What are meat eaters doing ...
dh...@nomail.com
>... in a vegan NG?
Some of us point out that some types of meat involve less animal
deaths than some types of veggies, just in case someone comes
along who cares about the fact. There's also the fact that eating
meat contributes to life for animals as it contributes to their deaths,
and conscientious consumers can contribute to decent lives for
farm animals with their diets, just in case someone comes along
who cares about that. Veganism is a flawed attempt not to
contribute to anything for farm animals.
>Despite trolling.
>
>Nothing?
No. Veganism is a choice about your way of life. It does
nothing to improve life for animals, promote longer lives
for animals, and least of all contribute to the experience of
life for animals. People who want to contribute to decent lives
for animals should NOT become vegans, and that fact should
certainly be drawn attention to in vegan news groups. But who
is going to do it? Vegans? We know very well that they won't
do it, and also that they are opposed to anyone else doing it.
So it's left up to non-vegans to do it, which means that meat
eaters are likely to be the ones who do it.
>Ok, I forgot x-posting to several groups.
Good suggestion. Let's encourage as many people to
keep these things in mind a we can. The idea that veganism
helps or saves animals is absurd, so let's try to prevent more
people from developing the false impression that it does.
>Get a life then :-))
Think harder about your life choices maybe? :-)
>cojote aka becky
dustbird
> meat contributes to life for animals as it contributes to their deaths,
> and conscientious consumers can contribute to decent lives for
> farm animals with their diets, just in case someone comes along
> who cares about that. Veganism is a flawed attempt not to
> contribute to anything for farm animals.
>
>
> nothing to improve life for animals, promote longer lives
> for animals, and least of all contribute to the experience of
> life for animals. People who want to contribute to decent lives
> for animals should NOT become vegans
A diet of meat is the source of animal abuse and animal slaughter by
callous commercial enterprises. The mass slaughter of cows, chickens, and
hogs is hideous and revolting.
Do human beings need meat in their diet? Some day it is part of our
evolutionary metabolism, that primitive men were hunters. However, primitive
man would eat nuts, fruits, seeds, and high-fiber foods most of the time.
After a hunt, he would gorge, and be full for a few days. Maybe then we are
so constituted as not to have to eat meat.
Later men cultivated crops and began to eat vegetables and foods
higher in carbohydrates, such as bread. Isn't there some question as to
whether the human body is adapted to this Johnny-come-lately diet?
But assume people need meat occasionally. Then they could own their
own cow, chicken, or pig, and slaughter one, perhaps for special occasions.
Not so long ago people used to do just that.If they lived in a town, perhaps
they could form a co-op to buy the meat from a rancher, or, for that matter,
the dairy and egg products.
So, on that assumption, or on the assumption that people do not need
meat in that diet, and all slaughter was legally prohibited, what would
happen to the animals? They couldn't be slaughtered, and it would not be
profitable for ranchers to feed them and care for them, so breeding would
have to be drastically reduced, so that there were only a relatively few
food animals.and . The most humane solution would be to continue to care for
the animals, but to stop breeding until the population was reduced or even
eliminated. But it doesn't seem right to eliminate a species, so some sort
of reversionary or evolutionary breeding might take place that would fit the
surviving animals to live independently in their natural habitats. And to
ensure there are natural habitats, it would make sense to breed the human
population down to much smaller numbers. This could probably be done
humanely withsome sort of combination of advanced birth control medication
and social legislation that would apply to the rich as well as to the poor.
So what would happen to the ranchers? I suppose most of the ranchers are
big corporations, so who cares. Corporations are not persons.
Cole Smith
> On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:29:07 +0200, no_spam_...@gmx.net (cojote) wrote:
>
> Some of us point out that some types of meat involve less animal
> deaths than some types of veggies, just in case someone comes
> along who cares about the fact.
Can you give me an example of such a vegetable? And I hope in doing so
you won't be making the assumption that supporting idustrial
agriculture is an inevitable aspect of being a vegan- it's not.
> There's also the fact that eating
> meat contributes to life for animals as it contributes to their deaths,
> and conscientious consumers can contribute to decent lives for
> farm animals with their diets, just in case someone comes along
> who cares about that.
That's a rather odd ideology you've got there. Couldn't it also be
said that if I went out and raped a woman then my action would be
somewhat moral if I impregnate the woman and cause new life to be
brought into the world?
> Veganism is a flawed attempt not to
> contribute to anything for farm animals.
I disagree. I don't think that the goal of veganism is to simply
contribute to the well-being of farm animals. Rather, it seems more
likely that vegans wish to eliminate the entire concept of farm
animals. I don't know about you, but to me it seems pointess to
contribute to a system in which you are opposed to.
> No. Veganism is a choice about your way of life. It does
> nothing to improve life for animals, promote longer lives
> for animals, and least of all contribute to the experience of
> life for animals.
I don't understand. Can you explain why veganism does nothing to
improve the lives of animals?
rick etter
"Cole Smith" <co...@earthdome.com> wrote in message
news:94faf4a5.0306...@posting.google.com...
> dh...@nomail.com wrote in message
news:<psscfvob4uugfh216...@4ax.com>...
> > On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:29:07 +0200, no_spam_...@gmx.net (cojote)
wrote:
> >
> > Some of us point out that some types of meat involve less animal
> > deaths than some types of veggies, just in case someone comes
> > along who cares about the fact.
>
> Can you give me an example of such a vegetable?
the vegan delite of all delights, tofu. vegans will go to great lenghts to
make it look and taste just like meat. Problem is, the production and
processing of the soy into tofu causes far more death and suffering than
eationg grass fed beef or game. I get 100s of 1000s of calories from the
death of one cow. How many animals do you suppose died to produce 100s of
a1000s of calories of tofu substitute? far more than one, killer. Besides,
it's the vegan loon claim that their diet causes no/less/fewer amounts of
animal death and suffering. A claim that you, not any other vegan has ever
proven.
And I hope in doing so
> you won't be making the assumption that supporting idustrial
> agriculture is an inevitable aspect of being a vegan- it's not.
=====================
Yet it's exactly the same argument vegan loons make about meat eaters. that
they are all part of some gigantic monster farm conclomerate. That neither
you nor the fraud larry-girl can see that there are meat included diets that
cause far less death and suffering than many vegan diets just shows how
closed your mind is to reality. You can stick yo your lys and delusions,
but don't make claims about 'saving' animals.
Ray
"rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message
news:EuNJa.4173$Ly2.7...@cletus.bright.net...
Do you level the term 'Vegan Loon' at ~~Jonnie~~. In his post June 23rd.
16:00, he made similar comments. In fact the honesty of some of ~~Jonnies~~
post was remarkable.
Difficult Eh Rick? You have to either back down or state that ~~Jonnie~~ is
spreading 'lys' and delusions.
Do I detect a split in the camp?
dh...@nomail.com
> There's also the fact that eating
>> meat contributes to life for animals as it contributes to their deaths,
>> and conscientious consumers can contribute to decent lives for
>> farm animals with their diets, just in case someone comes along
>> who cares about that. Veganism is a flawed attempt not to
>> contribute to anything for farm animals.
>>
>>
>> . Veganism is a choice about your way of life. It does
>> nothing to improve life for animals, promote longer lives
>> for animals, and least of all contribute to the experience of
>> life for animals. People who want to contribute to decent lives
>> for animals should NOT become vegans
>
> A diet of meat is the source of animal abuse and animal slaughter by
>callous commercial enterprises. The mass slaughter of cows, chickens, and
>hogs is hideous and revolting.
How about the mass experiencing of life by billions of animals who
only live because they are raised by humans?
> Do human beings need meat in their diet?
We know that they don't. Do animals need to be raised so we
can eat them in order for those billions of animals to live? We know
that they do. We also know that no animals are raised so that
people can eat vegetables.
>Some day it is part of our
>evolutionary metabolism, that primitive men were hunters. However, primitive
>man would eat nuts, fruits, seeds, and high-fiber foods most of the time.
>After a hunt, he would gorge, and be full for a few days. Maybe then we are
>so constituted as not to have to eat meat.
> Later men cultivated crops and began to eat vegetables and foods
>higher in carbohydrates, such as bread. Isn't there some question as to
>whether the human body is adapted to this Johnny-come-lately diet?
> But assume people need meat occasionally. Then they could own their
>own cow, chicken, or pig, and slaughter one, perhaps for special occasions.
>Not so long ago people used to do just that.If they lived in a town, perhaps
>they could form a co-op to buy the meat from a rancher, or, for that matter,
>the dairy and egg products.
People can go to local farmers today and buy animal products from
animals they feel have decent lives. That way they could contribute
to decent lives for farm animals. They can't do it by being veg*n. By
eating grass raised beef, people contribute to less deaths than by
eating tofu. By drinking grass raised milk, people contribute to less
deaths than by drinking soy or rice milk.
> So, on that assumption, or on the assumption that people do not need
>meat in that diet, and all slaughter was legally prohibited, what would
>happen to the animals? They couldn't be slaughtered, and it would not be
>profitable for ranchers to feed them and care for them, so breeding would
>have to be drastically reduced, so that there were only a relatively few
>food animals.and . The most humane solution would be to continue to care for
>the animals, but to stop breeding until the population was reduced or even
>eliminated.
PeTA kills more dogs and cats than they find homes for. What makes
you think livestock would be cared for when "ARAs" already kill pets?
The animals are already being cared for, and having *much* more
life than they would if they had none at all. So far your extinction plan
doesn't show any benefit for animals.
>But it doesn't seem right to eliminate a species, so some sort
>of reversionary or evolutionary breeding might take place that would fit the
>surviving animals to live independently in their natural habitats.
What's the point in that? Billions of animals are already living because
humans raise them for food. Some of them have good lives, some have
decent lives, some have terrible lives, just as is true in natural habitats.
Most wild animals don't live to maturity. At least the ones that humans
raise usually don't suffer from starvation, disease or nonhuman predators.
How long do you think an animal would have to live in order for its
life to be worth living? Or do you think that if an animal is killed by a
human, that automatically means that its life was not worth living?
Or what?
>And to
>ensure there are natural habitats, it would make sense to breed the human
>population down to much smaller numbers. This could probably be done
>humanely withsome sort of combination of advanced birth control medication
>and social legislation that would apply to the rich as well as to the poor.
Something will probably have to be done in that regard at some point.
Let's hope that it's not too late when they do it.
> So what would happen to the ranchers? I suppose most of the ranchers are
>big corporations, so who cares. Corporations are not persons.
Many animals on ranches have decent lives imo, and that is worth
more consideration than the fact that they are killed.
dh...@nomail.com
>dh...@nomail.com wrote in message news:<psscfvob4uugfh216...@4ax.com>...
>> On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:29:07 +0200, no_spam_...@gmx.net (cojote) wrote:
>>
>> Some of us point out that some types of meat involve less animal
>> deaths than some types of veggies, just in case someone comes
>> along who cares about the fact.
>
>Can you give me an example of such a vegetable?
Soy beans, corn, rice, wheat.
>And I hope in doing so
>you won't be making the assumption that supporting idustrial
>agriculture is an inevitable aspect of being a vegan- it's not.
Maybe not, but if the vegan consumes any of the following
products then he/she is supporting the meat industry:
_________________________________________________________
Tires, Surgical sutures, Matches, Soaps, Photographic film,
Cosmetics, Shaving cream, Paints, Candles, Crayon/Chalk,
Toothpaste, Deodorants, Mouthwash, Paper, Upholstery, Paints,
Floor waxes, Glass, Water Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer,
Antifreeze
http://www.aif.org/lvstock.htm
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
Ceramics, Insecticides, Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic,
Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, 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
_________________________________________________________
contact-lens care products, glues for paper and cardboard
cartons, bookbinding glue, clarification of wines, Hemostats,
sunscreens and sunblocks, dental floss, hairspray, inks, PVC
http://www.discover.com/aug_01/featcow.html
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
_________________________________________________________
Explosives, Solvents, Industrial Oils, Industrial Lubricants,
Stearic Acid, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides, Syringes,
Gelatin Capsules, Bandage Strips, Combs and Toothbrushes,
Emery Boards and Cloth, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
Plywood and Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
Wrap and Tape, Adhesive Tape, Abrasives, Bone Charcoal for High
Grade Steel, Steel Ball Bearings
http://www.sheepusa.org/environment/products.shtml
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
>> There's also the fact that eating
>> meat contributes to life for animals as it contributes to their deaths,
>> and conscientious consumers can contribute to decent lives for
>> farm animals with their diets, just in case someone comes along
>> who cares about that.
>
>That's a rather odd ideology you've got there. Couldn't it also be
>said that if I went out and raped a woman then my action would be
>somewhat moral if I impregnate the woman and cause new life to be
>brought into the world?
Not imo. In that case the objective of the rapist is to have sex
with a person who does not want to have sex with him. What
makes most people consider it to be wrong is that the person
being raped doesn't want to have sex, and she gains nothing
from the experience unless she happens to love the child that
results. Even then she didn't want it to begin with, and according
to some people that makes the child's life not worth living. But
then according to others life has never been a benefit for anything
anyway, even to the most loved and wanted children who have
had wonderful lives.
In the case of eating meat the objective is to eat meat. Some
people believe that is wrong because the animals are killed. But
they certainly have a *much* longer life from being raised for food
than they would have if they never lived, so as yet the fact that
they are "killed" is outweighed by the fact that they live imo, so
then it comes down to whether or not their life is of a quality
that would make it worth living.
>> Veganism is a flawed attempt not to
>> contribute to anything for farm animals.
>
>I disagree. I don't think that the goal of veganism is to simply
>contribute to the well-being of farm animals.
No it sure is not. It is to contribute to *nothing* for farm
animals--to contribute to *no* farm animals.
>Rather, it seems more
>likely that vegans wish to eliminate the entire concept of farm
>animals.
Right.
>I don't know about you, but to me it seems pointess to
>contribute to a system in which you are opposed to.
That's why I said: "People who want to contribute to decent
lives for animals should NOT become vegans, and that fact
should certainly be drawn attention to in vegan news groups."
>> No. Veganism is a choice about your way of life. It does
>> nothing to improve life for animals, promote longer lives
>> for animals, and least of all contribute to the experience of
>> life for animals.
>
>I don't understand. Can you explain why veganism does nothing to
>improve the lives of animals?
You already did. How could it improve the lives of animals,
when it doesn't contribute to the lives of animals? You're
trying to take credit for something that you not only don't
deserve to take credit for, you're trying to take credit for
something you want to see abolished.
Cole Smith
> news:94faf4a5.0306...@posting.google.com...
> > dh...@nomail.com wrote in message
> news:<psscfvob4uugfh216...@4ax.com>...
> > > On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:29:07 +0200, no_spam_...@gmx.net (cojote)
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Some of us point out that some types of meat involve less animal
> > > deaths than some types of veggies, just in case someone comes
> > > along who cares about the fact.
> >
> > Can you give me an example of such a vegetable?
> ----------------------
> the vegan delite of all delights, tofu. vegans will go to great lenghts to
> make it look and taste just like meat. Problem is, the production and
> processing of the soy into tofu causes far more death and suffering than
> eationg grass fed beef or game. I get 100s of 1000s of calories from the
> death of one cow. How many animals do you suppose died to produce 100s of
> a1000s of calories of tofu substitute? far more than one, killer. Besides,
> it's the vegan loon claim that their diet causes no/less/fewer amounts of
> animal death and suffering. A claim that you, not any other vegan has ever
> proven.
There's a problem with this though, which I attempted to address in my
previous post. You're talking as if eating tofu is an inevitable
aspect of being a vegan. This is not true. There is a growing group of
vegans (i'm specifically refering to raw foodists-
www.living-foods.com) who do not eat tofu (or rice) and in fact speak
out against it. A "vegan" is simply somebody who does not eat, use, or
purchase animal products. The term "vegan" has nothing to do with
tofu. You shouldn't have to add these other factors (eating tofu) to
veganism in order for your claim to be accurate.
Also, here are some other baseless assumptions you make in your
message:
1. That I am a vegan
2. That I eat tofu
3. That all tofu is produced in a way that harms animals. I have a
family member who used to grow soy beans and produce small amounts of
tofu at her home. If you claim that the production of tofu causes more
animal deaths than killed by the beef industry (which I find hard to
believe anyway- do you have any factual evidence in support of this?),
then this would have to be inherently true for ALL production of tofu-
since, as my personal example has shown, there are ways of acquiring
tofu which doesn't involve large-scale industrial production.
4. That I am somehow a "killer", as you put it.
> And I hope in doing so
> > you won't be making the assumption that supporting idustrial
> > agriculture is an inevitable aspect of being a vegan- it's not.
> =====================
> Yet it's exactly the same argument vegan loons make about meat eaters. that
> they are all part of some gigantic monster farm conclomerate. That neither
> you nor the fraud larry-girl can see that there are meat included diets that
> cause far less death and suffering than many vegan diets just shows how
> closed your mind is to reality. You can stick yo your lys and delusions,
> but don't make claims about 'saving' animals.
I don't have a problem with your criticisms of tofu or people who eat
it. The problem I have is when you declare that vegans cause a certain
amount of animal deaths because vegans eat tofu. As I explained
earlier, veganism simply means not eating animal products. The
consumption of tofu is an added factor to the term "vegan" that isn't
an inherent aspect of the diet. For example; Stephen Arlin, who is a
co-founder of Nature's First Law, claims to only eat food that he
organically grew himself or that he gathered from the wild. You would
agree that Stephen Arlin is a vegan since he doesn't eat animal
products, correct? So how would this diet of his be causing more
deaths to animals than eating meat does?
rick etter
"Ray" <camco...@btconnect.com> wrote in message
news:bd9hk3$ff0$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
The only thing too difficult is apparently any ability on your part for
comprehension.
snips...
rick etter
You missed the point. Tofu was just one example. Substitute it with any
crop you want. They all involve death and suffering, and I say more than
the one death invovled in grass fed beef or game. Then when you start
ading all the fruits and veggies that you cannot grow in an area you live
in, the importation costs to the environment and animals increases even
more.
You shouldn't have to add these other factors (eating tofu) to
> veganism in order for your claim to be accurate.
>
> Also, here are some other baseless assumptions you make in your
> message:
>
> 1. That I am a vegan
================
You defend the religion, I'll say it like I see it.
> 2. That I eat tofu
==============
Again, just an example.
> 3. That all tofu is produced in a way that harms animals. I have a
> family member who used to grow soy beans and produce small amounts of
> tofu at her home. If you claim that the production of tofu causes more
> animal deaths than killed by the beef industry (which I find hard to
> believe anyway- do you have any factual evidence in support of this?),
====================
I love it. You chastise me for 'assuming' that all soy is grown the same
and that all tofu is processed the same, and then you turn around and make
general statements about the entire 'meat industry'. What a hoot!
> then this would have to be inherently true for ALL production of tofu-
> since, as my personal example has shown, there are ways of acquiring
> tofu which doesn't involve large-scale industrial production.
==============
Yet it still required the growing of crops which destroyed an indiginous
eco-system and replaced it with your monoculture crops. No such conversion
of land takes place for game.
> 4. That I am somehow a "killer", as you put it.
=================
Yes, you are. I am, we all are. It's just that vegans like to pretend that
they are somehow above thedeath and suffering because they substitute the
deaths of animals they do not see with for the deaths of meat animals they
'save'.
>
> > And I hope in doing so
> > > you won't be making the assumption that supporting idustrial
> > > agriculture is an inevitable aspect of being a vegan- it's not.
> > =====================
> > Yet it's exactly the same argument vegan loons make about meat eaters.
that
> > they are all part of some gigantic monster farm conclomerate. That
neither
> > you nor the fraud larry-girl can see that there are meat included diets
that
> > cause far less death and suffering than many vegan diets just shows how
> > closed your mind is to reality. You can stick yo your lys and
delusions,
> > but don't make claims about 'saving' animals.
>
> I don't have a problem with your criticisms of tofu or people who eat
> it. The problem I have is when you declare that vegans cause a certain
> amount of animal deaths because vegans eat tofu.
======================
No, I claim vegans cause death and suffering because they eat, period. It
makes no difference what they eat. Again, substitute the tofu for anything
you want. It was just an example because so many veg*ns go to such lengths
to make it look, feel, taste just like a substance they claim to despise.
As I explained
> earlier, veganism simply means not eating animal products. The
> consumption of tofu is an added factor to the term "vegan" that isn't
> an inherent aspect of the diet. For example; Stephen Arlin, who is a
> co-founder of Nature's First Law, claims to only eat food that he
> organically grew himself or that he gathered from the wild. You would
> agree that Stephen Arlin is a vegan since he doesn't eat animal
> products, correct? So how would this diet of his be causing more
> deaths to animals than eating meat does?
====================
Again, vegan is not a diet, but a supposed way of living to cause the least
amount of death and suffering to animals. But, I'll see your Steve and
raise you a Eustace Conway. Does Stevie live without electric? Without
gas? Eating what he finds and/or grows also, including dead animals. I
doubt that Stevie is in the same league, since he obviously lives in and
enjoys the fruits of the modern consumer driven lifestyle. Having his own
website indicates that truly doing 'all he can' to save animals is just lip
service to his own selfish convenience and entertainment.
Ray
-------------
Come on Rick, you know that is a weak attempt to avoid the issue.
It is not *my* views you dispute, the post was ~~Jonnies~~. Our side have
been posting the same opinions for years and you have come back with your
stock phrases, now your own gaffer leaves you out in the cold. Remember, I
said he would! I don't see him giving you any back-up.
Neither can I see him retracting some of the views he made in support of AR
issues.
Perhaps a little e-mail to ~~Jonnie~~ may help.
>
>
>
>
>
> snips...
>
>
>
>
>
rick etter
I never ask him to, and he has no need to. That you quote him still does
not prove your case and better than when you quote lys, dreck, or anyone
else on usenet. Too bad you can't really discuss the issue, since you have
nothing to offer, eh killer?
Michael Voytinsky
news:EuNJa.4173$Ly2.7...@cletus.bright.net...
> Problem is, the production and processing of the soy into tofu causes far
more death and suffering than
> eationg grass fed beef or game.
This is an interesting claim. Could you provide some more specifics?
Maybe some examples, evidence, that sort of thing.
Michael Voytinsky
news:psscfvob4uugfh216...@4ax.com...
> meat contributes to life for animals as it contributes to their deaths,
> and conscientious consumers can contribute to decent lives for
> farm animals with their diets,
This is technically true. It is possible to produce meat in a fairly humane
way.
However, the vast majority of meat sold has not been produced in a humane
way at all. Someone consistently avoiding inhumane meat would be a
vegetarian - possibly a vegan - vast majority of the time. I have never met
anyone like that, but if such people exist, more power to them!
I have met plenty of people who will say that it is possible to raise meat
humanely - in a bizarre attempt to justify their eating of inhumanely
produced meat.
> The idea that veganism helps or saves animals is absurd,
Not eating animals does not save them? I am not sure if I follow your
reasoning here.
Michael Voytinsky
news:o14hfv8u56t4grfpr...@4ax.com...
> How about the mass experiencing of life by billions of animals who
> only live because they are raised by humans?
What about it?
For one thing, these lives are not, in most cases, very pleasant.
For another, I could use an identical argument for raising humans for food -
after all, if we did not do so, those humans would not exist.
And, finally, are you saying that if we did not raise cows, chickens, etc.
the space currently devoted to raising them - including the raising of
feed - would be desert, devoid of life?
> By eating grass raised beef, people contribute to less deaths than by
> eating tofu. By drinking grass raised milk, people contribute to less
> deaths than by drinking soy or rice milk.
Uh, how do you arrive at this? To quote many of my math teachers, "show
your work".
Cheers
M
Michael Voytinsky
news:bd6v1e$p...@library2.airnews.net...
> So what would happen to the ranchers? I suppose most of the ranchers are
> big corporations, so who cares. Corporations are not persons.
My fellow vegetarians frequently piss me off, often by saying things like
the above.
What the corporation-hating people do not realize is that corporations
consist of people. When a corporation goes broke, people are out of work -
often an unpleasant experience.
In effect, you are saying is that you just don't care if people end up
unemployed - which makes you sound like an asshole.
What also pisses me off is that the debate itself is ridiculous.
There is no prospect of people suddenly giving up meat en masse. So far the
process has been gradual, and that is likely to continue.
Increasingly, the same company that sell animal products are also getting
into selling soy milk, tofu dogs, etc. - which makes perfect business sense.
If the consumption of meat continues to go down, fewer people will be
employed in its production - and more in production of tofu and other
products. I do not see this causing a problem.
Michael Voytinsky
news:n74hfvkn3dgscpvrk...@4ax.com...
> Maybe not, but if the vegan consumes any of the following
> products then he/she is supporting the meat industry:
> _________________________________________________________
> Tires, Surgical sutures, Matches, Soaps, Photographic film,
> Cosmetics, Shaving cream, Paints, Candles, Crayon/Chalk,
What is the point you are trying to make?
For some of these, there are vegan alternatives (e.g. soap, vitamin B-12).
For others, one has to compromise - I do not see that as a moral failing.
If I use tires and do not eat meat, this causes less animal death and
suffering that if I used tires and ate meat. Realistically, there is no way
for me to no use tires.
> people believe that is wrong because the animals are killed. But
> they certainly have a *much* longer life from being raised for food
> than they would have if they never lived,
You seem to be treating "not existing" as a form of harm. Unless I
misunderstood you, this seems... well... absurd.
Dutch
news:wHuKa.30132$bRt....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> <dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:psscfvob4uugfh216...@4ax.com...
>
> > meat contributes to life for animals as it contributes to their deaths,
> > and conscientious consumers can contribute to decent lives for
> > farm animals with their diets,
>
> This is technically true. It is possible to produce meat in a fairly
humane
> way.
>
> However, the vast majority of meat sold has not been produced in a humane
> way at all. Someone consistently avoiding inhumane meat would be a
> vegetarian - possibly a vegan - vast majority of the time. I have never
met
> anyone like that, but if such people exist, more power to them!
Yet all agriculture results in massive harm to animals, wildlife like birds,
mice etc.. so the vegan still exacts a toll in death and suffering.
> I have met plenty of people who will say that it is possible to raise meat
> humanely - in a bizarre attempt to justify their eating of inhumanely
> produced meat.
What that fact illustrates is that raising animals meat is not categorically
inhumane/unethical as vegans claim.
> > The idea that veganism helps or saves animals is absurd,
>
> Not eating animals does not save them? I am not sure if I follow your
> reasoning here.
He means that they would never have been born but for the demand for meat.
Derek
"Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message news:GbxKa.315277$Vi5.8...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
> "Michael Voytinsky" <micha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:wHuKa.30132$bRt....@news01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > <dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message news:psscfvob4uugfh216...@4ax.com...
> >
> > > The idea that veganism helps or saves animals is absurd,
> >
> > Not eating animals does not save them? I am not sure if I
> > follow your reasoning here.
>
> He means that they would never have been born but for the
> demand for meat.
>
be born, because preventing them from experiencing
life is morally bad. The billions of livestock animals
that do get to experience life are a direct result from
this illogical thinking, and although meatarians believe
animals benefit from this experience, they cannot offer
any possible reason how. I contend, that if animals
benefit from being born it would mean they must've
suffered a loss prior to being born, so their reasoning
is illogical because we cannot experience anything prior
to being born. Here are some examples to show you
that there IS evidence which supports this observation.
Meatarians believe that unborn "future farm animals" are
morally considerable "somethings":
The animals that will be raised for us to eat
are more than just "nothing", because they
*will* be born unless something stops their
lives from happening. Since that is the case,
if something stops their lives from happening,
whatever it is that stops it is truly "denying"
them of the life they otherwise would have had.
David Harrison - 12/09/1999
They believe they can experience things - loss,
deprivation, unfairness:
Yes, it is the unborn animals that will be
born if nothing prevents that from happening,
that would experience the loss if their lives
are prevented.
David Harrison - 08/01/2000
What gives you the right to want to deprive
them [unborn animals] of having what life they
could have?
David Harrison - 10/12/2001
What I'm saying is unfair for the animals that
*could* get to live, is for people not to
consider the fact that they are only keeping
these animals from being killed, by keeping
them from getting to live at all.
David Harrison - 10/19/1999
They believe that the "future farm animals" getting to
live at all is what's important, irrespective of the
quality of their lives:
*Whatever* life they get they are lucky to get
it...even if it's only six weeks like a fryer.
David Harrison - 09/04/1999
All of that has nothing to do with how many
actually get to live. But that is why I feel
that every thing that gets to be born is lucky
in the respect that it *did* get to be born,
since the odds are infinite against all of us
that *we* will actually get to experience life.
David Harrison - 12/11/1999
Then I guess raising billions of animals for
food provides billions of beings with a place in
eternity. I'm happy to contribute to at least
some of it.
David Harrison - 04/12/2002
But it's still every bit as morally acceptable
for humans to kill animals for food, as it is
for any other animals to do so imo. And in fact
more so, since we provide life for most of the
animals we kill.
David Harrison - 04/20/2002
They believe that "aras" are doing something terrible to
the unborn "future farm animals" merely by *wanting* to
prevent them from being born:
People who encourage vegetarianism are the
worst enemy that the animals we raise for food
have IMO.
David Harrison - 09/13/1999
You also know that "ARAs" want to deprive
future farm animals [of] living,
David Harrison - 01/08/2002
That approach is illogical, since if it
is wrong to end the lives of animals, it is
*far worse* to keep those same animals from
getting to have any life at all.
David Harrison - 07/30/1999
Here's some off-Usenet evidence too, to show that
David Harrison is merely expressing a common
view.
[This raises an additional problem with Davis's
argument for "total-view" utilitarians, who believe
we ought to maximize the amount of pleasure or
preference-satisfaction in the world not only by
increasing the happiness of existing animals, but
also by increasing the total population of happy
animals (Parfit 1984; Singer 1993; Hare 1993).
A total-view utilitarian thinks, all else being equal,
it is better to have two happy animals than one.
*In the past, this view has been used to justify the
consumption of meat, since farmed animals would
not exist if not for meat production.*
This argument, sometimes called "The Logic of the
Larder" (Stephen 1896), is rebutted by recognizing
that while a particular animal may have a life worth
living, he or she may harm a number of other animals
and/or prevent other animals from existing. In such
cases, it may be better if that particular animal had
not existed (Gruzalski 1989).] *my emphasis*
http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nobis/papers/leastharm.htm
This proves my point in that meatarians do hold the
irrational belief that animals benefit from being born,
and that society must continue to eat animals to
provide that initial life. It's the same irration idea
your helmsman Harrison believes in and promotes:
The Logic of the Larder.
Here's some more evidence:
"What do they do which is cruel? They pen up animals
which should be roaming free. This sounds much like
all stock farming. When you farm cattle, you don't want
them straying. As for the "should", well, *these animals
wouldn't exist were it not for the fur farm,* surely, so
who says what these animals "should" be doing? The
reply is that fur farming is evil." *my emphasis*
http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/nikolas.lloyd/opinion/furfarm.html
and
"If so, the consequence to others of buying that meat
in the grocery store, rather than asparagus, is good;
*you create farm animals whose lives are worth living.*
And thus the consequence of buying asparagus rather
than meat is, by comparison, bad. So if you, like me,
think your actions are more moral when you do more
good for others, you should agree with me that meat is
moral, and veggies are immoral." *my emphasis*
http://hanson.gmu.edu/meat.html
K D B
> <dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:n74hfvkn3dgscpvrk...@4ax.com...
>
> > Maybe not, but if the vegan consumes any of the following
> > products then he/she is supporting the meat industry:
> > _________________________________________________________
> > Tires, Surgical sutures, Matches, Soaps, Photographic film,
> > Cosmetics, Shaving cream, Paints, Candles, Crayon/Chalk,
>
> What is the point you are trying to make?
>
> For some of these, there are vegan alternatives (e.g. soap, vitamin B-12).
>
> For others, one has to compromise -
To "compromise" is inconsistent with vegan ideology.
I do not see that as a moral failing.
> If I use tires and do not eat meat, this causes less animal death and
> suffering that if I used tires and ate meat. Realistically, there is no way
> for me to no use tires.
Walk. Problem solved.
>
> > people believe that is wrong because the animals are killed. But
> > they certainly have a *much* longer life from being raised for food
> > than they would have if they never lived,
>
> You seem to be treating "not existing" as a form of harm.
That is EXACTLY what he is doing and it has been pointed out to him
countless times over the past 4+ years. The idiot posting as dh_ld,
better known as 'Jethro Fuckwit' believes that life, in and of itself,
is a "benefit" to farm animals. He has been told that for this to be
true, then never being born MUST be a loss. He argues against this
although it is simply the logical implication of his dumbass "life is
a benefit" claim. Rather than defend his fuckwitted beliefs, the moron
resorts to the only 'argument' he has: accusing all his detractors of
being ARAs. The idiot regularly accuses me of being an ARA although I
raise and slaughter my own livestock and poultry, eat meat regularly,
and hunt and/or fish a minimum of 300 days per year.
Unless I
> misunderstood you, this seems... well... absurd.
Congratulations, you have joined a long list of people who have
tried to point out the absurdity of Jethro Fuckwit's irrational
belief.
Kevin
rick etter
Whta kind would you like?
The use of pesticides?
http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm
http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm
http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm
http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/prip/factsheets/PRIP_WildlifeFactSheet.pd
f
power generation and distribution?
http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html
http://www.towerkill.com/index.html
You can look up some for yourself. Like the millions of animals that are
killed deliberately at storage and processing facilities just to keep your
veggies clean and cheap. Try thinking for a change instead of knee-jerking
your way through life.
Now, care to really compare that to say, a deer? Didn't thing so.
rick etter
> <dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:n74hfvkn3dgscpvrk...@4ax.com...
>
> > Maybe not, but if the vegan consumes any of the following
> > products then he/she is supporting the meat industry:
> > _________________________________________________________
> > Tires, Surgical sutures, Matches, Soaps, Photographic film,
> > Cosmetics, Shaving cream, Paints, Candles, Crayon/Chalk,
>
> What is the point you are trying to make?
>
> For some of these, there are vegan alternatives (e.g. soap, vitamin B-12).
>
> For others, one has to compromise - I do not see that as a moral failing.
> If I use tires and do not eat meat, this causes less animal death and
> suffering that if I used tires and ate meat. Realistically, there is no
way
> for me to no use tires.
Really? Nice claim. Care to offer some proof? Didn't think so....
rick etter
> <dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:psscfvob4uugfh216...@4ax.com...
>
> > meat contributes to life for animals as it contributes to their deaths,
> > and conscientious consumers can contribute to decent lives for
> > farm animals with their diets,
>
> This is technically true. It is possible to produce meat in a fairly
humane
> way.
>
> However, the vast majority of meat sold has not been produced in a humane
> way at all. Someone consistently avoiding inhumane meat would be a
> vegetarian - possibly a vegan - vast majority of the time. I have never
met
> anyone like that, but if such people exist, more power to them!
Many people eat only grassfed beef, no hormones, no antibiotics, or game.
These animals die in a much greater humane way than the animals that die for
the production of cheap, convenient veggies. Those animal get sliced,
diced, shredded, dis membered, starved and eating alive.
>
> I have met plenty of people who will say that it is possible to raise meat
> humanely - in a bizarre attempt to justify their eating of inhumanely
> produced meat.
>
> > The idea that veganism helps or saves animals is absurd,
>
> Not eating animals does not save them? I am not sure if I follow your
> reasoning here.
====================
It saves only the animal you don't eat stupid. It does nothing for the many
more animals you may kill to replace those calories.
>
>
>
>
Michael Voytinsky
news:GbxKa.315277$Vi5.8...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
> Yet all agriculture results in massive harm to animals, wildlife like
birds,
> mice etc.. so the vegan still exacts a toll in death and suffering.
Is there a point associated with this statement?
> > I have met plenty of people who will say that it is possible to raise
meat
> > humanely - in a bizarre attempt to justify their eating of inhumanely
> > produced meat.
>
> What that fact illustrates is that raising animals meat is not
categorically
> inhumane/unethical as vegans claim.
All vegans claim this? Prof. Peter Singer, in "Animal Liberation" - a book
which is a major influence on ethical veganism/vegetarianism discusses the
possibility of humanely produced meat - and goes on to say that vast
majority of meat is not humanely produced. He suggests that maybe the
question should not be so much "Is it unethical to eat meat?" but rather "Is
it unethical to eat this meat?" Prof. Singer is, to the best of my
knowledge, a vegan.
> > Not eating animals does not save them? I am not sure if I follow your
> > reasoning here.
>
> He means that they would never have been born but for the demand for meat.
I do not see how causing someone or something to be born "saves" them. It
sounds "non-existence in the first place" sound like a variety of harm -
which is ridiculous.
Michael Voytinsky
news:4732cb6f.03062...@posting.google.com...
> > For others, one has to compromise -
>
> To "compromise" is inconsistent with vegan ideology.
I did not even know that there was a single, immutable vegan ideology. I am
sure this will be news to many vegans as well.
Michael Voytinsky
> > For others, one has to compromise - I do not see that as a moral
failing.
> > If I use tires and do not eat meat, this causes less animal death and
> > suffering that if I used tires and ate meat. Realistically, there is no
> > way for me to no use tires.
> Really? Nice claim. Care to offer some proof? Didn't think so....
Proof of what? That there is no realistic way to avoid tire use? Or that
not eating meat prevents death and suffering of animals?
What would you consider acceptable proof? (i.e. What would have to be true
about the world for your beliefs on this to be false.)
Michael Voytinsky
> > This is an interesting claim. Could you provide some more specifics?
> > Maybe some examples, evidence, that sort of thing.
> ====================
> Whta kind would you like?
>
>
> The use of pesticides?
> http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm
> http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
> http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm
> http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
> http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html
> http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm
>
http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/prip/factsheets/PRIP_WildlifeFactSheet.pd
f
I see a bunch of random URLs, that is all. That is not evidence.
I fail to see an actual point here.
> You can look up some for yourself. Like the millions of animals that are
> killed deliberately at storage and processing facilities just to keep your
> veggies clean and cheap. Try thinking for a change instead of
knee-jerking
> your way through life.
Just one question.
What!?
> Now, care to really compare that to say, a deer? Didn't thing so.
Pronouns are much more effective if they have a referent.
Michael Voytinsky
> Many people eat only grassfed beef, no hormones, no antibiotics, or game.
Good for them.
> These animals die in a much greater humane way than the animals that die
for
> the production of cheap, convenient veggies. Those animal get sliced,
> diced, shredded, dis membered, starved and eating alive.
Erm, what are you talking about?
> It saves only the animal you don't eat stupid.
Brilliant, logical argument there.
Derek
"Michael Voytinsky" <micha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:udBKa.20655$O31....@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
invented a hypothetical vegan carrying a bogus
argument with a false premise in the hope that it
will weaken the vegan's position.
The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent
someone else's position so that it can be attacked
more easily, knock down that misrepresented
position, then conclude that the original position
has been demolished. It's a fallacy because it fails
to deal with the actual arguments that have been
made.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#strawman
It's a well known tactic that we're all aware of here
on a.a.e.v.
dustbird
They shouldn't have chosen to be in those businesses to begin with. If
somebody whose business is to wring the heads off live chickens on a
production line is unemployed because people have chosen not to eat meat, or
the same for someone working in a slaughterhouse, or hog farm, or even for
anyone involved in just the book-keeping, or executive work, do I care?
Nope. They probably desderve an "unpleasant experience."
A lot of people gave up cigarettes because they thought it did them harm,
and because the price went sky-high. The same might work for meat.
And the companies who are involved in meat products but also go into tofu
or something because there is a market - well, if the market for tofu
ceased, wouldn't they go back into meat 100%? That is just amoral
expediency.
K D B
> "Michael Voytinsky" <micha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:udBKa.20655$O31....@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > "K D B" <kand...@excite.com> wrote in message
> > news:4732cb6f.03062...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > > For others, one has to compromise -
> > >
> > > To "compromise" is inconsistent with vegan ideology.
> >
> > I did not even know that there was a single, immutable
> > vegan ideology. I am sure this will be news to many
> > vegans as well.
The ideas behind veganism can all be narrowed down to one,
simplistic, childish rule. Go away, you don't have enough ammunition
for this.
> >
> Kevin is lying, as usual.
I've never lied, not even once, asswipe. You even admitted just
recently that you've never "caught me" doing anything dishonest.
You're clearly, and irrefutably, the one who is lying.
He and Jonathan Ball have
> invented a hypothetical vegan carrying a bogus
> argument with a false premise in the hope that it
> will weaken the vegan's position.
False, your own claim that you "live a death free lifestyle" shows
that you believe in this fallacy.
>
> The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent
> someone else's position so that it can be attacked
> more easily, knock down that misrepresented
> position, then conclude that the original position
> has been demolished. It's a fallacy because it fails
> to deal with the actual arguments that have been
> made.
> http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#strawman
You didn't understand it until I told you what it meant, fuckwad. I
did so after you, being a semi-literate fraud, mistaken;y accused
someone of the fallacy. Of course, as is normal for your pansy-ass,
you whined when you got caught not knowing what the fuck you were
talking about. You rarely know what the fuck you are talking about. I
have not committed any fallacy. Give it up. You're a waste of carbon.
>
> It's a well known tactic that we're all aware of here
> on a.a.e.v.
You should be, you've enagaged in the fallacy yourself in most of
your recent posts. Resign Dreck, you wouldn't know logic if it pissed
on your 'blue foot'.
Kevin
K D B
Why don't you start by explaining your ridiculous claim that you
can't live without tires, "realistically" that is?
Kevin
Jonathan Ball
>
> "Michael Voytinsky" <micha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:udBKa.20655$O31....@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > "K D B" <kand...@excite.com> wrote in message
> > news:4732cb6f.03062...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > > > For others, one has to compromise -
> > >
> > > To "compromise" is inconsistent with vegan ideology.
> >
> > I did not even know that there was a single, immutable
> > vegan ideology. I am sure this will be news to many
> > vegans as well.
> >
> Kevin is lying, as usual. He and Jonathan Ball have
> invented a hypothetical vegan carrying a bogus
> argument with a false premise in the hope that it
> will weaken the vegan's position.
Nope. The "vegan" already has a completely incoherent ethical
position. We need do nothing to weaken it.
All "vegans" believe in the fallacious argument:
If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
I do not eat meat;
Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.
The first premise is *generally* true, even if it is not
necessarily or strictly true: for the typical person considering
whether or not it is morally permissible to eat meat, it will be
true that if he chooses to eat meat, animals will be harmed. You
have lost on trying to contend that the premise is false; the
premise is generally true, and more to the point, all "vegans"
*believe* it to be true. Hence, all "vegans" accept the first
premise of the fallacious argument.
The fact of "veganism" itself, and its embodiment of the
obsessive, weird Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)
addresses the second premise, and the ability of the "vegan" to
leap to the logically invalid conclusion. All "vegans" engage in
this weird, obsessive search. The only logical explanation for
it is their religious belief that if they extirpate the last
molecule of Animal Parts from their diet, then they will be able
to declare that they do not cause harm to animals.
Clearly, the "vegan" believes, irrationally, that it is the
*consumption* of animal parts, rather than the causation of harm,
that is to be avoided.
"veganism" is plainly not a proper and coherent ethical position.
K D B
> "rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message
> news:VOzKa.4294$Ly2.8...@cletus.bright.net...
>
> > Many people eat only grassfed beef, no hormones, no antibiotics, or game.
>
> Good for them.
>
> > These animals die in a much greater humane way than the animals that die
> for
> > the production of cheap, convenient veggies. Those animal get sliced,
> > diced, shredded, dis membered, starved and eating alive.
>
> Erm, what are you talking about?
Here's some free advice: at least know the topic before entering the
conversation. Otherwise, you'll make it far too easy for some of us to
show that Dreck Nash is a lying buffoon. It's easy enough as it is.
You've done enough, you have just provided more evidence that vegans
follow the fallacious argument:
1) If I eat meat, animals die to provide me with food.
2) I don't eat meat.
Therefore:
3) Animals don't die to provide me with food.
You can deny it, but it's clearly implied by the very fact you
don't even comprehend the discussion you've willingly entered into.
The simple fact is: Animals DO die to provide your food. Animals
are killed in every step of the process. From those killed by the
plowing and harvesting equipment, to the ones intentionally killed by
pesticides, accidental deaths during transportation, as well as pest
control during the storage and processing phases of food production.
Have you ever heard of anyone needing pest control in a meat cooler?
>
> > It saves only the animal you don't eat stupid.
>
> Brilliant, logical argument there.
That really is brilliant, sarcasm from someone who didn't even
understand the conversation. The effect is better when you do know
what you're talking about.
Kevin
Ray
~~Jonnie has retracted his statement and given you a good C.V.
He had to enlist the entire population of London to help, but it shows he
cares.
Dutch
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote
[..]
>
> > Yet all agriculture results in massive harm to animals, wildlife like
> birds,
> > mice etc.. so the vegan still exacts a toll in death and suffering.
>
> Is there a point associated with this statement?
I thought it rather self-evident. Since the typical vegan supplants his diet
with a lot of calories from row-cropped plant based foods, his dietary
choice is instrumental in some increase of animal death and suffering.
Vegans, almost universally, in typical self-serving fashion, fail to count
this factor when comparing their diet to an omnivorous diet. By
illustration, an omnivorous diet is viewed as immoral, awful, disgusting,
etc.. because of the harm it causes animals. Their own diets are given a
comparatively clean bill-of-health. This strikes me as a highly self-serving
analysis.
> > > I have met plenty of people who will say that it is possible to raise
> meat
> > > humanely - in a bizarre attempt to justify their eating of inhumanely
> > > produced meat.
> >
> > What that fact illustrates is that raising animals meat is not
> categorically
> > inhumane/unethical as vegans claim.
>
> All vegans claim this?
No, not all, just the vast majority.
Prof. Peter Singer, in "Animal Liberation" - a book
> which is a major influence on ethical veganism/vegetarianism discusses the
> possibility of humanely produced meat - and goes on to say that vast
> majority of meat is not humanely produced. He suggests that maybe the
> question should not be so much "Is it unethical to eat meat?" but rather
"Is
> it unethical to eat this meat?" Prof. Singer is, to the best of my
> knowledge, a vegan.
Singer's strict utilitarianism is not popular these days. Look to Regan and
Francione, the rights-based AR authors to see the primary basis for vegan
ideology.
>
> > > Not eating animals does not save them? I am not sure if I follow your
> > > reasoning here.
> >
> > He means that they would never have been born but for the demand for
meat.
>
> I do not see how causing someone or something to be born "saves" them. It
> sounds "non-existence in the first place" sound like a variety of harm -
> which is ridiculous.
I agree, he's a moron.
rick etter
> "rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message
> news:cKzKa.4292$Ly2.8...@cletus.bright.net...
>
> > > This is an interesting claim. Could you provide some more specifics?
> > > Maybe some examples, evidence, that sort of thing.
> > ====================
> > Whta kind would you like?
> >
> >
> > The use of pesticides?
> > http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm
> > http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
> > http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm
> > http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
> > http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html
> > http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm
> >
>
http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/prip/factsheets/PRIP_WildlifeFactSheet.pd
> f
>
> I see a bunch of random URLs, that is all. That is not evidence.
LOL It's not evidence that animals die in crop production? Man, you
really are whacked out, aren't you killer?
>
> I fail to see an actual point here.
================
Of course you do. It violates your premise that vegan 'save' animals,
therefore you ignore it.
>
> > You can look up some for yourself. Like the millions of animals that
are
> > killed deliberately at storage and processing facilities just to keep
your
> > veggies clean and cheap. Try thinking for a change instead of
> knee-jerking
> > your way through life.
>
> Just one question.
>
> What!?
>
> > Now, care to really compare that to say, a deer? Didn't thing so.
>
> Pronouns are much more effective if they have a referent.
====================
Yep, didn't think you did. Just another on-line checker when you can't add
anything to the discussion, typical.
>
>
rick etter
> "rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message
> news:4LzKa.4293$Ly2.8...@cletus.bright.net...
>
> > > For others, one has to compromise - I do not see that as a moral
> failing.
> > > If I use tires and do not eat meat, this causes less animal death and
> > > suffering that if I used tires and ate meat. Realistically, there is
no
> > > way for me to no use tires.
>
> > Really? Nice claim. Care to offer some proof? Didn't think so....
>
> Proof of what? That there is no realistic way to avoid tire use? Or that
> not eating meat prevents death and suffering of animals?
Millions of people aroung the world don't use tires. Why is it a necessity
for survival? Oh, yeah, your selfishness and convenience.
>
> What would you consider acceptable proof? (i.e. What would have to be
true
> about the world for your beliefs on this to be false.)
=================
Anything that would prove your claim. You made it stupid, now back it up.
>
>
>
>
rick etter
> "rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message
> news:VOzKa.4294$Ly2.8...@cletus.bright.net...
>
> > Many people eat only grassfed beef, no hormones, no antibiotics, or
game.
>
> Good for them.
>
> > These animals die in a much greater humane way than the animals that die
> for
> > the production of cheap, convenient veggies. Those animal get sliced,
> > diced, shredded, dis membered, starved and eating alive.
>
> Erm, what are you talking about?
Are you really this stupid, or do you work at it? What part iof animals
dying in agricultural fields don't you understand?
> > It saves only the animal you don't eat stupid.
>
> Brilliant, logical argument there.
================
And possibly kills 10s or 100s of other animals, you ignorant dolt. How
does that fit with the vegan loon sanctimonious hypocrisy?
>
>
>
Michael Voytinsky
> And possibly kills 10s or 100s of other animals, you ignorant dolt. How
> does that fit with the vegan loon sanctimonious hypocrisy?
I am impressed. You have learned words with more than two syllables in
them.
Maybe one day you will learn to use them to formulate a meaningful
argument - perhaps when you finally finish grade school.
rick etter
Ah, I see you still cannot refute what I say, or prove the deluded claims
you make. Typical.
rick etter
"dustbird" <dust...@cross.wind> wrote in message
news:bderg1$c...@library2.airnews.net...
>
> They shouldn't have chosen to be in those businesses to begin with.
Why? Are they illegal?
If
> somebody whose business is to wring the heads off live chickens on a
> production line is unemployed because people have chosen not to eat meat,
or
> the same for someone working in a slaughterhouse, or hog farm, or even for
> anyone involved in just the book-keeping, or executive work, do I care?
> Nope.
=====================
Of course not. vegans have no compassion. All they have is hate, for
themselves and everyone else.
They probably desderve an "unpleasant experience."
=================
The same as you do? Afterall, your lifestyle causes far more inhumane
deaths than any meat animal suffers. And for no more reason than your
selfish entertainment. I guess with all that hate floating around you, you
just like to cause all that death and suffering. Go to bullfights too, do
you?
> A lot of people gave up cigarettes because they thought it did them
harm,
> and because the price went sky-high. The same might work for meat.
====================
No, what would happen is that the producers would try to make up for any
loses by pushing even more animals through in shorter times. But then,
since it's been determined that you like animal suffering, I guess this
would appeal to you, eh killer?
> And the companies who are involved in meat products but also go into
tofu
> or something because there is a market - well, if the market for tofu
> ceased, wouldn't they go back into meat 100%? That is just amoral
> expediency.
==================
Tofu, now there's a amoral expediancy. Tell us, how many deaths are
involved in say, 100lbs of tofu meat substitute vs 100lbs of beef?
>
>
Michael Voytinsky
> Ah, I see you still cannot refute what I say, or prove the deluded claims
> you make. Typical.
You said:
> > And possibly kills 10s or 100s of other animals, you ignorant dolt. How
> > does that fit with the vegan loon sanctimonious hypocrisy?
It is difficult to refute a stream of mindless insults.
rick etter
LOL Your would know insults if they slapped you in the face stupid. That
you willnot even try to refute the facts says it all.
>
>
>
>
>
>
Derek
> >
>
> I've never lied, not even once, asswipe.
You have lied in a number of areas. You lied in
that cowardly web page you authored
http://www.pathwai.org/tpa_loon_o_month.htm
claiming you had put a number to CD, but when
I put it to you that you lied, you made a lame
excuse and kept the lie going on that web page
for quite a considerable time before taking it off
a little while ago. From that page:
[My statement:
The only trouble is, is that it's a next to useless argument
when it comes to challenging our lifestyle. Nobody can put
a number to these deaths, & even though they do exist, are
not our responsibility anyway.
Kevin's reply:
We have put a number to them, and you are responsible for
them.]
I did bring this up with you in a new post;
From: Derek (de...@nash16.freeserve.co.uk)
Subject: Kevin has the number for CD
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, talk.politics.animals
View this article only
Date: 2002-03-02 07:54:42 PST
but we didn't reach a conclusion. Your comment running
straight after mine as if it were a retort to my statement on
this group is hardly fair. You've never made that comment
at any time on this group and you're not likely to either, so,
as a show of real sportsmanship, could you ameliorate your
loon o the month page, please. You can keep me on there
as long as you like but at least make your comments on
what I say accurate. I know it's only for a laugh and some
of it is quite alright, but do us a favour and make a different
comment.
[end]
You also lied by claiming Jon's premise was a true
premise, but after I forced him into conceding it
was false, you still lied by pretending it was a
true premise. I've never seen you address Jon's
lies on this issue, and I believe it's because
you're a coward who daren't stand against him.
Also, you have at times made posts in your opponent's
name while trying to weaken his position, and that's a
lie in itself. Both of you lost a lot of credibility when you
pulled that prank. It cost you dearly.
> You even admitted just
> recently that you've never "caught me" doing anything
> dishonest. You're clearly, and irrefutably, the one who
> is lying.
>
Obviously I was, or at least I was still willing to give
you the benefit of the doubt, but since your cowardice
over Jon's false premise and the straw vegan you attack
here on a.a.e.v., I've reconsidered my giving you the
benefit of the doubt and now believe you're one of the
most notorious and persistent liars on the group. That
web page and your forgeries prove it, and there's
nothing you can do to regain any lost credibility you
once thought you had. You're finished, Brandon, and
I think you know it too.
> > He and Jonathan Ball have
> > invented a hypothetical vegan carrying a bogus
> > argument with a false premise in the hope that it
> > will weaken the vegan's position.
>
> False, your own claim that you "live a death free lifestyle" shows
> that you believe in this fallacy.
My claim that I live a death free lifestyle has no
bearing on the deaths caused by farmers during
crop production or the human deaths found in
other industries. I don't kill animals or humans,
and I don't believe that these death tolls are any
reflection on my lifestyle at all. You and Jon
intentionally misinterpret that common claim to
mean that the person making it is denying the
fact that collateral deaths happen. It doesn't
work.
> >
> > The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent
> > someone else's position so that it can be attacked
> > more easily, knock down that misrepresented
> > position, then conclude that the original position
> > has been demolished. It's a fallacy because it fails
> > to deal with the actual arguments that have been
> > made.
> > http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#strawman
>
> You didn't understand it until I told you what it meant, fuckwad.
You're overestimating yourself. I knew of this fallacy
a long time ago. What makes you think you're so much
smarter than everyone else? You obviously aren't, and
as a result I tend to ignore you because you're only one
step up from Rick and Dutch as far as having raw
intelligence goes. Like them, you follow after Jonathan
carrying HIS arguments for him, and when you get stuck
you wait for HIS response before making a reply of your
own. You're just another ambulance chaser, and an
obvious one at that too.
Michael Voytinsky
> I thought it rather self-evident. Since the typical vegan supplants his
diet
> with a lot of calories from row-cropped plant based foods, his dietary
> choice is instrumental in some increase of animal death and suffering.
It takes an awful lot more plants to produce 1 kg of beef than 1 kg of
tofu - and most soybeans become animal feed, not tofu - which is a very
inefficient way to extract calories out of soybeans.
So if you eat plants directly, you cause less animal death. Simple, n'est
pas?
> > All vegans claim this?
>
> No, not all, just the vast majority.
You have done a poll?
> "Is it unethical to eat this meat?" Prof. Singer is, to the best of my
> knowledge, a vegan.
>
> Singer's strict utilitarianism is not popular these days.
I haven't poll vegans and vegetarians on this, so I do not know what the
popularity of Singer vs. Regan might be.
Certainly the statement "all vegans believe x" is obviously false if Singer
does not believe x.
Michael Voytinsky
news:3EFB3410...@whitehouse.not...
> All "vegans" engage in this weird, obsessive search.
Only if you define "vegan" to fit your notions.
USual sUSpect
Derek wrote:
> You have lied in a number of areas. You lied in
> that cowardly web page you authored
> http://www.pathwai.org/tpa_loon_o_month.htm
<snip>
Thanks a million for that link! It has pearl's "inner earth beings" stuff.
"...It was so scary for the members of the secret government to see
their plans of escape that they have prepared for hundreds of years
failed 3 times that they are now working on "Noah's Ark Project and this
is "underground". I beg you not to try to find them or approach them
because you would not live very long or would be taken as a prisoner to
be treated as a slave to do their dirty work. But these are not the
"Inner Earth" people we are talking about on this list, they are our
present world Secret Government, and One World Government Order,
Military Alliances, etc. "surface people" who are planning their escape
when the Light of Almighty God will finally shine on this planet and
"they know" they will have nowhere to go...."
(still roflmao)
dustbird
> Tofu, now there's a amoral expediancy. Tell us, how many deaths are
> involved in say, 100lbs of tofu meat substitute vs 100lbs of beef?
I only eat tofu at bull-fights.
Isn't tofu made from soybeans? How does that cause the death of cattle?
Are you saying that because soybean crops replace grass, or hay, or
something, the cattle no longer have grass or grain to eat, and would starve
to death? Well, then, I see the error of my ways. Can you help me get a job
in a slaughterhouse where I could express my compassion for animals with a
bloody ax?
Derek
"USual sUSpect" <ne...@even.try> wrote in message news:3EFC42A8...@even.try...
> snip afv
>
> Derek wrote:
> > You have lied in a number of areas. You lied in
> > that cowardly web page you authored
> > http://www.pathwai.org/tpa_loon_o_month.htm
> <snip>
>
> Thanks a million for that link! It has pearl's "inner earth beings" stuff.
>
looked it weren't there. I mightn't've known if you
hadn't've told me.
> "...It was so scary for the members of the secret government to see
> their plans of escape that they have prepared for hundreds of years
> failed 3 times that they are now working on "Noah's Ark Project and this
> is "underground". I beg you not to try to find them or approach them
> because you would not live very long or would be taken as a prisoner to
> be treated as a slave to do their dirty work. But these are not the
> "Inner Earth" people we are talking about on this list, they are our
> present world Secret Government, and One World Government Order,
> Military Alliances, etc. "surface people" who are planning their escape
> when the Light of Almighty God will finally shine on this planet and
> "they know" they will have nowhere to go...."
>
> (still roflmao)
>
She's a fucking nutcase. I haven't got time to into it right now.
Derek
"Michael Voytinsky" <micha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:HjXKa.114$a51...@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
here are merely clones of their hypothetical vegan
carrying a crooked argument that isn't ours to begin
with. A rotten tactic from a buch of desperate losers
is what it is.
Laurie
<dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:o14hfv8u56t4grfpr...@4ax.com...
> How about the mass experiencing of life by billions of animals who
> only live because they are raised by humans?
A logical consequence of your unsupported belief that animals do not
recognize death would be that they also do not recognize LIFE; so your
crackpot propaganda that such a miserable, tortured existence at the hands
of the dead-animal industry is somehow a useful experience for them is
nonsense.
> People can go to local farmers today and buy animal products from
> animals they feel have decent lives. That way they could contribute
> to decent lives for farm animals.
So, being burned by hot branding irons, being dehorned by hot irons,
being a grotesque genetic freak created only for human profit and which
could not survive in the wild, being pumped full of antibiotics and other
drugs necessary to keep them alive because they are so sick, being fed an
unnatural diet, being kept pregnant constantly to produce milk, being
restricted in veal cages, living in feed lots wallowing in their own shit,
being debeaked by hot wires so they don't kill each other, etc. --- all this
is DECENT? Would you think YOU would have a "decent" life if these things
were done to YOU?? Or course, you will not answer this question, as you
refuse to answer other questions that expose the absurdity of your claims
Here is a list of common bovine diseases; is this all part of a "decent"
life??
http://cattletoday.info/diseases/cancereye.htm
Worse, federal regulaters now allow cancerous cattle, pigs, and chickens
to be sold as consumable meat: "new rules reclassifying as safe for human
consumption animal carcasses with cancers, tumors and open sores."
http://www.organicconsumers.org/irrad/diseased.cfm
http://www.organicconsumers.org/toxic/chixpus.cfm
http://www.cobb-vantress.com/cvi/library/pdf/CVI-TNSpec%201_98.pdf
"(because of the high mortality in the breeder females, which may reach an
overall high of 6% per month or higher at its peak). Tumors of various
kinds may be found in up to 60-70% of the dead birds in severely affected
adult flocks Tumor expression and virus shedding appear to be higher during
ALV-J seems to be widespread now in commercial meat-type chickens."
This is characteristic of a "decent" life??
Laurie
They can't do it by being veg*n. By
> eating grass raised beef, people contribute to less deaths than by
> eating tofu. By drinking grass raised milk, people contribute to less
> deaths than by drinking soy or rice milk.
>
> > So, on that assumption, or on the assumption that people do not
need
> >meat in that diet, and all slaughter was legally prohibited, what would
> >happen to the animals? They couldn't be slaughtered, and it would not be
> >profitable for ranchers to feed them and care for them, so breeding would
> >have to be drastically reduced, so that there were only a relatively few
> >food animals.and . The most humane solution would be to continue to care
for
> >the animals, but to stop breeding until the population was reduced or
even
> >eliminated.
>
> PeTA kills more dogs and cats than they find homes for. What makes
> you think livestock would be cared for when "ARAs" already kill pets?
> The animals are already being cared for, and having *much* more
> life than they would if they had none at all. So far your extinction plan
> doesn't show any benefit for animals.
>
> >But it doesn't seem right to eliminate a species, so some sort
> >of reversionary or evolutionary breeding might take place that would fit
the
> >surviving animals to live independently in their natural habitats.
>
> What's the point in that? Billions of animals are already living
because
> humans raise them for food. Some of them have good lives, some have
> decent lives, some have terrible lives, just as is true in natural
habitats.
> Most wild animals don't live to maturity. At least the ones that humans
> raise usually don't suffer from starvation, disease or nonhuman predators.
> How long do you think an animal would have to live in order for its
> life to be worth living? Or do you think that if an animal is killed by a
> human, that automatically means that its life was not worth living?
> Or what?
>
> >And to
> >ensure there are natural habitats, it would make sense to breed the human
> >population down to much smaller numbers. This could probably be done
> >humanely withsome sort of combination of advanced birth control
medication
> >and social legislation that would apply to the rich as well as to the
poor.
>
> Something will probably have to be done in that regard at some point.
> Let's hope that it's not too late when they do it.
>
> > So what would happen to the ranchers? I suppose most of the ranchers
are
> >big corporations, so who cares. Corporations are not persons.
>
> Many animals on ranches have decent lives imo, and that is worth
> more consideration than the fact that they are killed.
>
Laurie
<dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:n74hfvkn3dgscpvrk...@4ax.com...
> >> Some of us point out that some types of meat involve less animal
> >> deaths than some types of veggies, ...
> >Can you give me an example of such a vegetable?
> Soy beans, corn, rice, wheat.
That is a totally unsupported fantasy that exists only in your so-called
mind.
How about some scientifically-credible resarch that compares the animal
biomasss killed or displaced per pound of protein produced per acre? Valid
information of this kind would be as HONEST answer.
> http://www.aif.org/lvstock.htm
Dead link.
> http://www.teachfree.com/student/wow_that_cow.htm
Dead link.
> http://www.discover.com/aug_01/featcow.html
"Several million cows have been killed in Great Britain and other
European countries during the past 15 years to prevent the spread of two
diseases. One is foot-and-mouth disease, which broke out this past February
on English farms in Cumbria and Devon, leading to a prophylactic mass
slaughter of cows and sheep throughout Britain and France. These days, the
poor beasts seem more pathological than pastoral. The continued slaughter
in Europe has also led to a growing awareness of the problem of disposing of
all that dead livestock. Renderers have worked overtime, and still the
bodies, or what has become of them, pile up because there is no longer any
fit use for them."
Yes, a "decent" life.
> >That's a rather odd ideology you've got there. Couldn't it also be
> >said that if I went out and raped a woman then my action would be
> >somewhat moral if I impregnate the woman and cause new life to be
> >brought into the world?
> Not imo. In that case the objective of the rapist is to have sex
> with a person who does not want to have sex with him. What
> makes most people consider it to be wrong is that the person
> being raped doesn't want to have sex, ...
Similarely, the cow "doesn't want" to be tortured, abused, drugged,
killed, and finally eaten. As usual, your "logic" is absurd.
> then it comes down to whether or not their life is of a quality
> that would make it worth living.
Does being branded, dehorned, deballed, fed drugs and growth hormones,
somehow enhance the "quality" of their lives?? Does the widespread
occurrance of tumors indicate a "quality" life?? Why don't you have these
things done to you to enhance the quality of YOUR life??
> No it sure is not. It is to contribute to *nothing* for farm
> animals--to contribute to *no* farm animals.
People who stop eating animals and animal products clearly reduce the
market demand for them, and that will reduce the numbers of animals that are
forced to live brutal, painful, diseased lives. Reducing unnecessary animal
suffering is seen as -positive- by rational people, but not by you.
Laurie
Laurie
> There is a growing group of vegans (i'm specifically refering
> to raw foodists- who do not eat tofu ... and in fact speak
> out against it.
There is a considerable body of information available, totally
independent of anyone's particular dietary choices, that indicates that soy
products are not a beneficial human food.
See the soy section at http://www.ecologos.org/ttdd.html
> If you [dh] claim that the production of tofu causes more
> animal deaths than killed by the beef industry (which I find hard to
> believe anyway- do you have any factual evidence in support of this?),
I have been challenging him(?) to present some scientifically-credible
data to support his goofy claims for SEVERAL YEARS, and he has produced
nothing but repetition of his personal propaganda.
> ..., veganism simply means not eating animal products.
It means different things to different people.
Some do not -intentionally- eat animals or animal products. Others stop
using animal products in other areas of their lives: clothing, animal-based
soaps, pet-foods, etc. So, there is a -wide and varied spectrum- of
practices considered vegan by different people with different levels of
understanding, philosophy, interest, and commitment.
Mindless meatarian propagandists, like dh and noBalls, INSIST that ALL
vegans have taken an oath never to consume or utilize even one molecule of
animal-derived substances in their lives, and this is simply NOT TRUE.
Because this is impossible, all vegans are then castigated by these idiots
for using automobile tires, glass, computers, ... and claim that vegans that
do so are ethically corrupt.
Laurie
USual sUSpect
> Heck! I thought he'd removed it, because when I last
> looked it weren't there. I mightn't've known if you
> hadn't've told me.
I'm printing it out so I'll always have a copy.
>>"...It was so scary for the members of the secret government to see
>>their plans of escape that they have prepared for hundreds of years
>>failed 3 times that they are now working on "Noah's Ark Project and this
>>is "underground". I beg you not to try to find them or approach them
>>because you would not live very long or would be taken as a prisoner to
>>be treated as a slave to do their dirty work. But these are not the
>>"Inner Earth" people we are talking about on this list, they are our
>>present world Secret Government, and One World Government Order,
>>Military Alliances, etc. "surface people" who are planning their escape
>>when the Light of Almighty God will finally shine on this planet and
>>"they know" they will have nowhere to go...."
>>
>>(still roflmao)
>
> She's a fucking nutcase. I haven't got time to into it right now.
Come on, do tell! Was this her own treatise or just some of the crap she
believes in and cross-polluted to various newsgroups?
farrell77
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
news:3EFB3410...@whitehouse.not...
> >
> > "Michael Voytinsky" <micha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:udBKa.20655$O31....@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > > "K D B" <kand...@excite.com> wrote in message
> > > news:4732cb6f.03062...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > > > For others, one has to compromise -
> > > >
> > > > To "compromise" is inconsistent with vegan ideology.
> > >
> > > I did not even know that there was a single, immutable
> > > vegan ideology. I am sure this will be news to many
> > > vegans as well.
> > >
> > Kevin is lying, as usual. He and Jonathan Ball have
> > invented a hypothetical vegan carrying a bogus
> > argument with a false premise in the hope that it
> > will weaken the vegan's position.
>
> Nope. The "vegan" already has a completely incoherent ethical
> position. We need do nothing to weaken it.
>
> All "vegans" believe in the fallacious argument:
I've asked for proof of this before and didn't see it. Could you
re-post it? Thanks.
> If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>
> I do not eat meat;
>
> Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.
>
>
> The first premise is *generally* true, even if it is not
> necessarily or strictly true: for the typical person considering
> whether or not it is morally permissible to eat meat, it will be
> true that if he chooses to eat meat, animals will be harmed. You
> have lost on trying to contend that the premise is false; the
> premise is generally true, and more to the point, all "vegans"
> *believe* it to be true. ...
How do you know this?
The truth is, Jon, that I don't "*believe*" it and never have
believed it, as you should know, because I've mentioned
the case of roadkill before.
> ...Hence, all "vegans" accept the first
> premise of the fallacious argument.
No they don't. You don't know what you're talking about.
> The fact of "veganism" itself, and its embodiment of the
> obsessive, weird Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)
> addresses the second premise, and the ability of the "vegan" to
> leap to the logically invalid conclusion. All "vegans" engage in
> this weird, obsessive search. ...
I don't and never have.
> ...The only logical explanation for
> it is their religious belief that if they extirpate the last
> molecule of Animal Parts from their diet, then they will be able
> to declare that they do not cause harm to animals. ...
There's another logical explanation: that few vegans
think what you claim they do and that your whole
argument is largely one big strawman.
Dutch
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:J_IKa.297009$ro6.7...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
>
> > I thought it rather self-evident. Since the typical vegan supplants his
> diet
> > with a lot of calories from row-cropped plant based foods, his dietary
> > choice is instrumental in some increase of animal death and suffering.
>
> It takes an awful lot more plants to produce 1 kg of beef than 1 kg of
> tofu - and most soybeans become animal feed, not tofu - which is a very
> inefficient way to extract calories out of soybeans.
Plants don't feel pain, do they?
> So if you eat plants directly, you cause less animal death. Simple,
n'est
> pas?
No. Eating an animal only by necessity kills one animal.
> > > All vegans claim this?
> >
> > No, not all, just the vast majority.
>
> You have done a poll?
Absolutely, by reading the newsgroup a.a.e.v for two years and reading reams
of vegan and AR literature.
>
> > "Is it unethical to eat this meat?" Prof. Singer is, to the best of my
> > knowledge, a vegan.
> >
> > Singer's strict utilitarianism is not popular these days.
>
> I haven't poll vegans and vegetarians on this, so I do not know what the
> popularity of Singer vs. Regan might be.
Utilitarianism is only used as a front argument to support veganism, but
since it is *sometimes* incorrect to say the eating plants is "better", it
is not relied upon.
> Certainly the statement "all vegans believe x" is obviously false if
Singer
> does not believe x.
It's quite glib and easy to deny that "x" (an absolute statement) can't be
correct.
Dutch
The term has strict meaning, a person who seeks to consume no animal
products. In order to fit this mold, vegans engage in this weird obsessive
behaviour.
Derek
"USual sUSpect" <ne...@even.try> wrote in message news:3EFC7B8...@even.try...
> Derek wrote:
> > Heck! I thought he'd removed it, because when I last
> > looked it weren't there. I mightn't've known if you
> > hadn't've told me.
>
> I'm printing it out so I'll always have a copy.
>
the correct use of apostrophes in the above sentence?
> >>"...It was so scary for the members of the secret government to see
> >>their plans of escape that they have prepared for hundreds of years
> >>failed 3 times that they are now working on "Noah's Ark Project and this
> >>is "underground". I beg you not to try to find them or approach them
> >>because you would not live very long or would be taken as a prisoner to
> >>be treated as a slave to do their dirty work. But these are not the
> >>"Inner Earth" people we are talking about on this list, they are our
> >>present world Secret Government, and One World Government Order,
> >>Military Alliances, etc. "surface people" who are planning their escape
> >>when the Light of Almighty God will finally shine on this planet and
> >>"they know" they will have nowhere to go...."
> >>
> >>(still roflmao)
> >
> > She's a fucking nutcase. I haven't got time to into it right now.
>
> Come on, do tell! Was this her own treatise or just some of the crap she
> believes in and cross-polluted to various newsgroups?
>
The latter, but you're right in thinking she believes
it and crossposts it all about the place like a mindless
dork though. She hardly ever produces anything of
her own and just copies everything from the web with
a link attached.
Dutch
>
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> news:3EFB3410...@whitehouse.not...
> > Derek wrote:
> > >
> > > "Michael Voytinsky" <micha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:udBKa.20655$O31....@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > > > "K D B" <kand...@excite.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:4732cb6f.03062...@posting.google.com...
> > > >
> > > > > > For others, one has to compromise -
> > > > >
> > > > > To "compromise" is inconsistent with vegan ideology.
> > > >
> > > > I did not even know that there was a single, immutable
> > > > vegan ideology. I am sure this will be news to many
> > > > vegans as well.
> > > >
> > > Kevin is lying, as usual. He and Jonathan Ball have
> > > invented a hypothetical vegan carrying a bogus
> > > argument with a false premise in the hope that it
> > > will weaken the vegan's position.
> >
> > Nope. The "vegan" already has a completely incoherent ethical
> > position. We need do nothing to weaken it.
> >
> > All "vegans" believe in the fallacious argument:
>
> I've asked for proof of this before and didn't see it. Could you
> re-post it? Thanks.
It's clear in the very definition of a vegan. "A person who seeks to consume
no animal products."
The vegan therefore attempts to gets rid of leather shoes and belts,
gelatine capsules etc etc.. in the pusuit of being the perfect vegan, and
therefore ethically pure.
> > If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
> >
> > I do not eat meat;
> >
> > Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.
> >
> >
> > The first premise is *generally* true, even if it is not
> > necessarily or strictly true: for the typical person considering
> > whether or not it is morally permissible to eat meat, it will be
> > true that if he chooses to eat meat, animals will be harmed. You
> > have lost on trying to contend that the premise is false; the
> > premise is generally true, and more to the point, all "vegans"
> > *believe* it to be true. ...
>
> How do you know this?
It's clear in the very definition of a vegan.
> The truth is, Jon, that I don't "*believe*" it and never have
> believed it, as you should know, because I've mentioned
> the case of roadkill before.
Roadkill is a diversionary argument. Animal products implies products
containing parts of animals that were "killed" deliberately for those
products, 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of animal
products.
> > ...Hence, all "vegans" accept the first
> > premise of the fallacious argument.
>
> No they don't. You don't know what you're talking about.
Yes they do, nobody eats roadkill. Don't play the fool.
> > The fact of "veganism" itself, and its embodiment of the
> > obsessive, weird Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)
> > addresses the second premise, and the ability of the "vegan" to
> > leap to the logically invalid conclusion. All "vegans" engage in
> > this weird, obsessive search. ...
>
> I don't and never have.
I don't believe you. You've asked what the broth is made of, are there bits
of shrimp in the salad, anchovies in the dressing, etc etc..
> > ...The only logical explanation for
> > it is their religious belief that if they extirpate the last
> > molecule of Animal Parts from their diet, then they will be able
> > to declare that they do not cause harm to animals. ...
>
> There's another logical explanation: that few vegans
> think what you claim they do and that your whole
> argument is largely one big strawman.
You don't like it because it hits the nail on the head.
USual sUSpect
>>I'm printing it out so I'll always have a copy.
>
> Of what: Lieslie's crap or my fine example illustrating
> the correct use of apostrophes in the above sentence?
The former. Congratulations, too, on the latter.
>>>She's a fucking nutcase. I haven't got time to into it right now.
>>
>>Come on, do tell! Was this her own treatise or just some of the crap she
>>believes in and cross-polluted to various newsgroups?
>
> The latter, but you're right in thinking she believes
> it and crossposts it all about the place like a mindless
> dork though. She hardly ever produces anything of
> her own and just copies everything from the web with
> a link attached.
I've already accused her of relying on a revolving circle of sources.
Site A refers to Site B which refers to Site C; of course, Site C
completes the loop by referring back to Site A. I want to find the Site
A for the people of middle, I mean *inner* earth -- and I don't mean
Tolkein.
farrell77
But a person can be a vegan, try to do these things and still
not accept either of the following (false) premises: (1) eating no
meat is required in order to avoid harming animals and (2) eating
no meat is sufficient to avoid causing harm to animals.
> > > If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
> > >
> > > I do not eat meat;
> > >
> > > Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.
> > >
> > >
> > > The first premise is *generally* true, even if it is not
> > > necessarily or strictly true: for the typical person considering
> > > whether or not it is morally permissible to eat meat, it will be
> > > true that if he chooses to eat meat, animals will be harmed. You
> > > have lost on trying to contend that the premise is false; the
> > > premise is generally true, and more to the point, all "vegans"
> > > *believe* it to be true. ...
> >
> > How do you know this?
>
> It's clear in the very definition of a vegan.
>
> > The truth is, Jon, that I don't "*believe*" it and never have
> > believed it, as you should know, because I've mentioned
> > the case of roadkill before.
>
> Roadkill is a diversionary argument. Animal products implies products
> containing parts of animals that were "killed" deliberately for those
> products, 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of animal
> products.
It's not a diversionary argument if one claims that *all* vegans
believe that eating meat is *always* unethical. It serves to disprove
that claim.
> > > ...Hence, all "vegans" accept the first
> > > premise of the fallacious argument.
> >
> > No they don't. You don't know what you're talking about.
>
> Yes they do, nobody eats roadkill. Don't play the fool.
Whether anyone eats it or not is irrelevant. All they have to do
is agree that eating roadkill wouldn't be wrong.
> > > The fact of "veganism" itself, and its embodiment of the
> > > obsessive, weird Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)
> > > addresses the second premise, and the ability of the "vegan" to
> > > leap to the logically invalid conclusion. All "vegans" engage in
> > > this weird, obsessive search. ...
> >
> > I don't and never have.
>
> I don't believe you. You've asked what the broth is made of, are there
bits
> of shrimp in the salad, anchovies in the dressing, etc etc..
You have me confused with someone else. To the best of
my knowledge, I have never asked these questions. If you
still think otherwise, then please show where.
> > > ...The only logical explanation for
> > > it is their religious belief that if they extirpate the last
> > > molecule of Animal Parts from their diet, then they will be able
> > > to declare that they do not cause harm to animals. ...
> >
> > There's another logical explanation: that few vegans
> > think what you claim they do and that your whole
> > argument is largely one big strawman.
>
> You don't like it because it hits the nail on the head.
If I understand what you mean by "it" here, then I don't
like "it" because it's false.
Michael Voytinsky
> > It takes an awful lot more plants to produce 1 kg of beef than 1 kg of
> > tofu - and most soybeans become animal feed, not tofu - which is a very
> > inefficient way to extract calories out of soybeans.
>
> Plants don't feel pain, do they?
Not having a nervous system and all that makes feeling pain difficult.
>> So if you eat plants directly, you cause less animal death. Simple,
>> n'est pas?
>
> No. Eating an animal only by necessity kills one animal.
However, if you raised that animal, you need additional infrastructure -
e.g. raising animal feed. This is an obvious point.
> > You have done a poll?
>
> Absolutely, by reading the newsgroup a.a.e.v for two years and reading
reams
> of vegan and AR literature.
And these represent views of every vegan?
>> Certainly the statement "all vegans believe x" is obviously false if
>> Singer does not believe x.
>
> It's quite glib and easy to deny that "x" (an absolute statement) can't be
> correct.
This does not prevent people from making absolute statements about, say, all
vegans.
Dutch
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:fh%Ka.332539$Vi5.8...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
>
> > > It takes an awful lot more plants to produce 1 kg of beef than 1 kg of
> > > tofu - and most soybeans become animal feed, not tofu - which is a
very
> > > inefficient way to extract calories out of soybeans.
> >
> > Plants don't feel pain, do they?
>
> Not having a nervous system and all that makes feeling pain difficult.
Then it doesn't matter from an ethical standpoint that there is a net
caloric loss in turning cellulose into meat.
>
> >> So if you eat plants directly, you cause less animal death. Simple,
> >> n'est pas?
> >
> > No. Eating an animal only by necessity kills one animal.
>
> However, if you raised that animal, you need additional infrastructure -
> e.g. raising animal feed. This is an obvious point.
Maybe obvious but categorically untrue. It's not necessary to grow "feed" to
eat meat. Livestock is raised in many parts of the world without feed, then
there is wild fish and game. A vegan can *reduce* his collateral impact on
animals by *adding* some fresh fish to his diet. That fact refutes vegan
principles.
> > > You have done a poll?
> >
> > Absolutely, by reading the newsgroup a.a.e.v for two years and reading
> reams
> > of vegan and AR literature.
>
> And these represent views of every vegan?
Every vegan that comes along displays virtually the identical mindset.
> >> Certainly the statement "all vegans believe x" is obviously false if
> >> Singer does not believe x.
> >
> > It's quite glib and easy to deny that "x" (an absolute statement) can't
be
> > correct.
>
> This does not prevent people from making absolute statements about, say,
all
> vegans.
When I describe a typical vegan characteristic vegans always line up to deny
the absolute.
rick etter
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:J_IKa.297009$ro6.7...@news2.calgary.shaw.ca...
>
> > I thought it rather self-evident. Since the typical vegan supplants his
> diet
> > with a lot of calories from row-cropped plant based foods, his dietary
> > choice is instrumental in some increase of animal death and suffering.
>
> It takes an awful lot more plants to produce 1 kg of beef than 1 kg of
> tofu - and most soybeans become animal feed, not tofu - which is a very
> inefficient way to extract calories out of soybeans.
No, but by eating the tofu you can sure extract more dead animals. Besides,
the plants that the cows need are are not nutrients for people.
>
> So if you eat plants directly, you cause less animal death. Simple,
n'est
> pas?
=================
Only to your simple minded brainwashed delusion, stupid. It is not that
simple. tell us again how many animals diefor 100lbs of tofu vs 100lbs of
deer.
rick etter
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:fh%Ka.332539$Vi5.8...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca...
>
> > > It takes an awful lot more plants to produce 1 kg of beef than 1 kg of
> > > tofu - and most soybeans become animal feed, not tofu - which is a
very
> > > inefficient way to extract calories out of soybeans.
> >
> > Plants don't feel pain, do they?
>
> Not having a nervous system and all that makes feeling pain difficult.
>
> >> So if you eat plants directly, you cause less animal death. Simple,
> >> n'est pas?
> >
> > No. Eating an animal only by necessity kills one animal.
>
> However, if you raised that animal, you need additional infrastructure -
> e.g. raising animal feed. This is an obvious point.
No, it is not, for tyhere is no need to 'raise' animal feed stupid. Why is
that concept so hard for you to understand? Too simple minded, or too
blinded by your delusions? Either way, the only thing obvious is your
ignorance.
rick etter
"dustbird" <dust...@cross.wind> wrote in message
> ==================
> > Tofu, now there's a amoral expediancy. Tell us, how many deaths are
> > involved in say, 100lbs of tofu meat substitute vs 100lbs of beef?
>
> I only eat tofu at bull-fights.
>
> Isn't tofu made from soybeans? How does that cause the death of
cattle?
Are you that stupid? Where did i say it killed cows? Try to read with even
a small amount of comprehension, dolt. Agian, since you failed to even try
to answer, how many animals die for 100lbs of tofu vs 100lbs of beef or
game? Willing to even make a stab at it, killer?
> Are you saying that because soybean crops replace grass, or hay, or
> something, the cattle no longer have grass or grain to eat, and would
starve
> to death?
==================
Yep, you really are that stupid. What I'm talking about stupid is the other
mammals, birds, reptiles, fish and amphibians that die to produce your
crops. You don't eat meat, so the only animal you save is a cow, but you
kill many others for no more reasion than your selfish convenience. Why do
you do that, killer?
Well, then, I see the error of my ways. Can you help me get a job
> in a slaughterhouse where I could express my compassion for animals with a
> bloody ax?
===============
sarcasm isn't your strong suit, is it dolt?
rick etter
"Laurie" <lau...@the-bitch.net> wrote in message
news:vfopd5j...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> <dh...@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:o14hfv8u56t4grfpr...@4ax.com...
>
> > How about the mass experiencing of life by billions of animals who
> > only live because they are raised by humans?
> A logical consequence of your unsupported belief that animals do not
> recognize death would be that they also do not recognize LIFE; so your
> crackpot propaganda that such a miserable, tortured existence at the hands
> of the dead-animal industry is somehow a useful experience for them is
> nonsense.
>
> > People can go to local farmers today and buy animal products from
> > animals they feel have decent lives. That way they could contribute
> > to decent lives for farm animals.
> So, being burned by hot branding irons, being dehorned by hot irons,
> being a grotesque genetic freak created only for human profit and which
> could not survive in the wild, being pumped full of antibiotics and other
> drugs necessary to keep them alive because they are so sick, being fed an
> unnatural diet, being kept pregnant constantly to produce milk, being
> restricted in veal cages, living in feed lots wallowing in their own shit,
> being debeaked by hot wires so they don't kill each other, etc. --- all
this
> is DECENT?
It's only in your ignorant delusions that all farm animals live this way.
try to wake up sometime.
snippage of rest of ignorant drivel....
pearl
<..>
> >>>She's a fucking nutcase. I haven't got time to into it right now.
You're the nutcase. Posting people's details all over the place,
bringing private conversations into the group and lying about it.
> >>Come on, do tell! Was this her own treatise or just some of the crap she
> >>believes in and cross-polluted to various newsgroups?
> >
> > The latter, but you're right in thinking she believes
> > it and crossposts it all about the place like a mindless
> > dork though.
'Believe it or not, comparing us on the surface to them, they view us
as still very primitive still using violence and warring, killing each other
to control and manipulate others for financial gain and greed purposes
or sometimes just because of various viewpoints or religious differences.'
Check.
And I don't 'crosspost it all about the place'.
> > She hardly ever produces anything of
> > her own and just copies everything from the web with
> > a link attached.
Interesting that you've asked for my advice in the past, for help
with research, and you will keep on posting results of MY work,
never giving due credit, like again, just today;
> > Also, figures from USDA show that an 800-pound,
> > medium-frame steer calf will eat about 16.8 pounds
> > of dry matter a day of a high-concentrate ration. He
> > will gain about 3.0 pounds a day with daily nutrients
> > in his feed at the level shown here. The balanced daily
> > ration for the 800-pound yearling steer is:
> > Pounds
> > Corn 14.7
> > Soybean meal 0.52
> > Corn silage 10.00
> > Limestone 0.17
> > Total 25.83
> > http://muextension.missouri.edu/xplor/agguides/ansci/g02052.htm
> >
> > So, if 25.83 pounds of feed allows the animal to gain
> > 3 pounds of flesh we have a feed to weight ration of
> > 8.61:1, but that's not the end of it because the bones
> > etc. have to be removed.
> >
> > On-the-hook:
> > This phrase refers to the hanging weight of a dressed
> > beef carcass. A typical 1200 lb. *Beef Steer* from
> > Geske Farms will yield approximately 500-pounds
> > of retail cuts from a dressed 700-pound Choice
> > carcass. *my emphasis*
> > http://www.geskefarms.com/terms.htm#T&E
> >
> > From this we can calculate that only 41.6% of the
> > animal is eaten.
> > If we divide the amount of feed required (8.61) to
> > produce 1pound of steer by the 41.6% of actual
> > beef we get from it ( 8.61 /0.416 ) we arrive at the
> > final feed to beef ratio of 20.69:1
> > It takes 20.7 pounds of feed to produce 1 pound
> > of edible beef.
> >
> > It seems all I do these days is unsnip the evidence
> > I provide here. You all hide away from the truth
> > because it ruins your argument completely.
That'd be the evidence I provided you with, schlemlech.
dustbird
"rick etter" <ret...@bright.net> wrote in message
news:gQ1La.4399$Ly2.8...@cletus.bright.net...
I guess you're saying that growing crops destroys the natural habitat of
mammals, birds, reptiles, fish and amphibians. So that even if one is a
vegetarian one is not innocent. Is that it? If so, is there someway one
could be a vegetarian, and get around that? Seems to me that might be a
problem that could be solved without resorting to meat-eating.
But maybe that's not what you're saying. If so, I confess my doltiness.
Michael Voytinsky
> > Not having a nervous system and all that makes feeling pain difficult.
>
> Then it doesn't matter from an ethical standpoint that there is a net
> caloric loss in turning cellulose into meat.
You are missing the point. Plants have no moral standing - but growing
plants for our own purposes does (so the argument goes) cause animal
suffering. So if you are concerned about animal suffering, you need to
minimize amount of plants grown - and the way to do that is to eat them
directly.
> Maybe obvious but categorically untrue. It's not necessary to grow "feed"
to
> eat meat. Livestock is raised in many parts of the world without feed,
then
> there is wild fish and game. A vegan can *reduce* his collateral impact on
> animals by *adding* some fresh fish to his diet. That fact refutes vegan
> principles.
I did not know that there was an immutable set of vegan principles - as I
have said, I am sure this is news to many vegans as well.
Vast majority of meat raised in the West - and much of the meet elsewhere -
is raised using feed. In some parts of the world, grassfed beef is raised
by clearing forests - not really a good approach either.
Yes, maybe it is possible to grow meat without environmental damage or
animal suffering - but the reality is that such meat is not readily
available. It does not help that not everything labelled "free range" is
free range.
So, do you eat only humanely, environmentally safe meat?
> > And these represent views of every vegan?
>
> Every vegan that comes along displays virtually the identical mindset.
They do?
rick etter
> "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote in message
> news:hV0La.304629$3C2.8...@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
>
> > > Not having a nervous system and all that makes feeling pain difficult.
> >
> > Then it doesn't matter from an ethical standpoint that there is a net
> > caloric loss in turning cellulose into meat.
>
> You are missing the point. Plants have no moral standing - but growing
> plants for our own purposes does (so the argument goes) cause animal
> suffering. So if you are concerned about animal suffering, you need to
> minimize amount of plants grown - and the way to do that is to eat them
> directly.
And an even better way is to substitute those plants that you have to grow
with some grass fed beef, or better, game. It's a no-brainer, except to the
ignorant deluded vegan loons.
>
> > Maybe obvious but categorically untrue. It's not necessary to grow
"feed"
> to
> > eat meat. Livestock is raised in many parts of the world without feed,
> then
> > there is wild fish and game. A vegan can *reduce* his collateral impact
on
> > animals by *adding* some fresh fish to his diet. That fact refutes vegan
> > principles.
>
> I did not know that there was an immutable set of vegan principles - as I
> have said, I am sure this is news to many vegans as well.
>
> Vast majority of meat raised in the West - and much of the meet
elsewhere -
> is raised using feed. In some parts of the world, grassfed beef is raised
> by clearing forests - not really a good approach either.
====================
So what? Why does that make all meat worse than any of your veggies?
Again, I doubt that you can answer that, but I'll keep asking anyway,
hypocrite.
>
> Yes, maybe it is possible to grow meat without environmental damage or
> animal suffering - but the reality is that such meat is not readily
> available.
====================
Yes, it is. Anybody that wishes to purchase would have little trouble
finding it.
It does not help that not everything labelled "free range" is
> free range.
=================
Like you believe that everything labeled 'organic' is cruelty-free?
>
> So, do you eat only humanely, environmentally safe meat?
===============
Yes. And it's not injected with hormones or antibiotics. Raised right down
the road, and when the kids were younger used to pet them and feed them
handfuls of grass from the 'other side' of the fence. They live, are
slaughtered, and delivered here all within 5-10 miles their whole lives. No
massive import cost in environmental destruction and animal suffering like
all the fruits and veggies you get from around the world.
>
> > > And these represent views of every vegan?
> >
> > Every vegan that comes along displays virtually the identical mindset.
>
> They do?
==============
Here on usenet? yes.
>
>
>
>
swamp
wrote:
>
>"Cole Smith" <co...@earthdome.com> wrote in message
>news:94faf4a5.03062...@posting.google.com...
>
>> There is a growing group of vegans (i'm specifically refering
>> to raw foodists- who do not eat tofu ... and in fact speak
>> out against it.
> There is a considerable body of information available, totally
>independent of anyone's particular dietary choices, that indicates that soy
>products are not a beneficial human food.
> See the soy section at http://www.ecologos.org/ttdd.html
Site written by an 8th grader.
[snip]
> Laurie
--swamp
rick etter
"dustbird" <dust...@cross.wind> wrote in message
Yes, it does. But that is only the start of the death and suffering your
crops cause.
So that even if one is a
> vegetarian one is not innocent. Is that it?
============================
Yes. And possibly causes even more animal death than some meat-included
diets.
If so, is there someway one
> could be a vegetarian, and get around that?
=====================
Forage everything you eat. Nothing that you buy will ever achieve the goal
you seek.
Seems to me that might be a
> problem that could be solved without resorting to meat-eating.
=====================
No, the 'problem' is resolved even easier by including certain meats to
replace some of the veggies.
> But maybe that's not what you're saying. If so, I confess my doltiness.
==================
Pretty close. All your crops, even 'organic' are not cruelty free. they
all cause death and suffering to animals. Many animals are even deliberatly
killed just to keep your veggies clean and cheap.
>
>
Jonathan Ball
>
> "Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message
> news:3EFB3410...@whitehouse.not...
> > Derek wrote:
> > >
> > > "Michael Voytinsky" <micha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:udBKa.20655$O31....@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> > > > "K D B" <kand...@excite.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:4732cb6f.03062...@posting.google.com...
> > > >
> > > > > > For others, one has to compromise -
> > > > >
> > > > > To "compromise" is inconsistent with vegan ideology.
> > > >
> > > > I did not even know that there was a single, immutable
> > > > vegan ideology. I am sure this will be news to many
> > > > vegans as well.
> > > >
> > > Kevin is lying, as usual. He and Jonathan Ball have
> > > invented a hypothetical vegan carrying a bogus
> > > argument with a false premise in the hope that it
> > > will weaken the vegan's position.
> >
> > Nope. The "vegan" already has a completely incoherent ethical
> > position. We need do nothing to weaken it.
> >
> > All "vegans" believe in the fallacious argument:
>
> I've asked for proof of this before and didn't see it. Could you
> re-post it? Thanks.
Sorry, Sophist Bob. I just posted it the other day, and I don't
feel like reposting it again. I'm sure you've seen it. I think
you're lying, as usual. You just don't like the proof, that's
all. It *is* terribly inconvenient for your sanctimonious
position, so I can understand you don't like it.
>
> > If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
> >
> > I do not eat meat;
> >
> > Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.
> >
> >
> > The first premise is *generally* true, even if it is not
> > necessarily or strictly true: for the typical person considering
> > whether or not it is morally permissible to eat meat, it will be
> > true that if he chooses to eat meat, animals will be harmed. You
> > have lost on trying to contend that the premise is false; the
> > premise is generally true, and more to the point, all "vegans"
> > *believe* it to be true. ...
>
> How do you know this?
Because there is no other reason you or any other fuckwit would
be "vegan".
>
> The truth is, Jon, that I don't "*believe*" it and never have
> believed it, as you should know, because I've mentioned
> the case of roadkill before.
You've seen my posts about the general truth of it, Sophist Bob.
That's all we need to consider. Forget about roadkill.
You DO believe it, Sophist Bob: it's the fundamental reason
you're "vegan". It's the reason *everyone* is "vegan": if you
were to consider eating meat, it wouldn't be roadkill.
>
> > ...Hence, all "vegans" accept the first
> > premise of the fallacious argument.
>
> No they don't. You don't know what you're talking about.
I know precisely what I'm talking about, Sophist Bob, and you
know I do. All "vegans" accept the premise. They're correct to
do so.
>
> > The fact of "veganism" itself, and its embodiment of the
> > obsessive, weird Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts)
> > addresses the second premise, and the ability of the "vegan" to
> > leap to the logically invalid conclusion. All "vegans" engage in
> > this weird, obsessive search. ...
>
> I don't and never have.
Yes, you do. You wouldn't be a "vegan" if you didn't.
Why do you tell such preposterous lies, Sophist Bob? It *is* a
lie, and you know it's a lie. If you're going to lie, at least
try to make it plausible. You call yourself a "vegan"; it goes
without saying that you carefully examine labels, that you
research the contents of everything you eat, and that when you
learn of some trace amount of animal parts in some food you were
eating, you no longer eat that food.
>
> > ...The only logical explanation for
> > it is their religious belief that if they extirpate the last
> > molecule of Animal Parts from their diet, then they will be able
> > to declare that they do not cause harm to animals. ...
>
> There's another logical explanation: that few vegans
> think what you claim they do and that your whole
> argument is largely one big strawman.
No, Sophist Bob. That isn't *any* kind of explanation for why
"vegans" engage in the weird, irrational Search for Micrograms.
Derek
"pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message news:bdik10$83j$1...@kermit.esat.net...
> > Derek wrote:
> <..>
> > >>>She's a fucking nutcase. I haven't got time to into it right now.
>
> You're the nutcase.
Says the idiot who believes that the Earth is hollow
and holds a sun or suns 600 miles in diameter allowing
a warm climate for inner Earth inhabitants to live.
Says the idiot who claims the Earth has openings at
the poles.
Says the idiot who believes little people live under a
dormant, not dead, but dormant volcano called
Mt. Shasta, and that the U.S. military invaded the
city of Telos which lies beneath it.
Says the idiot who believes the government is targetting
her in particular with chemtrails given off by aircraft
specifically to keep her quiet about Hulda Clarke's
secrets.
Says the idiot who claims all cancers are curable by
removing a parasite with a zap gun.
There's literally dozens of other examples I could offer
showing that you are indeed a nutcase, Lieslie, but the
best example of all is in your claim that you FULLY
cured your sisiter from a brain trauma after she suffered
a fall from a high wall. The fall, so you claim, physically
damaged her brain, and when the doctors had given up
all hope in helping her out of the vegetative state she was
in, you took her home and FULLY cured her by massaging
her feet. That's got to rate as the most remarkable example
of reflexology ever reported, so why aren't you famous,
Lieslie? Surely such a miracle worker with your powers
would've been on the tele or something for what you
managed to do, or is it all just another one of these tall tales
you keep telling? Why do you want people to believe you
have mystical powers? Is it because you run that quack
practice in Ireland and hope to dupe people into believing
you can cure them with your snake oils and such, or is it
because you're really rather boring and have to invent
something about yourself to look and feel special?
> Posting people's details all over the place,
> bringing private conversations into the group and lying about it.
>
I've never lied about bringing private conversations
here. I correctly pointed out that it was you who first
sarted doing that. I made a remark about something
you said to me in a bitchy little email where you
blamed me for "making moves to bring some sanity
to the side." You wanted me to defend you in your
argument about Gardner's patent, but when I attacked
you over it instead you sent me that bitchy email and
left the group in a sulk. When you tried coming back
under a different name some months later, I wrote:
[start]
From: Derek (derek...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Hello Lotus. Are you still blaming me?
Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, talk.politics.animals, alt.animals.rights.promotion
Date: 2003-02-10 12:12:07 PST
Hello Lotus. I see you've had a rethink and decided to come
back on the group again. Why did you blame me, and accuse
me of "making moves to bring some sanity to the side"
[end]
It was here that you copied and pasted parts of our
private conversation to show I'd used the wrong words,
but one fact seems to have escaped your notice: I didn't
even mention that you'd sent me that email OR that I was
actually referring to it.
Your excuse for bringing our private correspondence
here on Usenet was that you felt you had to, "put things
straight by my reproducing the exact words I had written,
not yours." So, it's obviously clear now that it was you
rather than I who started bringing our private conversations
here.
> > >>Come on, do tell! Was this her own treatise or just some of the crap she
> > >>believes in and cross-polluted to various newsgroups?
> > >
> > > The latter, but you're right in thinking she believes
> > > it and crossposts it all about the place like a mindless
> > > dork though.
>
> 'Believe it or not, comparing us on the surface to them,
"Them" don't exist, you stupid liar. Little green men do not
exist below our feet in a hollow Earth holding its own sun.
> they view us as still very primitive still using violence and warring, killing each other
> to control and manipulate others for financial gain and greed purposes
> or sometimes just because of various viewpoints or religious differences.'
>
They don't exist.
> Check.
>
> And I don't 'crosspost it all about the place'.
>
Yes, you do.
> > > She hardly ever produces anything of
> > > her own and just copies everything from the web with
> > > a link attached.
>
> Interesting that you've asked for my advice in the past, for help
> with research, and you will keep on posting results of MY work,
> never giving due credit, like again, just today;
>
This is another lie, and you know it. You already admitted
a while ago that you often rang me to help you in solving
simple math problems.
"All in all I've spoken with Derek on the phone on about
10 different occasions, if that, in what? 3 years? On one
of those occasions I asked about math's, the other time
via email."
Pearl Date: 2003-06-06
Being completely useless in simple arithmatic you asked
for my help to find the feed to beef ratio from the material
you found from
http://muextension.missouri.edu/xplor/agguides/ansci/g02052.htm
and
http://www.geskefarms.com/terms.htm#T&E
But even after I showed you how to do it you still got it
wrong, and so I had to help you again here on Usenet.
You wrote:
"Precisely; 8.61 x 2.4 = 20.66 feed :flesh gain. O.K? (Jon, Derek?)."
It was clear from this note that you still weren't all that
sure of what I'd shown you and was asking for my
assistance yet again. So I replied,
"If we divide the amount of feed required (8.61) to produce 1lb of
beef, by the 41.6% of actual beef we get from the shops. ( 8.61 /
0.416 ) We get an all time best of 20.69lbs of feed per pound of
available beef. Looks perfect to me! I even got us another half ounce.
Nice one Lotus! Would you mind if I use these figures myself from time
to time, should the case ever need to arise again."
I gave you ALL the credit for that Lotus Ratio even though
I helped you with it. I even went on to say to others at a later
date;
"It's not my analysis. The information I've given was first
unearthed by Lotus over a year ago and I have provided
the links for anyone to check the math for themselves. I
remember I called it the Lotus Ratio at the time and it has
never been successfully challenged yet."
Derek Date: 2002-07-09
So it wasn't just your work, and you're lying when you say,
You did find the material but didn't know how to use it,
so it was a joint effort. You lied by saying I never gave
you the credit for that material, even though it wasn't
exactly all yours anyway, so, are you going to retract it?
usual suspect
>>>>>She's a fucking nutcase. I haven't got time to into it right now.
>
> You're the nutcase.
No, pearly, you are. Derek may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but
at least he hasn't fallen prey to bizzarre theories about advanced
civilizations living in the center of the earth, wild medical claims
about your Zappers, or foot massage as a cure for brain death.
Which reminds me: physician, heal thyself.
> Posting people's details all over the place,
> bringing private conversations into the group and lying about it.
Did you ever tell him the information you shared was off the record?
>>>The latter, but you're right in thinking she believes
>>>it and crossposts it all about the place like a mindless
>>>dork though.
>
> 'Believe it or not, comparing us on the surface to them, they view us
> as still very primitive still using violence and warring, killing each other
> to control and manipulate others for financial gain and greed purposes
> or sometimes just because of various viewpoints or religious differences.'
>
> Check.
ROFL!! So you actually do believe in fairy tales. Now I see why you're
so convinced the polar fountains are terrestrial phenomena. Just out of
curiosity, how old are you?
> And I don't 'crosspost it all about the place'.
Yes you do.
>>>She hardly ever produces anything of
>>>her own and just copies everything from the web with
>>>a link attached.
>
> Interesting that you've asked for my advice in the past, for help
> with research, and you will keep on posting results of MY work,
> never giving due credit, like again, just today;
It wasn't YOUR work, it was from a couple of websites. He credited those
websites.
<...>
> That'd be the evidence I provided you with, schlemlech.
I'm sure he could've found it on his own.
marika
> "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message news:bdik10$83j$1...@kermit.esat.net...
> > > Derek wrote:
> <..>
> > > >>>She's a fucking nutcase. I haven't got time to into it right now.
> >
> > You're the nutcase.
>
> Says the idiot who believes that the Earth is hollow
> and holds a sun or suns 600 miles in diameter allowing
> a warm climate for inner Earth inhabitants to live.
{{snnip other examples of nuttiness?
curiously there are groups of folks who operate on these beliefs. She is not alone.
pearl
news:bdjs72$t10ed$1...@ID-190488.news.dfncis.de...
>
That idiotic rant of yours amply demonstrates that YOU are
really boring, and have to attack others to look and feel special.
> > Posting people's details all over the place,
> > bringing private conversations into the group and lying about it.
> >
> I've never lied about bringing private conversations
> here. I correctly pointed out that it was you who first
> sarted doing that. I made a remark about something
> you said to me in a bitchy little email where you
> blamed me for "making moves to bring some sanity
> to the side."
So you admit you first brought a private conversation to the thread.
Again you are misquoting me. What I said was "good move saving
the sanity of the side", you fool.
> You wanted me to defend you in your
> argument about Gardner's patent,
Another lie.
> but when I attacked
> you over it instead you sent me that bitchy email and
> left the group in a sulk.
I didn't send you a 'bitchy' email.
> When you tried coming back
> under a different name some months later,
A few days later. And the name change had nothing to
do with concealing my identity- that would be impossible.
Interestingly though, you even denied being yourself for
a good while whilst posting under a different name.
You bring down the side, derek, with your half-assed arguments,
your lies, and now your open attacks on animal-rights supporters.
You still haven't defended your posting of private details on usenet.
> I wrote:
>
> [start]
> From: Derek (derek...@hotmail.com)
> Subject: Re: Hello Lotus. Are you still blaming me?
> Newsgroups: alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, talk.politics.animals, alt.animals.rights.promotion
> Date: 2003-02-10 12:12:07 PST
>
> Hello Lotus. I see you've had a rethink and decided to come
> back on the group again. Why did you blame me, and accuse
> me of "making moves to bring some sanity to the side"
> [end]
>
> It was here that you copied and pasted parts of our
> private conversation to show I'd used the wrong words,
> but one fact seems to have escaped your notice: I didn't
> even mention that you'd sent me that email OR that I was
> actually referring to it.
So what, you slime? It was said to you privately.
> Your excuse for bringing our private correspondence
> here on Usenet was that you felt you had to, "put things
> straight by my reproducing the exact words I had written,
> not yours." So, it's obviously clear now that it was you
> rather than I who started bringing our private conversations
> here.
"I made a remark about something you said to me in a
bitchy little email", you said. YOU first brought our
private conversations here, you ridiculous dillwad.
> > > >>Come on, do tell! Was this her own treatise or just some of the crap she
> > > >>believes in and cross-polluted to various newsgroups?
> > > >
> > > > The latter, but you're right in thinking she believes
> > > > it and crossposts it all about the place like a mindless
> > > > dork though.
> >
> > 'Believe it or not, comparing us on the surface to them,
>
> "Them" don't exist, you stupid liar. Little green men do not
> exist below our feet in a hollow Earth holding its own sun.
You don't know that, you stupid liar.
> > they view us as still very primitive still using violence and warring, killing each other
> > to control and manipulate others for financial gain and greed purposes
> > or sometimes just because of various viewpoints or religious differences.'
> >
> They don't exist.
You have no way of knowing that.
> > Check.
> >
> > And I don't 'crosspost it all about the place'.
> >
> Yes, you do.
Define 'crosspost it all about the place'.
> > > > She hardly ever produces anything of
> > > > her own and just copies everything from the web with
> > > > a link attached.
> >
> > Interesting that you've asked for my advice in the past, for help
> > with research, and you will keep on posting results of MY work,
> > never giving due credit, like again, just today;
> >
> This is another lie, and you know it. You already admitted
> a while ago that you often rang me to help you in solving
> simple math problems.
>
> "All in all I've spoken with Derek on the phone on about
> 10 different occasions, if that, in what? 3 years? On one
> of those occasions I asked about math's, the other time
> via email."
> Pearl Date: 2003-06-06
And now your gonna try and claim credit for the Lotus
Ratio with that?
> Being completely useless in simple arithmatic you asked
> for my help to find the feed to beef ratio from the material
> you found from
> http://muextension.missouri.edu/xplor/agguides/ansci/g02052.htm
> and
> http://www.geskefarms.com/terms.htm#T&E
That's a lie.
> But even after I showed you how to do it you still got it
> wrong, and so I had to help you again here on Usenet.
> You wrote:
> "Precisely; 8.61 x 2.4 = 20.66 feed :flesh gain. O.K? (Jon, Derek?)."
>
> It was clear from this note that you still weren't all that
> sure of what I'd shown you and was asking for my
> assistance yet again.
Bullshit. I was asking for confirmation of the validity of
MY OWN work from someone besides john mercer.
Which is what you replied with.
> So I replied,
>
> "If we divide the amount of feed required (8.61) to produce 1lb of
> beef, by the 41.6% of actual beef we get from the shops. ( 8.61 /
> 0.416 ) We get an all time best of 20.69lbs of feed per pound of
> available beef. Looks perfect to me! I even got us another half ounce.
> Nice one Lotus! Would you mind if I use these figures myself from time
> to time, should the case ever need to arise again."
>
> I gave you ALL the credit for that Lotus Ratio even though
> I helped you with it. I even went on to say to others at a later
> date;
You didn't help me with it. If you'd helped me with it, then how
come I was I writing it all in fractions, whilst you were writing
in percentages? Anyone looking at this thread can see me
working it out- http://tinyurl.com/fhts.
> "It's not my analysis. The information I've given was first
> unearthed by Lotus over a year ago and I have provided
> the links for anyone to check the math for themselves. I
> remember I called it the Lotus Ratio at the time and it has
> never been successfully challenged yet."
> Derek Date: 2002-07-09
>
> So it wasn't just your work, and you're lying when you say,
> "and you will keep on posting results of MY work, never
> giving due credit, like again, just today;"
Ok, I take back the NEVER. You gave due credit ONCE,
in how many times that you've used it? I don't actually give
a flying * whether you give me credit, or not. It's just your
gall whining that I post hardly anything but linked information,
when you yourself regularly take advantage of my work.
Bullshit.
> You lied by saying I never gave you the credit for that material,
Ok, once in nineteen months, during which you posted it
numerous times.
> even though it wasn't exactly all yours anyway,
Oh, yes it was.
> so, are you going to retract it?
I retract the 'never'. Happy?
pearl
> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>She's a fucking nutcase. I haven't got time to into it right now.
> >
> > You're the nutcase.
>
> No, pearly, you are. Derek may not be the sharpest tool in the shed, but
> at least he hasn't fallen prey to bizzarre theories about advanced
> civilizations living in the center of the earth, wild medical claims
> about your Zappers, or foot massage as a cure for brain death.
Ah yes, how is that research into those reflexology studies going, suspect?
> Which reminds me: physician, heal thyself.
>
> > Posting people's details all over the place,
> > bringing private conversations into the group and lying about it.
>
> Did you ever tell him the information you shared was off the record?
I didn't need to. It was a private conversation. That is understood.
> >>>The latter, but you're right in thinking she believes
> >>>it and crossposts it all about the place like a mindless
> >>>dork though.
> >
> > 'Believe it or not, comparing us on the surface to them, they view us
> > as still very primitive still using violence and warring, killing each other
> > to control and manipulate others for financial gain and greed purposes
> > or sometimes just because of various viewpoints or religious differences.'
> >
> > Check.
>
> ROFL!! So you actually do believe in fairy tales. Now I see why you're
> so convinced the polar fountains are terrestrial phenomena. Just out of
> curiosity, how old are you?
Thanks for continuing to prove the point.
> > And I don't 'crosspost it all about the place'.
>
> Yes you do.
No I don't. I post on the odd blue moon to spite you antis
who will bring it up to distract from the ongoing exposure of
a corrupt and brutal system. If the forum is a crosspost, so
be it, the message is valid and true, from inner earth or not.
> >>>She hardly ever produces anything of
> >>>her own and just copies everything from the web with
> >>>a link attached.
> >
> > Interesting that you've asked for my advice in the past, for help
> > with research, and you will keep on posting results of MY work,
> > never giving due credit, like again, just today;
>
> It wasn't YOUR work, it was from a couple of websites. He credited those
> websites.
The websites provided the raw material. The application of it was mine.
> <...>
> > That'd be the evidence I provided you with, schlemlech.
>
> I'm sure he could've found it on his own.
But he didn't, I did. Not that it really matters. Anything I
post here is for anyone's use. That wasn't the point though.
rick etter
"marika" <marik...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:eb4ee788.03062...@posting.google.com...
Sure, there are insane people all over the world. she is but one prime
example....
Jonathan Ball
>
> "Derek" <dere...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:bdjs72$t10ed$1...@ID-190488.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > "pearl" <t...@signguestbook.ie> wrote in message news:bdik10$83j$1...@kermit.esat.net...
> > > > Derek wrote:
> > > <..>
> > > > >>>She's a fucking nutcase. I haven't got time to into it right now.
> > >
> > > You're the nutcase.
> >
> > Says the idiot who believes that the Earth is hollow
> > and holds a sun or suns 600 miles in diameter allowing
> > a warm climate for inner Earth inhabitants to live.
> >
> > Says the idiot who claims the Earth has openings at
> > the poles.
> >
> > Says the idiot who believes little people live under a
> > dormant, not dead, but dormant volcano called
> > Mt. Shasta, and that the U.S. military invaded the
> > city of Telos which lies beneath it.
> >
> > Says the idiot who believes the government is targetting
> > her in particular with chemtrails given off by aircraft
> > specifically to keep her quiet about Hulda Clarke's
> > secrets.
> >
> > Says the idiot who claims all cancers are curable by
> > removing a parasite with a zap gun.
> >
> > There's literally dozens of other examples I could offer
Dreck: you forgot about her insistent belief, LONG after I had
proved otherwise, that a U.S. patent on a manufactured glove was
actually a patent on a "discovery" that the earth is hollow. It
took the stupid bitch at least half a dozen additional posts
before she finally admitted she was wrong.
> > showing that you are indeed a nutcase, Lieslie, but the
> > best example of all is in your claim that you FULLY
> > cured your sisiter from a brain trauma after she suffered
> > a fall from a high wall. The fall, so you claim, physically
> > damaged her brain, and when the doctors had given up
> > all hope in helping her out of the vegetative state she was
> > in, you took her home and FULLY cured her by massaging
> > her feet. That's got to rate as the most remarkable example
> > of reflexology ever reported, so why aren't you famous,
> > Lieslie? Surely such a miracle worker with your powers
> > would've been on the tele or something for what you
> > managed to do, or is it all just another one of these tall tales
> > you keep telling? Why do you want people to believe you
> > have mystical powers? Is it because you run that quack
> > practice in Ireland and hope to dupe people into believing
> > you can cure them with your snake oils and such, or is it
> > because you're really rather boring and have to invent
> > something about yourself to look and feel special?
>
> That idiotic rant of yours amply demonstrates that YOU are
> really boring, and have to attack others to look and feel special.
Nope. He helps to bring together all the instances in which
you've exhibited a constant willingness to embrace pseudo-science
and anti-science.
I well remember your paranoid rant about people trying to
discredit you, complete with the insinuation that "The
Authorities" were out to "get" you:
AND THAT, readers, is what this is ALL ABOUT.
I've been making noise, and someone, somewhere,
doesn't like it,- enough to bring in the bully-boys.
You are a delusional, drug addled lunatic: a pseudo-science
believing lunatic. You have zero credibility on anything.
Jonathan Ball
Globe.
Derek
"Jonathan Ball" <jon...@whitehouse.not> wrote in message news:3EFDD1A9...@whitehouse.not...
When Lieslie *justified her belief* in this story on the
basis that there was some kind of a conspiracy behind
an alleged removal of patent 1096102, I became certain
that the whole thing was just another one of her wild
guesses at the real World.
[start]
From: Lotus (lilweed@esat~clear.ie)
Subject: [OT] Re: Hey Donna, a quick enough reply.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals, alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Date: 2003-01-06 07:18:53 PST
'On November 25, 1912 Marshall B. Gardner of Aurora, Kane County,
Illinois, USA, submitted his discovery application to the United States
Patent Office. 18 months later, on May 12, 1914, this federal agency
granted Mr. Gardner United States patent 1096102, the second most
important scientific document ever issued. '
I believe this to be true, -especially- considering U.S Patent
1096102 is 'missing' from the records, + that the classification
and sub-classification definitions do fit the subject to a T.
[end]
She believed it for no other reason than because it had
a conspiracy surrounding it, and that because the patent
was allegedly 'missing' she could never be disproved.
> It
> took the stupid bitch at least half a dozen additional posts
> before she finally admitted she was wrong.
>
When did she do that then? I've not seen her admit she
was wrong. She conceded that patent 1096102 described
a metal globe, but she hasn't admitted she was wrong
about anything. Evidence please.
She honestly believes she's been targetted for chemtrailing
to dope her up and keep her quiet about things. She's
certifiable.
Jonathan Ball
It wasn't much of an admission.
She just breezily waltzed out of some thread with "usual suspect"
about a month or so ago, when he showed her she was flatly wrong
on something. I couldn't find it in about 5 min. of searching;
maybe he'll remember it.
Yeah, and she was *YOUR* good pal for a long time, too. You were
singing her praises for a couple of years in here.
Jonathan Ball
>
> Derek wrote:
> >
Here it is: http://tinyurl.com/fiiz
At the conclusion of that, she said she was off to snort half a
gram of cocaine.
usual suspect
<snip>
>>Did you ever tell him the information you shared was off the record?
>
> I didn't need to. It was a private conversation. That is understood.
Private conversation about public discourse? If so, he has every right
to assume it's okay to discuss it publicly without getting your permission.
>>ROFL!! So you actually do believe in fairy tales. Now I see why you're
>>so convinced the polar fountains are terrestrial phenomena. Just out of
>>curiosity, how old are you?
>
> Thanks for continuing to prove the point.
Honey, you prove the point yourself by posting third-rate bullshit from
pseudo-scientific and quasi-religious websites. Let's not forget who
interjected into our discussion Wheless' imprecise little screed against
historic Christianity. Oh yeah, you've since abandoned it. Pity your
other sources rely on that same, or similar, scholarshiT.
>>Yes you do.
>
> No I don't. I post on the odd blue moon to spite you antis
> who will bring it up to distract from the ongoing exposure of
> a corrupt and brutal system. If the forum is a crosspost, so
> be it, the message is valid and true, from inner earth or not.
Oh, so you're just a spiteful lass are ya? Your own confession is
further evidence that you've no room to judge others. And fwiw, the
message is irrelevant for a number of reasons: first, there's no inner
earth; second, there's no Adama of Telos; third, messages wouldn't be
channeled by complete kooks if that society were so advanced.
I point to historical records for evidence of my faith. You point to
channeled fairy tales from a lost inner world -- understandable since
it's one which represents your OWN inner being, hollow and phony. You
didn't tell us your age.
>>It wasn't YOUR work, it was from a couple of websites. He credited those
>>websites.
>
> The websites provided the raw material. The application of it was mine.
Derek could've still done it himself after a few pints.
>>I'm sure he could've found it on his own.
>
> But he didn't, I did. Not that it really matters. Anything I
> post here is for anyone's use. That wasn't the point though.
Yes it was or you wouldn't make such a point of it.
usual suspect
<snip>
> a conspiracy surrounding it, and that because the patent
> was allegedly 'missing' she could never be disproved.
Paradigm of all conspiracy theories: irrational connection of even the
slightest coincidences in either the absence of evidence, which is often
cited as evidence of conspiracy, or the presence of misinformation.
Thus, she alleges a cover-up if she believes a patent is "missing." This
connects to her belief about Mount Shasta, as well as other unconnected
dots (at least unconnected to rational people). The fact that so few
people are concerned or as knowledgeable as she about such events
strikes her not as esoteric kookiness but as obstinance, cover-up, and
the like. It's really sad.
<snip>
>>You are a delusional, drug addled lunatic: a pseudo-science
>>believing lunatic. You have zero credibility on anything.
>
> She honestly believes she's been targetted for chemtrailing
> to dope her up and keep her quiet about things. She's
> certifiable.
Please do not give her so much credibility by calling them what they
aren't. They're vapor trails, commonly called contrails.
Paranoia, particularly with respect to unfounded theories like this one,
is borne of ignorance and abject immaturity (e.g., fearing the
bogeyman). Why does one see more contrails now than even ten years ago?
Could it POSSIBLY be the increase in the number of planes in service and
flights? Could the duration of contrails POSSIBLY have something to do
with the amount (lack) of moisture in the troposphere at any given time?
The answer to the last couple of questions is yes, which gives you the
answer for the first. Links below to demonstrate the proliferation of
contrails around high pressure bubbles in the atmosphere, as well as
debunking the hysteria of the theorists.
We'd certainly know if a large group were involved in such activity as
spraying chemicals since most people can't keep their mouths shut about
such activities. Look again at my paradigm definition and compare to the
evidence about contrails. Classic conspiracy theory, and in this one the
lack of evidence is the most bandied point by the theorists.
http://iangoddard.net/contrail.htm
http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/wxwise/contrail.html
http://worldzone.net/science/reality2u30/
And just to show that this is cottage industry, here's a site which
offers "protection" against "chemtrails." The crackpot "generator"
reminds me of the Zapper. I bet our darling Lotus already has her HHG
("holy hand grenade") and CB ("cloud buster"):
http://cloud-busters.com/
usual suspect
<snip>
> about a month or so ago, when he showed her she was flatly wrong
> on something. I couldn't find it in about 5 min. of searching;
> maybe he'll remember it.
Hmmm, she's done that a couple times. Do you recall the issue?
> Yeah, and she was *YOUR* good pal for a long time, too. You were
> singing her praises for a couple of years in here.
My favorite ("more astute" -- lmao):
"...[H]e would've been routed by now by the more astute like lilweed or
even myself."
-- first of twins
2001-07-24 07:21:26 PST
usual suspect
>>She just breezily waltzed out of some thread with "usual suspect"
>>about a month or so ago, when he showed her she was flatly wrong
>>on something. I couldn't find it in about 5 min. of searching;
>>maybe he'll remember it.
>
> Here it is: http://tinyurl.com/fiiz
>
> At the conclusion of that, she said she was off to snort half a
> gram of cocaine.
Ooooooh, that one. I wonder if she actually gave up on her goofy theory
or if she still believes it.
pearl
> pearl wrote:
> <snip>
> >>Did you ever tell him the information you shared was off the record?
> >
> > I didn't need to. It was a private conversation. That is understood.
>
> Private conversation about public discourse? If so, he has every right
> to assume it's okay to discuss it publicly without getting your permission.
Based on what, sleazer? If I'd have wished my comments made public,
I'd have posted it to the group. By my making them privately it can only
be understood that I wished my comments to be, and to remain, private.
> >>ROFL!! So you actually do believe in fairy tales. Now I see why you're
> >>so convinced the polar fountains are terrestrial phenomena. Just out of
> >>curiosity, how old are you?
> >
> > Thanks for continuing to prove the point.
>
> Honey, you prove the point yourself by posting third-rate bullshit from
> pseudo-scientific and quasi-religious websites. Let's not forget who
> interjected into our discussion Wheless' imprecise little screed against
> historic Christianity. Oh yeah, you've since abandoned it. Pity your
> other sources rely on that same, or similar, scholarshiT.
You ran out of that thread here;
--restore
"USual sUSpect" <ne...@even.try> wrote in message news:3EF8D03...@even.try...
> pearl wrote:
> > There appear to be discrepancies and various interpretations in both
> > orthodox and non-orthodox literature, but all in all the evidence points
> > to a new religion being formed around a personage named 'Yeshu the
> > Nazorean', sometime after the events.
>
> No, not "all in all." Contemporary writings, including Roman secular
> information, is quite clear that a certain Jewish controversy occurred
> circa AD 34. That controversy centered on a rabbi whom some believed was
> the messiah. The rabbi didn't claim a path of esoteric mysticism.
Why was he called 'Jesus the Nazorean' if he wasn't of that Essene sect?
> His followers didn't claim a novel religion, but rather the true path of
> Judaism.
(Exactly)
Apocrypha Account of 4 Ezra 14,15
..
[20] For the world lies in darkness, and its inhabitants are without light.
[21] For thy law has been burned, and so no one knows the things which
have been done or will be done by thee.
[22] If then I have found favor before thee, send the Holy Spirit into me,
and I will write everything that has happened in the world from the
beginning, the things which were written in thy law, that men may be
able to find the path, and that those who wish to live in the last days
may live."
[23] He answered me and said, "Go and gather the people, and tell them
not to seek you for forty days.
[24] But prepare for yourself many writing tablets, and take with you Sarea,
Dabria, Selemia, Ethanus, and Asiel -- these five, because they are
trained to write rapidly;
[25] and you shall come here, and I will light in your heart the lamp of
understanding, which shall not be put out until what you are about to
write is finished.
[26] And when you have finished, some things you shall make public, and
some you shall deliver in secret to the wise; tomorrow at this hour you
shall begin to write."
..
4Ezra.15
[1] The Lord says, "Behold, speak in the ears of my people the words
of the prophecy which I will put in your mouth,
[2] and cause them to be written on paper; for they are trustworthy and true.
[3] Do not fear the plots against you, and do not be troubled by the
unbelief of those who oppose you.
[4] For every unbeliever shall die in his unbelief."
[5] "Behold," says the Lord, "I bring evils upon the world, the sword
and famine and death and destruction.
..
http://essenes.crosswinds.net/ezlaw.htm
- that 'true law', channelled by the scribe Ezra? You can keep it
together with the entity calling itself 'lord' that states it brings EVIL
upon the world.
'..explained by Peter in The Clementine Homilies and Recognitions.
After pointing out various passages in the Torah that are false
pericopes, Peter declares:
"For the scriptures have had added to them many falsehoods against
God. The prophet Moses having by the order of God delivered the
true law... it was not long before the written law had added to it
certain falsehoods contrary to the law of God.... If, therefore, some
of the scriptures are true and some false, for good reason our Master
revealed to us the mystery of his saying 'Be ye wise money changers',
inasmuch as in the scriptures there are some true sayings and some
spurious."
"Wherefore, Clement, my spiritual son, beware of those scriptures
which portray God as... fond of burnt animal fat, bloody animal
sacrifice and war.... For if God is portrayed as loving war, what
sort of 'God' is that?"
http://www.essene.org/Essene_Scriptures.htm
The ORIGINAL law given by Moses is what Essenes and Jesus,
as a Nasaraean Essene kept.
"The Nasaraeans . . .They acknowledged Moses and believed that
he had received laws - not this law, however, but some other. And
so, they were Jews who kept all the Jewish observances, but they
would not offer sacrifice or eat meat. They considered it unlawful
to eat meat or make sacrifices with it. They claim that these Books
(of Moses) are fictions, and that none of these customs were
instituted by the fathers. (Panarion 1:18)
http://essenes.crosswinds.net/ezra.htm
> The rabbi was crucified on the testimony of other rabbis by the
> Roman governor or Judea, Pontius Pilate, another historical figure.
Why did orthodox priests testify against him if he was one of them?
> The
> executed rabbi's followers believed he rose from the dead, though the
> contemporary writings of the other rabbis accuse the rabbi's followers
> of moving his body. The followers were persecuted for their beliefs, and
> many of them met the same fate (i.e., execution) as their teacher.
Yes, his followers were persecuted by the orthodoxy as well- why?
> The only "evidence" to the contrary is that which is offered to
> discredit the clear historical record.
The historical record is clear alright.
--end restore--
You can't show otherwise, nor answer my questions.
Better get going with your counter evidence, suspect.
I predict you'll snip it for a third time.
> >>Yes you do.
> >
> > No I don't. I post it on the odd blue moon to spite you antis
> > who will bring it up to distract from the ongoing exposure of
> > a corrupt and brutal system. If the forum is a crosspost, so
> > be it, the message is valid and true, from inner earth or not.
>
> Oh, so you're just a spiteful lass are ya?
What you sow is what you reap.
> Your own confession is
> further evidence that you've no room to judge others.
Remove that branch from your own eye.
> And fwiw, the
> message is irrelevant for a number of reasons: first, there's no inner
> earth; second, there's no Adama of Telos; third, messages wouldn't be
> channeled by complete kooks if that society were so advanced.
Right, you know everything, I forget. As ever you judge the book by
it's cover, which says a lot about you- superficial with very little content.
> I point to historical records for evidence of my faith.
You've not pointed to any evidence yet.
<..>
usual suspect
>>Private conversation about public discourse? If so, he has every right
>>to assume it's okay to discuss it publicly without getting your permission.
>
> Based on what, sleazer? If I'd have wished my comments made public,
> I'd have posted it to the group. By my making them privately it can only
> be understood that I wished my comments to be, and to remain, private.
Did you ever say, "Just between us..."?
>>Honey, you prove the point yourself by posting third-rate bullshit from
>>pseudo-scientific and quasi-religious websites. Let's not forget who
>>interjected into our discussion Wheless' imprecise little screed against
>>historic Christianity. Oh yeah, you've since abandoned it. Pity your
>>other sources rely on that same, or similar, scholarshiT.
>
> You ran out of that thread here;
No, I did not.
<snip>
> You can't show otherwise, nor answer my questions.
> Better get going with your counter evidence, suspect.
> I predict you'll snip it for a third time.
Wow, you're psychic. I told you I will not even dignify your nonsense
until you come up with more credible sources. Wheless won't work
anymore. Nor will the rest of your bullshit from essene-dot-com.
>>Oh, so you're just a spiteful lass are ya?
>
> What you sow is what you reap.
You'll be getting a bumper crop soon.
>>Your own confession is
>>further evidence that you've no room to judge others.
>
> Remove that branch from your own eye.
What YOU sow is what YOU reap.
>>And fwiw, the
>>message is irrelevant for a number of reasons: first, there's no inner
>>earth; second, there's no Adama of Telos; third, messages wouldn't be
>>channeled by complete kooks if that society were so advanced.
>
> Right, you know everything, I forget. As ever you judge the book by
> it's cover, which says a lot about you- superficial with very little content.
I'm not judging Adama of Telos by the cover, I looked for substance.
There was no substance at all. If you want to believe channelers, that's
your business. For you to even assert their validity proves you're a
crackpot moonbeam new ager. Back up those fairy tales and I'll give you
a gold star.
>>I point to historical records for evidence of my faith.
>
> You've not pointed to any evidence yet.
Sorry, I don't channel those who've already spoken and whose testimonies
are recorded and widely available. You've already rejected that, which
is your right. I'm not casting any more pearls before swine. :-)
pearl
<..>
>They're vapor trails, commonly called contrails.
>
> Paranoia, particularly with respect to unfounded theories like this one,
> is borne of ignorance and abject immaturity (e.g., fearing the
> bogeyman). Why does one see more contrails now than even ten years ago?
> Could it POSSIBLY be the increase in the number of planes in service and
> flights? Could the duration of contrails POSSIBLY have something to do
> with the amount (lack) of moisture in the troposphere at any given time?
> The answer to the last couple of questions is yes, which gives you the
> answer for the first. Links below to demonstrate the proliferation of
> contrails around high pressure bubbles in the atmosphere, as well as
> debunking the hysteria of the theorists.
>
> We'd certainly know if a large group were involved in such activity as
> spraying chemicals since most people can't keep their mouths shut about
> such activities. Look again at my paradigm definition and compare to the
> evidence about contrails. Classic conspiracy theory, and in this one the
> lack of evidence is the most bandied point by the theorists.
LACK OF EVIDENCE?
Do these look like contrails to you?
http://www.rense.com/politics6/chemdatapage.html
Here's an article from a Texan Newspaper.
http://www.rense.com/general5/chmr.htm
I predict further ad hominem but no actual addressing of content.
pearl
> moonbeam wrote:
> >>Private conversation about public discourse? If so, he has every right
> >>to assume it's okay to discuss it publicly without getting your permission.
> >
> > Based on what, sleazer? If I'd have wished my comments made public,
> > I'd have posted it to the group. By my making them privately it can only
> > be understood that I wished my comments to be, and to remain, private.
>
> Did you ever say, "Just between us..."?
Why should I?! It was a PRIVATE conversation.
> >>Honey, you prove the point yourself by posting third-rate bullshit from
> >>pseudo-scientific and quasi-religious websites. Let's not forget who
> >>interjected into our discussion Wheless' imprecise little screed against
> >>historic Christianity. Oh yeah, you've since abandoned it. Pity your
> >>other sources rely on that same, or similar, scholarshiT.
> >
> > You ran out of that thread here;
>
> No, I did not.
Yes, you did. And you've just run away from it again.
> <snip>
> > You can't show otherwise, nor answer my questions.
> > Better get going with your counter evidence, suspect.
> > I predict you'll snip it for a third time.
>
> Wow, you're psychic. I told you I will not even dignify your nonsense
> until you come up with more credible sources.
Bollocks. Until you can prove the material false, no matter
what your biased opinion of the source, the argument stands.
> Wheless won't work anymore.
That was one author. Nothing in this post was written by him.
> Nor will the rest of your bullshit from essene-dot-com.
Carrying on the tradition of slandering Jesus' followers I see.
<snip vapid small talk>>
usual suspect
>>We'd certainly know if a large group were involved in such activity as
>>spraying chemicals since most people can't keep their mouths shut about
>>such activities. Look again at my paradigm definition and compare to the
>>evidence about contrails. Classic conspiracy theory, and in this one the
>>lack of evidence is the most bandied point by the theorists.
>
> LACK OF EVIDENCE?
Yes, LACK OF EVIDENCE. Did I stutter?
> Do these look like contrails to you?
> http://www.rense.com/politics6/chemdatapage.html
Yes, they do. Contrails develop from the condensation (water vapor) of
burnt jet fuel. Do you need a chemical explanation of what happens when
fossil fuels burn to comprehend? It's quite the same as condensation you
may have experienced when exhaling in colder, dry air.
> Here's an article from a Texan Newspaper.
> http://www.rense.com/general5/chmr.htm
Will Thomas. Enough said. This is going to be just like your chicken
little tuna scaremongering -- Will Thomas equals chemtrails. How about
some state or government official in charge of air monitoring? How about
anyone with some shred of credibility? Otherwise you're going to again
find yourself smack dab in middle of another circle jerk of crackpots.
> I predict further ad hominem but no actual addressing of content.
Oh, asked to prove a negative. Nice try, you fruitcake.
I'd address content if Mr Thomas had any substance behind his bizzarre
claims to address. Instead, everything he says is hallmark conspiracy
theory. Connect a few dots, try to get information, can't get the
information (whether it's true or not), therefore a conspiracy exists.
It isn't science, it's SCHOLARSHIT and you've majored in it.
Other than pics of contrails, where's the evidence? Where are the
alarming air sample data from areas which have been "chemtrailed"? Where
are the EPA people running around demanding answers? That's right, there
is none -- but this reeks to the cranks because government agencies run
such testing. Air samples remain consistent and no traces of bizzarre
agents are noted. Finally someone finds something and has it tested:
ethylene dibromide. As your own "evidence" states, ethylene dibromide is
a JET FUEL ADDITIVE -- so it's hardly surprising that one would find EDB
residues in an area where fuel may have been dumped or where it may have
once been used as a pesticide.
Tetrahydrocannabinol is probably as good for you as ethylene dibromide.
usual suspect
>>>You ran out of that thread here;
>>
>>No, I did not.
>
> Yes, you did. And you've just run away from it again.
No, I told you I will not dignify your drivel until you have credible
sources. That means not the stuff you dig up on your alternative
websites. How about trying to find credible, mainstream sources?
>>Wow, you're psychic. I told you I will not even dignify your nonsense
>>until you come up with more credible sources.
>
> Bollocks. Until you can prove the material false, no matter
> what your biased opinion of the source, the argument stands.
Your sources are at least as biased as I am, only in a different
direction. I'm open-minded, but I haven't lost my mind.
>>Wheless won't work anymore.
>
> That was one author. Nothing in this post was written by him.
You traffic in crap. You still drag in crap from the same websites that
host his article or use it as evidence. Find a more acceptable source of
information, untainted by a 24% accuracy rating, and we'll talk.
>>Nor will the rest of your bullshit from essene-dot-com.
>
> Carrying on the tradition of slandering Jesus' followers I see.
No, but you're doing your best.
> <snip vapid small talk>>
Vapid, lol? What's wrong, moonbeam? You can't take criticism of channeling?
pearl
> "pearl" wrote;
> > What you sow is what you reap.
>
> You'll be getting a bumper crop soon.
Are you claiming to possess psychic powers, or are you party
to a threat against my person, usual suspect?
I put you on notice that a copy of your message with archive ID
will be submitted to a legal professional first thing tomorrow a.m.
pearl
> moooooooooonbeeeeeeeeeam wrote:
> >>>You ran out of that thread here;
> >>
> >>No, I did not.
> >
> > Yes, you did. And you've just run away from it again.
>
> No,
Yes. You've no counter besides the usual ad hominem drivel.
<..>
Jonathan Ball
>
> "usual suspect" <in...@earth.man> wrote in message news:3EFEE373...@earth.man...
> <..>
> >They're vapor trails, commonly called contrails.
> >
> > Paranoia, particularly with respect to unfounded theories like this one,
> > is borne of ignorance and abject immaturity (e.g., fearing the
> > bogeyman). Why does one see more contrails now than even ten years ago?
> > Could it POSSIBLY be the increase in the number of planes in service and
> > flights? Could the duration of contrails POSSIBLY have something to do
> > with the amount (lack) of moisture in the troposphere at any given time?
> > The answer to the last couple of questions is yes, which gives you the
> > answer for the first. Links below to demonstrate the proliferation of
> > contrails around high pressure bubbles in the atmosphere, as well as
> > debunking the hysteria of the theorists.
> >
> > We'd certainly know if a large group were involved in such activity as
> > spraying chemicals since most people can't keep their mouths shut about
> > such activities. Look again at my paradigm definition and compare to the
> > evidence about contrails. Classic conspiracy theory, and in this one the
> > lack of evidence is the most bandied point by the theorists.
>
> LACK OF EVIDENCE?
>
> Do these look like contrails to you?
> http://www.rense.com/politics6/chemdatapage.html
Yes. They do look like contrails, because that is exactly what
they are. They are contrails.
>
> Here's an article from a Texan Newspaper.
> http://www.rense.com/general5/chmr.htm
>
> I predict further ad hominem but no actual addressing of content.
That moronic page contains:
Usually, when you see a contrail, it is one lone stream,
rarely more than one. However, what Thomas has dubbed
chemtrails are usually multiple trails laid down in a
crisscrossing pattern, often described by viewers as
similar to a checker board or even a spider's web. The
trails have been seen across North America as well as in
at least 14 other countries, according to Thomas.
The first statement is simply false. VERY OFTEN, when you see a
contrail, you see it as one of many others, because you are
seeing a corridor for jet airplanes. When I look at the sky
above the San Fernando Valley to the northwest of Los Angeles, I
see a pattern very much like the one in the picture. Why?
Because that is the route that jets from farther south follow
when flying to San Francisco, Sacramento, Oregon, Washington and
British Columbia.
~~HIVweed~~ has no evidence that they are "chemtrails", as the
conspiracy fruitcakes want to call them. All she has is her
willful belief in stupid conspiracy theory as a fundamental
explanatory framework. It's a symptom of mental illness.
pearl
> moooooooonbeeeeeeeeeeeeeeam wrote:
> >>We'd certainly know if a large group were involved in such activity as
> >>spraying chemicals since most people can't keep their mouths shut about
> >>such activities. Look again at my paradigm definition and compare to the
> >>evidence about contrails. Classic conspiracy theory, and in this one the
> >>lack of evidence is the most bandied point by the theorists.
> >
> > LACK OF EVIDENCE?
>
> Yes, LACK OF EVIDENCE. Did I stutter?
>
> > Do these look like contrails to you?
> > http://www.rense.com/politics6/chemdatapage.html
>
> Yes, they do.
No they don't.
> Contrails develop from the condensation (water vapor) of
> burnt jet fuel. Do you need a chemical explanation of what happens when
> fossil fuels burn to comprehend? It's quite the same as condensation you
> may have experienced when exhaling in colder, dry air.
Condensation doesn't hang around for hours on end like chemtrails
do, fluffing up and merging into a dirty oily haze. No, real contrails
dissipate after a minute or so. Look to the sky, and see for yourself.
<..>