, i
> do believe that that can be true.
In the hope of getting a stronger answer, I'll make the question more
specific. Do you think that more mammals and birds were killed in 2001 in
all the vegetable fields of the world (combined) than in all the
slaughterhouses of the world (combined) during that same year? I'm only
asking for your opinion here. No numbers are needed.
> > If these vegans were asked whether they have any connection to any
> > animal killing whatsoever, do you really believe they would claim that
> > they did not?
>
> Yes, we've seen it over and over on newsgroups.
Even when you ask the question clearly?
> > I don't think many of them would. Those who would make that claim
> > would be answering without thinking.
>
> Which, of course, is what many veg*ns do.
Plenty of non-vegans do that too.
> > But there is nothing wrong with
> > working towards an unreachable goal.
>
> But at what costs? Any? If animal death and suffering were really a
> veg*ns true concern, they wouldn't be posting their stupidity for all to
> see.
What are the costs you're referring to here? Would you be specific?
> > > Well, here we go, then. It is almost certainly
> > > possible for her to pursue a diet that kills fewer
> > > animals than those that are killed by her current diet.
> >
> > But isn't that the whole idea in a nutshell? Why all this nitpicking?
>
> Because one such possiby diet is a meat-included diet. Why eliminate
> that diet as a possibility if your 'real' concern is to cause the least
> amount of animal death and suffering? Why is the consumption of the
> animal worse than just killing it and leaving it to rot?
If you're thinking short-term, it's not (unless you believe that eating meat
is bad for your health, but we're talking about ethical vegans here,
right?). But if tons of meat rot in warehouses for lack of consumers, the
people who had hoped to sell that meat will lose money. A large part of the
vegan aim, as I understand it, is to have an economic impact through the
combined actions of many. They believe that it's a good thing if the meat
industry leaders see a drop in demand for their products and adjust their
slaughter numbers down because of it.
> > > You are edging close to saying that she is "minimizing"
> > > animal deaths caused by her diet.
> >
> > I didn't say "minimizing", as you know, but let's just pretend that I
> > did. You seem to be just itching to cover this point.
> >
> > > We both know this is bullshit:
> > >
> > > 1. She hasn't counted; nor has any other "vegan".
> > > Without a count, you can't make a numerical claim.
> >
> > To claim to minimize is not to make a numerical claim. According to
> > my dictionaries, to minimize is to reduce or keep to a minimum, to
> > lessen.
>
> Lesser than what? She, and you, have no basis for making the
> determination.
See the marble example below.
> > There is nothing in lessening that requires counting. You don't have
> > to know how many marbles are in the fish bowl to know that there are
> > fewer after you remove some.
>
> So, where's the big pile of bodies you are making your comparisons with?
A big pile of bodies is not required. Let's say that Zeek's connections to
animal death and suffering are represented by the marbles in the bowl of his
life. When Zeek becomes a vegan, he removes a certain number of those
marbles from the bowl. No, he probably can't remove them all, but we don't
need to know that -- and we don't need to count anything -- to know that
there are now fewer marbles in the bowl now than there were before.
> Your example still has a numerical context.
It relates to numbers, certainly, but that doesn't mean that everything has
to be counted. Haven't you ever done algebra? You can determine all sorts
of things about a variable without ever counting it.
> > To minimize is not only, as you seem to think, to achieve the minimum
> > possible. See any decent dictionary.
>
> To minimize also means not to limit your possible ways to acheive this
> 'minimization'. Yet, she will not even consider some very easy ways to
> help that minimization.
Please list some of these very easy ways that the average vegan won't
consider.
Kelolo
rick etter
"Kelolo" <kelo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:LNF78.8074$9v7.98...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> Kelolo wrote
> > > I'm not saying that only microscopic critters are
> > > killed in the fields. I'm just saying that it's neverending
> > > Some animal is always being killed, even in the most mundane
> > > and seemingly harmless activities, directly or indirectly.
> > > Anyone who thinks about it for a little while knows that.
> > > Ethical-type vegans are just trying to distance themselves
> > > from that killing as much as they reasonably can.
>
> Rick wrote
> > By doing what? Making the proclamation, 'I'm veg*n, therefore I
don't
> > kill?'
>
> By doing the things that define someone as a vegan.
=====================
Such as? Like I just said, many just make the proclamation without any
true effort to understand their impact. They take it on faith from
groups like PeTA, making it nothing more than the religious agenda that
it really is.
>
> > Doesn't really work that way in real life. Many try to deny
> > they even cause death and suffering.
>
> When they do that, they are probably talking about causing death and
> suffering directly.
======================
Really? And what percentage of meat-eaters to you think 'directly' do
their own killing? Direct involvemnet has nothing to do with whether
or not you are supporting things that cause death and suffering of
animals. And, the animals don't know, or care about the difference of
who is killing them or why.
Either that or, like I said before, they just aren't
> thinking too deeply about it.
=====================
bingo. Veg*nism is a thought-free religious agenda based on the belief
that saying something equals doing something.
>
> > Then, when called on it, they change to reducing/minimizing/avoiding
> > animal death and suffering.
>
> There's nothing wrong with correcting a poor answer caused by a poor
> understanding of the question being asked.
---------------------------
veg*ns don't give just 'poor' answers, they repeat the same lys, over
and over.
>
> > What they mostly do though, is ignore their own contributions to
animal
> death
> > and suffering, and focus on the supposed failure of others to live
up to
> > the 'ethics' they themselves fail at. Actually, you can tell they
are
> > lying about doing 'all they can' to reduce animal death and
suffering
> > because they are still here, posting their inanities around the
world.
>
> Are you talking here about the indirect animal suffering caused by the
use
> of Usenet,
----------------------------
Yes But why the preoccupation with direct/indirect death and
suffering? Do you think that the animals suffer or die any less if you
don't 'mean' to kill them? The animals you kill indirectly die a far
more horrible, inhumane death than slaughterhouse animals. Are
you(veg*ns) afraid to think too deeply about your own contributions, and
do that by focusing, like many veg*ns do, on the death and suffering
that others cause?
or are you saying that they should kill themselves to completely
> eliminate their contribution to animal suffering and death, or what?
========================
No, not at all, it is veg*ns and AR loons that are are always wishing
for people to die. They rejoice at it. Just read some of the posts
around hunting time, they rub their hands with glee, clucking about the
accidents that happen! All I point out is that you have far more than
enough death and suffering on your own hands to concentrate on before
you start bashing others for something that you will not do anything
that truly helps animals.
>
> > > Let's say then that numbers of mammals and birds killed is all
that
> > > matters here (for the moment). Do you think more mammals and
birds
> > > are killed in the vegetable fields than in the slaughterhouses?
> >
> > Which fields, and which slaughterhouses? But, for the most part,
yes, i
> > do believe that that can be true.
>
> In the hope of getting a stronger answer, I'll make the question more
> specific. Do you think that more mammals and birds were killed in
2001 in
> all the vegetable fields of the world (combined) than in all the
> slaughterhouses of the world (combined) during that same year? I'm
only
> asking for your opinion here. No numbers are needed.
=======================
Yes, I do. But why do you stop with just the fields? They also die in
storage and processing facilities just to keep your veggies clean and
safe. And, these are not 'indirect' killings. Those animals are
targeted and deliberately killed.
>
> > > If these vegans were asked whether they have any connection to any
> > > animal killing whatsoever, do you really believe they would claim
that
> > > they did not?
> >
> > Yes, we've seen it over and over on newsgroups.
>
> Even when you ask the question clearly?
-----------------------
Yes, directly and point-blank. like, does your diet cause the death and
suffering of animals? There are those that answer, no.
>
> > > I don't think many of them would. Those who would make that claim
> > > would be answering without thinking.
> >
> > Which, of course, is what many veg*ns do.
>
> Plenty of non-vegans do that too.
=================
True, but then, we don't base our lifestyle around an 'ethic' that we
continue to miserably fail at, all the while decrying the lifestyle of
others.
>
> > > But there is nothing wrong with
> > > working towards an unreachable goal.
> >
> > But at what costs? Any? If animal death and suffering were really
a
> > veg*ns true concern, they wouldn't be posting their stupidity for
all to
> > see.
>
> What are the costs you're referring to here? Would you be specific?
=====================
The animals that die to provide you with cheap, convenient veggies. If
that was a real concern, they would spend more time focusing on their
own diet and lifestyle, afterall, that's where they have direct control,
no? Have you ever considered whether a pound of rice causes more death
and suffering that a pound of broccoli? A pound of tofu? A pound of
potatoes? Most of the veg*n that have posted here have not. Instead
they prefer to just make a meat vs veggie comparison. Why? Because
it's the 'agenda'. Hatred and demonization of others, not really a true
concern for animals.
>
> > > > Well, here we go, then. It is almost certainly
> > > > possible for her to pursue a diet that kills fewer
> > > > animals than those that are killed by her current diet.
> > >
> > > But isn't that the whole idea in a nutshell? Why all this
nitpicking?
> >
> > Because one such possiby diet is a meat-included diet. Why
eliminate
> > that diet as a possibility if your 'real' concern is to cause the
least
> > amount of animal death and suffering? Why is the consumption of the
> > animal worse than just killing it and leaving it to rot?
>
> If you're thinking short-term, it's not (unless you believe that
eating meat
> is bad for your health, but we're talking about ethical vegans here,
> right?).
----------------------
Correct. I have no problem with a vegetarian diet, just the
sanctimonious lys that are propagated by veg*ns. BTW, there are also
vegetarians on some of the groups that don't fall for the vegan lys
either.
> But if tons of meat rot in warehouses for lack of consumers, the
> people who had hoped to sell that meat will lose money. A large part
of the
> vegan aim, as I understand it, is to have an economic impact through
the
> combined actions of many. They believe that it's a good thing if the
meat
> industry leaders see a drop in demand for their products and adjust
their
> slaughter numbers down because of it.
======================
And possibly increase those 'indirect' numbers killed for your increased
production of veggies? Oh yeah, that's right, the 'indirect' ones don't
count for as much as the direct ones, eh?
>
> > > > You are edging close to saying that she is "minimizing"
> > > > animal deaths caused by her diet.
> > >
> > > I didn't say "minimizing", as you know, but let's just pretend
that I
> > > did. You seem to be just itching to cover this point.
> > >
> > > > We both know this is bullshit:
> > > >
> > > > 1. She hasn't counted; nor has any other "vegan".
> > > > Without a count, you can't make a numerical claim.
> > >
> > > To claim to minimize is not to make a numerical claim. According
to
> > > my dictionaries, to minimize is to reduce or keep to a minimum, to
> > > lessen.
> >
> > Lesser than what? She, and you, have no basis for making the
> > determination.
>
> See the marble example below.
==================
I did, it still has a 'numerical' content to it. You start with a
easily identifiable amount, physically take some away and see an equally
identifiable reduction. Doesn't work that way in the fields. First,
you start with nothing identifiable, the you make changes that are as
equally unidentifiable. You have no basis in fact, or even fiction, to
make any claim of reduction or minimization. Analogies aren't your
stong suit, are they?
>
> > > There is nothing in lessening that requires counting. You don't
have
> > > to know how many marbles are in the fish bowl to know that there
are
> > > fewer after you remove some.
> >
> > So, where's the big pile of bodies you are making your comparisons
with?
>
> A big pile of bodies is not required.
-----------------------------
Yes there are, according to your analogy, they are the 'marbles'.
Let's say that Zeek's connections to
> animal death and suffering are represented by the marbles in the bowl
of his
> life. When Zeek becomes a vegan, he removes a certain number of those
> marbles from the bowl.
===========================
LOL That's the whole point!! He can't know that he does remove any of
the marbles. For all he knows, he adds more!
No, he probably can't remove them all, but we don't
> need to know that -- and we don't need to count anything -- to know
that
> there are now fewer marbles in the bowl now than there were before.
=======================
Again, you haven't shown that there are fewer dead bodies left lying in
fields. You have no starting reference, such as a jar of bodies, I mean
marbles.
>
> > Your example still has a numerical context.
>
> It relates to numbers, certainly, but that doesn't mean that
everything has
> to be counted. Haven't you ever done algebra? You can determine all
sorts
> of things about a variable without ever counting it.
=======================
Math isn't your strong suit either, eh? You still have no reference to
indicate a reduction. The variables you start with are defined in some
way to begin with, like a>b. There is a 'value' placed on each term.
>
> > > To minimize is not only, as you seem to think, to achieve the
minimum
> > > possible. See any decent dictionary.
> >
> > To minimize also means not to limit your possible ways to acheive
this
> > 'minimization'. Yet, she will not even consider some very easy ways
to
> > help that minimization.
>
> Please list some of these very easy ways that the average vegan won't
> consider.
=======================
I've already posted them, many times. But since they are meat-included
diets, veg*ns would prefer to remain in their blind religious
sanctimony.
>
> Kelolo
Kelolo
> > > > I'm not saying that only microscopic critters are
> > > > killed in the fields. I'm just saying that it's neverending
> > > > Some animal is always being killed, even in the most mundane
> > > > and seemingly harmless activities, directly or indirectly.
> > > > Anyone who thinks about it for a little while knows that.
> > > > Ethical-type vegans are just trying to distance themselves
> > > > from that killing as much as they reasonably can.
> >
> > Rick wrote
> > > By doing what? Making the proclamation, 'I'm veg*n, therefore I
> > > don't kill?'
> >
> > By doing the things that define someone as a vegan.
> =====================
> Such as?
Ask each vegan how they define "vegan". You're likely to get different
answers, even if you ask only ethical-type vegans. I do believe, however,
that the vast majority of vegans do more than just talk. Now.. these vegan
things they do might not have the *effect* that the vegans think they will
have, but that issue is separate from whether vegans are all talk or not.
> Like I just said, many just make the proclamation without any
> true effort to understand their impact. They take it on faith from
> groups like PeTA, making it nothing more than the religious agenda that
> it really is.
They take what on faith? You're sliding from one topic to another. Could
we stick with one at a time, please?
> > > Doesn't really work that way in real life. Many try to deny
> > > they even cause death and suffering.
> >
> > When they do that, they are probably talking about causing death and
> > suffering directly.
>
> Really?
I base my answer on conversations I've had with vegans I know personally, so
it's not the result of a scientific survey, but yes, it is true in my
experience.
> And what percentage of meat-eaters to you think 'directly' do
> their own killing? Direct involvemnet has nothing to do with whether
> or not you are supporting things that cause death and suffering of
> animals. And, the animals don't know, or care about the difference of
> who is killing them or why.
I hope you have a better appreciation for "continuum" than Jonathan does,
because it's a very useful word, and I'm going to use it again. When it
comes to animal suffering/killing, there is a continuum between the most
direct connection possible and having no connection to it at all. (While
the extremes may be impossible to define by precise activities, we can still
have them as an endpoints.) The vegan view on this, as I understand it, is
that the individual who lives as close to the "no connection" end as he can
is contributing less to the totality of animal suffering than the person who
lives closer to the other end. I disagree with that view, but that's beside
the point.
Another continuum that vegans have to think about is that of a being's
ability to suffer. We usually put humans on one end and viruses, things
that we aren't even sure are alive, on the other. Between those two ends is
a wide variety of life forms, and most people (it seems to me) believe that
the closer something is to the human end of the spectrum, the greater its
capacity for suffering. Vegans have to eat to live, and eating always
involves killing, so they have to choose what sort of killing they will
accept. The plant and animal kingdoms are the only two that are really
worth discussing here, since it is probably impossible to confine one's diet
to the other four kingdoms and survive. So.. of those two groups, it is the
animals that people think of as having the greater capacity for suffering,
so vegans try to confine their killing to the plant kingdom as much as
possible. The continuum exists within the animal kingdom as well, and most
vegans I know believe that if animals have to suffer indirectly for a vegan
to have food, it is better that they be "lower" animals such as insects or
earthworms, those believed to have less capacity for suffering.
I've never gotten agreement among the vegans I know regarding whether
totally suffering-free killing of animals is OK, so I'll leave that question
up in the air for now (unless you want to go into it).
> Either that or, like I said before, they just aren't
> > thinking too deeply about it.
> =====================
> bingo. Veg*nism is a thought-free religious agenda based on the belief
> that saying something equals doing something.
All the vegans that I know do more than talk. Some of them go to great
lengths to minimize their connections to animal suffering &/or killing.
Some of them think quite deeply about it too. A few I know are into it
because it's trendy; they deserve to be sneered at (as does anyone who does
something just because it's trendy).
> > > Then, when called on it, they change to reducing/minimizing/avoiding
> > > animal death and suffering.
> >
> > There's nothing wrong with correcting a poor answer caused by a poor
> > understanding of the question being asked.
> ---------------------------
> veg*ns don't give just 'poor' answers, they repeat the same lys, over
> and over.
Some do. Some don't.
[I'm assuming that you mean "lies" when you write "lys".]
> > > What they mostly do though, is ignore their own contributions to
> > > animal death and suffering, and focus on the supposed failure of
> > > others to live up to the 'ethics' they themselves fail at. Actually,
> > > you can tell they are lying about doing 'all they can' to reduce
> > > animal death and suffering because they are still here, posting their
> > > inanities around the world.
> >
> > Are you talking here about the indirect animal suffering caused by the
> > use of Usenet,
> ----------------------------
> Yes But why the preoccupation with direct/indirect death and
> suffering?
It's probably because direct suffering/death is usually avoidable, while
indirect suffering/death usually isn't.
> Do you think that the animals suffer or die any less if you
> don't 'mean' to kill them? The animals you kill indirectly die a far
> more horrible, inhumane death than slaughterhouse animals.
Would you go into detail on how you come to that conclusion? Which
indirectly killed animals are you talking about? How much time have you
spent in slaughterhouses?
> Are you(veg*ns)
I'm not a vegan (or a veg*n, for that matter).
> afraid to think too deeply about your own contributions, and
> do that by focusing, like many veg*ns do, on the death and suffering
> that others cause?
There are vegans of all types, just as there are (for example) hunters of
all types. Some vegans focus on blaming others for all the suffering in the
world, some don't, and others are in between. Some hunters care about
killing cleanly and with skill, some couldn't care less, and others are in
between.
> or are you saying that they should kill themselves to completely
> > eliminate their contribution to animal suffering and death, or what?
> ========================
> No, not at all, it is veg*ns and AR loons that are are always wishing
> for people to die. They rejoice at it. Just read some of the posts
> around hunting time, they rub their hands with glee, clucking about the
> accidents that happen! All I point out is that you have far more than
> enough death and suffering on your own hands to concentrate on before
> you start bashing others for something that you will not do anything
> that truly helps animals.
That last sentence got really mangled towards the end. I'm not sure what
you meant to say. Would you fix it, please?
> > In the hope of getting a stronger answer, I'll make the question more
> > specific. Do you think that more mammals and birds were killed in
> > 2001 in all the vegetable fields of the world (combined) than in all
> > the slaughterhouses of the world (combined) during that same year?
> > I'm only asking for your opinion here. No numbers are needed.
> =======================
> Yes, I do.
We disagree, then.
> But why do you stop with just the fields? They also die in
> storage and processing facilities just to keep your veggies clean and
> safe. And, these are not 'indirect' killings. Those animals are
> targeted and deliberately killed.
That's assuming that vegans don't grow their own veggies. Some do. Those
who don't should be well aware that pest animals are killed in all food
storage and processing facilities. All in all, I still think that eating
store-bought veggies supports less suffering than eating the products of a
slaughterhouse does.
> > > > If these vegans were asked whether they have any connection to any
> > > > animal killing whatsoever, do you really believe they would claim
> > > > that they did not?
> > >
> > > Yes, we've seen it over and over on newsgroups.
> >
> > Even when you ask the question clearly?
> -----------------------
> Yes, directly and point-blank. like, does your diet cause the death and
> suffering of animals? There are those that answer, no.
I would ask something more like, "Do any animals suffer or die in the chain
of events that brings your vegan food to your plate?"
> > > > I don't think many of them would. Those who would make that claim
> > > > would be answering without thinking.
> > >
> > > Which, of course, is what many veg*ns do.
> >
> > Plenty of non-vegans do that too.
> =================
> True, but then, we don't base our lifestyle around an 'ethic' that we
> continue to miserably fail at, all the while decrying the lifestyle of
> others.
LOL! Name one major religion that isn't chock full of people doing just
that, and I'll eat my hat. :D
> > > > But there is nothing wrong with
> > > > working towards an unreachable goal.
> > >
> > > But at what costs? Any? If animal death and suffering were really
> > > a veg*ns true concern, they wouldn't be posting their stupidity for
> > > all to see.
> >
> > What are the costs you're referring to here? Would you be specific?
> =====================
> The animals that die to provide you with cheap, convenient veggies. If
> that was a real concern, they would spend more time focusing on their
> own diet and lifestyle, afterall, that's where they have direct control,
> no? Have you ever considered whether a pound of rice causes more death
> and suffering that a pound of broccoli? A pound of tofu? A pound of
> potatoes? Most of the veg*n that have posted here have not. Instead
> they prefer to just make a meat vs veggie comparison. Why? Because
> it's the 'agenda'. Hatred and demonization of others, not really a true
> concern for animals.
Sure, you could break the vegan camp into further groups, some causing more
suffering than others, and you could then go on to break those groups up
into still smaller groups, and on and on. A person has to choose where they
feel there's a point to arguing and where there isn't. Maybe the vegans who
hang out here simply think that going beyond meat vs. veggie is quibbling
and not worth the effort. And that's fine. Just because you and I like to
argue on and on about minutiae doesn't mean that they have to enjoy it too.
(They're probably sick to death of it already.) The point is that they
believe that the average vegan causes less animal suffering than the average
non-vegan, and that's enough for them. What's wrong with that?
> > > > > Well, here we go, then. It is almost certainly
> > > > > possible for her to pursue a diet that kills fewer
> > > > > animals than those that are killed by her current diet.
> > > >
> > > > But isn't that the whole idea in a nutshell? Why all this
> > > > nitpicking?
> > >
> > > Because one such possiby diet is a meat-included diet. Why
> > > eliminate that diet as a possibility if your 'real' concern is
> > > to cause the least amount of animal death and suffering? Why is
> > > the consumption of the animal worse than just killing it and
> > > leaving it to rot?
> >
> > If you're thinking short-term, it's not (unless you believe that
> > eating meat is bad for your health, but we're talking about ethical
> > vegans here, right?).
> ----------------------
> Correct. I have no problem with a vegetarian diet, just the
> sanctimonious lys that are propagated by veg*ns. BTW, there are also
> vegetarians on some of the groups that don't fall for the vegan lys
> either.
I'm glad you acknowledge that.
> > But if tons of meat rot in warehouses for lack of consumers, the
> > people who had hoped to sell that meat will lose money. A large part
> > of the vegan aim, as I understand it, is to have an economic impact
through
> > the combined actions of many. They believe that it's a good thing if
the
> > meat industry leaders see a drop in demand for their products and adjust
> > their slaughter numbers down because of it.
> ======================
> And possibly increase those 'indirect' numbers killed for your increased
> production of veggies? Oh yeah, that's right, the 'indirect' ones don't
> count for as much as the direct ones, eh?
Since the indirect killings are probably more insects than anything else,
I'd say you're probably right -- most people would say they don't count for
as much.
Is it the vegans' aims or their methods that you disagree with more?
> > > > To claim to minimize is not to make a numerical claim. According
> > > > to my dictionaries, to minimize is to reduce or keep to a minimum,
> > > > to lessen.
> > >
> > > Lesser than what? She, and you, have no basis for making the
> > > determination.
> >
> > See the marble example below.
> ==================
> I did, it still has a 'numerical' content to it. You start with a
> easily identifiable amount, physically take some away and see an equally
> identifiable reduction. Doesn't work that way in the fields.
The situation in the fields is completely irrelevant to the question of
whether claiming to minimize is making a numerical claim. Jonathan and I
digressed into an issue of words and math. I made up the marble example to
illustrate that you don't need to have counted something in order to lessen
it. That's all. Very simple.
> First, you start with nothing identifiable, the you make changes that are
as
> equally unidentifiable. You have no basis in fact, or even fiction, to
> make any claim of reduction or minimization. Analogies aren't your
> stong suit, are they?
The marble story was an example of lessening without counting, not an
analogy. It only became an analogy later when I added the whole Zeek
business. You need to follow along more closely.
> > > > There is nothing in lessening that requires counting. You don't
> > > > have to know how many marbles are in the fish bowl to know that
there
> > > > are fewer after you remove some.
> > >
> > > So, where's the big pile of bodies you are making your comparisons
> > > with?
> >
> > A big pile of bodies is not required.
> -----------------------------
> Yes there are, according to your analogy, they are the 'marbles'.
You're incorrect. The choice of what the marbles would represent was mine,
and I didn't choose bodies. Read it again...
> > Let's say that Zeek's connections to
> > animal death and suffering are represented by the marbles in the bowl
> > of his life. When Zeek becomes a vegan, he removes a certain number
> > of those marbles from the bowl.
> ===========================
> LOL That's the whole point!! He can't know that he does remove any of
> the marbles. For all he knows, he adds more!
>
> > No, he probably can't remove them all, but we don't
> > need to know that -- and we don't need to count anything -- to know
> > that there are now fewer marbles in the bowl now than there were before.
> =======================
> Again, you haven't shown that there are fewer dead bodies left lying in
> fields.
Our problem is that you're looking at bodies, while I'm looking at
connections. I see them as different things; you don't. If I look at it
your way, I see what you're saying. But again, my experience of vegans is
that they aren't concerned with absolute numbers of dead bodies; they give
more weight to the suffering of "higher" animals, so they weigh both the
number of animals killed and the type of animals killed.
> You have no starting reference, such as a jar of bodies, I mean
> marbles.
The starting reference is Zeek's former lifestyle.
> > > Your example still has a numerical context.
> >
> > It relates to numbers, certainly, but that doesn't mean that
> > everything has to be counted. Haven't you ever done algebra?
> > You can determine all sorts of things about a variable without
> > ever counting it.
> =======================
> Math isn't your strong suit either, eh? You still have no reference to
> indicate a reduction. The variables you start with are defined in some
> way to begin with, like a>b. There is a 'value' placed on each term.
The variables have a value, but you don't always need to know what that
value is to say certain things about those variables. Take
X - Y = Z
to represent the situation described above with the bowl of marbles, where X
is the initial number of marbles in the bowl, Y is the number of marbles
removed, and Z is the final number of marbles in the bowl.
Z < X
We can say that without knowing the value of any of the variables.
> > > > To minimize is not only, as you seem to think, to achieve the
> > > > minimum possible. See any decent dictionary.
> > >
> > > To minimize also means not to limit your possible ways to acheive
> > > this 'minimization'. Yet, she will not even consider some very
> > > easy ways to help that minimization.
> >
> > Please list some of these very easy ways that the average vegan won't
> > consider.
> =======================
> I've already posted them, many times.
I'll have to do some Google research to find them, then, since I haven't
spent much time in this group. Did you post them using the same e-mail
address you're using now?
> But since they are meat-included diets, veg*ns would prefer to remain
> in their blind religious sanctimony.
Some would. Some wouldn't.
Bastesens
-
> All in all, I still think that eating
> store-bought veggies supports less suffering than eating the products of a
> slaughterhouse does.
One could eat meat obtained by raising the animal
oneself and insuring that it was raised and killed in
a manner that caused no suffering. Or one could go
hunting and obtain meat by making sure that the animal
died quickly and with no suffering. In either case,
the 'store-bought' veggies is trumped. This entire
utilitarian game quickly ends at that point and the
vegan typically switches to a deontological rule or
some form of rule-utilitarianism. Which, then is
trumped by the whole collateral death issue.
-
> The point is that they
> believe that the average vegan causes less animal suffering than the average
> non-vegan, and that's enough for them. What's wrong with that?
It is a fantasy that vegans disguise as reality. If
they wish to live in a fantasy world, fine. But their
claims of "cruelty-free" and "minimization" are
ignorant of reality.
-
> The situation in the fields is completely irrelevant to the question of
> whether claiming to minimize is making a numerical claim. Jonathan and I
> digressed into an issue of words and math. I made up the marble example to
> illustrate that you don't need to have counted something in order to lessen
> it. That's all. Very simple.
It is not an issue of counting, it is an issue of
measuring. Vegans don't measure, your marble example
uses measurement.
-
> Our problem is that you're looking at bodies, while I'm looking at
> connections. I see them as different things; you don't. If I look at it
> your way, I see what you're saying. But again, my experience of vegans is
> that they aren't concerned with absolute numbers of dead bodies; they give
> more weight to the suffering of "higher" animals, so they weigh both the
> number of animals killed and the type of animals killed.
These same vegans tend to get all worried about animal
testing and the use of animals in research. Those
animals, rodents for the most part, are the same
animals they pretty much ignore and discount in the
collateral deaths issue.
-
> The variables have a value, but you don't always need to know what that
> value is to say certain things about those variables. Take
>
> X - Y = Z
>
> to represent the situation described above with the bowl of marbles, where X
> is the initial number of marbles in the bowl, Y is the number of marbles
> removed, and Z is the final number of marbles in the bowl.
>
> Z < X
They are not simply removing something, they are
replacing it with something else. Your equation fails
to consider all of the relevant variables and the
model is misspecified.
-
Kelolo
> > All in all, I still think that eating
> > store-bought veggies supports less suffering than eating the products of
a
> > slaughterhouse does.
>
> One could eat meat obtained by raising the animal
> oneself and insuring that it was raised and killed in
> a manner that caused no suffering. Or one could go
> hunting and obtain meat by making sure that the animal
> died quickly and with no suffering. In either case,
> the 'store-bought' veggies is trumped.
I never said that eating store-bought veggies was the ultimate; I said that
I thought it supported less suffering than eating the products of a
slaughterhouse does. It just so happens that I agree with you (which you
might have guessed from other comments of mine).
This entire
> utilitarian game quickly ends at that point and the
> vegan typically switches to a deontological rule or
> some form of rule-utilitarianism. Which, then is
> trumped by the whole collateral death issue.
>
> > The point is that they
> > believe that the average vegan causes less animal suffering than the
average
> > non-vegan, and that's enough for them. What's wrong with that?
>
> It is a fantasy that vegans disguise as reality. If
> they wish to live in a fantasy world, fine. But their
> claims of "cruelty-free" and "minimization" are
> ignorant of reality.
===
> > The situation in the fields is completely irrelevant to the question of
> > whether claiming to minimize is making a numerical claim. Jonathan and
I
> > digressed into an issue of words and math. I made up the marble example
to
> > illustrate that you don't need to have counted something in order to
lessen
> > it. That's all. Very simple.
>
> It is not an issue of counting, it is an issue of
> measuring. Vegans don't measure, your marble example
> uses measurement.
You are totally missing the point. Counting is a form of measurement.
Changing the word from "counting" to "measuring" doesn't change the fact
that you don't always need to know how much of something there is to know
when that amount has been reduced.
===
> > Our problem is that you're looking at bodies, while I'm looking at
> > connections. I see them as different things; you don't. If I look at
it
> > your way, I see what you're saying. But again, my experience of vegans
is
> > that they aren't concerned with absolute numbers of dead bodies; they
give
> > more weight to the suffering of "higher" animals, so they weigh both the
> > number of animals killed and the type of animals killed.
>
> These same vegans tend to get all worried about animal
> testing and the use of animals in research. Those
> animals, rodents for the most part, are the same
> animals they pretty much ignore and discount in the
> collateral deaths issue.
I would guess that collateral insect deaths outnumber collateral rodent
deaths.
> > The variables have a value, but you don't always need to know what that
> > value is to say certain things about those variables. Take
> >
> > X - Y = Z
> >
> > to represent the situation described above with the bowl of marbles,
where X
> > is the initial number of marbles in the bowl, Y is the number of marbles
> > removed, and Z is the final number of marbles in the bowl.
> >
> > Z < X
>
> They are not simply removing something, they are
> replacing it with something else. Your equation fails
> to consider all of the relevant variables and the
> model is misspecified.
AAAAAAUGH! This is about math, people! There are two separate
conversations going on here. One is about math; the other is about
veganism. They intersect at Zeek, NOT here.
Sheesh...
Bastesens
-
> > It is not an issue of counting, it is an issue of
> > measuring. Vegans don't measure, your marble example
> > uses measurement.
>
> You are totally missing the point.
No, not really.
> Counting is a form of measurement.
But it is not equivalent. Measurement is not
necessarily counting. One can measure without
counting.
> Changing the word from "counting" to "measuring" doesn't change the fact
> that you don't always need to know how much of something there is to know
> when that amount has been reduced.
Counting and measuring are not the same thing. If you
remove an amount, you are, in effect, measuring it. It
may not be an accurate measurement but it is a
measurement nonetheless. You do, however, have to
measure *all* relevant variables in order to actually
know if it has been reduced.
-
> > They are not simply removing something, they are
> > replacing it with something else. Your equation fails
> > to consider all of the relevant variables and the
> > model is misspecified.
>
> AAAAAAUGH! This is about math, people! There are two separate
> conversations going on here. One is about math; the other is about
> veganism. They intersect at Zeek, NOT here.
I know. Your "math" is incorrect because of the
reasons I cited. Your equation is overly simplistic.
To get to Zeek, you previously wrote: "When Zeek
becomes a vegan, he removes a certain number of those
marbles from the bowl." Zeek does not only "remove"
something, he substitutes what he has removed with
something else. Zeek does not know how many he has
"removed" *and* he does not know how many he has put
back into the bowl. He has not measured what he
removed and he has not measured what he replaced it
with. Pointing to what is removed and ignoring what
is replaced is incorrect, both in the math equation
and in veganism.
Kelolo
> > > It is not an issue of counting, it is an issue of
> > > measuring. Vegans don't measure, your marble example
> > > uses measurement.
> >
> > You are totally missing the point.
>
> No, not really.
I disagree.
> > Counting is a form of measurement.
>
> But it is not equivalent.
Did I say that? No. I said that counting is a form of measurement.
> Measurement is not necessarily counting. One can measure without
> counting.
Absolutely.
> > Changing the word from "counting" to "measuring" doesn't change the fact
> > that you don't always need to know how much of something there is to
know
> > when that amount has been reduced.
>
> Counting and measuring are not the same thing.
Agreed.
> If you remove an amount, you are, in effect, measuring it.
> It may not be an accurate measurement but it is a
> measurement nonetheless. You do, however, have to
> measure *all* relevant variables in order to actually
> know if it has been reduced.
Unless you are saying that I have to know the number of marbles in the
"some" that I remove in order to know whether the number of marbles in the
bowl is less after I remove that "some", we have no quarrel. Is that what
you're saying? Remember, we're talking about the marbles and the bowl here,
not vegan stuff.
> -
>
> > > They are not simply removing something, they are
> > > replacing it with something else. Your equation fails
> > > to consider all of the relevant variables and the
> > > model is misspecified.
> >
> > AAAAAAUGH! This is about math, people! There are two separate
> > conversations going on here. One is about math; the other is about
> > veganism. They intersect at Zeek, NOT here.
>
> I know. Your "math" is incorrect because of the
> reasons I cited. Your equation is overly simplistic.
It's a simple equation for a simple situation. What is it about my equation
that makes it unsuitable for the marble situation? Remember, Zeek hasn't
entered the picture yet.
> To get to Zeek, you previously wrote: "When Zeek
> becomes a vegan, he removes a certain number of those
> marbles from the bowl." Zeek does not only "remove"
> something, he substitutes what he has removed with
> something else.
Not necessarily. Why can't Zeek just stop doing some things and continue
doing other things as he did them before?
> Zeek does not know how many he has
> "removed" *and* he does not know how many he has put
> back into the bowl. He has not measured what he
> removed and he has not measured what he replaced it
> with.
If you want to argue effectively against my Zeek example, it's easy to do.
Just point out that the way I worded it implies that it would be true for
every possible Zeek, but it isn't true for every possible Zeek. It can be
true, but it isn't necessarily true.
> Pointing to what is removed and ignoring what
> is replaced is incorrect, both in the math equation
> and in veganism.
In the math problem, no marbles were put back. I made up the example, and
that's the way it went. You can't go changing my example to suit yourself;
that ain't cricket.
Mike Jones
> > > Kelolo wrote
> > > > > I'm not saying that only microscopic critters are
> > > > > killed in the fields. I'm just saying that it's neverending
I'm sure this could be stated either in less bytes (not 20k ffs!), or (my
preference) in a different NG: the main one AFIAK is
news:alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Kelolo
>
> I'm sure this could be stated either in less bytes (not 20k ffs!), or (my
> preference) in a different NG: the main one AFIAK is
> news:alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
I'm only able to write so much today because I'm home sick. The
conversation will die soon enough from lack of attention on my end.
K
"Sorry we hurt your field, mister!"
rick etter
But you've totally missed the point of the discussion. You cannot
assume a reduction just because you say there's a reduction. There has
to be a start and ending reference. Your can't just make the claim of
reduction and expect to be taken seriously.
>
> > > Our problem is that you're looking at bodies, while I'm looking at
> > > connections. I see them as different things; you don't. If I
look at
> it
> > > your way, I see what you're saying. But again, my experience of
vegans
> is
> > > that they aren't concerned with absolute numbers of dead bodies;
they
> give
> > > more weight to the suffering of "higher" animals, so they weigh
both the
> > > number of animals killed and the type of animals killed.
> >
> > These same vegans tend to get all worried about animal
> > testing and the use of animals in research. Those
> > animals, rodents for the most part, are the same
> > animals they pretty much ignore and discount in the
> > collateral deaths issue.
>
> I would guess that collateral insect deaths outnumber collateral
rodent
> deaths.
=======================
Why would that matter to you, or a veg*n, unless you just wanted to
divert the issue from the animals that are killed for veggies. And why
do you continue to just state 'rodents'? Or are birds, fish, reptiles,
amphibians include in your rodent category? And, calling them all
rodents makes it easier to dismiss their death and suffering, doesn't
it?
>
> > > The variables have a value, but you don't always need to know what
that
> > > value is to say certain things about those variables. Take
> > >
> > > X - Y = Z
> > >
> > > to represent the situation described above with the bowl of
marbles,
> where X
> > > is the initial number of marbles in the bowl, Y is the number of
marbles
> > > removed, and Z is the final number of marbles in the bowl.
> > >
> > > Z < X
> >
> > They are not simply removing something, they are
> > replacing it with something else. Your equation fails
> > to consider all of the relevant variables and the
> > model is misspecified.
>
> AAAAAAUGH! This is about math, people! There are two separate
> conversations going on here. One is about math; the other is about
> veganism. They intersect at Zeek, NOT here.
=============================
Then stay on topic for the thread. It's about reduction of animal
deaths. but even so your 'math' is about 'numbers' anyway. You've
already ascribed 'values' to x,y,z, so you don't have really
indeterminent numbers anyway.
>
> Sheesh...
>
>
rick etter
> > > Kelolo wrote
> > > > > I'm not saying that only microscopic critters are
> > > > > killed in the fields. I'm just saying that it's neverending
> > > > > Some animal is always being killed, even in the most mundane
> > > > > and seemingly harmless activities, directly or indirectly.
> > > > > Anyone who thinks about it for a little while knows that.
> > > > > Ethical-type vegans are just trying to distance themselves
> > > > > from that killing as much as they reasonably can.
> > >
> > > Rick wrote
> > > > By doing what? Making the proclamation, 'I'm veg*n, therefore I
> > > > don't kill?'
> > >
> > > By doing the things that define someone as a vegan.
> > =====================
> > Such as?
>
> Ask each vegan how they define "vegan". You're likely to get
different
> answers, even if you ask only ethical-type vegans. I do believe,
however,
> that the vast majority of vegans do more than just talk. Now.. these
vegan
> things they do might not have the *effect* that the vegans think they
will
> have, but that issue is separate from whether vegans are all talk or
not.
Youn still didn't answer what kind of things they do to define
themselves.
>
> > Like I just said, many just make the proclamation without any
> > true effort to understand their impact. They take it on faith from
> > groups like PeTA, making it nothing more than the religious agenda
that
> > it really is.
>
> They take what on faith? You're sliding from one topic to another.
Could
> we stick with one at a time, please?
=====================
Not sliding at all, that's what veg*nism is all about. faith that your
diet does all that you claim, despite 'seeing' otherwise.
>
> > > > Doesn't really work that way in real life. Many try to deny
> > > > they even cause death and suffering.
> > >
> > > When they do that, they are probably talking about causing death
and
> > > suffering directly.
> >
> > Really?
>
> I base my answer on conversations I've had with vegans I know
personally, so
> it's not the result of a scientific survey, but yes, it is true in my
> experience.
-----------------------
Then they hypocritically prefer to just ignore the death and suffering
they cause for their own selfishness, eh?
>
> > And what percentage of meat-eaters to you think 'directly' do
> > their own killing? Direct involvemnet has nothing to do with
whether
> > or not you are supporting things that cause death and suffering of
> > animals. And, the animals don't know, or care about the difference
of
> > who is killing them or why.
>
> I hope you have a better appreciation for "continuum" than Jonathan
does,
> because it's a very useful word, and I'm going to use it again. When
it
> comes to animal suffering/killing, there is a continuum between the
most
> direct connection possible and having no connection to it at all.
===========================
You can talk about it all you want. It makes no difference to the
animals, at either end. They end up just as dead. Some of them just
die far more horrible deaths at the hands of veg*ns than others.
---------------------------
What kind, but not how much? How can you claim 'minimization' then?
The plant and animal kingdoms are the only two that are really
> worth discussing here, since it is probably impossible to confine
one's diet
> to the other four kingdoms and survive. So.. of those two groups, it
is the
> animals that people think of as having the greater capacity for
suffering,
> so vegans try to confine their killing to the plant kingdom as much as
> possible.
========================
BS They don't think for a minute about plants. Come to think of it,
they don't think anything about animals either, except those that others
are killing. They conveniently ignore or downplay those that they
cause.
The continuum exists within the animal kingdom as well, and most
> vegans I know believe that if animals have to suffer indirectly for a
vegan
> to have food, it is better that they be "lower" animals such as
insects or
> earthworms, those believed to have less capacity for suffering.
======================
Why do you insist on a preoccupation now with bugs? I've never included
them. Why would you? I'm talking about mammals, reptiles, birds,
amphibians, fish. Which ones of those don't matter to veg*ns as much as
say, a chicken, cow, pig?
>
> I've never gotten agreement among the vegans I know regarding whether
> totally suffering-free killing of animals is OK, so I'll leave that
question
> up in the air for now (unless you want to go into it).
>
> > Either that or, like I said before, they just aren't
> > > thinking too deeply about it.
> > =====================
> > bingo. Veg*nism is a thought-free religious agenda based on the
belief
> > that saying something equals doing something.
>
> All the vegans that I know do more than talk. Some of them go to
great
> lengths to minimize their connections to animal suffering &/or
killing.
=======================
By doing what? Be specific. Show how they prove they actually achieve
this minimization. Or is it, again, just their religious faith that
they have.
> Some of them think quite deeply about it too.
======================
Thinking, and deeply too, my that saves plenty of animals I'm sure.
A few I know are into it
> because it's trendy; they deserve to be sneered at (as does anyone who
does
> something just because it's trendy).
==========================
By far the majority I've ever met. they have no clue as to what they
really are doing.
>
> > > > Then, when called on it, they change to
reducing/minimizing/avoiding
> > > > animal death and suffering.
> > >
> > > There's nothing wrong with correcting a poor answer caused by a
poor
> > > understanding of the question being asked.
> > ---------------------------
> > veg*ns don't give just 'poor' answers, they repeat the same lys,
over
> > and over.
>
> Some do. Some don't.
==================
I haven't seen any on these newsgroups that don't. To a one, they all
claim their diet reduces/minimizes/eliminates animal death and
suffering. No measurements, no data, just pure religious faith in what
they have been spoonfed by others that know them for the mindless robots
they are.
>
> [I'm assuming that you mean "lies" when you write "lys".]
=====================
Yes, it;s a special tribute to an AR loon that used to use that as her
moniker. It was most appropriate, as any post you picked, was full of
them.
>
> > > > What they mostly do though, is ignore their own contributions to
> > > > animal death and suffering, and focus on the supposed failure of
> > > > others to live up to the 'ethics' they themselves fail at.
Actually,
> > > > you can tell they are lying about doing 'all they can' to reduce
> > > > animal death and suffering because they are still here, posting
their
> > > > inanities around the world.
> > >
> > > Are you talking here about the indirect animal suffering caused by
the
> > > use of Usenet,
> > ----------------------------
> > Yes But why the preoccupation with direct/indirect death and
> > suffering?
>
> It's probably because direct suffering/death is usually avoidable,
while
> indirect suffering/death usually isn't.
=============================
Really? When was the last time you were out on a farm beating the
fields to make animals run before the machines got there? How about any
veg*n? Know of any? When was the last time you were at
storage/processing facilities rounding up rats/mice instead of letting
them be poisoned/trapped? I'd venture to say never. Your veggies come
at that price. You can continue to ignore it, or downplay it all you
want, but they are there, and noone has made any effort to stop them.
That makes them as direct and deliberate as anything else.
>
> > Do you think that the animals suffer or die any less if you
> > don't 'mean' to kill them? The animals you kill indirectly die a far
> > more horrible, inhumane death than slaughterhouse animals.
>
> Would you go into detail on how you come to that conclusion? Which
> indirectly killed animals are you talking about? How much time have
you
> spent in slaughterhouses?
===========================
Dispite the videos you see, slaughter house animals are by far killed
humanely. An animal caught in a harvester, ground up with a disc, dying
from pesticides, or from deliberate poisonings have no such 'stunning'
bolt prior to death. They get ripped, sliced, diced, shredded,
dis-membered, maimed, and left to die and rot. The poisoned ones die
from the agony of their inside being turn to juice. Why would you even
assume that their deaths are somehow more 'humane' than slaughterhouse
animals?
============================
Just that veg*ns have more than enough death and suffering to worry
about in their own lifstyles. That's where they have a real impact, yet
instead they concentrate on the lifstle of others. They demonize others
for animal death and suffering, yet really do nothing in their own lives
that has any real positive impact. Hypocritcal
>
> > > In the hope of getting a stronger answer, I'll make the question
more
> > > specific. Do you think that more mammals and birds were killed in
> > > 2001 in all the vegetable fields of the world (combined) than in
all
> > > the slaughterhouses of the world (combined) during that same year?
> > > I'm only asking for your opinion here. No numbers are needed.
> > =======================
> > Yes, I do.
>
> We disagree, then.
================
That's why we're having this ah, er, 'discussion', eh? :-)
>
> > But why do you stop with just the fields? They also die in
> > storage and processing facilities just to keep your veggies clean
and
> > safe. And, these are not 'indirect' killings. Those animals are
> > targeted and deliberately killed.
>
> That's assuming that vegans don't grow their own veggies. Some do.
==============================
Some probably do. None of them here on these groups are self-sufficient
though. And, just by being on these groups proves that their 'ethics'
is far from really meaning anything in their lives.
Those
> who don't should be well aware that pest animals are killed in all
food
> storage and processing facilities. All in all, I still think that
eating
> store-bought veggies supports less suffering than eating the products
of a
> slaughterhouse does.
=====================
Your belief, fine. I just don't buy it.
>
> > > > > If these vegans were asked whether they have any connection to
any
> > > > > animal killing whatsoever, do you really believe they would
claim
> > > > > that they did not?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, we've seen it over and over on newsgroups.
> > >
> > > Even when you ask the question clearly?
> > -----------------------
> > Yes, directly and point-blank. like, does your diet cause the death
and
> > suffering of animals? There are those that answer, no.
>
> I would ask something more like, "Do any animals suffer or die in the
chain
> of events that brings your vegan food to your plate?"
==========================
Same question.
>
> > > > > I don't think many of them would. Those who would make that
claim
> > > > > would be answering without thinking.
> > > >
> > > > Which, of course, is what many veg*ns do.
> > >
> > > Plenty of non-vegans do that too.
> > =================
> > True, but then, we don't base our lifestyle around an 'ethic' that
we
> > continue to miserably fail at, all the while decrying the lifestyle
of
> > others.
>
> LOL! Name one major religion that isn't chock full of people doing
just
> that, and I'll eat my hat. :D
=============================
Thanks for agreeing that veg*nism is a religion.
===========================
But, if 'ethics' were the true concern of vegans, why would they not
have to make the comparison in their own diets and lifstyle? Again, it
boils down to only their hatred of others, not really a true concern for
animals.
> A person has to choose where they
> feel there's a point to arguing and where there isn't. Maybe the
vegans who
> hang out here simply think that going beyond meat vs. veggie is
quibbling
> and not worth the effort.
==========================
You really do fail to see the hypocrisy in that, don't you? It's their
'ethic', it's their moral code. Why concern themselves with those of
others, without fully reflecting on their own contributions to animal
death and suffering?
And that's fine. Just because you and I like to
> argue on and on about minutiae doesn't mean that they have to enjoy it
too.
> (They're probably sick to death of it already.) The point is that
they
> believe that the average vegan causes less animal suffering than the
average
> non-vegan, and that's enough for them. What's wrong with that?
=================================
Nothing, but just because it's what they 'believe', doesn't make it
true. They have no idea, they don't want to have a real idea, it's all
based on religious faith.
>
> > > > > > Well, here we go, then. It is almost certainly
> > > > > > possible for her to pursue a diet that kills fewer
> > > > > > animals than those that are killed by her current diet.
> > > > >
> > > > > But isn't that the whole idea in a nutshell? Why all this
> > > > > nitpicking?
> > > >
> > > > Because one such possiby diet is a meat-included diet. Why
> > > > eliminate that diet as a possibility if your 'real' concern is
> > > > to cause the least amount of animal death and suffering? Why is
> > > > the consumption of the animal worse than just killing it and
> > > > leaving it to rot?
> > >
> > > If you're thinking short-term, it's not (unless you believe that
> > > eating meat is bad for your health, but we're talking about
ethical
> > > vegans here, right?).
> > ----------------------
> > Correct. I have no problem with a vegetarian diet, just the
> > sanctimonious lys that are propagated by veg*ns. BTW, there are
also
> > vegetarians on some of the groups that don't fall for the vegan lys
> > either.
>
> I'm glad you acknowledge that.
===========================
But some of them are just as vocal, and sometimes more profane in their
'discussions' with veg*ns. Again, vegan is not a diet. It's a belief
system. A religious agenda.
>
> > > But if tons of meat rot in warehouses for lack of consumers, the
> > > people who had hoped to sell that meat will lose money. A large
part
> > > of the vegan aim, as I understand it, is to have an economic
impact
> through
> > > the combined actions of many. They believe that it's a good thing
if
> the
> > > meat industry leaders see a drop in demand for their products and
adjust
> > > their slaughter numbers down because of it.
> > ======================
> > And possibly increase those 'indirect' numbers killed for your
increased
> > production of veggies? Oh yeah, that's right, the 'indirect' ones
don't
> > count for as much as the direct ones, eh?
>
> Since the indirect killings are probably more insects than anything
else,
> I'd say you're probably right -- most people would say they don't
count for
> as much.
========================
Why do you insist on bringing in bugs to the equaltion? You realize I'm
only discussing mammals, reptiles, birds and amphibians, don't you? But
that said, why is there still a lack of concern for the 'indirect'
deaths and suffering? I've posted two sites that show millions and
millions of just bird and fish deaths from agriculture, and that just
from pesticides. Even so, the truly 'ethical' veg*n would decry these
indirect deaths also, and refuse to buy products they know causes that
level of death and suffering. Yet they don't, at least not the ones
posting to usenet. That proves they are more concerned with their focus
on others, rather than themselves.
>
> Is it the vegans' aims or their methods that you disagree with more?
================================
Some of both. There are veg*n AR loons that would have all meat
production stopped, today, if possible. Showing their obvious
totalitarian flag. They are all willing to use lys and deceit to
achieve their goal.
>
> > > > > To claim to minimize is not to make a numerical claim.
According
> > > > > to my dictionaries, to minimize is to reduce or keep to a
minimum,
> > > > > to lessen.
> > > >
> > > > Lesser than what? She, and you, have no basis for making the
> > > > determination.
> > >
> > > See the marble example below.
> > ==================
> > I did, it still has a 'numerical' content to it. You start with a
> > easily identifiable amount, physically take some away and see an
equally
> > identifiable reduction. Doesn't work that way in the fields.
>
> The situation in the fields is completely irrelevant to the question
of
> whether claiming to minimize is making a numerical claim.
---------------------------------------
Then why bring it up? Just to change the subject from one you don't
what to look at? Veg*ns claim their diets minimze/reduce/eliminate
animal death and suffering. They cannot make that statement without
'numbers'. The diet, in and of itself, does not do that.
Jonathan and I
> digressed into an issue of words and math. I made up the marble
example to
> illustrate that you don't need to have counted something in order to
lessen
> it. That's all. Very simple.
>
> > First, you start with nothing identifiable, the you make changes
that are
> as
> > equally unidentifiable. You have no basis in fact, or even fiction,
to
> > make any claim of reduction or minimization. Analogies aren't your
> > stong suit, are they?
>
> The marble story was an example of lessening without counting, not an
> analogy. It only became an analogy later when I added the whole Zeek
> business. You need to follow along more closely.
=============================
No, you need to learn what you're talking about. Neither Zeek, nor you,
can make any claim that their diet is reducing anything, without having
a starting reference, and an ending reference. You can call that
marbles, or bodies, or whatever, but your anaology does not apply to the
claim of reduction by veg*ns!
>
> > > > > There is nothing in lessening that requires counting. You
don't
> > > > > have to know how many marbles are in the fish bowl to know
that
> there
> > > > > are fewer after you remove some.
> > > >
> > > > So, where's the big pile of bodies you are making your
comparisons
> > > > with?
> > >
> > > A big pile of bodies is not required.
> > -----------------------------
> > Yes there are, according to your analogy, they are the 'marbles'.
>
> You're incorrect. The choice of what the marbles would represent was
mine,
> and I didn't choose bodies. Read it again...
=============================
But our discussion is not about the death and suffering of marbles. Why
would you assume that the analogy would represent anything else but
bodies in this thread?
>
> > > Let's say that Zeek's connections to
> > > animal death and suffering are represented by the marbles in the
bowl
> > > of his life. When Zeek becomes a vegan, he removes a certain
number
> > > of those marbles from the bowl.
> > ===========================
> > LOL That's the whole point!! He can't know that he does remove any
of
> > the marbles. For all he knows, he adds more!
> >
> > > No, he probably can't remove them all, but we don't
> > > need to know that -- and we don't need to count anything -- to
know
> > > that there are now fewer marbles in the bowl now than there were
before.
> > =======================
> > Again, you haven't shown that there are fewer dead bodies left lying
in
> > fields.
>
> Our problem is that you're looking at bodies, while I'm looking at
> connections.
-----------------------------------------
LOL That sure helps cause less death and suffering in your mind, eh?
> I see them as different things; you don't.
======================
The animals are just as dead, and suffered just as much. Why do you
insist on 'looking' at their death and suffering differently?
If I look at it
> your way, I see what you're saying. But again, my experience of
vegans is
> that they aren't concerned with absolute numbers of dead bodies;
====================
Of course they're not!! That's my point, they prefer to hate and
demonize others instead! They are concerned with only the dead bodies
that others eat, while ignoring the animals that just get killed, and
left to rot. Why is the disposition of the bodies of such importance?
they give
> more weight to the suffering of "higher" animals, so they weigh both
the
> number of animals killed and the type of animals killed.
======================
LOL What are 'higher' animals? Cows are worth more than pigs, which
are worth more than rats, which are worth more than birds, and on, and
on? Isn't death, death? Or do bigger animals suffer more somehow?
>
> > You have no starting reference, such as a jar of bodies, I mean
> > marbles.
>
> The starting reference is Zeek's former lifestyle.
====================
But, as I have stated before, he has no reference to base his reduction
on. It's all smoke and mirrors, and lys.
>
> > > > Your example still has a numerical context.
> > >
> > > It relates to numbers, certainly, but that doesn't mean that
> > > everything has to be counted. Haven't you ever done algebra?
> > > You can determine all sorts of things about a variable without
> > > ever counting it.
> > =======================
> > Math isn't your strong suit either, eh? You still have no reference
to
> > indicate a reduction. The variables you start with are defined in
some
> > way to begin with, like a>b. There is a 'value' placed on each
term.
>
> The variables have a value, but you don't always need to know what
that
> value is to say certain things about those variables. Take
>
> X - Y = Z
>
> to represent the situation described above with the bowl of marbles,
where X
> is the initial number of marbles in the bowl, Y is the number of
marbles
> removed, and Z is the final number of marbles in the bowl.
>
> Z < X
>
> We can say that without knowing the value of any of the variables.
=================================
But you still have an indication of a starting 'value', and an ending
'value' that is determinable by just a casual glance.
>
> > > > > To minimize is not only, as you seem to think, to achieve the
> > > > > minimum possible. See any decent dictionary.
> > > >
> > > > To minimize also means not to limit your possible ways to
acheive
> > > > this 'minimization'. Yet, she will not even consider some very
> > > > easy ways to help that minimization.
> > >
> > > Please list some of these very easy ways that the average vegan
won't
> > > consider.
> > =======================
> > I've already posted them, many times.
>
> I'll have to do some Google research to find them, then, since I
haven't
> spent much time in this group. Did you post them using the same
e-mail
> address you're using now?
=================================
Every post I make is on this account, has been for probably 5 years.
>
> > But since they are meat-included diets, veg*ns would prefer to
remain
> > in their blind religious sanctimony.
>
> Some would. Some wouldn't.
========================
Then they aren't veg*n, are they?
JAID
> Not sliding at all, that's what veg*nism is all about. faith that your
> diet does all that you claim, despite 'seeing' otherwise.
I have not been following this thread, Rick and the only thing about my
diet that I claim is that I enjoy it but what could we be 'seeing' a
vegan diet as not doing satisfactory?
As an example, I have lived on my reduced dietary range for decades
happily and without unusual effort, certainly no knowledge or interest
in nutrition and with no apparent ill effect (will I fall apart at the
age of 70 or something?)
I don't see why all this is such a big deal. Nobody experiences the full
range of available foods. Few bother or attempt to determine accurate
ideal nutrition requirements and most in their various subsets of the
dietary range fare well enough. There would be items you too would not
choose to eat.
It is easy to agree with you and see a lot of self-flagelation running
along with any mode of behaviour people conciously and pridefully
identify with. That's just boring, without exclusive specification,
nobody is perfect or worth spending ones time listening to constantly.
What would it matter if you got on and ate within your dietary range and
others theirs while everybody babbled about their intended allegiance
with confused pride? It would be pretty normal in any area of behaviour
and intercourse identified with it. And just as boring.
Ian
Kelolo
> > > measuring. Vegans don't measure, your marble example
> > > uses measurement.
> >
> > You are totally missing the point. Counting is a form of measurement.
> > Changing the word from "counting" to "measuring" doesn't change the
> > fact that you don't always need to know how much of something there
> > is to know when that amount has been reduced.
> > =======================
> But you've totally missed the point of the discussion. You cannot
> assume a reduction just because you say there's a reduction. There has
> to be a start and ending reference. Your can't just make the claim of
> reduction and expect to be taken seriously.
You are confusing the math part of the conversation and the veganism part of
the conversation.
> > > These same vegans tend to get all worried about animal
> > > testing and the use of animals in research. Those
> > > animals, rodents for the most part, are the same
> > > animals they pretty much ignore and discount in the
> > > collateral deaths issue.
> >
> > I would guess that collateral insect deaths outnumber collateral
> > rodent deaths.
> =======================
> Why would that matter to you, or a veg*n, unless you just wanted to
> divert the issue from the animals that are killed for veggies. And why
> do you continue to just state 'rodents'?
I thought that he was saying that rodent deaths make up most of the
collateral deaths, but on second reading, I think I may have misunderstood.
Maybe he just mentioned rodents in passing and meant that *research animals*
are pretty much ignored in the collateral deaths issue. If the latter is
what was meant, I would only add that most vegans I know are young and not
yet into the prescription drug years. They might think more about medicines
when they have to take a bunch of them every day.
> > AAAAAAUGH! This is about math, people! There are two separate
> > conversations going on here. One is about math; the other is about
> > veganism. They intersect at Zeek, NOT here.
> =============================
> Then stay on topic for the thread. It's about reduction of animal
> deaths.
There isn't one topic here. It's a conversation. It has all sorts of
twists and turns and tangents. Anyone who wants to jump in should be sure
they understand the context before they do so.
> but even so your 'math' is about 'numbers' anyway. You've
> already ascribed 'values' to x,y,z, so you don't have really
> indeterminent numbers anyway.
How much math have you had in school? You seem to be out of your depth
here.
lillyc...@webtv.net
with it. In any event, I do not wear leather, wool, etc. Animals are
extremely intelligent - the sad thing is, they know when they are going
to be slaughtered. It's horrific. Anyway, it's great to know that
there are lots of people that feel the same way I do - I just wish there
were more.
lillyc...@webtv.net
type in carnivorous. Meat eater and please don't leave out unhealthy
diet. Cancer. You'll be directed to the websites best suited for your
needs. And the people who would appreciate you lack of intelligence!
lillyc...@webtv.net
You should not look at a vegan as a 'criminal'...questioning beliefs...
Do I believe in using animals to find a cure for cancer? Hell, yeah!
Whatever it takes to find a cure for that horrific desease (besides
eating more and more fruits and veggies!). And I am a vegan. The
orange I eat comes from a tree. The last I heard, trees do not need
milk or animal products to grow. In time, experiments will be animal
cruelty free. Do I put you down for eating meat? Absolutely not.
Would I go into a group titled 'eat lots and lots of meat'...putting
down the people who eat meat? Absolutely not. Therefore, please, if
you enjoy eating meat, good for you. And I am sure there are a
plethora of websites you can visit and complain about the ethics of
vegetarians and vegans!
Bastesens
> Animals are
> extremely intelligent - the sad thing is, they know when they are going
> to be slaughtered.
No, they don't. Cows, pigs, sheep will walk into a
blood-covered harness without hesitation. Research
into the subject shows that stress levels do not
increase when these animals watch the slaughter of
other animals.
Your beliefs are ignorant projections of your own
fears.
-
rick etter
"JAID" <ja...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:3C607CF6...@ozemail.com.au...
> rick etter wrote:
>
> > Not sliding at all, that's what veg*nism is all about. faith that
your
> > diet does all that you claim, despite 'seeing' otherwise.
>
> I have not been following this thread,
----------------------------
Then you should. My posts are not about the 'dietary' portion. Like
you, I have no care about what you eat. I don't however continue to
make the same deceitful claims that veg*ns do about their 'ethics'.
Rick and the only thing about my
> diet that I claim is that I enjoy it but what could we be 'seeing' a
> vegan diet as not doing satisfactory?
===========================
If it's just a diet to you, then it is not 'vegan'.
>
> As an example, I have lived on my reduced dietary range for decades
> happily and without unusual effort, certainly no knowledge or interest
> in nutrition and with no apparent ill effect (will I fall apart at the
> age of 70 or something?)
-------------------------------------
I have no idea, but again, I make not comment on the dietary balance, or
lack of in anybodies diet.
>
> I don't see why all this is such a big deal. Nobody experiences the
full
> range of available foods. Few bother or attempt to determine accurate
> ideal nutrition requirements and most in their various subsets of the
> dietary range fare well enough. There would be items you too would not
> choose to eat.
==========================
You really should catch up on the thread. It has nothing to do with
nutritional requirments for any particular diet.
>
> It is easy to agree with you and see a lot of self-flagelation
running
> along with any mode of behaviour people conciously and pridefully
> identify with. That's just boring, without exclusive specification,
> nobody is perfect or worth spending ones time listening to constantly.
>
> What would it matter if you got on and ate within your dietary range
and
> others theirs while everybody babbled about their intended allegiance
> with confused pride? It would be pretty normal in any area of
behaviour
> and intercourse identified with it. And just as boring.
---------------------------------------
If blatant hypocrisy doesn't bother you, then fine. That's all I point
out. And you haven't posted anything to alleviate that hypocrisy in
veg*ns.
rick etter
> > > > It is not an issue of counting, it is an issue of
> > > > measuring. Vegans don't measure, your marble example
> > > > uses measurement.
> > >
> > > You are totally missing the point. Counting is a form of
measurement.
> > > Changing the word from "counting" to "measuring" doesn't change
the
> > > fact that you don't always need to know how much of something
there
> > > is to know when that amount has been reduced.
> > > =======================
> > But you've totally missed the point of the discussion. You cannot
> > assume a reduction just because you say there's a reduction. There
has
> > to be a start and ending reference. Your can't just make the claim
of
> > reduction and expect to be taken seriously.
>
> You are confusing the math part of the conversation and the veganism
part of
> the conversation.
Only to the point that you had to bring a 'math' portion in to try to
deflect the conversation from what is was really about, animals death
and suufering, and it's reduction. Something you continue to fail at
making any attempt at really discussing.
>
> > > > These same vegans tend to get all worried about animal
> > > > testing and the use of animals in research. Those
> > > > animals, rodents for the most part, are the same
> > > > animals they pretty much ignore and discount in the
> > > > collateral deaths issue.
> > >
> > > I would guess that collateral insect deaths outnumber collateral
> > > rodent deaths.
> > =======================
> > Why would that matter to you, or a veg*n, unless you just wanted to
> > divert the issue from the animals that are killed for veggies. And
why
> > do you continue to just state 'rodents'?
>
> I thought that he was saying that rodent deaths make up most of the
> collateral deaths, but on second reading, I think I may have
misunderstood.
> Maybe he just mentioned rodents in passing and meant that *research
animals*
> are pretty much ignored in the collateral deaths issue. If the latter
is
> what was meant, I would only add that most vegans I know are young and
not
> yet into the prescription drug years. They might think more about
medicines
> when they have to take a bunch of them every day.
==========================
Yes, I beleive that was his point. Veg*ns go off easily about lab
animals, yet when the same animals are killed for nothing more than
their cheap, convenient veggies, they cry not one tear.
rather hypocritical.
>
> > > AAAAAAUGH! This is about math, people! There are two separate
> > > conversations going on here. One is about math; the other is
about
> > > veganism. They intersect at Zeek, NOT here.
> > =============================
> > Then stay on topic for the thread. It's about reduction of animal
> > deaths.
>
> There isn't one topic here. It's a conversation. It has all sorts of
> twists and turns and tangents. Anyone who wants to jump in should be
sure
> they understand the context before they do so.
======================
Really, then why did you try to say I was diverging off topic?
>
> > but even so your 'math' is about 'numbers' anyway. You've
> > already ascribed 'values' to x,y,z, so you don't have really
> > indeterminent numbers anyway.
>
> How much math have you had in school? You seem to be out of your
depth
> here.
-------------------------------------------
LOL more than necessary to see you floundering around trying to excuse
an agenda with a seperate issue because you don't want to stay on the
topic at hand. It's and old, and usual ploy that veg*ns employ
regularly.
>
>
>
rick etter
<lillyc...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:12537-3C...@storefull-137.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Why would you want there to be more ignorant hypocrites like you? You
claim to care, yet you do nothing to stop the killing done merely for
your convenience and selfishness. You prove that by posting your
inanities to usenet for all the world to see.
lillyc...@webtv.net
What am I supposed to do? I do what I feel in my heart. I am a vegan.
You, on the other hand, can continue (like many others) critizing people
in a VEGAN chat group for being VEGANS and questioning our beliefs.
I am healthy, happy and I continue to love animals. And, I enjoy waking
up in the morning knowing that I have a great diet that keeps me healthy
- and NOT have to contribute to eating animals.
lillyc...@webtv.net
And you obviously read the research conducted by cowboys and slaughter
houses. Ignorance is in a person's mind - not their hearts. We now
know where yours comes from.
Kelolo
> themselves.
You wouldn't list specific notions of yours, notions I'm going to have to
dig around for, and YOU want ME to define vegan for you? LOL! You, a person
who has been reading and posting in this newsgroup for 5 years, need me to
define vegan for you? Grab a dictionary, son. :D
> > > Like I just said, many just make the proclamation without any
> > > true effort to understand their impact. They take it on faith from
> > > groups like PeTA, making it nothing more than the religious agenda
> > > that it really is.
> >
> > They take what on faith? You're sliding from one topic to another.
> > Could we stick with one at a time, please?
> =====================
> Not sliding at all, that's what veg*nism is all about. faith that your
> diet does all that you claim, despite 'seeing' otherwise.
We were talking, in the part you snipped, about whether vegans are all talk
and no action or not. Then you started talking about taking something on
faith. That is a slide.
> > > > > Many try to deny they even cause death and suffering.
> > > >
> > > > When they do that, they are probably talking about causing death
> > > > and suffering directly.
> > >
> > > Really?
> >
> > I base my answer on conversations I've had with vegans I know
> > personally, so it's not the result of a scientific survey, but
> > yes, it is true in my experience.
> -----------------------
> Then they hypocritically prefer to just ignore the death and suffering
> they cause for their own selfishness, eh?
They just think suffering they cause directly is more significant, I guess.
> You can talk about it all you want. It makes no difference to the
> animals, at either end. They end up just as dead. Some of them just
> die far more horrible deaths at the hands of veg*ns than others.
There are groups out there that want everyone to stop using all ag chemicals
and go back to doing everything by hand. They ain't too popular, but they'r
e out there.
> > Another continuum that vegans have to think about is that of a being's
> > ability to suffer. We usually put humans on one end and viruses,
> things
> > that we aren't even sure are alive, on the other. Between those two
> ends is
> > a wide variety of life forms, and most people (it seems to me) believe
> that
> > the closer something is to the human end of the spectrum, the greater
> its
> > capacity for suffering. Vegans have to eat to live, and eating always
> > involves killing, so they have to choose what sort of killing they
> will
> > accept.
> ---------------------------
> What kind, but not how much? How can you claim 'minimization' then?
I've mentioned their concern about how much, just not in that paragraph.
Think back.
> BS They don't think for a minute about plants. Come to think of it,
> they don't think anything about animals either, except those that others
> are killing. They conveniently ignore or downplay those that they
> cause.
It seems that the vegans you know and the vegans I know are quite different.
If I hang around this newsgroup for a while, I might find that the folks
here are the kind of vegans you're used to.
> Why do you insist on a preoccupation now with bugs? I've never included
> them. Why would you?
They're animals! And they probably make up the vast majority of the
indirect deaths in the fields. I thought field deaths were a big concern of
yours.
> I'm talking about mammals, reptiles, birds,
> amphibians, fish. Which ones of those don't matter to veg*ns as much as
> say, a chicken, cow, pig?
Are you saying that all these huge numbers of deaths you've been blaming on
vegans are mostly in those categories?
> > All the vegans that I know do more than talk. Some of them go to
> > great lengths to minimize their connections to animal suffering &/or
> > killing.
> =======================
> By doing what? Be specific. Show how they prove they actually achieve
> this minimization.
I never said that they prove it. I just said that they do more than just
talk. How many times do I have to repeat myself? This is getting very
tiresome.
> > Some of them think quite deeply about it too.
> ======================
> Thinking, and deeply too, my that saves plenty of animals I'm sure.
You were claiming earlier that they always answer without thinking. I was
just countering that claim.
> > A few I know are into it because it's trendy; they deserve to be
> > sneered at (as does anyone who does something just because it's trendy).
> ==========================
> By far the majority I've ever met. they have no clue as to what they
> really are doing.
So you and I have had different experiences, met different vegans. The
difference is that I keep reminding you that there are different types of
vegans while you keep sliding back into saying that they're all alike.
> > > veg*ns don't give just 'poor' answers, they repeat the same lys,
> > > over and over.
> >
> > Some do. Some don't.
> ==================
> I haven't seen any on these newsgroups that don't. To a one, they all
> claim their diet reduces/minimizes/eliminates animal death and
> suffering. No measurements, no data, just pure religious faith in what
> they have been spoonfed by others that know them for the mindless robots
> they are.
Well, it's unfortunate that you haven't met some of the sane and sensible
vegans that I know.
> > [I'm assuming that you mean "lies" when you write "lys".]
> =====================
> Yes, it;s a special tribute to an AR loon that used to use that as her
> moniker. It was most appropriate, as any post you picked, was full of
> them.
Hmm. Delightful.
> > It's probably because direct suffering/death is usually avoidable,
> > while indirect suffering/death usually isn't.
> =============================
> Really? When was the last time you were out on a farm beating the
> fields to make animals run before the machines got there?
When was the last time you saw scads of killed critters in the fields? What
I have seen is lots of critters running away from noisy machines and
escaping into another field.
> When was the last time you were at
> storage/processing facilities rounding up rats/mice instead of letting
> them be poisoned/trapped? I'd venture to say never.
That's where you're wrong! :D I actually trapped many mice at a local
warehouse and let them go down the road. They probably just ran into
someone else's place and met a nasty end there, but hey.. at least you're
wrong! :D
> Your veggies come
> at that price. You can continue to ignore it, or downplay it all you
> want, but they are there, and noone has made any effort to stop them.
> That makes them as direct and deliberate as anything else.
By that reasoning, all death is direct and deliberate, so what's the point
in making a distinction at all?
> > > Do you think that the animals suffer or die any less if you
> > > don't 'mean' to kill them? The animals you kill indirectly die a far
> > > more horrible, inhumane death than slaughterhouse animals.
> >
> > Would you go into detail on how you come to that conclusion? Which
> > indirectly killed animals are you talking about? How much time have
> > you spent in slaughterhouses?
> ===========================
> Dispite the videos you see, slaughter house animals are by far killed
> humanely. An animal caught in a harvester, ground up with a disc, dying
> from pesticides, or from deliberate poisonings have no such 'stunning'
> bolt prior to death. They get ripped, sliced, diced, shredded,
> dis-membered, maimed, and left to die and rot. The poisoned ones die
> from the agony of their inside being turn to juice. Why would you even
> assume that their deaths are somehow more 'humane' than slaughterhouse
> animals?
Do you have videos of your own to support your claims? I don't, but what
I've seen in fields is that the mammals, birds, reptiles, and flying insects
that take up residence there are pretty darn mobile, and farm equipment is
relatively slow. They take a hike when they hear the noise and feel the
vibrations. I've seen crowds of snakes zip by me at impressive speeds.
It's slower critters like worms and snails that have the most to fear from
farm equipment. Poisons are nasty for everyone, so I prefer organic
agriculture (which, in turn, makes the fields more full of life to be
endangered at harvest time, but them's the breaks).
> > > All I point out is that you have far more than enough death and
> > > suffering on your own hands to concentrate on before you start
> > > bashing others for something that you will not do anything
> > > that truly helps animals.
> >
> > That last sentence got really mangled towards the end. I'm not sure
> > what you meant to say. Would you fix it, please?
> ============================
> Just that veg*ns have more than enough death and suffering to worry
> about in their own lifstyles. That's where they have a real impact, yet
> instead they concentrate on the lifstle of others. They demonize others
> for animal death and suffering, yet really do nothing in their own lives
> that has any real positive impact. Hypocritcal
Those who do that are indeed hypocritical. That doesn't mean that the aims
of non-hypocritical vegans are at fault.
> > > > Do you think that more mammals and birds were killed in
> > > > 2001 in all the vegetable fields of the world (combined) than in
> > > > all the slaughterhouses of the world (combined) during that same
> > > > year? I'm only asking for your opinion here. No numbers are needed.
> > > =======================
> > > Yes, I do.
> >
> > We disagree, then.
> ================
> That's why we're having this ah, er, 'discussion', eh? :-)
Yup. :)
> > > But why do you stop with just the fields? They also die in
> > > storage and processing facilities just to keep your veggies clean
> and
> > > safe. And, these are not 'indirect' killings. Those animals are
> > > targeted and deliberately killed.
> >
> > That's assuming that vegans don't grow their own veggies. Some do.
> ==============================
> Some probably do. None of them here on these groups are self-sufficient
> though. And, just by being on these groups proves that their 'ethics'
> is far from really meaning anything in their lives.
That's a mighty bold statement there, son! :D Me, I come to these groups as
a tourist, popping in once in a while, looking around, chatting with some
folks. You might know quite a few regulars, having been coming here 5 years
and all, but you don't know the heart and soul of everyone who lurks. (Or
do you have powers of which I should be made aware?)
> > > Yes, directly and point-blank. like, does your diet cause the death
> > > and suffering of animals? There are those that answer, no.
> >
> > I would ask something more like, "Do any animals suffer or die in the
> > chain of events that brings your vegan food to your plate?"
> ==========================
> Same question.
Same aim, yes, but it's much less open to misunderstanding.
> > > > > > I don't think many of them would. Those who would make that
> claim
> > > > > > would be answering without thinking.
> > > > >
> > > > > Which, of course, is what many veg*ns do.
> > > >
> > > > Plenty of non-vegans do that too.
> > > =================
> > > True, but then, we don't base our lifestyle around an 'ethic' that
> we
> > > continue to miserably fail at, all the while decrying the lifestyle
> of
> > > others.
> >
> > LOL! Name one major religion that isn't chock full of people doing
> > just that, and I'll eat my hat. :D
> =============================
> Thanks for agreeing that veg*nism is a religion.
For many, I would say that it is. Did I ever say it wasn't? No. If you
look up the words "religion" and "religious", they do have a very broad
scope. A great enthusiasm for canoeing could fit under that term as well.
You just have to pick the right entries from your dictionary. ;)
> > Sure, you could break the vegan camp into further groups, some causing
> > more suffering than others, and you could then go on to break those
groups
> > up into still smaller groups, and on and on.
> ===========================
> But, if 'ethics' were the true concern of vegans, why would they not
> have to make the comparison in their own diets and lifstyle? Again, it
> boils down to only their hatred of others, not really a true concern for
> animals.
For some, sure. That's what so many fervent beliefs boil down to: an "us
vs. them" mentality looking for a cause to hang their hostility on. But I
have to say again that not all vegans are like that. You just seem to have
met up with a bad lot, unfortunately. (And the bad lots are usually the
ones that make the most noise.)
> > A person has to choose where they feel there's a point to arguing
> > and where there isn't. Maybe the vegans who hang out here simply
> > think that going beyond meat vs. veggie is quibbling
> > and not worth the effort.
> ==========================
> You really do fail to see the hypocrisy in that, don't you? It's their
> 'ethic', it's their moral code. Why concern themselves with those of
> others, without fully reflecting on their own contributions to animal
> death and suffering?
That isn't hypocracy. Hypocracy is what we were talking about just above,
not practicing what you preach, focusing solely on the lifestyles of others
instead of really looking at your own. This is different. A vegan might
want to never even discuss veganism at all.. with anyone! That doesn't make
him or her a hypocrite. It's the mismatch of words and deeds that make a
hypocrite, not debating style.
> But some of them are just as vocal, and sometimes more profane in their
> 'discussions' with veg*ns. Again, vegan is not a diet. It's a belief
> system. A religious agenda.
For some people, being vegan has nothing to do with suffering or AR or any
of that. For some, it just means not eating meat or eggs or dairy products.
Some self-professed vegans eat honey, wear leather, and kick their cats.
Both definitions of the word are in my dictionary. Maybe we need a new
word, eh?
> > > Oh yeah, that's right, the 'indirect' ones don't count for as
> > > much as the direct ones, eh?
> >
> > Since the indirect killings are probably more insects than anything
> > else, I'd say you're probably right -- most people would say they
> > don't count for as much.
> ========================
> Why do you insist on bringing in bugs to the equaltion? You realize I'm
> only discussing mammals, reptiles, birds and amphibians, don't you?
No, I didn't realize that. Bugs are animals, you know, and an awful lot of
them die in the fields, so if you're into body counting - which you seem to
be - well...
> But that said, why is there still a lack of concern for the 'indirect'
> deaths and suffering? I've posted two sites that show millions and
> millions of just bird and fish deaths from agriculture, and that just
> from pesticides. Even so, the truly 'ethical' veg*n would decry these
> indirect deaths also, and refuse to buy products they know causes that
> level of death and suffering. Yet they don't, at least not the ones
> posting to usenet.
Bingo!
> That proves they are more concerned with their focus
> on others, rather than themselves.
Or maybe they're lazy thinkers. Or maybe they have to work 10 hours a day.
> > The situation in the fields is completely irrelevant to the question
> > of whether claiming to minimize is making a numerical claim.
> ---------------------------------------
> Then why bring it up? Just to change the subject from one you don't
> what to look at? Veg*ns claim their diets minimze/reduce/eliminate
> animal death and suffering. They cannot make that statement without
> 'numbers'. The diet, in and of itself, does not do that.
Like I said...
> > Jonathan and I digressed into an issue of words and math.
> > The marble story was an example of lessening without counting, not an
> > analogy. It only became an analogy later when I added the whole Zeek
> > business. You need to follow along more closely.
> =============================
> No, you need to learn what you're talking about. Neither Zeek, nor you,
> can make any claim that their diet is reducing anything, without having
> a starting reference, and an ending reference. You can call that
> marbles, or bodies, or whatever, but your anaology does not apply to the
> claim of reduction by veg*ns!
You are confused again. The marbles example - without Zeek - was about
words and math, pure and simple. Yes, you can make a claim of reduction of
something without counting. Forget veganism for one moment, and you'll see
how simple that statement is.
> > > > A big pile of bodies is not required.
> > > -----------------------------
> > > Yes there are, according to your analogy, they are the 'marbles'.
> >
> > You're incorrect. The choice of what the marbles would represent was
> > mine, and I didn't choose bodies. Read it again...
> =============================
> But our discussion is not about the death and suffering of marbles. Why
> would you assume that the analogy would represent anything else but
> bodies in this thread?
Good lord, how many times do I have to say it? Jonathan and I digressed.
We got into a math question because he made some absolute statements, and I
felt the need to give him an example that proved them wrong. I never said
that ALL situations are like a bowl of marbles. It was simply an example to
illustrate for him that his absolute statement was not true for all
situations.
> > Our problem is that you're looking at bodies, while I'm looking at
> > connections.
> -----------------------------------------
> LOL That sure helps cause less death and suffering in your mind, eh?
That ain't got nuthin to do with it.
> > I see them as different things; you don't.
> ======================
> The animals are just as dead, and suffered just as much. Why do you
> insist on 'looking' at their death and suffering differently?
Maybe because I've spent too much time in classrooms where ideas are looked
at from many different angles instead of with blinkers on.
> If I look at it
> > your way, I see what you're saying. But again, my experience of
> vegans is
> > that they aren't concerned with absolute numbers of dead bodies;
> ====================
> Of course they're not!! That's my point, they prefer to hate and
> demonize others instead! They are concerned with only the dead bodies
> that others eat, while ignoring the animals that just get killed, and
> left to rot. Why is the disposition of the bodies of such importance?
Easy there, big fella. I just don't want you demonizing the thinking vegans
along with all the trendy and hypocritical vegans out there.
> they give more weight to the suffering of "higher" animals, so they
> weigh both the number of animals killed and the type of animals killed.
> ======================
> LOL What are 'higher' animals? Cows are worth more than pigs, which
> are worth more than rats, which are worth more than birds, and on, and
> on? Isn't death, death? Or do bigger animals suffer more somehow?
In my experience, that's just the way people are. They look at the death of
a bird as less of a big deal than that of a human.. that of an insect as
less than that of a bird.. etc. That's just a fact of human nature as I see
it.
> > > You have no starting reference, such as a jar of bodies, I mean
> > > marbles.
> >
> > The starting reference is Zeek's former lifestyle.
> ====================
> But, as I have stated before, he has no reference to base his reduction
> on. It's all smoke and mirrors, and lys.
Depends on how you look at it. Stretch your brain a bit.
> > Take X - Y = Z to represent the situation described above with the
> > bowl of marbles, where X is the initial number of marbles in the
> > bowl, Y is the number of marbles removed, and Z is the final number
> > of marbles in the bowl.
> >
> > Z < X
> >
> > We can say that without knowing the value of any of the variables.
> =================================
> But you still have an indication of a starting 'value', and an ending
> 'value' that is determinable by just a casual glance.
Yes, it's qualitative, not quantitative. That's what I was trying to point
out to Jonathan. You're getting there... :D
> > > > Please list some of these very easy ways that the average vegan
> > > > won't consider.
> > > =======================
> > > I've already posted them, many times.
> >
> > I'll have to do some Google research to find them, then, since I
> > haven't spent much time in this group. Did you post them using
> > the same e-mail address you're using now?
> =================================
> Every post I make is on this account, has been for probably 5 years.
OK. I'll try to find what you're talking about.
> > > But since they are meat-included diets, veg*ns would prefer to
> > > remain in their blind religious sanctimony.
> >
> > Some would. Some wouldn't.
> ========================
> Then they aren't veg*n, are they?
Only if having blind, religious sanctimony is part of what defines veganism.
For you, it seems that it is. For me, it's not.
I have to go to work now, and group members are no doubt seething about the
size of this post, so maybe we should cut it waaaaaaay down in future.
rick etter
>
> > Youn still didn't answer what kind of things they do to define
> > themselves.
>
> You wouldn't list specific notions of yours, notions I'm going to have to
> dig around for, and YOU want ME to define vegan for you? LOL! You, a person
> who has been reading and posting in this newsgroup for 5 years, need me to
> define vegan for you? Grab a dictionary, son. :D
Having as much problems with reading comprehension as math, I see. I
didn't ask for a definition of veg*n, I ask what veg*ns "do" to define
themselves. You said they *do* things to define themselves, I say they
just *say* things to define themselves. their actions mean nothing in
regards to whether they are minimizing animal death and suffering.
>
> > > > Like I just said, many just make the proclamation without any
> > > > true effort to understand their impact. They take it on faith from
> > > > groups like PeTA, making it nothing more than the religious agenda
> > > > that it really is.
> > >
> > > They take what on faith? You're sliding from one topic to another.
> > > Could we stick with one at a time, please?
> > =====================
> > Not sliding at all, that's what veg*nism is all about. faith that your
> > diet does all that you claim, despite 'seeing' otherwise.
>
> We were talking, in the part you snipped, about whether vegans are all talk
> and no action or not. Then you started talking about taking something on
> faith. That is a slide.
------------------------------
Really? I don't think I made any snips. I've never strayed from that
subject, you on the other hand decided that it was safer for you to talk
about marbles.
>
> > > > > > Many try to deny they even cause death and suffering.
> > > > >
> > > > > When they do that, they are probably talking about causing death
> > > > > and suffering directly.
> > > >
> > > > Really?
> > >
> > > I base my answer on conversations I've had with vegans I know
> > > personally, so it's not the result of a scientific survey, but
> > > yes, it is true in my experience.
> > -----------------------
> > Then they hypocritically prefer to just ignore the death and suffering
> > they cause for their own selfishness, eh?
>
> They just think suffering they cause directly is more significant, I guess.
===========================
But why? Dead is dead, as far as the animal is concerned.
>
> > You can talk about it all you want. It makes no difference to the
> > animals, at either end. They end up just as dead. Some of them just
> > die far more horrible deaths at the hands of veg*ns than others.
>
> There are groups out there that want everyone to stop using all ag chemicals
> and go back to doing everything by hand. They ain't too popular, but they'r
> e out there.
========================
And that applies to the comment you're responding to, how?
>
> > > Another continuum that vegans have to think about is that of a being's
> > > ability to suffer. We usually put humans on one end and viruses,
> > things
> > > that we aren't even sure are alive, on the other. Between those two
> > ends is
> > > a wide variety of life forms, and most people (it seems to me) believe
> > that
> > > the closer something is to the human end of the spectrum, the greater
> > its
> > > capacity for suffering. Vegans have to eat to live, and eating always
> > > involves killing, so they have to choose what sort of killing they
> > will
> > > accept.
> > ---------------------------
> > What kind, but not how much? How can you claim 'minimization' then?
>
> I've mentioned their concern about how much, just not in that paragraph.
> Think back.
=======================
I responded to what you wrote then. You didn't answer it, again.
>
> > BS They don't think for a minute about plants. Come to think of it,
> > they don't think anything about animals either, except those that others
> > are killing. They conveniently ignore or downplay those that they
> > cause.
>
> It seems that the vegans you know and the vegans I know are quite different.
> If I hang around this newsgroup for a while, I might find that the folks
> here are the kind of vegans you're used to.
>
> > Why do you insist on a preoccupation now with bugs? I've never included
> > them. Why would you?
>
> They're animals! And they probably make up the vast majority of the
> indirect deaths in the fields. I thought field deaths were a big concern of
> yours.
=================================
No, I don't consider bugs as animals. But, if you would like to include
them, then veg*ns have far, far, more death and suffering on their
hands.
>
> > I'm talking about mammals, reptiles, birds,
> > amphibians, fish. Which ones of those don't matter to veg*ns as much as
> > say, a chicken, cow, pig?
>
> Are you saying that all these huge numbers of deaths you've been blaming on
> vegans are mostly in those categories?
==============================
Bingo!! Give that man a ceegar!!! What do you think I've meant when
I've said mammals, reptiles, birds, amphibians and fish?
>
> > > All the vegans that I know do more than talk. Some of them go to
> > > great lengths to minimize their connections to animal suffering &/or
> > > killing.
> > =======================
> > By doing what? Be specific. Show how they prove they actually achieve
> > this minimization.
>
> I never said that they prove it. I just said that they do more than just
> talk.
===========================
Then how do they do this, and KNOW that they have?
How many times do I have to repeat myself? This is getting very
> tiresome.
=============================
You keep repeating nothing! Again, claiming they do something to
minimize, is NOT the same as minimizing. You can't know that you do,
just by saying so. Why do I have to keep telling you that?
>
> > > Some of them think quite deeply about it too.
> > ======================
> > Thinking, and deeply too, my that saves plenty of animals I'm sure.
>
> You were claiming earlier that they always answer without thinking. I was
> just countering that claim.
---------------------------
Mindless thought on a subject doesn't equal deeply thinking about a
subject.
>
> > > A few I know are into it because it's trendy; they deserve to be
> > > sneered at (as does anyone who does something just because it's trendy).
> > ==========================
> > By far the majority I've ever met. they have no clue as to what they
> > really are doing.
>
> So you and I have had different experiences, met different vegans. The
> difference is that I keep reminding you that there are different types of
> vegans while you keep sliding back into saying that they're all alike.
====================================
If you'll notice I've always stated about the ones I know, or the ones
posting to usenet. The ones I know are plain loony, the ones on usenet
prove their 'ethics' mean nothing by just being on usenet.
>
> > > > veg*ns don't give just 'poor' answers, they repeat the same lys,
> > > > over and over.
> > >
> > > Some do. Some don't.
> > ==================
> > I haven't seen any on these newsgroups that don't. To a one, they all
> > claim their diet reduces/minimizes/eliminates animal death and
> > suffering. No measurements, no data, just pure religious faith in what
> > they have been spoonfed by others that know them for the mindless robots
> > they are.
>
> Well, it's unfortunate that you haven't met some of the sane and sensible
> vegans that I know.
========================
If you know that kind, you should be able to answer the questions I've
asked about what it is the *really* do to minimize animal death and
suffering, and how they *know* they have. Why haven't you given that
information yet?
>
> > > [I'm assuming that you mean "lies" when you write "lys".]
> > =====================
> > Yes, it;s a special tribute to an AR loon that used to use that as her
> > moniker. It was most appropriate, as any post you picked, was full of
> > them.
>
> Hmm. Delightful.
=====================
Yes, it is. She even believes there is a super race of beings living
inside a volcano in California. Not to mention all her quack medical
posts.
>
> > > It's probably because direct suffering/death is usually avoidable,
> > > while indirect suffering/death usually isn't.
> > =============================
> > Really? When was the last time you were out on a farm beating the
> > fields to make animals run before the machines got there?
>
> When was the last time you saw scads of killed critters in the fields? What
> I have seen is lots of critters running away from noisy machines and
> escaping into another field.
================================
Better get to national geographic then, they'll wanna see these new
instincts. Many prey animals freeze at the sign of danger. It's what
nature has taught them as the way to deal with predators. Problem is,
until now, predators haven't been 30' wide gnashing steel blades.
>
> > When was the last time you were at
> > storage/processing facilities rounding up rats/mice instead of letting
> > them be poisoned/trapped? I'd venture to say never.
>
> That's where you're wrong! :D I actually trapped many mice at a local
> warehouse and let them go down the road. They probably just ran into
> someone else's place and met a nasty end there, but hey.. at least you're
> wrong! :D
>
> > Your veggies come
> > at that price. You can continue to ignore it, or downplay it all you
> > want, but they are there, and noone has made any effort to stop them.
> > That makes them as direct and deliberate as anything else.
>
> By that reasoning, all death is direct and deliberate, so what's the point
> in making a distinction at all?
===========================
Exactly. It's a distinction that veg*ns hang their hat on. Makes feel
so much better if then can convince themselves they really didn't mean
to kill anything.
>
> > > > Do you think that the animals suffer or die any less if you
> > > > don't 'mean' to kill them? The animals you kill indirectly die a far
> > > > more horrible, inhumane death than slaughterhouse animals.
> > >
> > > Would you go into detail on how you come to that conclusion? Which
> > > indirectly killed animals are you talking about? How much time have
> > > you spent in slaughterhouses?
> > ===========================
> > Dispite the videos you see, slaughter house animals are by far killed
> > humanely. An animal caught in a harvester, ground up with a disc, dying
> > from pesticides, or from deliberate poisonings have no such 'stunning'
> > bolt prior to death. They get ripped, sliced, diced, shredded,
> > dis-membered, maimed, and left to die and rot. The poisoned ones die
> > from the agony of their inside being turn to juice. Why would you even
> > assume that their deaths are somehow more 'humane' than slaughterhouse
> > animals?
>
> Do you have videos of your own to support your claims? I don't, but what
> I've seen in fields is that the mammals, birds, reptiles, and flying insects
> that take up residence there are pretty darn mobile, and farm equipment is
> relatively slow. They take a hike when they hear the noise and feel the
> vibrations. I've seen crowds of snakes zip by me at impressive speeds.
> It's slower critters like worms and snails that have the most to fear from
> farm equipment. Poisons are nasty for everyone, so I prefer organic
> agriculture (which, in turn, makes the fields more full of life to be
> endangered at harvest time, but them's the breaks).
===========================
Organic? You do realize that organic doesn't cruelty-free pesticides,
and that many organic pesticides have to be applied up to 6 times during
the season? Several ,more passes of all those machines.
>
> > > > All I point out is that you have far more than enough death and
> > > > suffering on your own hands to concentrate on before you start
> > > > bashing others for something that you will not do anything
> > > > that truly helps animals.
> > >
> > > That last sentence got really mangled towards the end. I'm not sure
> > > what you meant to say. Would you fix it, please?
> > ============================
> > Just that veg*ns have more than enough death and suffering to worry
> > about in their own lifstyles. That's where they have a real impact, yet
> > instead they concentrate on the lifstle of others. They demonize others
> > for animal death and suffering, yet really do nothing in their own lives
> > that has any real positive impact. Hypocritcal
>
> Those who do that are indeed hypocritical. That doesn't mean that the aims
> of non-hypocritical vegans are at fault.
============================
Aims? Again, just a word. A word not backed up by any action that you
have demonstrated any of these veg*ns take. You can't point to one on
usenet at isn't hypocritical.
=========================
Nope, I just know how much time it would take for them to be truly
self-sufficient. they couldn't spend any time here, and then, if their
'ethics' has them being self-sufficient and it means that much to them,
I'd doubt they would blow their 'ethics'just be another hypocritical
usenet poster. Do you?
-----------------------
Which makes them the hypocrites that the veg*ns on these newsgroups are.
That's all I've ever said.
But I
> have to say again that not all vegans are like that. You just seem to have
> met up with a bad lot, unfortunately. (And the bad lots are usually the
> ones that make the most noise.)
>
> > > A person has to choose where they feel there's a point to arguing
> > > and where there isn't. Maybe the vegans who hang out here simply
> > > think that going beyond meat vs. veggie is quibbling
> > > and not worth the effort.
> > ==========================
> > You really do fail to see the hypocrisy in that, don't you? It's their
> > 'ethic', it's their moral code. Why concern themselves with those of
> > others, without fully reflecting on their own contributions to animal
> > death and suffering?
>
> That isn't hypocracy. Hypocracy is what we were talking about just above,
> not practicing what you preach, focusing solely on the lifestyles of others
> instead of really looking at your own. This is different. A vegan might
> want to never even discuss veganism at all.. with anyone! That doesn't make
> him or her a hypocrite. It's the mismatch of words and deeds that make a
> hypocrite, not debating style.
============================
Nope. "quibbling" about only meat vs veggie, when you fail to take in
the different choices you have, is hypocritical. That is talking about
someone else's choices without doing what you could to improve yours.
>
> > But some of them are just as vocal, and sometimes more profane in their
> > 'discussions' with veg*ns. Again, vegan is not a diet. It's a belief
> > system. A religious agenda.
>
> For some people, being vegan has nothing to do with suffering or AR or any
> of that. For some, it just means not eating meat or eggs or dairy products.
====================
Then that is vegetarian. Look up the origins of Vegan, it's a contrived
word, made up by one person, and was used to designate a 'lifestyle',
not a diet.
> Some self-professed vegans eat honey, wear leather, and kick their cats.
==============================
Then they are not vegans.
> Both definitions of the word are in my dictionary. Maybe we need a new
> word, eh?
>
> > > > Oh yeah, that's right, the 'indirect' ones don't count for as
> > > > much as the direct ones, eh?
> > >
> > > Since the indirect killings are probably more insects than anything
> > > else, I'd say you're probably right -- most people would say they
> > > don't count for as much.
> > ========================
> > Why do you insist on bringing in bugs to the equaltion? You realize I'm
> > only discussing mammals, reptiles, birds and amphibians, don't you?
>
> No, I didn't realize that. Bugs are animals, you know, and an awful lot of
> them die in the fields, so if you're into body counting - which you seem to
> be - well...
========================
Then tell that to the next vegan you talk too. He'll not like hearing
how he kills that many animals.
==================================
For simple minds, ok. But your marbles example used a number. Maybe a
number you didn't know exactly, but it had a value you could see. There
was also a 'number' or a definite value to the number of marbles you
took out. You measured a reduction. Why is that simply too much for
you to see.
But anyway, it was a diversion. Veg*ns do not KNOW they minimize. They
cannot KNOW they minimize, without a beginning and an ending reference.
A *value*, a *number*. Just saying something is minimized doesn't make
it so. That statement not simple enough even for you?
>
> > > > > A big pile of bodies is not required.
> > > > -----------------------------
> > > > Yes there are, according to your analogy, they are the 'marbles'.
> > >
> > > You're incorrect. The choice of what the marbles would represent was
> > > mine, and I didn't choose bodies. Read it again...
> > =============================
> > But our discussion is not about the death and suffering of marbles. Why
> > would you assume that the analogy would represent anything else but
> > bodies in this thread?
>
> Good lord, how many times do I have to say it? Jonathan and I digressed.
> We got into a math question because he made some absolute statements, and I
> felt the need to give him an example that proved them wrong. I never said
> that ALL situations are like a bowl of marbles. It was simply an example to
> illustrate for him that his absolute statement was not true for all
> situations.
===========================
Then again, analogies are not your strong suit. That was not an example
of reduction without 'numbers'.
>
> > > Our problem is that you're looking at bodies, while I'm looking at
> > > connections.
> > -----------------------------------------
> > LOL That sure helps cause less death and suffering in your mind, eh?
>
> That ain't got nuthin to do with it.
======================
Sure it does. Call them anything you like, as long as it's not 'dead
bodies' and you can discuss it with ease, and a clear mind.
>
> > > I see them as different things; you don't.
> > ======================
> > The animals are just as dead, and suffered just as much. Why do you
> > insist on 'looking' at their death and suffering differently?
>
> Maybe because I've spent too much time in classrooms where ideas are looked
> at from many different angles instead of with blinkers on.
----------------------
You should take yours off, then.
>
> > If I look at it
> > > your way, I see what you're saying. But again, my experience of
> > vegans is
> > > that they aren't concerned with absolute numbers of dead bodies;
> > ====================
> > Of course they're not!! That's my point, they prefer to hate and
> > demonize others instead! They are concerned with only the dead bodies
> > that others eat, while ignoring the animals that just get killed, and
> > left to rot. Why is the disposition of the bodies of such importance?
>
> Easy there, big fella. I just don't want you demonizing the thinking vegans
> along with all the trendy and hypocritical vegans out there.
=======================
Hey, you are the one that just admitted that the veg*ns you know don't
care about the 'body count'. I already claim that the ones I know don't,
so I guess the intersecting area just got larger, eh? thanks!
>
> > they give more weight to the suffering of "higher" animals, so they
> > weigh both the number of animals killed and the type of animals killed.
> > ======================
> > LOL What are 'higher' animals? Cows are worth more than pigs, which
> > are worth more than rats, which are worth more than birds, and on, and
> > on? Isn't death, death? Or do bigger animals suffer more somehow?
>
> In my experience, that's just the way people are. They look at the death of
> a bird as less of a big deal than that of a human.. that of an insect as
> less than that of a bird.. etc. That's just a fact of human nature as I see
> it.
===========
But, we're not talking about 'people' in general, we're talking about
those that specifically say that animal death and suffering is the basis
of their 'ethics' and lifestyle. The 'human nature' of a hypocrite,
read veg*n, is to blame others for something they only give lip-service
to.
>
> > > > You have no starting reference, such as a jar of bodies, I mean
> > > > marbles.
> > >
> > > The starting reference is Zeek's former lifestyle.
> > ====================
> > But, as I have stated before, he has no reference to base his reduction
> > on. It's all smoke and mirrors, and lys.
>
> Depends on how you look at it. Stretch your brain a bit.
======================================
There is no stretch that says you can make the reduction by just saying
you are.
>
> > > Take X - Y = Z to represent the situation described above with the
> > > bowl of marbles, where X is the initial number of marbles in the
> > > bowl, Y is the number of marbles removed, and Z is the final number
> > > of marbles in the bowl.
> > >
> > > Z < X
> > >
> > > We can say that without knowing the value of any of the variables.
> > =================================
> > But you still have an indication of a starting 'value', and an ending
> > 'value' that is determinable by just a casual glance.
>
> Yes, it's qualitative, not quantitative. That's what I was trying to point
> out to Jonathan. You're getting there... :D
==========================
But you still can't apply it to the discussion at hand.
>
> > > > > Please list some of these very easy ways that the average vegan
> > > > > won't consider.
> > > > =======================
> > > > I've already posted them, many times.
> > >
> > > I'll have to do some Google research to find them, then, since I
> > > haven't spent much time in this group. Did you post them using
> > > the same e-mail address you're using now?
> > =================================
> > Every post I make is on this account, has been for probably 5 years.
>
> OK. I'll try to find what you're talking about.
>
> > > > But since they are meat-included diets, veg*ns would prefer to
> > > > remain in their blind religious sanctimony.
> > >
> > > Some would. Some wouldn't.
> > ========================
> > Then they aren't veg*n, are they?
>
> Only if having blind, religious sanctimony is part of what defines veganism.
> For you, it seems that it is. For me, it's not.
>
> I have to go to work now, and group members are no doubt seething about the
> size of this post, so maybe we should cut it waaaaaaay down in future.
================================
LOL We're probably both filtered by most of them now anyway.
rick etter
===========================
Obviously, you have read "NO" research. Now we know how ignorant you
are.
rick etter
>
> To rick etter:
>
> What am I supposed to do? I do what I feel in my heart. I am a vegan.
> You, on the other hand, can continue (like many others) critizing people
> in a VEGAN chat group for being VEGANS and questioning our beliefs.
Hey, no problem your false beliefs are yours to hold.
>
> I am healthy, happy and I continue to love animals. And, I enjoy waking
> up in the morning knowing that I have a great diet that keeps me healthy
> - and NOT have to contribute to eating animals.
=============================
I notice you state 'eating' animals. Why is the disposition of the
bodies of any importance. If you truly cared, you wouldn't cause their
death and suffering, just to let them rot, either.
Bastesens
>
> To: Lithcable-
>
> And you obviously read the research conducted by cowboys and slaughter
> houses.
No, it was research conducted by real scientists and
published in real peer-reviewed journals.
> Ignorance is in a person's mind - not their hearts.
You seem to prefer ignorant fantasy over reality. Tell
us how you know that livestock "know when they are
going to be slaughtered."
You seem to be insisting that you are not ignorant -
let's hear it.
And while you are up to it, let's hear how you manage
avoid animal deaths in your diet.
-
lillyc...@webtv.net
pertaining to animals. Sure, whatever you say. I mean YOU would know.
Here you are in a VEGAN chat room defending your eating animals,
literally, to Vegans.
My beliefs, to you, are false. Again, we're talking about ignorance
here. And not on my part...
I am in the Vegan chat room - hoping to chat with Vegans. The only
false beliefs I have are the beliefs that ALL of the people in this
group are Vegans -
And the only thing I am going to kill is my defending my beliefs to an
ignorant asshole that is probably eating a hamburger, dripping with
blood, reading this.
Take care, Mr. 'Eatter'! And GO VEGAN!
rick etter
<lillyc...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:25167-3C...@storefull-133.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> To Rick Etter: You are now stating I (a vegan) cause 'their' deaths -
> pertaining to animals. Sure, whatever you say. I mean YOU would
know.
> Here you are in a VEGAN chat room defending your eating animals,
> literally, to Vegans.
===========================
Yes, I do know. You cause the death and suffering of animals. You care
nothing about that death and suufering. You prove that everytime you
post your inanities to usenet.
>
> My beliefs, to you, are false. Again, we're talking about ignorance
> here. And not on my part...
--------------------------
Yes, either your willful stupidity, or absolute ignorance. Your choise,
killer.
>
> I am in the Vegan chat room - hoping to chat with Vegans. The only
> false beliefs I have are the beliefs that ALL of the people in this
> group are Vegans -
========================
LOL Now you are lying. You have to know that your lifestyle causes
death and suffering to animals, you just choose to keep your blinders
firmly in place and sing la-la-la-la with your fingers in your ears like
the little girl who doesn't want to hear that it's bedtime.
>
> And the only thing I am going to kill is my defending my beliefs to an
> ignorant asshole that is probably eating a hamburger, dripping with
> blood, reading this.
==========================
Ignorance is all you have, killer. either that or absolute stupidity
and lys.
>
> Take care, Mr. 'Eatter'! And GO VEGAN!
==============================
Why? You obviously haven't caught on to the true meaning of vegan, as
you are not one!
Now, have a nice blood-drenched breaskfast, killer. Those veggies got
to you at the cost of animal death and suffering, as did posting you
ignorance and stupidity for all to see.
This question is for kelolos benefit, "...Do any animals suffer or die
in the
chain of events that brings your vegan food to your plate?" You keep
claiming they don't. so clear it up for us, do you cause the death and
suffering of animals, and if you do, why to you pretend not to care?
Bastesens
-
> I am in the Vegan chat room
No, this is an unmoderated usenet group, not a chat
room.
You have to wonder about webtv subscribers...
-
Kelolo
> > > But you've totally missed the point of the discussion. You cannot
> > > assume a reduction just because you say there's a reduction. There
> > > has to be a start and ending reference. Your can't just make the
> > > claim of reduction and expect to be taken seriously.
> >
> > You are confusing the math part of the conversation and the veganism
> > part of the conversation.
> ============================
> Only to the point that you had to bring a 'math' portion in to try to
> deflect the conversation from what is was really about
If you go back and read how this all started, you'll see that Jonathan was
the one who originally brought up minimizing, counting, and numerical
claims.
> animals death and suufering, and it's reduction. Something you
> continue to fail at making any attempt at really discussing.
Why am I spending my time on these mile-long posts if I'm not *attempting*
to have a sane, rational discussion with you? I'm making the attempt, but
whether I'm successful or not depends on both of us. It takes two to tango.
> > > > AAAAAAUGH! This is about math, people! There are two separate
> > > > conversations going on here. One is about math; the other is
> > > > about veganism. They intersect at Zeek, NOT here.
> > > =============================
> > > Then stay on topic for the thread. It's about reduction of animal
> > > deaths.
> >
> > There isn't one topic here. It's a conversation. It has all sorts of
> > twists and turns and tangents. Anyone who wants to jump in should be
> > sure they understand the context before they do so.
> ======================
> Really, then why did you try to say I was diverging off topic?
I'm sure there were perfectly logical steps between where you started and
where you ended up, but if those steps were in your head instead of in your
post, I couldn't read them. It looks like you don't read over your posts
before you send them. It would probably help us all out if you would.
> > > but even so your 'math' is about 'numbers' anyway. You've
> > > already ascribed 'values' to x,y,z, so you don't have really
> > > indeterminent numbers anyway.
Setting parameters for variables is not the same as ascribing values to
them.
If you truly believe that a person always has to count in order to know when
something has been lessened, there's nothing I can do for you. Good luck.
> > How much math have you had in school? You seem to be out of your
> > depth here.
> -------------------------------------------
> LOL more than necessary to see you floundering around trying to excuse
> an agenda with a seperate issue because you don't want to stay on the
> topic at hand. It's and old, and usual ploy that veg*ns employ
> regularly.
You would rather talk about veganism, and I'm happy to do that. I just hope
that we can keep the forests of quoting arrows from taking over our entire
posts.
Gotta go to work now...
rick etter
>
> Dearest Rick wrote
> > > > But you've totally missed the point of the discussion. You cannot
> > > > assume a reduction just because you say there's a reduction. There
> > > > has to be a start and ending reference. Your can't just make the
> > > > claim of reduction and expect to be taken seriously.
> > >
> > > You are confusing the math part of the conversation and the veganism
> > > part of the conversation.
> > ============================
> > Only to the point that you had to bring a 'math' portion in to try to
> > deflect the conversation from what is was really about
>
> If you go back and read how this all started, you'll see that Jonathan was
> the one who originally brought up minimizing, counting, and numerical
> claims.
That's not my point. My point is your marble example will not prove
anything in either portion of the post. Animal deaths, or minimizing
without numbers. It fails both ways.
>
> > animals death and suufering, and it's reduction. Something you
> > continue to fail at making any attempt at really discussing.
>
> Why am I spending my time on these mile-long posts if I'm not *attempting*
> to have a sane, rational discussion with you? I'm making the attempt, but
> whether I'm successful or not depends on both of us. It takes two to tango.
=============================
That's all I try to keep discussing, you on the other hand continue to
try to take off course.
>
> > > > > AAAAAAUGH! This is about math, people! There are two separate
> > > > > conversations going on here. One is about math; the other is
> > > > > about veganism. They intersect at Zeek, NOT here.
> > > > =============================
> > > > Then stay on topic for the thread. It's about reduction of animal
> > > > deaths.
> > >
> > > There isn't one topic here. It's a conversation. It has all sorts of
> > > twists and turns and tangents. Anyone who wants to jump in should be
> > > sure they understand the context before they do so.
> > ======================
> > Really, then why did you try to say I was diverging off topic?
>
> I'm sure there were perfectly logical steps between where you started and
> where you ended up, but if those steps were in your head instead of in your
> post, I couldn't read them.
--------------------------
LOL You just don't read well, eh? Don't blame me for your lack.
It looks like you don't read over your posts
> before you send them. It would probably help us all out if you would.
>
> > > > but even so your 'math' is about 'numbers' anyway. You've
> > > > already ascribed 'values' to x,y,z, so you don't have really
> > > > indeterminent numbers anyway.
>
> Setting parameters for variables is not the same as ascribing values to
> them.
======================
Again, you fail at comprehension. 'Parameters' are values.
You state where you are and where you want to go, then claim by some
magic you're there. Doesn't work that way. Not with dead bodies or
marbles.
>
> If you truly believe that a person always has to count in order to know when
> something has been lessened, there's nothing I can do for you. Good luck.
============================
Are you really this stupid? Again, apply this to a veg*n claim of
reduction. Apparently you can't, since you continue to slide off into
never-never land of non-math.
>
> > > How much math have you had in school? You seem to be out of your
> > > depth here.
> > -------------------------------------------
> > LOL more than necessary to see you floundering around trying to excuse
> > an agenda with a seperate issue because you don't want to stay on the
> > topic at hand. It's and old, and usual ploy that veg*ns employ
> > regularly.
>
> You would rather talk about veganism, and I'm happy to do that. I just hope
> that we can keep the forests of quoting arrows from taking over our entire
> posts.
======================
Then you really should note the snipping you do, especially when you
accuse others of it.
Jonathan Ball
>>>Jen wrote
>>>
>>>>>>>I am a vegan for ethical reasons, with healthful effects being a nice
>>>>>>>side benefit :) I refuse to use products which cause animal death,
>>>>>>>
>>>Jonathan wrote
>>>
>>>>>>Is that so?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Then you refuse to use any western medicine, right?
>>>>>>Ones that were tested on animals?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Actually, you must refuse to eat, too. Unless you grow
>>>>>>your own food hydroponically, virtually everything you
>>>>>>eat caused the deaths of animals along the way.
>>>>>>
>>>Kelolo wrote
>>>
>>>>>*Caused* the deaths.. or *benefitted from* the deaths?
>>>>>
> >>>
>
>>>>Caused. Animals are killed in the course of tilling fields.
>>>>
>>>Yes, yes, and we kill microscopic critters with every shower and with
>>>every step. We know.
>>>
>>No, it goes far beyond microscopic critters.
>>
>
> You misunderstand me.
I don't misunderstand you at all. You made a
categorical statement: "I refuse to use products which
cause animal death". You made that statement because
you don't consume products that contain animal parts
(that you know of), and also because you avoid products
that are well known to "vegans" to involve some use of
animals. But you eat, and animals - mammals and birds,
not just "microscopic critters" - are killed in the
production of the food you eat. Therefore, your
statement is false: you *do* use products *whose
production* causes animal death.
Were you ignorantly mistaken in making the statement,
or were you lying?
> I'm not saying that only microscopic critters are
> killed in the fields. I'm just saying that it's neverending. Some animal
> is always being killed, even in the most mundane and seemingly harmless
> activities, directly or indirectly. Anyone who thinks about it for a little
> while knows that. Ethical-type vegans are just trying to distance
> themselves from that killing as much as they reasonably can.
Thank you for your inadvertent candor. You're not
trying to minimize the killing, not even really trying
to reduce it; you're merely trying to put some kind of
ethical *distance* between you and it; trying to wash
your hands of it, in other words.
That is the very essence of sanctimony.
>
>
>>The
>>animals killed in the course of farming are mammals and
>>birds, among others: two of the very classes of
>>animals "vegans" claim not to be killing by their diet.
>>
>
> Let's say then that numbers of mammals and birds killed is all that matters
> here (for the moment).
No. That isn't what matters. That constitutes a
goalpost move on your part. It's unethical to do that
in debate.
What matters is your categorical claim - "I refuse to
use products which cause animal death" - and your
reason for making it. Your reason is not because you
truly want to stop the killing of animals; it is rather
your sanctimonious desire to put ethical distance
between the killing and you.
> Do you think more mammals and birds are killed in
> the vegetable fields than in the slaughterhouses?
I don't care. What I care about is the disgusting
sanctimony of your stance, with its presumption of
ethical superiority. The presumption is false.
>
> If these vegans were asked whether they have any connection to any animal
> killing whatsoever, do you really believe they would claim that they did
> not?
Some do make the claim that they bear no moral
responsibility for the killing, not that they have no
connection to it. Go over to
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, and read the ravings of
Derek Nash, who posts under the pseudonym "firstoftwins".
> I don't think many of them would. Those who would make that claim
> would be answering without thinking. But there is nothing wrong with
> working towards an unreachable goal.
The goal of *no* animal deaths is absurd. The goal of
reducing them isn't, but then you need to know if any
step you take in pursuit of it actually moves you
closer to it. The mere act of not eating meat, by
itself, might not move you closer at all; depending on
what you substitute in place of meat, and depending
also on how that meat was produced and obtained,
refraining from eating meat might move you
substantially farther *away* from the goal.
I don't suggest it necessarily would, but when "vegans"
are so ignorant, or dishonest, that they make claims
such as "I refuse to use products which cause animal
death", when those claims are disproved with trivial
ease, then it's a pretty safe bet they have not made
any effort to measure their actual impact.
>
>
>>>>>To me, it's all just different points along a continuum.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>What a load of crap.
>>>>
>>>Does that translate to "I acknowledge no difference between one who
>>>kills intensionally and one who kills accidentally"?
>>>
>>No, it translates to calling your obfuscating
>>psychobabble about "points along a continuum" a load of
>>crap.
>>
>
> LOL! Do you honestly think that the concept of a continuum is psychobabble?
I think your introduction of it into this discussion is
psychobabble. You have no idea where you are along the
continuum.
>
>
>>>>>You cannot live on
>>>>>this planet without benefitting from the deaths of animals, but you can
>>>>>certainly avoid causing their deaths directly.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>The directness of it is irrelevant. She said that she
>>>>refuses to use products that cause animal death. Meat,
>>>>leather, wool, dairy products (!) and others do not
>>>>"cause" animal death.
>>>>
>>>You don't think that parasites on the sheep, or the cattle, or the dairy
>>>animals get killed in the process of those products coming to market?
>>>
>>>
>>>>>My impression is that Jen is just trying to live her life as close
>>>>>to one end of that continuum as possible.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>My impression is that she has fallen for a simple,
>>>>silly logical fallacy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>I think that the worst thing that can be said about Jen's statements is
>>>that she didn't choose her words as carefully as she could have. But
>>>her meaning is clear, isn't it? She believes [Correct me if I'm wrong
>>>here, Jen.] that effort and intension
>>>
>>Intent
>>
>
> Yup, that's the word I meant. (I didn't even spell the wrong word right!)
>
>
>>>mean something and that killing of animals is something
>>>to be avoided whenever possible,
>>>
>>Well, here we go, then. It is almost certainly
>>possible for her to pursue a diet that kills fewer
>>animals than those that are killed by her current diet.
>>
>
> But isn't that the whole idea in a nutshell? Why all this nitpicking?
If we were to take her at her word, it *should* be the
whole idea. But when someone believes that refraining
from eating animals is "good enough" in terms of
reducing the death toll, it's clear that she isn't
really concerned with the reduction; she's more
concerned with her *relative* status on only the most
visible components.
>
>
>>You are edging close to saying that she is "minimizing"
>>animal deaths caused by her diet.
>>
>
> I didn't say "minimizing", as you know, but let's just pretend that I did.
> You seem to be just itching to cover this point.
>
>
>>We both know this is bullshit:
>>
>>1. She hasn't counted; nor has any other "vegan".
>> Without a count, you can't make a numerical claim.
>>
>
> To claim to minimize is not to make a numerical claim. According to my
> dictionaries, to minimize is to reduce or keep to a minimum, to lessen.
It is inherently a numerical claim, even if the numbers
aren't precisely known. If I write X < Y, then I am
saying that if I *were* to determine precise numbers
for X and Y, I would be able to demonstrate
arithmetically that X is a smaller precise number than Y.
Say I construct a simple and crude balance type of
scale, maybe a plank of wood atop some kind of fulcrum.
The plank balances with nothing on it. Now I place a
rock on each end of the plank, and one end of the plank
dips to the ground. Without knowing the precise weight
in grams or ounces or any other unit of measure, I have
measured the relative weight of the two rocks, and I
know which one is heavier, in whatever units of weight
measure you wish to use.
> There is nothing in lessening that requires counting.
There is indeed something in it that requires
measurement, which I've seen elsewhere you claim to be
distinct from counting. But counting is a form of
measurement, and when you assert a value of zero - "I
refuse to use products which cause animal death" - then
there is an implied counting on your end.
Furthermore, you have to know not only the death count
of what you *don't* eat, but the count behind what you
do eat. This is where so-called "ethical" vegetarians
get hopelessly lost. They assume that because they
don't eat meat, with a known death count from the meat
itself, they don't cause *any* death, based on their
diet. But they don't even examine the collateral
deaths caused by what they *do* eat, until a skeptic
points it out to them.
Now, *within* the category of a vegetarian diet, there
can be wild differences in the death count. If you ate
only nuts and fruits that you personally picked from
wild trees, you're going to have an exceptionally low
death count. But if you eat maize and wheat and,
especially, rice, you're going to be slaughtering
animals by the thousands.
But "vegans" simply focus on what they *don't* eat:
meat. They have no freaking idea how much death they
actually cause.
> You don't have to
> know how many marbles are in the fish bowl to know that there are fewer
> after you remove some. (And who's to say that I'm finished? I could
> continue to lessen until I reach the true numerical minimum. By your
> definition, would that make all my previous reductions along the way stages
> in minimization?)
You do have to know that your act of removing them
doesn't somehow cause an even greater quantity of
marbles to be placed into another bowl. Merely by not
eating meat, you don't know that.
>
>
>>2. Even *within* the broad category of "fruits and
>> vegetables", it is obvious that some combinations
>> cause fewer deaths than others. She has not made
>> any effort, nor has any "vegan", to ensure that her
>> particular combination causes the minimum.
>>
>
> To minimize is not only, as you seem to think, to achieve the minimum
> possible. See any decent dictionary.
Then you have made it essentially a synonym for
"reduce", and it clearly has another, stronger meaning.
But "reduce" doesn't sound powerful enough for the
"vegan", who wishes to claim he doesn't cause *any*
animal death: "I refuse to use [ANY] products which
cause [ANY] animal death".
The use of "minimize" to mean merely "reduce" may find
some support in dictionaries, but clearly "vegans"
don't *really* mean merely "reduce". They want, and
intend to grant themselves, the ethical cachet that
comes from truly minimizing: reaching the lowest
number possible, not merely a reduction.
>
>
>>>even if the ultimate goal of complete
>>>separation of oneself from animal death can never be achieved.
>>>
>>>You and Jen are very similar, in a way. In my short time here, I have
>>>seen
>>>ample evidence that you have the goal of showing everyone in this group
>>>how smart you are.
>>>
>>No, that's false.
>>
>
> It may be false that that's your goal, but it isn't false that I have seen
> what I consider to be evidence to the contrary. That judgment is up to me.
You're talking nonsense: you concede that it may be
false that that's my goal, but then you say that you're
free to judge that it *is* my goal after all, based on
your (mis)interpretation of "evidence".
>
>
>>>Although you are not succeeding, you continue to try.
>>>Clearly you see *some* value in expending effort in the pursuit of an
>>>unattainable goal.
>>>
>>I see some value in continuing to tell people who adopt
>>false ethical stances that their stances are false.
>>
>
> And what value do you see in doing that in an obnoxious way? If the value
> is in educating people about the falseness of their ethical stances, don't
> you think you're reducing the value of your own actions by putting people on
> the defensive with personal attacks? "You'll catch more flies with honey
> than with vinegar, Sonny Jim."
The "nice" approach has never worked in combatting
sanctimony.
>
>
>>At least one participant who came into
>>alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian abandoned his claim of
>>ethical virtue based solely on being vegetarian. He
>>never credited me directly, and it wouldn't matter to
>>me if he had; it was apparent that the cumulative
>>weight of opinion of those opponents of "AR" and its
>>close cousin, "veganism", helped to persuade him that
>>the claim to being "virtuous" was false.
>>
>
> I think you'd have many more success stories to tell if you had better
> manners. You are your arguments' worst enemy.
This is a political war that's being waged, pal. I
don't know how many "vegans" here support, financially
and/or politically, extremist "animal rights" and
"animal liberation" groups like PeTA and ALF and
"Justice Department", but those groups don't play
"nice". In the case of the latter two, they have
engaged in violent criminal behavior, including
physical assaults on people.
I'm not interested in playing "nice" with groups like
that. I want to see them destroyed, and their leaders
serving lengthy prison terms.
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
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
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
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
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.
In addition to contributing to the lives of farm animals,
people could also reduce the number of deaths which they
contribute to by eating some types of meat instead of clinging
to a strictly veg*n diet. People who eat grass fed beef, or
wildlife that has been hunted, can often get many meals from
the death of only one animal. One veg*n meal is likely to
involve the death of more animals than 100+ meals of grass fed
beef.·
rick etter
"Bastesens" <lith...@fan.club> wrote in message
news:3C62841B...@fan.club...
At least she's not using those annoying little animated gifs that I
thought at one time webtvers appeared to be required to use! :-)
Kelolo
> > > Youn still didn't answer what kind of things they do to define
> > > themselves.
> >
> > You wouldn't list specific notions of yours, notions I'm going to have
to
> > dig around for, and YOU want ME to define vegan for you? LOL! You, a
person
> > who has been reading and posting in this newsgroup for 5 years, need me
to
> > define vegan for you? Grab a dictionary, son. :D
> ========================
> Having as much problems with reading comprehension as math, I see. I
> didn't ask for a definition of veg*n, I ask what veg*ns "do" to define
> themselves. You said they *do* things to define themselves, I say they
> just *say* things to define themselves. their actions mean nothing in
> regards to whether they are minimizing animal death and suffering.
A perfectly respectable online dictionary, www.m-w.com, has this one entry
for "vegan":
Pronunciation: 'vE-g&n also 'vA- also 've-j&n or -"jan
Function: noun
Etymology: by contraction from vegetarian
Date: 1944
: a strict vegetarian who consumes no animal food or dairy products; also :
one who abstains from using animal products (as leather)
- veg·an·ism /'vE-g&-"ni-z&m, 'vA-g&-, 've-j&-/ noun
Note that it doesn't say whether or not these defining actions of vegans
have the effect of reducing animal suffering in the world, or of improving
their health, or of lowering their food bill, or of whatever it is they're
aiming for. That isn't part of what "vegan" means. Vegans are defined by
their actions, not by why they do what they do, and not by whether their
actions have the impact they hope for. So.. if you know the definition of
the word, you know what vegans do, and you don't need to ask me.
> > > > > Like I just said, many just make the proclamation without any
> > > > > true effort to understand their impact. They take it on faith
from
> > > > > groups like PeTA, making it nothing more than the religious agenda
> > > > > that it really is.
> > > >
> > > > They take what on faith? You're sliding from one topic to another.
> > > > Could we stick with one at a time, please?
> > > =====================
> > > Not sliding at all, that's what veg*nism is all about. faith that
your
> > > diet does all that you claim, despite 'seeing' otherwise.
> >
> > We were talking, in the part you snipped, about whether vegans are all
talk
> > and no action or not. Then you started talking about taking something
on
> > faith. That is a slide.
> ------------------------------
> Really? I don't think I made any snips. I've never strayed from that
> subject, you on the other hand decided that it was safer for you to talk
> about marbles.
Let me help you...
===
> > > Ethical-type vegans are just trying to distance themselves
> > > from that killing as much as they reasonably can.
>
> > By doing what? Making the proclamation, 'I'm veg*n, therefore I
> > don't kill?'
>
> By doing the things that define someone as a vegan.
Such as? Like I just said, many just make the proclamation without any
true effort to understand their impact.
===It was about doing vs. proclaiming, then you brought "effort to
understand their impact" into it. Then you added
They take it on faith from groups like PeTA, making it nothing more
than the religious agenda that it really is.
===
So I ask again.. They take what on faith?
> > They just think suffering they cause directly is more significant, I
guess.
> ===========================
> But why? Dead is dead, as far as the animal is concerned.
The people you want to talk about are those who are vegan for ethical
reasons. That means that they consider the death and/or suffering of
animals in the light of moral choices. Your "dead is dead" response just
doesn't cut it when ethics and morals come into play. I can just see you
trying to defend yourself in court against a charge of murder: "Hey, what's
the difference? I either slammed his head onto my tile floor or he slipped
and fell and hit his head on my tile floor. The guy's dead. Dead is dead.
What's the difference?"
> > > You can talk about it all you want. It makes no difference to the
> > > animals, at either end. They end up just as dead. Some of them just
> > > die far more horrible deaths at the hands of veg*ns than others.
> >
> > There are groups out there that want everyone to stop using all ag
chemicals
> > and go back to doing everything by hand. They ain't too popular, but
they'r
> > e out there.
> ========================
> And that applies to the comment you're responding to, how?
Your comment implied that the raising of vegan vittles results more horrible
deaths than any other sort of food production. I was saying that it isn't
the fact that it's food for vegans that is the problem. It's the methods.
If you don't use chemicals, plows, tillers, etc., you can raise food for
vegans while causing far fewer animal deaths of any sort.
Let's look at the big picture here, shall we? Don't you realize that the
cattle that go to that oh-so-humane slaughterhouse of yours are fed using
the very methods that cause all those horrible collateral deaths you blame
vegans for? Or do you think that meat cattle graze their lives away in
sunny pastures?
> > > > Vegans have to eat to live, and eating always involves killing, so
> > > > they have to choose what sort of killing they will accept.
> > > ---------------------------
> > > What kind, but not how much? How can you claim 'minimization' then?
> >
> > I've mentioned their concern about how much, just not in that paragraph.
> > Think back.
> =======================
> I responded to what you wrote then. You didn't answer it, again.
Hmmm. Would you care to take me on one of those trips down memory lane? I
must be thinking of a different exchange than you are.
> > > BS They don't think for a minute about plants. Come to think of it,
> > > they don't think anything about animals either, except those that
others
> > > are killing. They conveniently ignore or downplay those that they
> > > cause.
> >
> > It seems that the vegans you know and the vegans I know are quite
different.
> > If I hang around this newsgroup for a while, I might find that the folks
> > here are the kind of vegans you're used to.
> >
> > > Why do you insist on a preoccupation now with bugs? I've never
included
> > > them. Why would you?
> >
> > They're animals! And they probably make up the vast majority of the
> > indirect deaths in the fields. I thought field deaths were a big
concern of
> > yours.
> =================================
> No, I don't consider bugs as animals.
LOL! It ain't up to you! :D :D
> But, if you would like to include them, then veg*ns have far, far,
> more death and suffering on their hands.
And the veggies that fed that supermarket steak eat come from where?
> > > I'm talking about mammals, reptiles, birds,
> > > amphibians, fish. Which ones of those don't matter to veg*ns as much
as
> > > say, a chicken, cow, pig?
> >
> > Are you saying that all these huge numbers of deaths you've been blaming
on
> > vegans are mostly in those categories?
> ==============================
> Bingo!! Give that man a ceegar!!! What do you think I've meant when
> I've said mammals, reptiles, birds, amphibians and fish?
The fact that you were talking about huge numbers was one of the main
reasons that I thought you must be including insects (that and the fact that
insects ARE ANIMALS :D).
> > > > All the vegans that I know do more than talk. Some of them go to
> > > > great lengths to minimize their connections to animal suffering &/or
> > > > killing.
> > > =======================
> > > By doing what? Be specific. Show how they prove they actually
achieve
> > > this minimization.
> >
> > I never said that they prove it. I just said that they do more than
just
> > talk.
> ===========================
> Then how do they do this, and KNOW that they have?
How do I know that I'm typing right now? How do you know that you're
breathing? These are stupid questions, Rick. If you want to talk about how
they know that their actions have had a particular EFFECT, then that's a
different question. If that's the question you mean to ask, why don't you
ask it?
> > How many times do I have to repeat myself? This is getting very
> > tiresome.
> =============================
> You keep repeating nothing! Again, claiming they do something to
> minimize, is NOT the same as minimizing.
I agree! Saying that they go to great lengths to minimize their connections
to animal suffering &/or killing is not, as you seem to be assuming, saying
that they achieve that minimization.
> You can't know that you do, just by saying so. Why do I have
> to keep telling you that?
We're going around in circles, and I think it's because I'm making a
distinction between actions (such as giving up meat or shredding documents)
and the effects of those actions (such as making the world a nicer place for
animals or making yourself look innocent). Even though you just said,
"claiming they do something to minimize, is NOT the same as minimizing", you
don't seem to understand when I make a very similar distinction. Why is
that?
> > > > Some of them think quite deeply about it too.
> > > ======================
> > > Thinking, and deeply too, my that saves plenty of animals I'm sure.
> >
> > You were claiming earlier that they always answer without thinking. I
was
> > just countering that claim.
> ---------------------------
> Mindless thought on a subject doesn't equal deeply thinking about a
> subject.
Did I say that it did? No. You're meandering again.
> > > > A few I know are into it because it's trendy; they deserve to be
> > > > sneered at (as does anyone who does something just because it's
trendy).
> > > ==========================
> > > By far the majority I've ever met. they have no clue as to what they
> > > really are doing.
> >
> > So you and I have had different experiences, met different vegans. The
> > difference is that I keep reminding you that there are different types
of
> > vegans while you keep sliding back into saying that they're all alike.
> ====================================
> If you'll notice I've always stated about the ones I know, or the ones
> posting to usenet.
You have not! :D
> The ones I know are plain loony, the ones on usenet
> prove their 'ethics' mean nothing by just being on usenet.
Oh, and what is it you're proving by being on usenet? LOL!
> > Well, it's unfortunate that you haven't met some of the sane and
sensible
> > vegans that I know.
> ========================
> If you know that kind, you should be able to answer the questions I've
> asked about what it is the *really* do to minimize animal death and
> suffering, and how they *know* they have. Why haven't you given that
> information yet?
Just because I know vegans whom I think to be sane and sensible people does
not mean that I am their mouthpiece. I haven't given that information
because you've been asking many of your questions very sloppily. I had to
guess that you were jumping from actions to effects when that was what you
had done. When you slid back and forth between math and veganism, I had to
try to keep you on track. When we're talking about definitions of words, I
try to keep to that. When we're talking about ethics of vegans, I try to
stick with that. It's hard to have a rational conversation with someone who
makes up their own definitions for key words (such as "animal").
What do they do to minimize animal death and suffering? Like I said, they
do the things that define them as vegans. Like I said, that's right there
in your dictionary. Like I said, doing things to minimize animal death and
suffering is not the same as actually minimizing animal death and suffering.
Like I said, intention does count. How do they know that they have done the
things that define themselves as vegan? Like I said, that's a stupid
question -- How do you know you're breathing? Like I said, your question as
you state it is different from what you want to ask. Like I said, you're
asking your questions sloppily.
You seem to want to ask these questions:
1. Do vegans, as a group, reduce the animal death and suffering in the
world?
2. How do you determine that?
3. Can an individual vegan reduce the animal death and suffering that they
personally cause?
4. How do you determine that?
I could ask you the very same questions, and your answers wouldn't be any
less faith-based, your numbers any less guesstimated, than anyone else's.
My answers to those questions are
1. I don't know.
2. The situation is too complex and my time too limited for proper research
into the numbers involved.
3. yes
4. I estimate it qualitatively. Others might come to a different
conclusion.
> Yes, it is. She even believes there is a super race of beings living
> inside a volcano in California. Not to mention all her quack medical
> posts.
Sounds like fun! :D
> > > > It's probably because direct suffering/death is usually avoidable,
> > > > while indirect suffering/death usually isn't.
> > > =============================
> > > Really? When was the last time you were out on a farm beating the
> > > fields to make animals run before the machines got there?
> >
> > When was the last time you saw scads of killed critters in the fields?
What
> > I have seen is lots of critters running away from noisy machines and
> > escaping into another field.
> ================================
> Better get to national geographic then, they'll wanna see these new
> instincts. Many prey animals freeze at the sign of danger. It's what
> nature has taught them as the way to deal with predators. Problem is,
> until now, predators haven't been 30' wide gnashing steel blades.
I've tried to catch a lot of critters in my day, and not a single one of
them froze when they saw me coming. If freezing were the most common
reaction to signs of danger, we wouldn't have any prey animals left! :D
> > > When was the last time you were at
> > > storage/processing facilities rounding up rats/mice instead of letting
> > > them be poisoned/trapped? I'd venture to say never.
> >
> > That's where you're wrong! :D I actually trapped many mice at a local
> > warehouse and let them go down the road. They probably just ran into
> > someone else's place and met a nasty end there, but hey.. at least
you're
> > wrong! :D
> >
> > > Your veggies come
> > > at that price. You can continue to ignore it, or downplay it all you
> > > want, but they are there, and noone has made any effort to stop them.
> > > That makes them as direct and deliberate as anything else.
> >
> > By that reasoning, all death is direct and deliberate, so what's the
point
> > in making a distinction at all?
> ===========================
> Exactly. It's a distinction that veg*ns hang their hat on. Makes feel
> so much better if then can convince themselves they really didn't mean
> to kill anything.
But like I said, these are ethical-type vegans we're talking about. That
brings us back to your murder trial.
> > Poisons are nasty for everyone, so I prefer organic
> > agriculture (which, in turn, makes the fields more full of life to be
> > endangered at harvest time, but them's the breaks).
> ===========================
> Organic? You do realize that organic doesn't cruelty-free pesticides,
> and that many organic pesticides have to be applied up to 6 times during
> the season? Several ,more passes of all those machines.
It looks like you're confusing "organic" as in "organic gardening" with
"organic" as in "organic chemistry". Which organic pesticides are you
talking about here?
Gotta run...
MrFalafel
> <lillyc...@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:12537-3C...@storefull-137.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> > I, too, am a vegan for ethical reasons. The health aspect just comes
> > with it. In any event, I do not wear leather, wool, etc. Animals are
> > extremely intelligent - the sad thing is, they know when they are
> going
> > to be slaughtered. It's horrific. Anyway, it's great to know that
> > there are lots of people that feel the same way I do - I just wish
> there
> > were more.
> ============================
> Why would you want there to be more ignorant hypocrites like you? You
> claim to care, yet you do nothing to stop the killing done merely for
> your convenience and selfishness. You prove that by posting your
> inanities to usenet for all the world to see.
Hey rick, do you have two brothers that are both named daryl?
rick etter
I do note that you cannot defend her stupidity, only make statements
that amuse you. You never answered why the animals you cause to die and
suffer don't count for as much as the ones killed for meat. Again, you
too, prove your hypocrisy by posting, thanks!
William Hershman
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@mindspring.NS.com> wrote in message
news:3C62BAA...@mindspring.NS.com...
>
> No. That isn't what matters. That constitutes a
> goalpost move on your part. It's unethical to do that
> in debate.
>
JB,
You are fine to talk of ethics. You ignored, or chose to not answer,
several of my questions in previous posts and threads.
Go on about ethics in a debate.....
Nick Name
argumentative, I am merely inquisitive. Could you possibly take a few
moments and explain, with specific answers and sources to back them up, how
Vegans cause more deaths than they prevent? Additionally, can you let us
know what would be a better path to take to reduce animal suffering? I am
not really getting any information from your posts that I can actually use
and apply to my life. I am not saying that I agree with you, but your
arguments are so forceful, I am curious about your mindset, and what you
believe the "absolute truths" to be.
In defense of Vegans, I would like to say that I know for myself, and the
posts that I have read, I have never witnessed any "presumption of
ethical superiority". I think you read too much into most of the posts here.
I don't feel superior to anyone who eats meat, goes hunting, whatever. It
makes me upset to eat meat. That's about me, not the rest of the world. I
come to this news group to get recipes and ideas- not to talk about how
superior I am to people who have different eating habits than myself.
rick etter
"Nick Name" <nick...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Dvc98.65635$jO5.8...@typhoon.tampabay.rr.com...
> O.K. Jonathan. I truly do not understand your logic. I am not trying
to be
> argumentative, I am merely inquisitive. Could you possibly take a few
> moments and explain, with specific answers and sources to back them
up, how
> Vegans cause more deaths than they prevent?
Well, I'll not try to put words in Jonathans mouth, but I don't think he
said that at all. The thing is veg*ns have no reference from which they
can make the statement that they have caused a reduction. It is
possible that they cause more than some meat-included diets. And, as
far as I'm concerned, the veg*ns that spend their time posting to usenet
are ones that are not 'doing all they can' to reduce animal death and
suffering anyway. Fake meat is a prime example. All the processing
that has to take place to produce a pound of fake meat I believe
outweighs the same pound of real meat in animal death and suffering.
Additionally, can you let us
> know what would be a better path to take to reduce animal suffering?
---------------------------------
If you're too selfish to give up your modern conveniences and spend the
large amout of time it would take to self-suffiecient in veggies, then I
believe a meat-included diet that relies on either game, or locally
raised, grass fed beef would be 'better' as far as numbers go. It has
the added benefit that it is usually hormone and antibiotic free. This
kind of meat is usually readily available. There is a growing market
for this. One large animal can replace 100s of thousands of calories of
veggies. Replacing an unknown number of deaths in the growing, storgae
and production of those veggies with just one death.
I am
> not really getting any information from your posts that I can actually
use
> and apply to my life. I am not saying that I agree with you, but your
> arguments are so forceful, I am curious about your mindset, and what
you
> believe the "absolute truths" to be.
=============================
I don't believe there are any 'absolute' truths, and I'd be surprised
that Jonathan would either on this subject. The biggest point is just
that veg*ns make all kinds of claims, yet they never have any
information to back up those claims. It's based on 'faith', for
veg*nism is nothing more than a religious agenda.
>
> In defense of Vegans, I would like to say that I know for myself, and
the
> posts that I have read, I have never witnessed any "presumption of
> ethical superiority". I think you read too much into most of the posts
here.
> I don't feel superior to anyone who eats meat, goes hunting, whatever.
It
> makes me upset to eat meat.
====================
Why? That's never been answered in a clear manner. Because an animal
died? That's no real reason, since animals die for many other aspects
of your(veg*n) life.
Whozat
lillyc...@webtv.net at lillyc...@webtv.net wrote on 2/6/02 8:22 AM:
No, one can see that the notmilk site is pure crap by reading the research
cited (but misrepresented) at the notmilk site.
Jonathan Ball
[...]
Hey, Rick! How is it living in the future?
March Madness is almost upon you; who are the top
ranked teams? I'd like to get a few bets down...
Kelolo
couldn't do it all at once. Some of us do have to tear ourselves away from
the computer for hours a day or even - gasp! - days at a time, y' know. :)
Since you get so upset about snipping, Rick, I'm only snipping some of the
quoting arrows from now on. I hope that works for you.
> > > > > All I point out is that you have far more than enough death and
suffering on your own hands to concentrate on before you start bashing
others for something that you will not do anything that truly helps animals.
> > > >
> > > > That last sentence got really mangled towards the end. I'm not sure
what you meant to say. Would you fix it, please?
> > >
> > > Just that veg*ns have more than enough death and suffering to worry
about in their own lifstyles. That's where they have a real impact, yet
instead they concentrate on the lifstle of others. They demonize others for
animal death and suffering, yet really do nothing in their own lives that
has any real positive impact. Hypocritcal
> >
> > Those who do that are indeed hypocritical. That doesn't mean that the
aims of non-hypocritical vegans are at fault.
>
> Aims? Again, just a word. A word not backed up by any action that you
have demonstrated any of these veg*ns take. You can't point to one on
usenet at isn't hypocritical.
It has never been my intention to prove that having vegans in the world
means that there is less animal suffering/death in the world, and I
certainly don't know enough about the personal life of anyone on usenet to
be able to judge whether they're a hypocrite or not.
As I have said, the question of whether vegans reduce the amount of animal
suffering/death in the world is too complex a question for me to answer.
You can't answer it either. All we can do is make qualitative estimates.
The main difference between us is that I admit that I don't know the answer,
while you insist that you do.
That's why I was shocked when you agreed with me on question #3. I guess
that was a typo, eh? ;)
> > > > > > Do you think that more mammals and birds were killed in 2001 in
all the vegetable fields of the world (combined) than in all the
slaughterhouses of the world (combined) during that same year? I'm only
asking for your opinion here. No numbers are needed.
> > > > > =======================
> > > > > Yes, I do.
> > > >
> > > > We disagree, then.
> > > ================
> > > That's why we're having this ah, er, 'discussion', eh? :-)
> >
> > Yup. :)
> >
> > > > > But why do you stop with just the fields? They also die in
storage and processing facilities just to keep your veggies clean and safe.
And, these are not 'indirect' killings. Those animals are targeted and
deliberately killed.
> > > >
> > > > That's assuming that vegans don't grow their own veggies. Some do.
> > > ==============================
> > > Some probably do. None of them here on these groups are
self-sufficient though. And, just by being on these groups proves that
their 'ethics' is far from really meaning anything in their lives.
> >
> > That's a mighty bold statement there, son! :D Me, I come to these
groups as a tourist, popping in once in a while, looking around, chatting
with some folks. You might know quite a few regulars, having been coming
here 5 years and all, but you don't know the heart and soul of everyone who
lurks. (Or do you have powers of which I should be made aware?)
> =========================
> Nope, I just know how much time it would take for them to be truly
self-sufficient.
And how do you know that?
> they couldn't spend any time here, and then, if their 'ethics' has them
being self-sufficient and it means that much to them, I'd doubt they would
blow their 'ethics'just be another hypocritical usenet poster. Do you?
What are you asking me? Do I doubt it or do I blow my ethics?
Because you have met vegans foolish enough to say that they have no
connections to animal suffering whatsoever, are you redefining "vegan" as a
person who has no connection whatsoever to animal suffering? If so, you
need to get yourself into a good logic class. :D
> -----------------------
> Which makes them the hypocrites that the veg*ns on these newsgroups are.
That's all I've ever said.
Not true. You have made many other statements about vegans and what they
all do or don't do. Some of those statements are defensible, but others are
not. Many times you start from what seems to be solid footing, but then you
start ranting and raving and making mistakes. Why don't you just take your
time and put it all in a carefully written, well organized article? If you
do, I hope you'll post it here, but whether you post it or not, writing it
would be a good exercise for you (and you certainly seem to have the time).
> > But I have to say again that not all vegans are like that. You just
seem to have met up with a bad lot, unfortunately. (And the bad lots are
usually the ones that make the most noise.)
> > > > A person has to choose where they feel there's a point to arguing
and where there isn't. Maybe the vegans who hang out here simply think that
going beyond meat vs. veggie is quibbling and not worth the effort.
> > > ==========================
> > > You really do fail to see the hypocrisy in that, don't you? It's
their 'ethic', it's their moral code. Why concern themselves with those of
others, without fully reflecting on their own contributions to animal death
and suffering?
> >
> > That isn't hypocracy. Hypocracy is what we were talking about just
above, not practicing what you preach, focusing solely on the lifestyles of
others instead of really looking at your own. This is different. A vegan
might want to never even discuss veganism at all.. with anyone! That
doesn't make him or her a hypocrite. It's the mismatch of words and deeds
that make a hypocrite, not debating style.
> ============================
> Nope. "quibbling" about only meat vs veggie, when you fail to take in the
different choices you have, is hypocritical. That is talking about someone
else's choices without doing what you could to improve yours.
Quoting m-w.com again...
Main Entry: hy·poc·ri·sy
Pronunciation: hi-'pä-kr&-sE also hI-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -sies
Etymology: Middle English ypocrisie, from Old French, from Late Latin
hypocrisis, from Greek hypokrisis act of playing a part on the stage,
hypocrisy, from hypokrinesthai to answer, act on the stage, from hypo- +
krinein to decide -- more at CERTAIN
Date: 13th century
1 : a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not;
especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
So, put simply, a person who is not a vegan but who pretends to be a vegan
is a hypocrite. How does either choosing not to take part in certain
debates or choosing to ignore those debates make someone not a vegan? All
they have to do to be a vegan is fulfill the generally-accepted definition
(not your personal definition). Debating with people is not a part of that
definition.
> > > But some of them are just as vocal, and sometimes more profane in
their 'discussions' with veg*ns. Again, vegan is not a diet. It's a belief
system. A religious agenda.
> >
> > For some people, being vegan has nothing to do with suffering or AR or
any of that. For some, it just means not eating meat or eggs or dairy
products.
> ====================
> Then that is vegetarian. Look up the origins of Vegan, it's a contrived
word, made up by one person, and was used to designate a 'lifestyle', not a
diet.
Vegsource.com states, "The word vegan was coined in England by Donald Watson
in 1944. He, along with several other members of the Vegetarian Society in
Leicester, England, wanted to form an alliance of nondairy vegetarians as a
subgroup of the Society." They added the lifestyle angle later, after they
had formed their own separate society, and many who call themselves vegans
follow that tradition today, but many do not. The dietary aspect is the
common denominator between the two definitions of "vegan", so that's
probably why most dictionaries still list the diet-only definition first.
> > Some self-professed vegans eat honey, wear leather, and kick their cats.
> ==============================
> Then they are not vegans.
They are according to my dictionaries, and that's good enough for me. One
has to draw the line of authority in these word questions somewhere. I look
to dictionaries; you look to yourself. To each his own.
> > Both definitions of the word are in my dictionary. Maybe we need a new
word, eh?
> >
> > > > > Oh yeah, that's right, the 'indirect' ones don't count for as much
as the direct ones, eh?
> > > >
> > > > Since the indirect killings are probably more insects than anything
else, I'd say you're probably right -- most people would say they don't
count for as much.
> > > ========================
> > > Why do you insist on bringing in bugs to the equaltion? You realize
I'm only discussing mammals, reptiles, birds and amphibians, don't you?
> >
> > No, I didn't realize that. Bugs are animals, you know, and an awful lot
of them die in the fields, so if you're into body counting - which you seem
to be - well...
> ========================
> Then tell that to the next vegan you talk too. He'll not like hearing how
he kills that many animals.
> > > But that said, why is there still a lack of concern for the 'indirect'
> ==================================
> For simple minds, ok. But your marbles example used a number. Maybe a
number you didn't know exactly, but it had a value you could see. There was
also a 'number' or a definite value to the number of marbles you took out.
You measured a reduction. Why is that simply too much for you to see.
See my previous explanation. (If you can't find it, just ask and I'll copy
and paste the relevant section.)
> But anyway, it was a diversion. Veg*ns do not KNOW they minimize. They
cannot KNOW they minimize, without a beginning and an ending reference. A
*value*, a *number*. Just saying something is minimized doesn't make it so.
That statement not simple enough even for you?
You don't have a beginning and an ending reference for the world body count
any more than they do, so if they can't know whether vegans as a whole are
having the desired impact on the world, you can't either. Is that simple
enough for you?
As for whether an individual vegan can minimize his or her own connections
to animal suffering, we'll have to leave that open until I hear back from
you on whether your answer to question #3 was a mistake or not.
> > > > > > A big pile of bodies is not required.
> > > > > -----------------------------
> > > > > Yes there are, according to your analogy, they are the 'marbles'.
> > > >
> > > > You're incorrect. The choice of what the marbles would represent
was mine, and I didn't choose bodies. Read it again...
> > > =============================
> > > But our discussion is not about the death and suffering of marbles.
Why would you assume that the analogy would represent anything else but
bodies in this thread?
> >
> > Good lord, how many times do I have to say it? Jonathan and I
digressed. We got into a math question because he made some absolute
statements, and I felt the need to give him an example that proved them
wrong. I never said that ALL situations are like a bowl of marbles. It was
simply an example to illustrate for him that his absolute statement was not
true for all situations.
> ===========================
> Then again, analogies are not your strong suit. That was not an example
of reduction without 'numbers'.
Strong suit or no, I'm doing better at them than you are. :D What I have
said over and over again is that there is nothing in lessening that requires
*counting*. You don't have to know how many marbles are in that fish bowl
to know that there are fewer after you remove some. I didn't say that the
amount of marbles has no number; I said that you don't have to know what
that number is. And we've already gone over the whole "counting" vs.
"measurement" bit. It was agreed that counting is a form of measurement,
but not the same thing as measurement. Remember?
> > > > Our problem is that you're looking at bodies, while I'm looking at
connections.
> > > -----------------------------------------
> > > LOL That sure helps cause less death and suffering in your mind, eh?
> >
> > That ain't got nuthin to do with it.
> ======================
> Sure it does.
Now you're claiming to be able to read my mind. Great.
> Call them anything you like, as long as it's not 'dead bodies' and you can
discuss it with ease, and a clear mind.
Would you please stop saying "you" when you mean "vegans"? As I said
before, I am not a vegan. Nor am I a vegetarian.
> > > > I see them as different things; you don't.
> > > ======================
> > > The animals are just as dead, and suffered just as much. Why do you
insist on 'looking' at their death and suffering differently?
> >
> > Maybe because I've spent too much time in classrooms where ideas are
looked at from many different angles instead of with blinkers on.
> ----------------------
> You should take yours off, then.
We can see that witty repartee is not *your* strong suit. :D
> > > > If I look at it your way, I see what you're saying. But again, my
experience of vegans is that they aren't concerned with absolute numbers of
dead bodies;
> > > ====================
> > > Of course they're not!! That's my point, they prefer to hate and
demonize others instead! They are concerned with only the dead bodies that
others eat, while ignoring the animals that just get killed, and left to
rot. Why is the disposition of the bodies of such importance?
> >
> > Easy there, big fella. I just don't want you demonizing the thinking
vegans along with all the trendy and hypocritical vegans out there.
> =======================
> Hey, you are the one that just admitted that the veg*ns you know don't
care about the 'body count'. I already claim that the ones I know don't, so
I guess the intersecting area just got larger, eh? thanks!
You missed the key word there: "absolute". What I was saying, before I was
interrupted, was that...
> > > they give more weight to the suffering of "higher" animals, so they
weigh both the number of animals killed and the type of animals killed.
^^^^
> > > LOL What are 'higher' animals? Cows are worth more than pigs, which
are worth more than rats, which are worth more than birds, and on, and on?
Isn't death, death? Or do bigger animals suffer more somehow?
> >
> > In my experience, that's just the way people are. They look at the
death of a bird as less of a big deal than that of a human.. that of an
insect as less than that of a bird.. etc. That's just a fact of human
nature as I see it.
> ===========
> But, we're not talking about 'people' in general, we're talking about
those that specifically say that animal death and suffering is the basis of
their 'ethics' and lifestyle. The 'human nature' of a hypocrite, read
veg*n, is to blame others for something they only give lip-service to.
There could certainly be vegans who put all animals -- humans, pigs,
chickens, snakes, frogs, mosquitoes, nematodes, etc. -- on exactly the same
level. I just haven't met any.
> > > > > You have no starting reference, such as a jar of bodies, I mean
marbles.
> > > >
> > > > The starting reference is Zeek's former lifestyle.
> > > ====================
> > > But, as I have stated before, he has no reference to base his
reduction on. It's all smoke and mirrors, and lys.
> >
> > Depends on how you look at it. Stretch your brain a bit.
> ======================================
> There is no stretch that says you can make the reduction by just saying
you are.
It isn't just the speaking of words that we're talking about here. We're
talking about people doing the things that define people as vegans. If they
don't do those things, they aren't vegans. ***If they DO do those things,
whatever else they may do, they're still vegans.***
> > > > Take X - Y = Z to represent the situation described above with the
bowl of marbles, where X is the initial number of marbles in the bowl, Y is
the number of marbles removed, and Z is the final number of marbles in the
bowl.
> > > >
> > > > Z < X
> > > >
> > > > We can say that without knowing the value of any of the variables.
> > > =================================
> > > But you still have an indication of a starting 'value', and an ending
> > > 'value' that is determinable by just a casual glance.
> >
> > Yes, it's qualitative, not quantitative. That's what I was trying to
point out to Jonathan. You're getting there... :D
> ==========================
> But you still can't apply it to the discussion at hand.
That doesn't matter. I was just showing that what Jonathan said (that to
say you're minimizing is to make a numerical claim and therefore requires
counting) was incorrect. If you want to argue with someone about bringing
math into it, your argument is with Jonathan.
> > > > > > Please list some of these very easy ways that the average vegan
won't consider.
> > > > > =======================
> > > > > I've already posted them, many times.
> > > >
> > > > I'll have to do some Google research to find them, then, since I
haven't spent much time in this group. Did you post them using the same
e-mail address you're using now?
> > > =================================
> > > Every post I make is on this account, has been for probably 5 years.
> >
> > OK. I'll try to find what you're talking about.
Google tells me you've made 454 posts to this group. Any assistance in
narrowing that search would be much appreciated.
> > > > > But since they are meat-included diets, veg*ns would prefer to
remain in their blind religious sanctimony.
> > > >
> > > > Some would. Some wouldn't.
> > > ========================
> > > Then they aren't veg*n, are they?
> >
> > Only if having blind, religious sanctimony is part of what defines
veganism.
> >
> > I have to go to work now, and group members are no doubt seething about
the size of this post, so maybe we should cut it waaaaaaay down in future.
> ================================
> LOL We're probably both filtered by most of them now anyway.
Yeah, I suppose so. ;)
rick etter
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@mindspring.NS.com> wrote in message
news:3C66B197...@mindspring.NS.com...
--------------------------------------
Wish it were that easy!! LOL Don't have any idea where that got
changed. I just made a few posts, then when i came back later I saw the
dates. I've never even adjusted the time on this thing before, much
less a date.
For a long shot, don't count good old Bobby out with Texas tech.
Kelolo
> > > > > But you've totally missed the point of the discussion. You cannot
assume a reduction just because you say there's a reduction. There has to
be a start and ending reference. Your can't just make the claim of
reduction and expect to be taken seriously.
> > > >
> > > > You are confusing the math part of the conversation and the veganism
part of the conversation.
> > > ============================
> > > Only to the point that you had to bring a 'math' portion in to try to
deflect the conversation from what is was really about
> >
> > If you go back and read how this all started, you'll see that Jonathan
was the one who originally brought up minimizing, counting, and numerical
claims.
> ========================
> That's not my point.
You claimed that I brought the math in to deflect the conversation from what
it was really about. Since Jonathan was the one who actually brought math
into it, will you now say that *he* was trying to deflect the conversation?
I'll bet you won't. :D
> My point is your marble example will not prove anything in either portion
of the post. Animal deaths, or minimizing without numbers. It fails both
ways.
I never said minimizing without numbers. I said minimizing without
*counting*. Big difference. You can't count how many grains of sand are on
this planet, you can only estimate how many there are, but that doesn't mean
that there isn't a specific number of grains of sand on the planet at any
given instant.
> > > animals death and suufering, and it's reduction. Something you
continue to fail at making any attempt at really discussing.
> >
> > Why am I spending my time on these mile-long posts if I'm not
*attempting* to have a sane, rational discussion with you? I'm making the
attempt, but whether I'm successful or not depends on both of us. It takes
two to tango.
> =============================
> That's all I try to keep discussing, you on the other hand continue to try
to take off course.
I disagree.
> > > > > > AAAAAAUGH! This is about math, people! There are two separate
conversations going on here. One is about math; the other is about
veganism. They intersect at Zeek, NOT here.
> > > > > =============================
> > > > > Then stay on topic for the thread. It's about reduction of animal
deaths.
> > > >
> > > > There isn't one topic here. It's a conversation. It has all sorts
of twists and turns and tangents. Anyone who wants to jump in should be
sure they understand the context before they do so.
> > > ======================
> > > Really, then why did you try to say I was diverging off topic?
> >
> > I'm sure there were perfectly logical steps between where you started
and where you ended up, but if those steps were in your head instead of in
your post, I couldn't read them.
> --------------------------
> LOL You just don't read well, eh? Don't blame me for your lack.
So humor me. Explain how vegans being all talk and no action is the same as
vegans taking it on faith from PETA that they have a certain impact. Looks
to me like you're confusing actions with effects again.
> > It looks like you don't read over your posts before you send them. It
would probably help us all out if you would.
> >
> > > > > but even so your 'math' is about 'numbers' anyway. You've already
ascribed 'values' to x,y,z, so you don't have really indeterminent numbers
anyway.
> >
> > Setting parameters for variables is not the same as ascribing values to
them.
> ======================
> Again, you fail at comprehension. 'Parameters' are values. You state
where you are and where you want to go, then claim by some magic you're
there. Doesn't work that way. Not with dead bodies or marbles.
I have heard the term "parameter" used in years of math classes as a limit
for a value. I know a guy who's going for his Masters in math. I'll ask
him how he uses it.
> > If you truly believe that a person always has to count in order to know
when something has been lessened, there's nothing I can do for you. Good
luck.
> ============================
> Are you really this stupid? Again, apply this to a veg*n claim of
reduction. Apparently you can't, since you continue to slide off into
never-never land of non-math.
Again, I was not applying it to a vegan claim before, so there's no reason
why I need to do that now. I was countering the math claim that Jonathan
brought in. He is the one who tried to tie the two together, not me.
> > > > How much math have you had in school? You seem to be out of your
depth here.
> > > -------------------------------------------
> > > LOL more than necessary to see you floundering around trying to
excuse an agenda with a seperate issue because you don't want to stay on the
topic at hand. It's and old, and usual ploy that veg*ns employ regularly.
> >
> > You would rather talk about veganism, and I'm happy to do that. I just
hope that we can keep the forests of quoting arrows from taking over our
entire posts.
> ======================
> Then you really should note the snipping you do, especially when you
accuse others of it.
You always have the option of going back to things you think were unfairly
snipped, copying them, and pasting them in your next post.
rick etter
"Kelolo" <kelo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e8B98.2526$iI.163...@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> Here's the rest of the one you thought I had snipped completely. I
just
> couldn't do it all at once. Some of us do have to tear ourselves away
from
> the computer for hours a day or even - gasp! - days at a time, y'
know. :)
>
> Since you get so upset about snipping, Rick, I'm only snipping some of
the
> quoting arrows from now on. I hope that works for you.
=================================
I don't mind the snips, I do it too. the thing is to mark in some way
the portion that you snip out. That's all I commented on.
================================
Maybe not your intentions, but veg*ns claim that they do that.
>
> As I have said, the question of whether vegans reduce the amount of
animal
> suffering/death in the world is too complex a question for me to
answer.
> You can't answer it either. All we can do is make qualitative
estimates.
> The main difference between us is that I admit that I don't know the
answer,
> while you insist that you do.
>
> That's why I was shocked when you agreed with me on question #3. I
guess
> that was a typo, eh? ;)
=========================
No, why would you assume that? I've stated before that a truly
dedicated veg*n could a a life that is more free of cruelty than others.
I just also maintained that there are none of those said dedicated
veg*ns on usenet. Again, I have stated before that what I propose is
not the 'best' ever diet in terms of cruelty-free, just better than the
mass-consumer driven, plastic wrapped variety of veg*n that inhabits
these groups..
==================
Previous attempts at such. Even with the meat we had, we couldn't
really come close to being self-sufficient without giving up jobs,
leisure, etc.
>
> > they couldn't spend any time here, and then, if their 'ethics' has
them
> being self-sufficient and it means that much to them, I'd doubt they
would
> blow their 'ethics'just be another hypocritical usenet poster. Do you?
>
> What are you asking me? Do I doubt it or do I blow my ethics?
==================
I don't know. Are yours based on the statement that you 'do all you
can' to reduce animal death and suffreing?
>
> Because you have met vegans foolish enough to say that they have no
> connections to animal suffering whatsoever, are you redefining "vegan"
as a
> person who has no connection whatsoever to animal suffering? If so,
you
> need to get yourself into a good logic class. :D
====================
Nope, Veg*ns should get themselves into a good 'ethics' class. It is
their claim that they have no/fewer/less(depends on the veg*n you talk
to) connections to animal death and suffering.
----------------------
Your unproven opinion.
----------------------
As is the person who claims to be a veg*n, yet fails to live in that
manner, therefore only pretending to be a veg*n.
> How does either choosing not to take part in certain
> debates or choosing to ignore those debates make someone not a vegan?
All
> they have to do to be a vegan is fulfill the generally-accepted
definition
> (not your personal definition). Debating with people is not a part of
that
> definition.
=================
LOL Your reading comprehension problems creeping in again, eh? I
didn't say they were hypocrites for not debating. I said they were
hypocrites for debating the effects of someone elses diet while failing
to do all they could to fix their own. Again, I'm not using 'my'
definition of vegan, I'm using the one that the guy who made up the term
says it means. Is that definition too hard for you to follow?
-----------------------
Sure. Dilute a word far enough and even the simplist of people can live
by those terms.
============================
Nope, Ive produced numbers, millions of them. from those alone I could
determine a course of actions to curtail some of my impact. Veg*ns on
these groups don't do that. Does that mean that no veg*ns do? Nope,
but then, like I've said before, if they are vegans truly concerned with
doing all they can to reduce animal death and suffering, they won't be
posting here on usenet.
>
> As for whether an individual vegan can minimize his or her own
connections
> to animal suffering, we'll have to leave that open until I hear back
from
> you on whether your answer to question #3 was a mistake or not.
=======================
No. it was not. It's just that I've never met any of them on usenet,
and I wouldn't expect to either.
=======================
My god you are dense, aren't you. You still have easily identifiable
start and stop parameters.
Again, this can in no way be applied to a veg*n deit and their claim of
minimization.
I didn't say that the
> amount of marbles has no number; I said that you don't have to know
what
> that number is. And we've already gone over the whole "counting" vs.
> "measurement" bit. It was agreed that counting is a form of
measurement,
> but not the same thing as measurement. Remember?
>
> > > > > Our problem is that you're looking at bodies, while I'm
looking at
> connections.
> > > > -----------------------------------------
> > > > LOL That sure helps cause less death and suffering in your
mind, eh?
> > >
> > > That ain't got nuthin to do with it.
> > ======================
> > Sure it does.
>
> Now you're claiming to be able to read my mind. Great.
>
> > Call them anything you like, as long as it's not 'dead bodies' and
you can
> discuss it with ease, and a clear mind.
>
> Would you please stop saying "you" when you mean "vegans"? As I said
> before, I am not a vegan. Nor am I a vegetarian.
---------------------------------------
Then you understand the context of my statemnets already. I realize
that you claim you are not. It just gets clumsy sometimes to always
write 'you(veg*ns)'.
======================
Try a.a.e.v. or t.p.a.
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
talk.politics.animals
you can find some there
>
> > > > > > You have no starting reference, such as a jar of bodies, I
mean
> marbles.
> > > > >
> > > > > The starting reference is Zeek's former lifestyle.
> > > > ====================
> > > > But, as I have stated before, he has no reference to base his
> reduction on. It's all smoke and mirrors, and lys.
> > >
> > > Depends on how you look at it. Stretch your brain a bit.
> > ======================================
> > There is no stretch that says you can make the reduction by just
saying
> you are.
>
> It isn't just the speaking of words that we're talking about here.
We're
> talking about people doing the things that define people as vegans.
If they
> don't do those things, they aren't vegans. ***If they DO do those
things,
> whatever else they may do, they're still vegans.***
========================
You've yet to tell me what those 'things' are. Eat veggies? I do that.
Care about animals? I do that. care about the environment? I do that.
Guess that makes me a vegan, eh?
==========================
I don't know that there is one defining post to look for. try grass-fed
beef, self-sufficient. More probaly in t.p.a. than here. Afterall,
this is a recipie gropu, eh? <wink wink>
rick etter
> > > You would rather talk about veganism, and I'm happy to do that. I
just
> hope that we can keep the forests of quoting arrows from taking over
our
> entire posts.
> > ======================
> > Then you really should note the snipping you do, especially when you
> accuse others of it.
>
> You always have the option of going back to things you think were
unfairly
> snipped, copying them, and pasting them in your next post.
============================
Why do you assume I meant 'unfairly' snipped? Guilty conscience? What
I was running into was trying to remember the flow of what was said,
thinking there was more, but not finding it without having to backtrack.
If it's longer that 20 minutes ago, I have trouble keeping anything
straight.
lillyc...@webtv.net
Sure, whatever you say...I am a very PROUD VEGAN. Not just because I
love animals and do not feel the need to eat them...I also shop at
places where they do not use animals in their products - btw - not all
tires are made from animals - Maybe 10, 20 years ago you would have had
a point - but today, there are a lot of Animal friendly products on the
market - however, according to the cattlemen out there, you are right.
One cannot survive in a world unless animals are being slaughtered and
eaten...
If I did live in an era where it was not possible to avoid animals in
products, I would still not eat animal products. Would I be considered
a Vegan? Who knows - but I know in my heart that I will not contribute
in eating farm (or any kind) of animals - putting them in my stomach.
lillyc...@webtv.net
this. You are trying to debate killing animals to people who love
animals (or, for health reasons) do not eat animal products.
I have not heard of too many diets recommended for health reasons that
consists of eating lots and lots of meat. Wait a second, maybe you
wrote a book on such -
I'm sure Jimmy Dean has a great chat room for you! Again, you can go in
there and connect with meat eating Rick Etters (DICK EATERS!) Couldn't
resist - it GOES TOGETHER!
rick etter
<lillyc...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:28185-3C...@storefull-131.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
snippage...
>
> If I did live in an era where it was not possible to avoid animals in
> products, I would still not eat animal products. Would I be
considered
> a Vegan? Who knows - but I know in my heart that I will not
contribute
> in eating farm (or any kind) of animals - putting them in my stomach.
==================================
Despite knowing whether or not that choice ultimately causes more animal
death and suffering.
I can just feel the sanctimony oozing now, hypocrite.
>
>
>
>
>
>
rick etter
<lillyc...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:28184-3C...@storefull-131.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> Rick etter- again, you are in a VEGAN chat room.
=====================
I have no idea where you are reading this, but I'm on usenet deary, not
in a chat room.
You obviously know
> this. You are trying to debate killing animals to people who love
> animals (or, for health reasons) do not eat animal products.
==================================
Yep, I am, because you may be killing even more animals just to keep
from eating any. doesn't say much for your supposed 'ethics', does it
killer?
>
> I have not heard of too many diets recommended for health reasons that
> consists of eating lots and lots of meat. Wait a second, maybe you
> wrote a book on such -
========================
Actually, neither have I. Then again, most healthy diets consists of a
variety of foods. Too much of anything to the exclusion of other items
is bad. A diet consisting of only lettace would not be healthy either,
and probably less so than an all meat diet anyway.
>
> I'm sure Jimmy Dean has a great chat room for you! Again, you can go
in
> there and connect with meat eating Rick Etters (DICK EATERS!) Couldn't
> resist - it GOES TOGETHER!
=====================
You really think that that is original? I know it's a sure sign that
your argument has failed.
Now, have a nice blood-drenched breakfast, hypocrite.
dh...@nomail.com
>To dh_ld
>
>Sure, whatever you say...I am a very PROUD VEGAN. Not just because I
>love animals and do not feel the need to eat them...I also shop at
>places where they do not use animals in their products - btw - not all
>tires are made from animals - Maybe 10, 20 years ago you would have had
>a point - but today, there are a lot of Animal friendly products on the
>market -
By "Animal friendly" you mean they don't contribute to the lives
and deaths of farm animals, right? That's not animal friendly, that's
just not involving animals...not helping or hurting them.
>however, according to the cattlemen out there, you are right.
>One cannot survive in a world unless animals are being slaughtered and
>eaten...
>
>If I did live in an era where it was not possible to avoid animals in
>products, I would still not eat animal products. Would I be considered
>a Vegan? Who knows - but I know in my heart that I will not contribute
>in eating farm (or any kind) of animals - putting them in my stomach.
Well it's good enough if that's how you feel, but don't confuse
yourself by thinking it's being "Animal friendly". It does nothing to
help animals. If you consumed them you could consume products
which promote better lives for them, and that could be "Animal
friendly". And you could contribute to less animal deaths by eating
some types of meat than by sticking to a completely veg*n diet,
and also contribute to better lives for farm animals at the same
time...those things would be "Animal friendly". Veg*nism is not.
No offense Lilly, but that's how it is.
Kelolo
> snippage...
>
> > > > You would rather talk about veganism, and I'm happy to do that. I
just hope that we can keep the forests of quoting arrows from taking over
our entire posts.
> > > ======================
> > > Then you really should note the snipping you do, especially when you
accuse others of it.
> >
> > You always have the option of going back to things you think were
unfairly snipped, copying them, and pasting them in your next post.
> ============================
> Why do you assume I meant 'unfairly' snipped? Guilty conscience?
You have made disparaging remarks about my snipping in the past, so I didn't
expect you'd be neutral or positive about it now.
> What I was running into was trying to remember the flow of what was said,
thinking there was more, but not finding it without having to backtrack. If
it's longer that 20 minutes ago, I have trouble keeping anything straight.
Hmmmmm.. That explains a lot. ;)
But seriously, I understand completely. Any suggestions?
rick etter
> > snippage...
---------------------------
Just note in each area you snip with anything, snipped, snippage, etc.
with a couple blank lines around it.(like above from previous post)
there are other conventions, for this one see below. At least then if
someone needs to refer to a previous post they know where in the post to
look for something that was taken out. Not all snips are for nefarious
purposes. Just plain old clean-up of a thread can be the reason.
Instead of leaving in dozens of lines of text just to reply with one
line is one of the best places to use a snip.
http://www.sssnewsgroup.com/FAQ/faqs5.html#c
How much of a post should be quoted in a reply? (top)
In general, however much of the original is relevant to your reply, but
no more than that. You should try to delete (or 'snip') any of the
original that's not relevant to your reply, but keep everything that
helps to give your reply context and to have it make sense. Remember
that whatever you keep from the original should be set off from your
text so that it's clear who wrote what, and should also be correctly
attributed.
If you snip material that is important, but isn't directly relevant to
your reply - such as steps in some sort of debate - it's sometimes a
good technique to show that you've done this, by adding a line like:
[snip]
or for larger and more significant snips:
[snipped <some description of what you snipped>]
Shorter posts are easier to read, and faster and cheaper to download.
*Don't* quote the whole of a long post or story, only to add a single
line at the end (or the beginning) saying:
'I agree!' or 'Me too!' or 'Great story!'
That's just wasting space. These are valid comments, but should
accompany a heavily snipped original.
Kelolo
That sounds fine to me, Rick. I used to do neat and tidy snipping like that
years ago, but more often than not, I got chided for being too anal about
it. Oh well...
At this point, "snip" probably isn't the right word for the major
machete-whacking some of our posts are overdue for. ;)
Kelolo
goes...
I'm trying to use a reply style you'll be comfortable with, Rick. ;)
[snipped discussion of snipping and a little transitional stuff]
> > > > > Just that veg*ns have more than enough death and suffering to
worry about in their own lifstyles. That's where they have a real impact,
yet instead they concentrate on the lifstle of others. They demonize others
for animal death and suffering, yet really do nothing in their own lives
that has any real positive impact. Hypocritcal
> > > >
> > > > Those who do that are indeed hypocritical. That doesn't mean that
the aims of non-hypocritical vegans are at fault.
> > >
> > > Aims? Again, just a word. A word not backed up by any action that
you have demonstrated any of these veg*ns take. You can't point to one on
usenet at isn't hypocritical.
> >
> > It has never been my intention to prove that having vegans in the world
means that there is less animal suffering/death in the world, and I
certainly don't know enough about the personal life of anyone on usenet to
be able to judge whether they're a hypocrite or not.
>
> Maybe not your intentions, but veg*ns claim that they do that.
==============================
You say above that vegans do nothing that has any real positive impact, yet
you seem to say below that a truly dedicated vegan could live a life that is
more free of cruelty than others' lives are. Are you saying that truly
dedicated vegans don't exist, or do you think that less cruelty is not a
positive impact, or is there some other way that you reconcile those two
statements?
> > As I have said, the question of whether vegans reduce the amount of
animal suffering/death in the world is too complex a question for me to
answer. You can't answer it either. All we can do is make qualitative
estimates. The main difference between us is that I admit that I don't know
the answer, while you insist that you do. That's why I was shocked when you
agreed with me on question #3. I guess that was a typo, eh? ;)
>
> No, why would you assume that?
==============================
I assumed nothing, but I guessed what I did because you make so many
statements like the ones at the top of this post.
> I've stated before that a truly dedicated veg*n could a a life that is
more free of cruelty than others. I just also maintained that there are none
of those said dedicated veg*ns on usenet. Again, I have stated before that
what I propose is not the 'best' ever diet in terms of cruelty-free, just
better than the mass-consumer driven, plastic wrapped variety of veg*n that
inhabits these groups..
==============================
But whenever I say things like "some do; some don't", you jump all over me
and say they're *all* hypocrites, *all* sanctimonious, etc. etc. Certainly
you can see how you give an impression that your beliefs are quite unlike
what you just said they are.
[snipped boring part where we agree :) ]
> > > > > > That's assuming that vegans don't grow their own veggies. Some
do.
> > > > > Some probably do. None of them here on these groups are
self-sufficient though. And, just by being on these groups proves that
their 'ethics' is far from really meaning anything in their lives.
> > > >
> > > > That's a mighty bold statement there, son! :D Me, I come to these
groups as a tourist, popping in once in a while, looking around, chatting
with some folks. You might know quite a few regulars, having been coming
here 5 years and all, but you don't know the heart and soul of everyone who
lurks. (Or do you have powers of which I should be made aware?)
> > >
> > > Nope, I just know how much time it would take for them to be truly
self-sufficient.
> >
> > And how do you know that?
>
> Previous attempts at such. Even with the meat we had, we couldn't really
come close to being self-sufficient without giving up jobs, leisure, etc.
================================
You couldn't do it, so it can't be done?
> > > they couldn't spend any time here, and then, if their 'ethics' has
them being self-sufficient and it means that much to them, I'd doubt they
would blow their 'ethics'just be another hypocritical usenet poster. Do you?
> >
> > What are you asking me? Do I doubt it or do I blow my ethics?
>
> I don't know.
=================================
Why don't you know? Doesn't re-reading the preceding lines jog your memory?
Maybe you need a check-up. ;)
> Are yours based on the statement that you 'do all you can' to reduce
animal death and suffreing?
=================================
My what? Looks like you've latched onto the last part of my question as if
it were the whole thing. OK. So you're asking now if my *ethics* are based
on the statement that I do all I can to reduce animal death and suffering?
If that's your question, the answer is no.
> > Because you have met vegans foolish enough to say that they have no
connections to animal suffering whatsoever, are you redefining "vegan" as a
person who has no connection whatsoever to animal suffering? If so, you
need to get yourself into a good logic class. :D
>
> Nope, Veg*ns should get themselves into a good 'ethics' class. It is
their claim that they have no/fewer/less(depends on the veg*n you talk to)
connections to animal death and suffering.
=================================
You just said "a truly dedicated veg*n could a a life that is more free of
cruelty than others". (I'm assuming that "a a life" was meant to be
something like "live a life"?) You and the vegans don't seem so far apart
anymore. :D
[snipped two staled segments (unreplied to by RE) ]
> > > > > > Sure, you could break the vegan camp into further groups, some
causing more suffering than others, and you could then go on to break those
groups up into still smaller groups, and on and on.
> > > > >
> > > > > But, if 'ethics' were the true concern of vegans, why would they
not have to make the comparison in their own diets and lifstyle? Again, it
boils down to only their hatred of others, not really a true concern for
animals.
> > > >
> > > > For some, sure. That's what so many fervent beliefs boil down to:
an "us vs. them" mentality looking for a cause to hang their hostility on.
> > >
> > > Which makes them the hypocrites that the veg*ns on these newsgroups
are. That's all I've ever said.
> >
> > Not true. You have made many other statements about vegans and what
they all do or don't do. Some of those statements are defensible, but
others are not. Many times you start from what seems to be solid footing,
but then you start ranting and raving and making mistakes.
>
> Your unproven opinion.
===========================
The whole paragraph, or just the part about you ranting and raving?
[snipped my suggestion that RE write an article]
> > > > But I have to say again that not all vegans are like that. You just
seem to have met up with a bad lot, unfortunately. (And the bad lots are
usually the ones that make the most noise.)
> >
> > > > > > A person has to choose where they feel there's a point to
arguing and where there isn't. Maybe the vegans who hang out here simply
think that going beyond meat vs. veggie is quibbling and not worth the
effort.
> > > > >
> > > > > You really do fail to see the hypocrisy in that, don't you? It's
their 'ethic', it's their moral code. Why concern themselves with those of
others, without fully reflecting on their own contributions to animal death
and suffering?
> > > >
> > > > That isn't hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is what we were talking about just
above, not practicing what you preach, focusing solely on the lifestyles of
others instead of really looking at your own. This is different. A vegan
> > might want to never even discuss veganism at all.. with anyone! That
doesn't make him or her a hypocrite. It's the mismatch of words and deeds
that make a hypocrite, not debating style.
> > >
> > > Nope. "quibbling" about only meat vs veggie, when you fail to take in
the different choices you have, is hypocritical. That is talking about
someone else's choices without doing what you could to improve yours.
> >
> > Quoting m-w.com again...
> >
> > Main Entry: hy·poc·ri·sy
> > Pronunciation: hi-'pä-kr&-sE also hI-
> > Function: noun
> > Inflected Form(s): plural -sies
> > Etymology: Middle English ypocrisie, from Old French, from Late Latin
> > hypocrisis, from Greek hypokrisis act of playing a part on the stage,
> > hypocrisy, from hypokrinesthai to answer, act on the stage, from hypo-
> +
> > krinein to decide -- more at CERTAIN
> > Date: 13th century
> > 1 : a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not;
> > especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or
> religion
> >
> > So, put simply, a person who is not a vegan but who pretends to be a
vegan is a hypocrite.
>
> As is the person who claims to be a veg*n, yet fails to live in that
manner, therefore only pretending to be a veg*n.
==============================
True, but neither of those is the sort of person we were talking about.
> > How does either choosing not to take part in certain debates or choosing
to ignore those debates make someone not a vegan? All they have to do to be
a vegan is fulfill the generally-accepted definition (not your personal
definition). Debating with people is not a part of that definition.
>
> LOL Your reading comprehension problems creeping in again, eh? I
> didn't say they were hypocrites for not debating. I said they were
> hypocrites for debating the effects of someone elses diet while failing
> to do all they could to fix their own.
===========================
Not exactly. You've said that in the past, but that isn't what you said
here. I said "Maybe the vegans who hang out here simply think that going
beyond meat vs. veggie is quibbling and not worth the effort." You said
that *that* was hypocrisy.
> Again, I'm not using 'my'definition of vegan, I'm using the one that the
guy who made up the term says it means. Is that definition too hard for you
to follow?
===========================
He first said that vegans were vegetarians who didn't eat dairy products.
He added the whole "vegan lifestyle" bit later. Does that, in your mind,
completely invalidate his original definition? Does that mean that all the
dictionaries that don't agree with you are bastardizing?
[snipped more about definitions, unreplied to by RE]
> > > > Some self-professed vegans eat honey, wear leather, and kick their
cats.
> > >
> > > Then they are not vegans.
> >
> > They are according to my dictionaries, and that's good enough for me.
One has to draw the line of authority in these word questions somewhere. I
look to dictionaries; you look to yourself. To each his own.
>
> Sure. Dilute a word far enough and even the simplist of people can live
by those terms.
===========================
Do you think that dictionaries are useless?
[snipped a stale section about insects being animals]
[snipped marble section unreplied to by RE]
> > > But anyway, it was a diversion. Veg*ns do not KNOW they minimize.
They cannot KNOW they minimize, without a beginning and an ending reference.
A *value*, a *number*. Just saying something is minimized doesn't make it
so. That statement not simple enough even for you?
> >
> > You don't have a beginning and an ending reference for the world body
count any more than they do, so if they can't know whether vegans as a whole
are having the desired impact on the world, you can't either. Is that
simple enough for you?
>
> Nope, Ive produced numbers, millions of them.
================================
Not while I've been here, and not that I've been able to find by Googling.
Keep in mind that I haven't been here for long. I haven't heard your take
on all this a zillion times like everyone else here probably has.
> from those alone I could determine a course of actions to curtail some of
my impact. Veg*ns on these groups don't do that. Does that mean that no
veg*ns do? Nope, but then, like I've said before, if they are vegans truly
concerned with doing all they can to reduce animal death and suffering, they
won't be posting here on usenet.
===============================
Why this fixation on usenet usage? What if someone lives their entire life
according to your definition of "truly dedicated vegan" *except* that they
allow themselves the single vice of posting to usenet? Does that make them
just as bad as the lazy-ethics vegans who buy shrink-wrapped,
pesticide-covered veggies at Safeway and whine about everyone else? Is it a
case of all or nothing?
> > As for whether an individual vegan can minimize his or her own
connections to animal suffering, we'll have to leave that open until I hear
back from you on whether your answer to question #3 was a mistake or not.
>
> No. it was not. It's just that I've never met any of them on usenet, and
I wouldn't expect to either.
===============================
I wish you would qualify your statements when you're talking about usenet
vegans and leave them as sweeping generalizations when you mean them to
apply to all vegans. Over and over, it turns out that what you said as a
sweeping generalization was -- oops -- meant to apply only to the evil
usenet vegans. I can't know which you mean if you don't tell me.
> > > > > > > > A big pile of bodies is not required.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes there are, according to your analogy, they are the
'marbles'.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You're incorrect. The choice of what the marbles would
represent was mine, and I didn't choose bodies. Read it again...
> > > > >
> > > > > But our discussion is not about the death and suffering of
marbles. Why would you assume that the analogy would represent anything else
but bodies in this thread?
> > > >
> > > > Good lord, how many times do I have to say it? Jonathan and I
digressed. We got into a math question because he made some absolute
statements, and I felt the need to give him an example that proved them
wrong. I never said that ALL situations are like a bowl of marbles. It was
simply an example to illustrate for him that his absolute statement was not
true for all situations.
> > >
> > > Then again, analogies are not your strong suit. That was not an
example of reduction without 'numbers'.
> >
> > Strong suit or no, I'm doing better at them than you are. :D What I have
said over and over again is that there is nothing in lessening that requires
*counting*. You don't have to know how many marbles are in that fish bowl
to know that there are fewer after you remove some.
>
> My god you are dense, aren't you. You still have easily identifiable
start and stop parameters.
================================
That's not the same as counting. (Or are you going to say that I'm
bastardizing the original definition of "counting"? :D )
> Again, this can in no way be applied to a veg*n deit and their claim of
minimization.
===============================
Then why do you say that a truly dedicated veg*n could [live] a life that is
more free of cruelty than others? What start and stop parameters do you use
to come to that conclusion?
> > I didn't say that the amount of marbles has no number; I said that you
don't have to know what that number is. And we've already gone over the
whole "counting" vs. "measurement" bit. It was agreed that counting is a
form of measurement,
but not the same thing as measurement. Remember?
===============================
No? Oh well...
[snipped part unreplied to by RE]
> > Would you please stop saying "you" when you mean "vegans"? As I said
before, I am not a vegan. Nor am I a vegetarian.
>
> Then you understand the context of my statemnets already. I realize that
you claim you are not. It just gets clumsy sometimes to always write
'you(veg*ns)'.
==============================
Is it really so hard to just type "vegans"?
[snipped unreplied-to stuff about blinkers and about body counts
> > > > > LOL What are 'higher' animals? Cows are worth more than pigs,
which are worth more than rats, which are worth more than birds, and on, and
on? Isn't death, death? Or do bigger animals suffer more somehow?
> > > >
> > > > In my experience, that's just the way people are. They look at the
death of a bird as less of a big deal than that of a human.. that of an
insect as less than that of a bird.. etc. That's just a fact of human
nature as I see it.
> > >
> > > But, we're not talking about 'people' in general, we're talking about
those that specifically say that animal death and suffering is the basis of
their 'ethics' and lifestyle. The 'human nature' of a hypocrite, read
veg*n, is to blame others for something they only give lip-service to.
> >
> > There could certainly be vegans who put all animals -- humans, pigs,
chickens, snakes, frogs, mosquitoes, nematodes, etc. -- on exactly the same
level. I just haven't met any.
>
> Try a.a.e.v. or t.p.a.
> alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
> talk.politics.animals
> you can find some there
=========================
I'll look...
> > It isn't just the speaking of words that we're talking about here. We're
talking about people doing the things that define people as vegans. If they
don't do those things, they aren't vegans. ***If they DO do those things,
whatever else they may do, they're still vegans.***
>
> You've yet to tell me what those 'things' are. Eat veggies? I do that.
> Care about animals? I do that. care about the environment? I do that.
> Guess that makes me a vegan, eh?
You've got it backwards. Vegans are not defined by what they do eat but by
what they *don't* eat. By the most basic definition of "vegan" (forgive my
use of the evil, bastardizing dictionaries) if someone doesn't eat any
animal products, they are a vegan. Whether they kick their cat or not is
irrelevant.
> > > > > > Take X - Y = Z to represent the situation described above with
the bowl of marbles, where X is the initial number of marbles in the bowl, Y
is the number of marbles removed, and Z is the final number of marbles in
the bowl.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Z < X
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We can say that without knowing the value of any of the
variables.
> > > > >
> > > > > But you still have an indication of a starting 'value', and an
ending 'value' that is determinable by just a casual glance.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, it's qualitative, not quantitative. That's what I was trying
to point out to Jonathan. You're getting there... :D
> > >
> > > But you still can't apply it to the discussion at hand.
> >
> > That doesn't matter. I was just showing that what Jonathan said (that
to say you're minimizing is to make a numerical claim and therefore requires
counting) was incorrect. If you want to argue with someone about bringing
math into it, your argument is with Jonathan.
> > > > > > > > Please list some of these very easy ways that the average
vegan won't consider.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've already posted them, many times.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'll have to do some Google research to find them, then, since I
haven't spent much time in this group. Did you post them using the same
e-mail address you're using now?
> > > > >
> > > > > Every post I make is on this account, has been for probably 5
years.
> > > >
> > > > OK. I'll try to find what you're talking about.
> >
> > Google tells me you've made 454 posts to this group. Any assistance in
narrowing that search would be much appreciated
>
> I don't know that there is one defining post to look for. try grass-fed
beef, self-sufficient. More probaly in t.p.a. than here. Afterall, this is
a recipie gropu, eh? <wink wink>
=============================
After searching for "grass-fed", I read many posts of yours that made it
clear that you are into grass-fed, hormone-free, local meat, as I am. So
why, when we talked about meat before, did you talk as if you thought ALL
supermarket beef was grass-fed? If you buy grass-fed, you must know that it
is a tiny fraction of the meat market and available in very few supermarkets
(if any).
When I searched for "self-sufficient", I got this
> IF an 'ethical' veg*n really cared, they would shuck their nine-to-five,
sell their beamer, toss the computer, and raise their level of 'caring' to
what they SAY they believe in.
There must be more. I'll keep looking...
> > > > > > > But since they are meat-included diets, veg*ns would prefer to
remain in their blind religious sanctimony.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Some would. Some wouldn't.
> > > > >
lillyc...@webtv.net
I am a hypocrite? In the vegan chat room talking about vegan topics.
And you're in the Vegan chat room for what reason? I'm posting in
alt.food.vegan - not alt.food.cancer
As far as blood gushing from my food - The last I checked there was
nothing red or liquidy oozing from my food - maybe you are thinking
about what you were doing in the shower the other day and what was
oozing from YOUR body!
Keep on eating that red meat, Dick Etter! And keep on blaming vegans
for your guilt feelings on cruelty - we're not to blame for your
stupidity!
lillyc...@webtv.net
I have absolutely NO desire to eat meat - hmmm - probably the reason why
I am in a vegan chat room - vegans do not eat meat - no offense to the
meat eaters out there in the vegan chat room futzing around - I HATE THE
TASTE OF IT ANYWAY!
dh...@nomail.com
That's as good a reason as you need not to eat it. I wouldn't eat it if I
hated it either...but I'm sure looking forward to that chicken I'm about to
cook :-) My point is that products which don't contain animal by-products
are not animal friendly. And I also often point out that veg*nism doesn't
help farm animals, because some people seem to feel that it does. PeTA
even tries to convince people that it does, and they target kids who
don't know any better. That's a pretty low way to go imo.
_________________________________________________________
Here you come to save the day!
[...]
And while Viacom and the dairy industries are counting
their cash, cows are counting on you to save them. Cows
make milk for their babies, not for people!
[...]
Please don't eat cheese or other dairy products. You'll
be saving some mother cows and their babies if you make
your life cheese-free!
http://www.peta-online.org/kids/kidaction.html
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
HOW CAN I HELP SAVE THE CHICKENS?
Life for chickens on factory farms is awful!
Chickens can feel things just as dogs and
cats do. Please help animals and stay healthy
by becoming a vegetarian! Call or write to
PETA for free recipes.
[...]
HOW CAN I HELP SAVE THE PIGS?
Pigs value their lives just as much as you
and I value ours. So please don't eat them!
Call or write to PETA for free animal-
friendly, vegetarian recipes.
http://www.peta-online.org/pdfs/Lchickid.pdf
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
see also:
http://www.peta-online.org/cmp/veg-lit.html
rick etter
<lillyc...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:2606-3C7...@storefull-131.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
> To Dick Etters:
>
> I am a hypocrite? In the vegan chat room talking about vegan topics.
> And you're in the Vegan chat room for what reason?
----------------------------------------
Come back when you get a clue, dolt. You are *not* in a chat room.
And, yes, you are a hypocrite. You claim to care about animals, you
claim to all you can to save animals, yet here you are posting your
inanities to usenet. Guess you really aren't doing all you can, eh
killer?
I'm posting in
> alt.food.vegan - not alt.food.cancer
>
> As far as blood gushing from my food - The last I checked there was
> nothing red or liquidy oozing from my food - maybe you are thinking
> about what you were doing in the shower the other day and what was
> oozing from YOUR body!
-------------------------------------
Didn't say blood was oozing *from* you food, dolt. It just is covered,
figurativly, whit the blood of millions of animals that die just so YOU
can have cheap, convenient veggies, while you post your stupidity all
around the world.
>
> Keep on eating that red meat, Dick Etter! And keep on blaming vegans
> for your guilt feelings on cruelty - we're not to blame for your
> stupidity!
===========================
My but you're so cleaver. Come up with that all by yourself?
I have no guilty feelings, I feel fine. It's you that seems to take
this too personally, so I'd guess that it is you that feels guilty! And
you should! You're the one claiming some fake concern for animals when
it's far too easy to see that your caring doesn't extend past your
selfishness and convenience. How much blood is on your hands today,
killer?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>