What's the point in being a vegetarian?
Ward M. Clark
news:AHj58.26484$nb.13...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
> "drsquare" <now...@nowhere.co.uk> wrote
> > All the moral arguments have been repeatedly shot down, and vegetables
are
> > no more delicious or nutritious than meat, so what is the point?
>
> I find a vegetarian diet more healthy. Many people with my makeup I
believe
> would find the same. Vegetarianism is an under-utilized dietary
alternative.
And I find the opposite to be true. I've tried going vegetarian for a
period of about a month, and I didn't do well at all. My energy levels and
overall well-being are much higher when my diet contains some animal
protein.
But that's just me, and I'm not Dutch. My diet works for me, and Dutch's
diet works for Dutch. Here's the great part that AR's seem to lack the
ability to grasp - I don't give a damn what Dutch eats, and Dutch doesn't
give a damn what I eat.
(AR's, you may now insert the 'would you give a damn if Dutch was killing
and eating people?' strawman here)
--
Ward M. Clark
Author, Lecturer, Traveler & Bum
www.frombearcreek.com
www.pathwai.org
boo
news:fvm58.3545$tx.1...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net:
I wouldn't give a damn if he was eating people but I'm sure someone
would...:-)
--
~boo~
All things that exist in time shall pass away, but we shall not pass away.
-James C. Gathings-
Dutch
news:hhkb5u8vs61ik3ivj...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 21:49:20 GMT, in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,
> ("Dutch" <n...@email.com>) wrote:
>
> >"drsquare" <now...@nowhere.co.uk> wrote
> >> All the moral arguments have been repeatedly shot down, and vegetables
are
> >> no more delicious or nutritious than meat, so what is the point?
> >
> >I find a vegetarian diet more healthy. Many people with my makeup I
believe
> >would find the same. Vegetarianism is an under-utilized dietary
alternative.
>
I get plenty of fat (olive oil on salads, canola for frying, donuts, etc..)
I eat complete plant protein combinations like beans and rice, and I also
eat eggs and drink milk.
I get plenty of iron by eating a lot of green leafy vegetables. I also take
vitamins.
I have a very sensitive stomach, avoiding meat saves me a lot of gastric
distress.
Dutch
> > > All the moral arguments have been repeatedly shot down, and vegetables
> are
> > > no more delicious or nutritious than meat, so what is the point?
> >
> > I find a vegetarian diet more healthy. Many people with my makeup I
> believe
> > would find the same. Vegetarianism is an under-utilized dietary
> alternative.
>
> And I find the opposite to be true. I've tried going vegetarian for a
> period of about a month, and I didn't do well at all. My energy levels
and
> overall well-being are much higher when my diet contains some animal
> protein.
I don't doubt that. I just recommend people try it when their diet isn't
working out for them.
> But that's just me, and I'm not Dutch. My diet works for me, and Dutch's
> diet works for Dutch. Here's the great part that AR's seem to lack the
> ability to grasp - I don't give a damn what Dutch eats, and Dutch doesn't
> give a damn what I eat.
I'm not totally disinterested, given the topic of the newsgroup, I just feel
no urge to change anyone else's diet, except as I said above, I think a lot
of people who might do really well on a *low* meat diet do not try it for
other reasons, such as habit, attachment to certain tastes or rituals (like
traditional dishes), or fear of being considered goofy.
> (AR's, you may now insert the 'would you give a damn if Dutch was killing
> and eating people?' strawman here)
Good work heading that one off..;^)
firstoftwins
> "drsquare" <now...@nowhere.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:hhkb5u8vs61ik3ivj...@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 28 Jan 2002 21:49:20 GMT, in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,
> > ("Dutch" <n...@email.com>) wrote:
> >
> > >"drsquare" <now...@nowhere.co.uk> wrote
> > >> All the moral arguments have been repeatedly shot down, and vegetables
> are
> > >> no more delicious or nutritious than meat, so what is the point?
> > >
> > >I find a vegetarian diet more healthy. Many people with my makeup I
> believe
> > >would find the same. Vegetarianism is an under-utilized dietary
> alternative.
> >
> > What about the lack of fat and protein and iron?
>
> I get plenty of fat (olive oil on salads, canola for frying, donuts, etc..)
>
> I eat complete plant protein combinations like beans and rice, and I also
> eat eggs and drink milk.
>
Uurgh!
> I get plenty of iron by eating a lot of green leafy vegetables. I also take
> vitamins.
>
> I have a very sensitive stomach,
I'm not surprised. Cut out the chickens monthly's and puss from
cows milk, and you'll be as right as rain in a fortnight.
> avoiding meat saves me a lot of gastric
> distress.
>
... and makes you a more ethical person, able to look down
upon the meat eaters with contempt. I know I do.
Dutch
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2002 06:37:18 GMT, in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,> >"drsquare" <now...@nowhere.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:hhkb5u8vs61ik3ivj...@4ax.com...
> >> >I find a vegetarian diet more healthy. Many people with my makeup I
> >believe
> >> >would find the same. Vegetarianism is an under-utilized dietary
> >alternative.
> >>
> >> What about the lack of fat and protein and iron?
> >
> >I get plenty of fat (olive oil on salads, canola for frying, donuts,
etc..)
>
"Fat" as you call it, or saturated (congealed) fat is the last thing you
should eat.
> >I get plenty of iron by eating a lot of green leafy vegetables. I also
take
> >vitamins.
>
> But green leafy vegetables are disgusting,
You've never had my spinach salad with dijon vinagrette, sesame seeds, and
chopped egg, or brocolli sauted in olive oil, with garlic and red peppers..
> and vitamins is cheating.
just insurance, I think any adult in a busy city life who can take them,
should.
Shepherdess
ask, anyway?
"drsquare" <now...@nowhere.co.uk> wrote in message
news:908b5u0jk4ikiigsj...@4ax.com...
Dutch
[..]
> > I have a very sensitive stomach,
>
> I'm not surprised. Cut out the chickens monthly's and puss from
> cows milk, and you'll be as right as rain in a fortnight.
note example of AR sophistry
> > avoiding meat saves me a lot of gastric
> > distress.
> >
> ... and makes you a more ethical person, able to look down
> upon the meat eaters with contempt. I know I do.
I know, that's what it's all about for ARAs, finding ways to treat people
with contempt.
firstoftwins
> "firstoftwins" <firsto...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> > > "drsquare" <now...@nowhere.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > > ("Dutch" <n...@email.com>) wrote:
> > > > >"drsquare" <now...@nowhere.co.uk> wrote
>
> [..]
> > > I have a very sensitive stomach,
> >
> > I'm not surprised. Cut out the chickens monthly's and puss from
> > cows milk, and you'll be as right as rain in a fortnight.
>
> note example of AR sophistry
>
> > > avoiding meat saves me a lot of gastric
> > > distress.
> > >
> > ... and makes you a more ethical person, able to look down
> > upon the meat eaters with contempt. I know I do.
>
> I know, that's what it's all about for ARAs, finding ways to treat people
> with contempt.
>
People who harm or condone harm to innocent creatures deserve
the good vegans contempt. People who kick old ladies in the shins
deserve the same too.
Dutch
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> > "firstoftwins" <firsto...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> > > > "drsquare" <now...@nowhere.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > > > ("Dutch" <n...@email.com>) wrote:
> > > > > >"drsquare" <now...@nowhere.co.uk> wrote
> >
> > [..]
> > > > I have a very sensitive stomach,
> > >
> > > I'm not surprised. Cut out the chickens monthly's and puss from
> > > cows milk, and you'll be as right as rain in a fortnight.
> >
> > note example of AR sophistry
> >
> Good.
No, it's the sign of a failed argument that it must be constantly propped up with
crutches like the use of words for shock value. If your position had truth value
that wouldn't be necessary.
> > > > avoiding meat saves me a lot of gastric
> > > > distress.
> > > >
> > > ... and makes you a more ethical person, able to look down
> > > upon the meat eaters with contempt. I know I do.
> >
> > I know, that's what it's all about for ARAs, finding ways to treat people
> > with contempt.
> >
> People who harm or condone harm to innocent creatures deserve
> the good vegans contempt.
In the AR lexicon, only the harm caused by OTHER's lifestyles is worthy of
contempt. In typical hypocritical self-serving fashion, the harm YOU cause is
ignored or explained away..
> People who kick old ladies in the shins
> deserve the same too.
You cause plenty of "shins to be kicked". You just aren't man enough to admit it.
firstoftwins
> "firstoftwins" <firsto...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> > > "firstoftwins" <firsto...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > > > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> > > > > "drsquare" <now...@nowhere.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > > > > ("Dutch" <n...@email.com>) wrote:
> > > > > > >"drsquare" <now...@nowhere.co.uk> wrote
> > >
> > > [..]
> > > > > I have a very sensitive stomach,
> > > >
> > > > I'm not surprised. Cut out the chickens monthly's and puss from
> > > > cows milk, and you'll be as right as rain in a fortnight.
> > >
> > > note example of AR sophistry
> > >
> > Good.
>
> No, it's the sign of a failed argument that it must be constantly propped up with
> crutches like the use of words for shock value. If your position had truth value
> that wouldn't be necessary.
>
> > > > > avoiding meat saves me a lot of gastric
> > > > > distress.
> > > > >
> > > > ... and makes you a more ethical person, able to look down
> > > > upon the meat eaters with contempt. I know I do.
> > >
> > > I know, that's what it's all about for ARAs, finding ways to treat people
> > > with contempt.
> > >
> > People who harm or condone harm to innocent creatures deserve
> > the good vegans contempt.
>
> In the AR lexicon, only the harm caused by OTHER's lifestyles is worthy of
> contempt. In typical hypocritical self-serving fashion, the harm YOU cause is
> ignored or explained away..
>
I don't agree with either of those unsubstantiated comments.
You have no proof for either of them.
> > People who kick old ladies in the shins
> > deserve the same too.
>
> You cause plenty of "shins to be kicked". You just aren't man enough to admit it.
>
Nope. The farmer does all the killing, not me.
rick etter
snips...
> >
> > You cause plenty of "shins to be kicked". You just aren't man enough to admit it.
> >
> Nope. The farmer does all the killing, not me.
----------------------
And, as a moral agent, making a personal choice, unforced by anyone
else, you choose to reward said farmers for your veggies. That
decision, knowing what you know the farmer does, makes you morally
culpable for the choice you make, i.e., kill animals for cheap,
convenient veggies. Even your pal Aristotle told you this. In english
prose, too!
firstoftwins
"rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message
news:3C5EBAD5...@bright.net...
> firstoftwins wrote:
> >
> > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> > news:ubn78.20789$cy1.1...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
>
> snips...
>
>
>
> > >
> > > You cause plenty of "shins to be kicked". You just aren't man enough to admit
it.
> > >
> > Nope. The farmer does all the killing, not me.
> ----------------------
> And, as a moral agent, making a personal choice, unforced by anyone
> else, you choose to reward said farmers for your veggies.
So far so good.
> That
> decision, knowing what you know the farmer does, makes you morally
> culpable for the choice you make, i.e., kill animals for cheap,
> convenient veggies.
That doesn't follow at all. If he kills animals during the process
of producing my grub then he is solely responsible for them. We
are responsible for our own actions, not anyone else's.
> Even your pal Aristotle told you this. In english
> prose, too!
He certainly did.
rick etter
>
> "rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message
> news:3C5EBAD5...@bright.net...
> > firstoftwins wrote:
> > >
> > > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> > > news:ubn78.20789$cy1.1...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
> >
> > snips...
> >
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > You cause plenty of "shins to be kicked". You just aren't man enough to admit
> it.
> > > >
> > > Nope. The farmer does all the killing, not me.
> > ----------------------
> > And, as a moral agent, making a personal choice, unforced by anyone
> > else, you choose to reward said farmers for your veggies.
>
> So far so good.
It's all good.
>
> > That
> > decision, knowing what you know the farmer does, makes you morally
> > culpable for the choice you make, i.e., kill animals for cheap,
> > convenient veggies.
>
> That doesn't follow at all. If he kills animals during the process
> of producing my grub then he is solely responsible for them. We
> are responsible for our own actions, not anyone else's.
===================
tap, tap, tap your dance steps are off, twits.
You are responsible for YOUR choices. You CHOOSE to buy products in
which animals are killed for YOUR convenience. You are the agent making
that choice. You choose to state that killing animals in unethical, yet
you still choose to reward those that do just that. Since you make no
attempt to choose otherwise, you are morally culpable. But keep on
dancing, you're more amusing everytime you post.
>
> > Even your pal Aristotle told you this. In english
> > prose, too!
>
> He certainly did.
=================
And it goes right over your head every time he speaks to you.
firstoftwins
They're killed for the farmers convenience, not mine.
> You are the agent making
> that choice. You choose to state that killing animals in unethical, yet
> you still choose to reward those that do just that.
No I don't. I only reward the farmer for his veg, not how he
gets them to my plate.
> Since you make no
> attempt to choose otherwise, you are morally culpable.
Nope, not in the slightest.
> But keep on
> dancing, you're more amusing everytime you post.
>
> >
> > > Even your pal Aristotle told you this. In english
> > > prose, too!
> >
> > He certainly did.
> =================
> And it goes right over your head every time he speaks to you.
No he doesn't.
rick etter
"firstoftwins" <firsto...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a3mtoc$1f7$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
-----------------------------
tap, tap, tap, tap.
you're a real hoot, hypocrite!! keep on dancing.
firstoftwins
has no effect upon me. Save it for the newbies.
rick etter
You're the continual liar, killer. Better try something else.
> and your silly little guilt trip
> has no effect upon me.
=============================
That's because you are morally and ethically bankrupt, hypocrite.
> Save it for the newbies.
=============
no need, they can see your ignorance and sleazy, drug induced tap
dancing very easily. Tell us again how no animals died for your drugs,
killer. That one's always good for a great laugh!!
Poser
while. Bear with me.
Oh, and I am on the vegan side, if anyone is wondering.
We'll start out with...
> It's called 'acquiring food'. All non-herbivorous animals do it. Do you
> hold them in contempt as well?
Hmm... Too bad for your argument that humans are herbivorous,
physiologocally...
Poser
"drsquare" <now...@nowhere.co.uk> wrote in message
news:i5oq5ug8pavhvvei4...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 3 Feb 2002 14:17:15 -0000, in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,
> ("firstoftwins" <firsto...@hotmail.com>) wrote:
>
> >"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> >news:P3578.14904$2x2.7...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
> >> > ... and makes you a more ethical person, able to look down
> >> > upon the meat eaters with contempt. I know I do.
> >>
> >> I know, that's what it's all about for ARAs, finding ways to treat
people
> >> with contempt.
> >>
> >People who harm or condone harm to innocent creatures deserve
> >the good vegans contempt.
> >People who kick old ladies in the shins
> >deserve the same too.
>
> That's quite funny actually.
>
>
> --
> Drsquare
> '. .' . .
> '. : : .''
> : : : .'
> : : : : .'
> : : : : : : :
> : :' ' ' . : : : : :
> : : : : : :
> : .'''. : . .:
> : : ` : : . :
> '.'...'.' :
> :''''' ' :
> : . :
> : : :
> '.....:......'
Ward M. Clark
news:3c60adfa$1...@skycache-news.fidnet.com...
> Hi. I'm knew here, so I am possible gonna bring up some old arguments for
a
> while. Bear with me.
>
> Oh, and I am on the vegan side, if anyone is wondering.
>
> We'll start out with...
>
> > It's called 'acquiring food'. All non-herbivorous animals do it. Do you
> > hold them in contempt as well?
>
> Hmm... Too bad for your argument that humans are herbivorous,
> physiologocally...
Too bad for your argument that this statement isn't true. Humans are
neither herbivorous nor carnivorous, physiologically or behaviorally. Try
again?
>
> Poser
>
>
<snip>
Poser
> > > It's called 'acquiring food'. All non-herbivorous animals do it. Do
you
> > > hold them in contempt as well?
> >
> > Hmm... Too bad for your argument that humans are herbivorous,
> > physiologocally...
>
> Too bad for your argument that this statement isn't true. Humans are
> neither herbivorous nor carnivorous, physiologically or behaviorally. Try
> again?
Indulge me: How are we anotomically different than any other herbivore?
I can give ya plenty of differences between us and any other carnivore, or
even omnivore.
firstoftwins
> "firstoftwins" <firsto...@hotmail.com> wrote>
>
> > > > Nope. The farmer does all the killing, not me.
>
> the meat eater isn't accused of that.
>
> Your crime is far worse.
>
Oh dear. I wonder what it could be.
Poser
are not herbivores either?
Whether or not we DO eat meat doesn't prove anything. It is a matter of
whether or not we are physically designed to eat meat. And we aren't.
Poser
"drsquare" <now...@nowhere.co.uk> wrote in message
news:u1c26uol9hc0eudsb...@4ax.com...
> fOn Wed, 6 Feb 2002 00:09:25 -0600, in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,
> ("Poser" <rolan...@hotmail.com>) wrote:
>
> >> Too bad for your argument that this statement isn't true. Humans are
> >> neither herbivorous nor carnivorous, physiologically or behaviorally.
Try
> >> again?
> >
> >Indulge me: How are we anotomically different than any other herbivore?
>
> The fact that we eat meat suggests that we are not herbivores. No
actually,
> it proves it.
hlk
wrote:
> Indulge me: How are we anotomically different than any other herbivore?
> I can give ya plenty of differences between us and any other carnivore, or
> even omnivore.
(http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_087.html)
Dear Cecil:
Is man a meat-eater or a vegetarian by nature? According to the
enclosed clipping from a vegetarian magazine, "The intestinal length
of carnivores (meat-eating animals) is three times the body length to
allow for quick removal of flesh wastes that putrefy in the
intestines. Man's intestine length, like other herbivores, is six
times his body length and is designed for digesting vegetables,
grains, and fruits." I'm not a meat-eater but my girlfriend is and she
is not convinced man is a natural vegetarian. We decided to leave it
up to you. (Why I agreed to this I don't know, it's obvious from your
aggressive tone that you like your steak rare.) Please, don't
embarrass yourself by quoting that garbage from the National Beef
Council that meat is our best source of protein. Even high school kids
know better than that. --L. Williams, Culver City, California
Cecil replies:
Listen, wimp--whoops, too aggressive. Gimme some of that tofu burger.
Ah, I can feel the testosterone receding already. Now then, let us
reason like gentlemen. There are some intelligent arguments for
vegetarianism, but claiming that man is "naturally" herbivorous isn't
one of them. The settled judgment of science is that man is an
omnivore, capable of eating both meat and vegetables, much as certain
four-year-olds might like to convince their mothers otherwise.
Like the hard-core carnivores, we have fairly simple digestive systems
well suited to the consumption of animal protein, which breaks down
quickly. Contrary to what your magazine article says, the human small
intestine, at 23 feet, is a little under eight times body length
(assuming a mouth-to-anus "body length" of three feet). This is about
midway between cats (three times body length), dogs (3-1/2 times), and
other well-known meat eaters on the one hand and plant eaters such as
cattle (20 to 1) and horses (12 to 1) on the other. This tends to
support the idea that we are omnivores.
Herbivores also have a variety of specialized digestive organs capable
of breaking down cellulose, the main component of plant tissue. Humans
find cellulose totally indigestible, and even plant eaters have to
take their time with it. If you were a ruminant (cud eater), for
instance, you might have a stomach with four compartments, enabling
you to cough up last night's alfalfa and chew on it all over again.
Or you might have an enlarged cecum, a sac attached to the intestines,
where rabbits and such store food until their intestinal bacteria have
time to do their stuff. Digestion in such cases takes place by a
process of fermentation--bacteria actually "eat" the cellulose and the
host animal consumes what results, namely bacteria dung.
The story is roughly the same with teeth. We're equipped with an
all-purpose set of ivories equally suited to liver and onions.
Good thing, too. I won't claim meat is the ideal source of protein,
but on the whole it's better than plants. Sure, soybeans and other
products of modern agriculture are pretty nutritious. But in the wild,
much of the plant menu consists of leaves and stems, which are low in
food value. True herbivores have to spend much of the day scrounging
for snacks just to keep their strength up.
So make no mistake: we were born to eat meat. That's not to say you
have to. There's no question that strictly from a health standpoint
we'd all be a lot better off eating less meat (red meat especially)
and more fruits and vegetables. But vegetarians aren't going to
advance their cause by making ridiculous claims.
VEGETARIANS GO APE
Dear Cecil:
Your statement that "we were born to eat meat" is nonsense. In using
comparative anatomy to determine what man was "meant" to eat, we
should look at the species most similar to man, namely the anthropoid
apes--chimpanzees, gibbons, gorillas, and orangutans. Of all animals,
man's digestive organs and teeth most closely resemble these apes. In
captivity, some of these animals will eat meat if forced to rather
than starve to death. But in the wild, all eat a vegetarian diet.
Another strong clue that man is naturally a vegetarian is the fact
that vegetarians in general are much healthier than omnivores. The
American Dietetic Association has acknowledged that vegetarians are
less at risk for a number of chronic diseases, including heart
disease, some types of cancer, obesity, high blood pressure, and
adult-onset diabetes.
Eating a healthy diet goes far beyond cutting back a bit on red meat.
In a recent study of 6,500 Chinese, Dr. T. Collin Campbell of Cornell
found that even though the Chinese overall eat only a fraction of the
animal protein Americans do, those who ate the least animal protein
nonetheless had lower risk of disease than the average Chinese. Dr.
Campbell concludes, "We're basically a vegetarian species and should
be eating a wide variety of plant foods and minimizing our intake of
animal foods." --Glen Kime, president, Vegetarian Society of
Washington, D.C.
Dear Glen:
I feel like I'm arguing that the Pope is Catholic. To clarify a point
that eluded many who wrote me about this: the issue is not whether
vegetarianism is healthier, better for the planet, etc., than the
standard U.S. diet. I don't doubt it is. It's whether humans are
naturally vegetarians.
Here it seems to me the best evidence is our history as a species. We
have been happily eating meat for at least two million years, and
probably much longer. The common view among anthropologists, in fact,
is that increased meat consumption was a key element in the
development of human culture, since getting and distributing the stuff
requires cooperation.
Not all anthropoid apes are exclusively vegetarian. The primatologist
Jane Goodall established more than 20 years ago that wild chimpanzees
kill other animals once in a while and eat the meat with relish. Other
primates (although apparently not gorillas) do so as well. It's true
chimps and other apes eat a mostly veggie diet, but for that matter so
do most humans. Hunter-gatherers today consume only about 35 percent
meat to 65 percent vegetables (Lee and Devore, 1976). Anyway, we and
the anthropoid apes diverged six to 14 million years ago--who cares
what monkeys munch now?
Your argument that meat-eaters are more prone to chronic disease is
irrelevant. Chronic disease typically strikes the old, not those of
prime child-rearing age. Till recently most folks never got chronic
disease because they died of the acute kind first. It's had minimal
impact on our ability to reproduce ourselves, which of course is the
basis of natural selection. In short, as we evolved, chronic disease
did not "select out" for vegetarianism. I trust you see the
significance of this.
There is much to be said for vegetarianism. I am at a loss to know why
vegetarians cannot be content simply to say it, without taking the
argument over a cliff.
THERE'S ONE IN EVERY CROWD
Dear Cecil:
In reading through your column "Vegetarians Go Ape," I noticed an
unusual fact that you seemed to expose with great confidence. You
stated that "Jane Goodall established more than twenty years ago that
wild chimpanzees kill other animals once in a while and eat the meat
with relish." I question the accuracy of this. Where would wild
chimpanzees obtain relish? --Guru Singh Khalsa, Los Angeles
MAKE THAT TWO IN EVERY CROWD
Dear Cecil:
You obviously know everything. Is it true Stanley and Livingston
penetrated darkest Africa wearing pith helmets because they knew they
would find no plumbing there? --Eugene B. Vest, Chicago
Dear Eugene:
Oh, pith off.
--CECIL ADAMS
firstoftwins
> So... Does the fact that we feed ground up cow parts to cows mean that they
> are not herbivores either?
>
> Whether or not we DO eat meat doesn't prove anything. It is a matter of
> whether or not we are physically designed to eat meat. And we aren't.
And you're entirely right;
[...the dietary shift from apes to early hominids did not involve
an increase in the consumption of tough foods, and so, the
australopithecines were **not pre-adapted for eating meat.**]
**my emphasis**
http://www.cast.uark.edu/local/icaes/conferences/wburg/posters/pungar/satalk.htm
[These teeth were well-suited to breaking down hard, brittle
foods including some fruits and nuts, and soft, weak foods
such as flowers and buds; **but again, they were ** not**
well-suited to breaking-down tough pliant foods like stems,
soft seed pods, and meat.** ..] **my emphasis**
http://www.cast.uark.edu/local/icaes/conferences/wburg/posters/pungar/satalk.htm
About 5% of the flesh volume of all animals consists of waste
material called uric acid that is normally eliminated by the
kidneys. Uric acid is a poison to humans because it is toxic
and non-metabolizable. Nearly 100% of Americans suffer
some form of osteoporosis which is due in large part, to the
acidic end-products of meat (and grain) eating. All
carnivorous animals however, secrete the enzyme uricase
that breaks down uric acid so it can be readily eliminated.
Humans do not generate this enzyme.
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/BiologicalAdaptations.htm
firstoftwins
> "firstoftwins" <firsto...@hotmail.com> wrote ...
> > >
> > > > > > Nope. The farmer does all the killing, not me.
> > >
> > > You aren't being accused of "doing all the killing", or even any of it. Even
> > > the meat eater isn't accused of that.
> > >
> > > Your crime is far worse.
> > >
> > Oh dear. I wonder what it could be.
>
>
> If a person commits an act they know causes harm, they are responsible.
Exactly! I agree entirely!
If a farmer kills an animal, he is responsible.
> When you
> ask others to commit that act for you, you are not only responsible for the act
> itself, but also for involving others in the crime.
>
That's perfectly tue as well. It's what I've been saying all along.
So where do I fit into all this? I haven't commited an act that
causes any harm, and I haven't asked anyone to commit any
harm on my behalf either.
Poser
they
> >are not herbivores either?
>
> natural devices?
No. They don't eat it out of choice. We force them to be cannibals. But
that's not really the point, I guess.
>
> >Whether or not we DO eat meat doesn't prove anything. It is a matter of
> >whether or not we are physically designed to eat meat. And we aren't.
>
> That explains why I can digest meat no problem, and have teeth specially
> designed for it.
You are able to digest meat, to be certain, but I think to say that you can
do it with "no problem" is a bit of a stretch. More and more evidence is
turning up linking all sorts of health problems to the ingestion of meat.
And your teeth are not specially designed to eat meat. You think that just
because you have canines that you are suited to eat meat??? Take a look at
your canines, and then the canines of any true omnivore or carnivore. You
will fine that yours are a LOT shorter, and nowhere near as sharp. Now,
look at gorillas. I'm sure it would be no surprise to most people to find
that their dental structures are closer to ours than any other animal. They
have canines too. Bigger, longer, canines than we have, and they are
frugivores (eating mainly fruits and nuts). I could go on about how all of
our other teeth, our jaws, our facial muscles, etc, are all considerably
different from omnivores and carnivores, but I will spare you that for now.
Poser
hlk
wrote:
> Now,
> look at gorillas. I'm sure it would be no surprise to most people to find
> that their dental structures are closer to ours than any other animal. They
> have canines too. Bigger, longer, canines than we have, and they are
> frugivores (eating mainly fruits and nuts).
And sometimes meat.
Whozat
rolan...@hotmail.com wrote on 2/6/02 9:08 AM:
> So... Does the fact that we feed ground up cow parts to cows mean that they
> are not herbivores either?
>
> Whether or not we DO eat meat doesn't prove anything. It is a matter of
> whether or not we are physically designed to eat meat. And we aren't.
>
How do you know? Did you design us, or did you just adopt some loon's
opinion from a Web site?
Ward M. Clark
>
> > > > It's called 'acquiring food'. All non-herbivorous animals do it. Do
> you
> > > > hold them in contempt as well?
> > >
> > > Hmm... Too bad for your argument that humans are herbivorous,
> > > physiologocally...
> >
> > Too bad for your argument that this statement isn't true. Humans are
> > neither herbivorous nor carnivorous, physiologically or behaviorally.
Try
> > again?
>
>
> Indulge me: How are we anotomically different than any other herbivore?
Not any "other" herbivore; humans are omnivores. Humans don't have extended
digestive tracts, we don't have mutli-chambered, fermenting stomachs; we are
in almost every respect intermediary between "pure" herbivores like cattle,
sheep, etc. and obligate carnivores, like cats. In other words; omnivores.
We are also **behaviorally** omnivorous, and have been so for at least a
couple of million years; in fact, throughout most of human history our
tendency has been towards more meat eating, not less.
You can't get much more 'natural' than that.
> I can give ya plenty of differences between us and any other carnivore, or
> even omnivore.
Oh, sure you can. I bet we've never seen them before, too.
Dutch
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> > "firstoftwins" <firsto...@hotmail.com> wrote ...
> > > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> > > > "firstoftwins" <firsto...@hotmail.com> wrote>
> > > >
> > > > > > > Nope. The farmer does all the killing, not me.
> > > >
> > > > You aren't being accused of "doing all the killing", or even any of it.
Even
> > > > the meat eater isn't accused of that.
> > > >
> > > > Your crime is far worse.
> > > >
> > > Oh dear. I wonder what it could be.
> >
> > conspiracy
> >
> > If a person commits an act they know causes harm, they are responsible.
>
> Exactly! I agree entirely!
> If a farmer kills an animal, he is responsible.
Exactly, he is responsible for the act of killing the animal. That is his crime,
by your evaluation of the act. Your crime is a totally different and separate act,
the consequences for which you are responsible, just like the farmer. Your crime
is asking for the food you know is tainted with death. Then you compound the
offense by trying to pretend you aren't involved. How totally gutless and beneath
contempt.
> > When you
> > ask others to commit that act for you, you are not only responsible for the
act
> > itself, but also for involving others in the crime.
> >
> That's perfectly tue as well.
> It's what I've been saying all along.
You demand cheap and easily available vegetables, fruit, and grain in order to
continue your indolent lifestyle slandering farmers over the internet.You DEMAND
that this flow continue unabated so you can sustain yourself to attack those who
grow the very food. These repeated demands are your crimes. You know the food is
tainted, but you don't have the guts to find some alternative, so you try to
pretend that the problem never happened, well sorry mate, but I was there, it
happened, and it was a train wreck.
> So where do I fit into all this? I haven't commited an act that
> causes any harm, and I haven't asked anyone to commit any
> harm on my behalf either.
It's your refusal to lift yourself off your lazy ass and find a way to get
sustenance without killing animals, while all the while pointing and uttering
shrill condemnations towards meat eaters. It all would be comical except that it's
so insulting.
firstoftwins
> "firstoftwins" <firsto...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> > > "firstoftwins" <firsto...@hotmail.com> wrote ...
> > > > "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> > > > > "firstoftwins" <firsto...@hotmail.com> wrote>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > Nope. The farmer does all the killing, not me.
> > > > >
> > > > > You aren't being accused of "doing all the killing", or even any of it.
> Even
> > > > > the meat eater isn't accused of that.
> > > > >
> > > > > Your crime is far worse.
> > > > >
> > > > Oh dear. I wonder what it could be.
> > >
> > > conspiracy
> > >
> > > If a person commits an act they know causes harm, they are responsible.
> >
> > Exactly! I agree entirely!
> > If a farmer kills an animal, he is responsible.
>
> Exactly, he is responsible for the act of killing the animal. That is his crime,
> by your evaluation of the act. Your crime is a totally different and separate act,
> the consequences for which you are responsible, just like the farmer. Your crime
> is asking for the food you know is tainted with death. Then you compound the
> offense by trying to pretend you aren't involved. How totally gutless and beneath
> contempt.
>
is based on your own ignorance. As the farmer kills the animals, he is
solely responsible for his own actions. We've already established that.
Sharing any responsibility for these deaths is impossible as I am not
involved or complicit in what the farmer does to fatten his profits. The
food I buy from the store are tainted with his death toll, not mine. It's
not an agreeable situation, but my hands are clean and I sleep soundly
knowing I live a death free lifestyle.
> > > When you
> > > ask others to commit that act for you, you are not only responsible for the
> act
> > > itself, but also for involving others in the crime.
> > >
> > That's perfectly tue as well.
> > It's what I've been saying all along.
>
> You demand cheap and easily available vegetables, fruit, and grain in order to
> continue your indolent lifestyle slandering farmers over the internet.
No, I buy food to sustain me generally.
> You DEMAND
> that this flow continue unabated so you can sustain yourself to attack those who
> grow the very food.
No, I buy food to sustain me generally.
> These repeated demands are your crimes. You know the food is
> tainted, but you don't have the guts to find some alternative, so you try to
> pretend that the problem never happened, well sorry mate, but I was there, it
> happened, and it was a train wreck.
>
What a load of rubbish. I don't pretend they never happened, you fool.
I know CD exist, and I know who causes them; the farmer.
> > So where do I fit into all this? I haven't commited an act that
> > causes any harm, and I haven't asked anyone to commit any
> > harm on my behalf either.
>
> It's your refusal to lift yourself off your lazy ass and find a way to get
> sustenance without killing animals, while all the while pointing and uttering
> shrill condemnations towards meat eaters. It all would be comical except that it's
> so insulting.
>
So, be insulted then. You wouldn't feel insulted if you weren't
already in a position to be insulted. Your pathetic concepts on
moral responsibility, and your childish little guilt trip over CD in
agriculture give me plenty of room to insult you. And what's
more; I do find it comical.
--
What a piece of work is a man! how noble in reason!
how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how
express and admirable! in action how like an angel!
in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the
world! the paragon of animals!
Hamlet
rick etter
>
normal pathetic, ethically bankrupt tap dancing snipped....
> >
> So, be insulted then. You wouldn't feel insulted if you weren't
> already in a position to be insulted. Your pathetic concepts on
> moral responsibility, and your childish little guilt trip over CD in
> agriculture give me plenty of room to insult you. And what's
> more; I do find it comical.
>
------------------------
LOL feeling insulted by the ignorant twit that your are? What a hoot!!
You don't have the brain of a pea! It's been eaten away by all your
drug usage, killer. But like i said, keep on posting this hilarious
stuff! It does wonders for us!! Laughter is, afterall, the best
medicine. You really should try it sometime, instead of relying on your
hatred so much.
Dutch
I'm not referring to the act of killing the animal, I just told you that,
why aren't you listening?
> Sharing any responsibility for these deaths is impossible as I am not
> involved or complicit in what the farmer does to fatten his profits.
I'm not talking about the farmer's acts, I'm talking about YOUR acts.
> The
> food I buy from the store are tainted with his death toll, not mine.
You're wrong, your knowledge effects the moral implications of your act. If
you knew humans were killed routinely due to farmers "fattening profits"
should you not choose a different farmer? Would you not be unethical if you
bought the food anyway?
> It's
> not an agreeable situation, but my hands are clean and I sleep soundly
> knowing I live a death free lifestyle.
What does not agreeable mean? If your actions eventually result in deaths,
then why should you not change your behaviour? How are you better than a
meat eater?
[..]
> > > So where do I fit into all this? I haven't commited an act that
> > > causes any harm, and I haven't asked anyone to commit any
> > > harm on my behalf either.
> >
> > It's your refusal to lift yourself off your lazy ass and find a way to
get
> > sustenance without killing animals, while all the while pointing and
uttering
> > shrill condemnations towards meat eaters. It all would be comical except
that it's
> > so insulting.
> >
> So, be insulted then. You wouldn't feel insulted if you weren't
> already in a position to be insulted.
What does that mean?
>Your pathetic concepts on
> moral responsibility, and your childish little guilt trip over CD in
> agriculture give me plenty of room to insult you. And what's
> more; I do find it comical.
If I knowingly buy stolen goods, I am guilty of a crime, even though I
didn't steal them. That fact is based on a simple ethical principle which
you cannot avoid with shrill denials.
firstoftwins
screwing up every post you get involved in to the
point where they're unreadable.
"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
news:Ayc98.2240$A44.1...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
If these animals are being killed, then it would be wise
to focus on who's actually killing them. Don't you agree?
> > Sharing any responsibility for these deaths is impossible as I am not
> > involved or complicit in what the farmer does to fatten his profits.
>
> I'm not talking about the farmer's acts, I'm talking about YOUR acts.
>
Buying his produce is not a wrong act.
> > The
> > food I buy from the store are tainted with his death toll, not mine.
>
> You're wrong, your knowledge effects the moral implications of your act.
Certainly not. My act is simply buying his produce. His CD toll
is his own act and completely severed from my act. Neither act
is a prerequisite to each other.
> If
> you knew humans were killed routinely due to farmers "fattening profits"
> should you not choose a different farmer? Would you not be unethical if you
> bought the food anyway?
>
I believe farmers may indeed be responsible for a good deal of
human deaths. Ever heard of CJD? I still buy from him though.
We have to because we eat. He pollutes our environment with
his cides, but I still buy from him.
> > It's
> > not an agreeable situation, but my hands are clean and I sleep soundly
> > knowing I live a death free lifestyle.
>
> What does not agreeable mean?
It means I don't agree with his methods of farming. He kills
animals, even while producing the crops I eat. He kills even
more when producing crops for farm animals.
> If your actions eventually result in deaths,
> then why should you not change your behaviour?
My actions don't result in deaths. I don't need to change my
behaviour. It's his behaviour that actually kills these critters.
> How are you better than a
> meat eater?
>
A meat eater issues a directive that an animal be killed for his
dinner, whereas I don't. Some restaurants let the customer
choose his own live lobster before it gets boiled to death.
What better example of such a directive can you give than
that? But there's another reason why I believe my habits are
better than those of the meat eater; I don't eat dead corpses
or drink puss.
> [..]
> > > > So where do I fit into all this? I haven't commited an act that
> > > > causes any harm, and I haven't asked anyone to commit any
> > > > harm on my behalf either.
> > >
> > > It's your refusal to lift yourself off your lazy ass and find a way to
> get
> > > sustenance without killing animals, while all the while pointing and
> uttering
> > > shrill condemnations towards meat eaters. It all would be comical except
> that it's
> > > so insulting.
> > >
> > So, be insulted then. You wouldn't feel insulted if you weren't
> > already in a position to be insulted.
>
> What does that mean?
>
Siding with meat eaters and foisting the CD guilt trip on vegans
puts you in an odious position worthy of insult from those who
find your position offensive.
> >Your pathetic concepts on
> > moral responsibility, and your childish little guilt trip over CD in
> > agriculture give me plenty of room to insult you. And what's
> > more; I do find it comical.
>
> If I knowingly buy stolen goods, I am guilty of a crime, even though I
> didn't steal them. That fact is based on a simple ethical principle which
> you cannot avoid with shrill denials.
>
You can't buy stolen goods. Goods can only be bought from their
rightful owner. You would only be paying for the endeavours of the
crook who stole them, not the goods themselves.
rick etter
"firstoftwins" <firsto...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a440g2$tv9$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Why don't you adjust your settings, Dutch? You're
> screwing up every post you get involved in to the
> point where they're unreadable.
====================================
Don't see any problem with his posts. Yours, on the other hand, become
unreadably simply for the lack any sense in them.
snippage...
Dutch
> Why don't you adjust your settings, Dutch? You're
> screwing up every post you get involved in to the
> point where they're unreadable.
This is a new computer using Windows XP and IE6.0 default settings. You are
full of shit as usual.
That depends on what one is doing. I am tracing the whole process, so I am
naturally interested in what motivates the farmer, which it turns out is
your hunger.
>
> > > Sharing any responsibility for these deaths is impossible as I am not
> > > involved or complicit in what the farmer does to fatten his profits.
> >
> > I'm not talking about the farmer's acts, I'm talking about YOUR acts.
> >
> Buying his produce is not a wrong act.
It is by your standards if you know that doing so will result in innocent
animals being murdered.
> > > The
> > > food I buy from the store are tainted with his death toll, not mine.
> >
> > You're wrong, your knowledge effects the moral implications of your act.
>
> Certainly not. My act is simply buying his produce. His CD toll
> is his own act and completely severed from my act. Neither act
> is a prerequisite to each other.
If you didn't demand the veggies he wouldn't grow them. If he didn't grow
them, you couldn't buy them. They seem pretty closely tied to me.
>
> > If
> > you knew humans were killed routinely due to farmers "fattening profits"
> > should you not choose a different farmer? Would you not be unethical if
you
> > bought the food anyway?
> >
> I believe farmers may indeed be responsible for a good deal of
> human deaths. Ever heard of CJD? I still buy from him though.
> We have to because we eat. He pollutes our environment with
> his cides, but I still buy from him.
Bullshit diversion, answer the question. Why do you continue to support the
bloodbath of commercial agriculture?
>
> > > It's
> > > not an agreeable situation, but my hands are clean and I sleep soundly
> > > knowing I live a death free lifestyle.
> >
> > What does not agreeable mean?
>
> It means I don't agree with his methods of farming. He kills
> animals, even while producing the crops I eat.
Then fire him.
>He kills even
> more when producing crops for farm animals.
Meat eaters aren't claiming a death-free diet, so it doesn't make them
hypocritical like you..
> > If your actions eventually result in deaths,
> > then why should you not change your behaviour?
>
> My actions don't result in deaths. I don't need to change my
> behaviour. It's his behaviour that actually kills these critters.
It's your actions that drive him and enable him to do it. You have choice,
and you choose NOT to exercise it on behalf of the animals you claim to
believe have rights. You are a sad case.
> > How are you better than a
> > meat eater?
> >
> A meat eater issues a directive that an animal be killed for his
> dinner, whereas I don't.
You issue a directive that you want food, regardless of how many animal
deaths it causes, that's no different.
Some restaurants let the customer
> choose his own live lobster before it gets boiled to death.
> What better example of such a directive can you give than
> that? But there's another reason why I believe my habits are
> better than those of the meat eater; I don't eat dead corpses
> or drink puss.
You think not? You breathe in living organisms every time you inhale.
[..]
> > > > > So where do I fit into all this? I haven't commited an act that
> > > > > causes any harm, and I haven't asked anyone to commit any
> > > > > harm on my behalf either.
> > > >
> > > > It's your refusal to lift yourself off your lazy ass and find a way
to
> > get
> > > > sustenance without killing animals, while all the while pointing and
> > uttering
> > > > shrill condemnations towards meat eaters. It all would be comical
except
> > that it's
> > > > so insulting.
> > > >
> > > So, be insulted then. You wouldn't feel insulted if you weren't
> > > already in a position to be insulted.
> >
> > What does that mean?
> >
> Siding with meat eaters and foisting the CD guilt trip on vegans
> puts you in an odious position worthy of insult from those who
> find your position offensive.
My perception isn't made up of meat eaters and non-meat eaters, it's made up
of ethical people and shirkers.
>
> > >Your pathetic concepts on
> > > moral responsibility, and your childish little guilt trip over CD in
> > > agriculture give me plenty of room to insult you. And what's
> > > more; I do find it comical.
> >
> > If I knowingly buy stolen goods, I am guilty of a crime, even though I
> > didn't steal them. That fact is based on a simple ethical principle
which
> > you cannot avoid with shrill denials.
> >
> You can't buy stolen goods.
Wanna bet?
> Goods can only be bought from their
> rightful owner. You would only be paying for the endeavours of the
> crook who stole them, not the goods themselves.
Thank you for admitting that I buy the actions of the crook, just like you
buy the actions of the farmer.
firstoftwins
up his wares without payment? My hunger doesn't drive him.
> >
> > > > Sharing any responsibility for these deaths is impossible as I am not
> > > > involved or complicit in what the farmer does to fatten his profits.
> > >
> > > I'm not talking about the farmer's acts, I'm talking about YOUR acts.
> > >
> > Buying his produce is not a wrong act.
>
> It is by your standards if you know that doing so will result in innocent
> animals being murdered.
>
combine does all the harm. By my standards; I know that the
farmer causes these deaths for fatter profits, not my benefit.
He is responsible for any CD he causes. I am responsible for
any I cause.
> > > > The
> > > > food I buy from the store are tainted with his death toll, not mine.
> > >
> > > You're wrong, your knowledge effects the moral implications of your act.
> >
> > Certainly not. My act is simply buying his produce. His CD toll
> > is his own act and completely severed from my act. Neither act
> > is a prerequisite to each other.
>
> If you didn't demand the veggies he wouldn't grow them. If he didn't grow
> them, you couldn't buy them. They seem pretty closely tied to me.
>
That's because you left the CD argument out of those two
statements. tch tch tch
> >
> > > If
> > > you knew humans were killed routinely due to farmers "fattening profits"
> > > should you not choose a different farmer? Would you not be unethical if
> you
> > > bought the food anyway?
> > >
> > I believe farmers may indeed be responsible for a good deal of
> > human deaths. Ever heard of CJD? I still buy from him though.
> > We have to because we eat. He pollutes our environment with
> > his cides, but I still buy from him.
>
> Bullshit diversion, answer the question. Why do you continue to support the
> bloodbath of commercial agriculture?
>
I don't support it. Not in any way, shape or form. Never have done.
> >
> > > > It's
> > > > not an agreeable situation, but my hands are clean and I sleep soundly
>
> > > > knowing I live a death free lifestyle.
> > >
> > > What does not agreeable mean?
> >
> > It means I don't agree with his methods of farming. He kills
> > animals, even while producing the crops I eat.
>
> Then fire him.
>
Good idea. Get someone else in who puts animal life before greed.
> >He kills even
> > more when producing crops for farm animals.
>
> Meat eaters aren't claiming a death-free diet, so it doesn't make them
> hypocritical like you..
>
My statement isn't a claim; it's a fact. I don't kills animals. I live
a death free lifestyle. Other people kill animals, farmers particularly,
so they can't make the same statement as I can on this issue.
> > > If your actions eventually result in deaths,
> > > then why should you not change your behaviour?
> >
> > My actions don't result in deaths. I don't need to change my
> > behaviour. It's his behaviour that actually kills these critters.
>
> It's your actions that drive him and enable him to do it.
Let's see what Aristotle has to say about being compelled externally;
[The remainder of Aristotle's discussion is devoted to spelling out the
conditions under which it is appropriate to hold a moral agent
blameworthy or praiseworthy for some particular action or trait. His
general proposal is that one is an apt candidate for praise or blame if
and only if the action and/or disposition is voluntary. According to
Aristotle, a voluntary action or trait has two distinctive features. First,
there is a control condition: the action or trait must have its origin in the
agent. That is, it must be up to the agent whether to perform that action
or possess the trait --* it cannot be compelled externally.* Second,
Aristotle proposes an epistemic condition: the agent must be aware of
what it is she is doing or bringing about.] *my emphasis*
My actions don't drive him to kill animals and he can't claim
he's driven by me either. Aristotle's concepts of moral
responsibility see to that and I find his argument more
agreeable than your little guilt trip.
> You have choice,
> and you choose NOT to exercise it on behalf of the animals you claim to
> believe have rights. You are a sad case.
>
No need to lose your grip and start getting insulting, Dutch.
> > > How are you better than a
> > > meat eater?
> > >
> > A meat eater issues a directive that an animal be killed for his
> > dinner, whereas I don't.
>
> You issue a directive that you want food, regardless of how many animal
> deaths it causes, that's no different.
>
That's not true. I issue a directive that I want food, and that is all.
I've never mentioned to anyone that he should get it regardless
of how many deaths it causes. You're lying now, as well as
getting insulting and abusive.
> Some restaurants let the customer
> > choose his own live lobster before it gets boiled to death.
> > What better example of such a directive can you give than
> > that? But there's another reason why I believe my habits are
> > better than those of the meat eater; I don't eat dead corpses
> > or drink puss.
>
> You think not? You breathe in living organisms every time you inhale.
>
Hah! Throw again.
Are you admitting you buy stolen goods? I don't buy the
actions of the farmer; I buy the goods that are rightfully his
to sell.
firstoftwins
> "firstoftwins" <firsto...@hotmail.com> wrote
> [..]
> > > > If these animals are being killed, then it would be wise
> > > > to focus on who's actually killing them. Don't you agree?
> > >
> > > That depends on what one is doing. I am tracing the whole process, so I
> am
> > > naturally interested in what motivates the farmer, which it turns out is
> > > your hunger.
> > >
> > Money is what motivates the farmer. Do you think he would give
> > up his wares without payment? My hunger doesn't drive him.
>
>
So, he kills these animals for money. That's a fair assessment.
> > > >
[..]
> > My purchase doesn't inflict this harm. The farmers cides and
> > combine does all the harm. By my standards; I know that the
> > farmer causes these deaths for fatter profits,
> > not my benefit
>
> the only practical way to do it.
>
That maybe so, but I can't be expected to take on any moral
responsibility for his CD purely because he finds the practice
practical.
.
> > He is responsible for any CD he causes. I am responsible for
> > any I cause.
>
>
I pay the farmer for his grub, not his efforts in producing it
that he finds practical.
> > > > > > The
> > > > > > food I buy from the store are tainted with his death toll, not
> mine.
> > > > >
> > > > > You're wrong, your knowledge effects the moral implications of your
> act.
> > > >
> > > > Certainly not. My act is simply buying his produce. His CD toll
> > > > is his own act and completely severed from my act. Neither act
> > > > is a prerequisite to each other.
> > >
> > > If you didn't demand the veggies he wouldn't grow them. If he didn't
> grow
> > > them, you couldn't buy them. They seem pretty closely tied to me.
> > >
> > That's because you left the CD argument out of those two
> > statements. tch tch tch
>
> He can't grow them without CDs, as anyone who has ever grown anything will
> attest. You are using a standard that doesn't exist.
>
If he can't grow food without causing CD then he must take
full responsibility for them or let someone else do it who will.
>
[..]
> > > > I believe farmers may indeed be responsible for a good deal of
> > > > human deaths. Ever heard of CJD? I still buy from him though.
> > > > We have to because we eat. He pollutes our environment with
> > > > his cides, but I still buy from him.
> > >
> > > Bullshit diversion, answer the question. Why do you continue to support
> the
> > > bloodbath of commercial agriculture?
> > >
> > I don't support it. Not in any way, shape or form. Never have done.
>
> You finance it. Your money is undifferentiated.
>
I don't finance it.My money is in payment for his food.
[..]
> > > > > What does not agreeable mean?
> > > >
> > > > It means I don't agree with his methods of farming. He kills
> > > > animals, even while producing the crops I eat.
> > >
> > > Then fire him.
> > >
> > Good idea. Get someone else in who puts animal life before greed.
>
> Well? You are his employer, do it, stop buying his food.
>
I'm not his employer, I am a customer of the shop he trades with.
> >
> > > >He kills even
> > > > more when producing crops for farm animals.
> > >
> > > Meat eaters aren't claiming a death-free diet, so it doesn't make them
> > > hypocritical like you..
> > >
> > My statement isn't a claim; it's a fact. I don't kills animals.
>
> You are a liar.
>
I don't kill animals.
> > I live
> > a death free lifestyle. Other people kill animals, farmers particularly,
> > so they can't make the same statement as I can on this issue.
>
> You are deluded beyond belief.
>
Not until I take up your guilt trip I'm not.
> Oh, pardon me for giving you an opportunity to avoid responding,
You'll learn.
> reply to
> this then. You have choice, and you choose NOT to exercise it on behalf of
> the animals you claim to believe have rights. How does give you a death-free
> lifestyle? What about all those CDs you might have averted by making
> different choices, ones NOT based soley on the comfort and convenience of
> Derek Nash.
>
You are asserting I make choices to relieve the farmers CD in
an effort to reduce *my* death toll, when in actual fact they are
his death toll. I make these choices to reduce his CD. I cannot
make choices to reduce my own because they already have a
base rate of zero.
> >
> > > > > How are you better than a
> > > > > meat eater?
> > > > >
> > > > A meat eater issues a directive that an animal be killed for his
> > > > dinner, whereas I don't.
> > >
> > > You issue a directive that you want food, regardless of how many animal
> > > deaths it causes, that's no different.
> > >
> > That's not true. I issue a directive that I want food, and that is all.
>
> You ought to know it is impossible to deliver food to you, and the rest of
> world, without CDs.
>
I think the whole CD argument is a mere thought experiment
anyway, and using the same process, theoretically speaking,
allows me to claim that he should be able to provide me with
CD free grub. But, as CD are real and have a supposed moral
importance to my choice of diet, I have to protest that it doesn't
because their are no concepts of shared moral responsibility
to even allow me to be responsible for another's actions. CD
are of no moral importance to me because I am not a controlling
agent in the processes of farming my own food.
> > I've never mentioned to anyone that he should get it regardless
> > of how many deaths it causes.
>
> Do you stipulate a maximum number of deaths that you will tolerate? If not
> then you take it regardless of the number of deaths, just as I said.
>
No.
> >You're lying now, as well as
> > getting insulting and abusive.
>
> I said you are a sad case, I believe you just called me fuckwit, so get off
> the pot with the hurt feelings. You are obviously looking for a way to exit
> from this debate which you are losing badly.
>
Hardly.
> >
> > > Some restaurants let the customer
> > > > choose his own live lobster before it gets boiled to death.
> > > > What better example of such a directive can you give than
> > > > that? But there's another reason why I believe my habits are
> > > > better than those of the meat eater; I don't eat dead corpses
> > > > or drink puss.
> > >
> > > You think not? You breathe in living organisms every time you inhale.
> > >
> > Hah! Throw again.
>
> You said you live a death free lifestyle, have you walked along a path
> lately, across a carpet, rolled over in bed, washed your hair, inhaled? Is
> death of small creatures NOT really death?
>
Bugs don't feature in my philosophy of AR. I don't burn them
under a magnifying glass or stir my dads moggot pot with my
soldering iron anymore, but they're besides the point in my view.
> > > [..]
> > Are you admitting you buy stolen goods?
>
> I am saying I CAN. If I do, and I believe the goods to be stolen, then I
> have commited a crime related to the initial crime of theft.
>
Thats right. Now, consider this. If I bought your new computer
for £500 and later found out you swiped it I'd no longer think
I have a bargain. I'd think you overpriced the value of its
worthlessness. You would have to convince me that the efforts
you went to in nicking it are worth the £500 even though the PC
has no commercial value now. In fact, you might even give me
£100 back to compensate me for the risk I'm now taking if I
keep it.
> > I don't buy the
> > actions of the farmer; I buy the goods that are rightfully his
> > to sell.
>
> Why do you buy the actions of the thief and not the actions of the farmer?
Because the actions of the thief are the commodity whereas the
commodity of the farmer is his food.
> If both have attained their goods by some unethical act, then it rubs off
> when you knowingly have dealings with either of them.
>
The goods owned by the farmer are not unethical in themselves,
only the methods in how they are processed. I only pay for the
ethical part.
Dutch
> > [..]
> > > > > If these animals are being killed, then it would be wise
> > > > > to focus on who's actually killing them. Don't you agree?
> > > >
> > > > That depends on what one is doing. I am tracing the whole process,
so I
> > am
> > > > naturally interested in what motivates the farmer, which it turns
out is
> > > > your hunger.
> > > >
> > > Money is what motivates the farmer. Do you think he would give
> > > up his wares without payment? My hunger doesn't drive him.
> >
> > It drives you to pay the farmer money, which allows him to continue
killing.
> >
> So, he kills these animals for money. That's a fair assessment.
Thank you, YOUR money, which you pay willingly
[..]
> > > My purchase doesn't inflict this harm. The farmers cides and
> > > combine does all the harm. By my standards; I know that the
> > > farmer causes these deaths for fatter profits,
> > > not my benefit
> >
> > Farmers seldom make much profit, if any. He farms as he does because
it's
> > the only practical way to do it.
> >
> That maybe so, but I can't be expected to take on any moral
> responsibility for his CD purely because he finds the practice
> practical.
That's not why you are responsible for your own actions, it's why he does it
the way he does.
> > > He is responsible for any CD he causes. I am responsible for
> > > any I cause.
> >
> > You are responsible for your conscious act of patronizing a murderer.
> >
> I pay the farmer for his grub, not his efforts in producing it
> that he finds practical.
The two are indivisible. Without his efforts there would be no grub.
He has no other source of money, it MUST be your money, and that of other
customers. Since you know about the "problem" you are paying for what you
are financing, NOT what you wish you were financing.
>
> [..]
> > > > > > What does not agreeable mean?
> > > > >
> > > > > It means I don't agree with his methods of farming. He kills
> > > > > animals, even while producing the crops I eat.
> > > >
> > > > Then fire him.
> > > >
> > > Good idea. Get someone else in who puts animal life before greed.
> >
> > Well? You are his employer, do it, stop buying his food.
> >
> I'm not his employer, I am a customer of the shop he trades with.
You pay his wages, people like you could make him unemployed if you chose to
exercise choice on behalf of the animals you claim to love so much, but you
don't. Instead your choice reflects the reality, that you don't wish to be
inconvenienced by taking a stand on behalf of these poor suffering animals.
> > >
> > > > >He kills even
> > > > > more when producing crops for farm animals.
> > > >
> > > > Meat eaters aren't claiming a death-free diet, so it doesn't make
them
> > > > hypocritical like you..
> > > >
> > > My statement isn't a claim; it's a fact. I don't kills animals.
> >
> > You are a liar.
> >
> I don't kill animals.
Neither do meat eaters.
> > > I live
> > > a death free lifestyle. Other people kill animals, farmers
particularly,
> > > so they can't make the same statement as I can on this issue.
> >
> > You are deluded beyond belief.
> >
> Not until I take up your guilt trip I'm not.
Not guilt, acknowledgment of your role in the scheme of things.
Then how do explain the fact that you are capable of lessening the number of
cds associated with the food you eat? If the base rate is zero then how can
it go lower?
> > > > > > How are you better than a
> > > > > > meat eater?
> > > > > >
> > > > > A meat eater issues a directive that an animal be killed for his
> > > > > dinner, whereas I don't.
> > > >
> > > > You issue a directive that you want food, regardless of how many
animal
> > > > deaths it causes, that's no different.
> > > >
> > > That's not true. I issue a directive that I want food, and that is
all.
> >
> > You ought to know it is impossible to deliver food to you, and the rest
of
> > world, without CDs.
> >
> I think the whole CD argument is a mere thought experiment
> anyway, and using the same process, theoretically speaking,
> allows me to claim that he should be able to provide me with
> CD free grub.
Your pleas of innocence are irrelevant, things are connected together the
way they are, you are just part of it.
> But, as CD are real and have a supposed moral
> importance to my choice of diet,
It's you who claims cds have moral importance.
> I have to protest that it doesn't
> because their are no concepts of shared moral responsibility
> to even allow me to be responsible for another's actions.
I'm not claiming you share responsibility for OTHERS' actions, I'm claiming
you own full responsibility for your own actions, and those actions lead
repeatedly to animal death and suffering, and you know it. Until you take
some action to correct that, your food supply is tainted.
> CD
> are of no moral importance to me because I am not a controlling
> agent in the processes of farming my own food.
You control which foods you buy, and where you buy them.
> > > I've never mentioned to anyone that he should get it regardless
> > > of how many deaths it causes.
> >
> > Do you stipulate a maximum number of deaths that you will tolerate? If
not
> > then you take it regardless of the number of deaths, just as I said.
> >
> No.
You mean you reject food which has excessive cds? I doubt if you are able to
determine that, or if you ever try. You cut out all rice? How do you know
that had a positive effect?
>
> > >You're lying now, as well as
> > > getting insulting and abusive.
> >
> > I said you are a sad case, I believe you just called me fuckwit, so get
off
> > the pot with the hurt feelings. You are obviously looking for a way to
exit
> > from this debate which you are losing badly.
> >
> Hardly.
You of course would not recognize it.
> > > > Some restaurants let the customer
> > > > > choose his own live lobster before it gets boiled to death.
> > > > > What better example of such a directive can you give than
> > > > > that? But there's another reason why I believe my habits are
> > > > > better than those of the meat eater; I don't eat dead corpses
> > > > > or drink puss.
> > > >
> > > > You think not? You breathe in living organisms every time you
inhale.
> > > >
> > > Hah! Throw again.
> >
> > You said you live a death free lifestyle, have you walked along a path
> > lately, across a carpet, rolled over in bed, washed your hair, inhaled?
Is
> > death of small creatures NOT really death?
> Bugs don't feature in my philosophy of AR. I don't burn them
> under a magnifying glass or stir my dads moggot pot with my
> soldering iron anymore, but they're besides the point in my view.
Apparently mice and starlings and other "vermin" don't figure too
prominently either.
> > > > [..]
> > > Are you admitting you buy stolen goods?
> >
> > I am saying I CAN. If I do, and I believe the goods to be stolen, then I
> > have commited a crime related to the initial crime of theft.
> >
> Thats right. Now, consider this. If I bought your new computer
> for £500 and later found out you swiped it I'd no longer think
> I have a bargain. I'd think you overpriced the value of its
> worthlessness. You would have to convince me that the efforts
> you went to in nicking it are worth the £500 even though the PC
> has no commercial value now. In fact, you might even give me
> £100 back to compensate me for the risk I'm now taking if I
> keep it.
You know in advance that these goods are "nicked".
> > > I don't buy the
> > > actions of the farmer; I buy the goods that are rightfully his
> > > to sell.
> >
> > Why do you buy the actions of the thief and not the actions of the
farmer?
>
> Because the actions of the thief are the commodity whereas the
> commodity of the farmer is his food.
If I buy a hot stereo, the commodity is the stolen stereo. If I buy veggies,
the commodity is the tainted veggies, no difference. I buy the whole
process, in either case.
> > If both have attained their goods by some unethical act, then it rubs
off
> > when you knowingly have dealings with either of them.
> >
> The goods owned by the farmer are not unethical in themselves,
> only the methods in how they are processed. I only pay for the
> ethical part.
Sorry chump, no can do, it's a package deal. If the goods are ill-gotten and
you know it, you are in cahoots.
Hazel Menzies
Although man has and will continue to be a meat-eater, it has been
found that a vegetarian diet has health giving benefits. Many people
thrive better on a vegetarian diet and find that their general health
improves. Their immune systems get a reprieve from the toxins which
are found in meat, due to aggressive farming methods, and symptoms
like asthma, eczema, and other allergies which have been triggered by
chemical overload dissappear.