Vegetarian Discussion: Vegetarians Aren't Hypocrites

Vegetarians Aren't Hypocrites
Posts: 186

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   Next  (First | Last)

Larrylook
2005-09-14 19:49:22 EST
Some here feel vegans are hypocrites because they knowingly kill more by
eating vegetables, and should eat grass fed cows (GFC), even though they
find this terribly distasteful.

But vegans don't knowingly kill more. They think they are killing less and
have good intentions. Dutch (and some of the more foul mouthed) might point
out that once vegans learn about CD's they now know about the killing and
should switch to eating GFC's with their meals if they want to minimize
death. But the concerns that Derek brings up so eloquently and honestly
about the GFC label and it's validity would certainly matter greatly to the
vegetarian. So I can't see how we are accused of knowingly causing more
death if the point of the anti's (antivegetarians) is so muddled and
unproven with regards to the supposed no deaths associated with GFC. How
can we be accused of knowingly causing more deaths if we don't know it? You
guys need to come up with a better argument.

I think what worries you anti's is that the vegans think they are doing some
good and that bothers you. But it's not clear that *you* want to do good
and you ought to think about that! Don't worry so much about us feeling
we're doing something good. Do you think that lessing death and suffering
of animals is worthwhile? I don't really get that impression.

I'd like you anti's to state your opposition to:
1. Greyhound racing (where old and poor performing dogs aren't well cared
for).
2. They running of the bulls in Spain (where animals are taken of advantage
of)
3. Hunting methods like trapping which are very painful.
4. Cock and dog fighting.
5. Canned hunting (for trophy animals in fenced preserves)
I certainly hope your against these activities. If your not, than it's
hardly worth discussing things with you.



Rick
2005-09-14 22:55:55 EST

"larrylook" <noemail@email.com> wrote in message
news:pMadneF7ucueKrXeRVn-gA@comcast.com...
> Some here feel vegans are hypocrites because they knowingly
> kill more by eating vegetables, and should eat grass fed cows
> (GFC), even though they find this terribly distasteful.
>
> But vegans don't knowingly kill more.
=======================
Yes, you do..

They think they are killing less and
> have good intentions.
===========================
I'm sure all the dead animals are proud of your 'intentions'
killer.


Dutch (and some of the more foul mouthed) might point
> out that once vegans learn about CD's they now know about the
> killing and should switch to eating GFC's with their meals if
> they want to minimize death. But the concerns that Derek
> brings up so eloquently and honestly about the GFC label and
> it's validity would certainly matter greatly to the vegetarian.
=====================
ROTFLOMAO Twits has continued to post lys, and rather
inelquently at that. Like I pointed out, the so-called "organic"
industry dupes you fools far more than any meat producers do.
Afterall, how many ignorant vegan fools have you seen here
declare that organic means no pesticides? Its's hilarious!


So I can't see how we are accused of knowingly causing more
> death if the point of the anti's (antivegetarians) is so
> muddled and unproven with regards to the supposed no deaths
> associated with GFC. How can we be accused of knowingly
> causing more deaths if we don't know it? You guys need to come
> up with a better argument.
=======================
Yes, you do know fool. Pretending that your are still ignorant
is amusing...



>
> I think what worries you anti's is that the vegans think they
> are doing some good and that bothers you.
========================
Nope. What SHOULD bother you is knowing that being vegan isn't
the automatic utopia for animals that your believed it was. That
you continue to delude yourself is the point of the posts, fool.


But it's not clear that *you* want to do good
> and you ought to think about that! Don't worry so much about
> us feeling we're doing something good. Do you think that
> lessing death and suffering of animals is worthwhile? I don't
> really get that impression.
==============================
Why should we care whether it is or not when YOU prove that you
don't care with each inane post, hypocrite?
You go on and on about some supposed caring yet continu with the
same actions that you have learned cause death and suffering to
animals. Why is that? Do you just like leaving your bloody
footprints all over the place?


>
> I'd like you anti's to state your opposition to:
> 1. Greyhound racing (where old and poor performing dogs aren't
> well cared for).
===============================
far far fewer animals die than for your cheap, convenient veggies
and your entertainment.


> 2. They running of the bulls in Spain (where animals are taken
> of advantage of)
===============================
far far fewer animals die than for your cheap, convenient veggies
and your entertainment.


> 3. Hunting methods like trapping which are very painful.
===============================
far far fewer animals die than for your cheap, convenient veggies
and your entertainment.


> 4. Cock and dog fighting.
===============================
far far fewer animals die than for your cheap, convenient veggies
and your entertainment.


> 5. Canned hunting (for trophy animals in fenced preserves)
===============================
far far fewer animals die than for your cheap, convenient veggies
and your entertainment, and far more brutally.


> I certainly hope your against these activities. If your not,
> than it's hardly worth discussing things with you.
========================
It's a bunch of strawmen, fool. No one here has claimed to
support these actions. YOU, on the other hand have declared your
willingness to brutally and inhumanely cause the death and
suffering of animals unnecessaryly just for your selfishness and
entertainment.


Animals die.
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://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2000/Jan00/nitrate.htm
http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/Profiles/carbofuran.htm
http://www.nwf.org/internationalwildlife/hawk.html
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm
http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/prip/factsheets/PRIP_WildlifeFactSheet.pdf
http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_WildlifeSpeciesCon/pg7f2b6.htm
http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html
http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com/animalrights/leastharm.htm
http://www.panna.org/panna/resources/documents/conventionalCotton.dv.html
http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/
http://ipm.ncsu.edu/wildlife/small_grains_wildlife.html
http://www.gbr.wwf.org.au/content/problem/sugarcane.htm
http://www.wildlifetrustofindia.org/html/news/archives/ele_poison.htm
http://species.fws.gov/bio_rhin.html
http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topics/Pests/Vertebrate/Mice.html
http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html
http://www.hornedlizards.org/hornedlizards/help.html
http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/bulletins/b-5093.html
http://www.orst.edu/dept/ncs/newsarch/2000/Jan00/nitrate.htm
http://www.orst.edu/instruct/fw251/notebook/agriculture.html
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn35/pn35p6.html
http://www.greenenergyohio.org/default.cfm?exec=Page.View&pageID=135
http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/capandtrade/power.pdf
http://www.nirs.org/licensedtokill/Licensed2Killexecsummary.pdf
http://www.towerkill.com/index.html
http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/issues/towers/towers.htm
http://www.abcbirds.org/policy/towerkill.htm
http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/pae/es_map/articles/article_22.mhtml
http://www.netwalk.com/~vireo/devastatingtoll.html
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/7697992.htm?1c
http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/energy/project_fact_sheets/500-01-019.html
http://www.repp.org/repp_pubs/articles/envImp/04impacts.htm
http://www.wvrivers.org/anker-upshur.htm
http://www.fisheries.org/html/Public_Affairs/Policy_Statements/ps_2.shtml
http://www.powerscorecard.org/issue_detail.cfm?issue_id=5
http://www.safesecurevital.org/articles/2004/cleanup012012004.html

http://www.cgfi.org/materials/key_pubs/Natures_Toxic_Tools.pdf
http://www.ontarioprofessionals.com/organic.htm
http://hgic.clemson.edu/factsheets/HGIC2756.htm
http://www.biotech-info.net/deadly_chemicals.html
http://www.agnr.umd.edu/ipmnet/4-2art1.htm
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/ppps/pdf/ma_reding_annex1.pdf




Since your non-animal clothing isn't cruelty-free either,
here's a couple to cover some problems with cotton.
http://www.panna.org/panna/resources/documents/conventionalCotton.dv.html
http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/
http://www.gbr.wwf.org.au/content/problem/cotton.htm

To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a field,
here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that there
can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field.
http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:kmPMnV7pZC4C:www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs
/natres/06507.pdf+%22voles+per+acre%22+field&hl=en&ie=UTF8
http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf
http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html
http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topics/Pests/Vertebrate/Mice.html


To cover your selfish pleasure of using usenet, and
maintaining a web page on same, here's are a couple
dealing with power and communications.
http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html
http://www.towerkill.com/index.html

And, an extra, just because it's 'organic' doesn't make it safe.
Special potatoes and celery were bred to increase their
resistance
pest, and create one where pesticides were not needed. The
results
were good, as to not needing extra pesticides, however....

"...Breeding methods and other "substitutes" used as
alternatives to pesticide chemicals can expose consumers to
greater risks. This is a recognized problem particularly in
cases where farmers breed plants to become more
insect-resistant, a "natural" substitute to using synthetic
pesticides. In one particular case, breeders grew a special
type of highly insect-resistant celery to avoid using
pesticides. It wasn't until after the people handling the
celery developed a serious rash that it was discovered the
special celery contained 6,200 parts per billion of
carcinogenic psoralens, a natural chemical that heightens
sensitivity to the sun's rays; conventionally grown celery
protected with synthetic pesticides contains approximately
800 parts per billion. The same occurred when scientists
bred a "pest-free" potato. The breeders found that the
potato "was so full of natural pesticides that it was acutely
poisonous to humans." By using synthetic pesticides, therefore,
farmers and food producers often are indirectly protecting
consumers from potential risks from natural pesticides which
scientists have found can be carcinogenic..."
http://www.consumeralert.org/pubs/research/CRFeb00.htm


>
>



Larrylook
2005-09-14 23:25:24 EST
If you tell me that there's a fox in backyard and by shooting it I'll
prevent 10 hen deaths, I'm not sure I'd do it. I don't enjoy killing foxes.
In addition I'd have to be convinced of the proof the hens would die also.
I don't think you've proven to me that if my boss takes me to dinner at a
restaurant and I order veggies, I've killed less than if I ordered a bacon
burger. Derek has raised all kinds of legitimate concerns about the label
GFC (grass fed cow). I don't think people can be practically expected to
research what went in to the production of every meal. The restaurant isn't
providing a facts sheet with with burger telling me about the cow's life and
what it was fed - this isn't realistic. You live in a dreamworld - not the
real world. You haven't convinced me vegetarians are hypocrites if they
believe they are killing less.

Besides you haven't answered the question as to what you'd do if scientists
came up with tasty healthy artificial food that involved no CD's. Would you
still eat your bacon burger? Would you eat a dolphin if this practice were
socially acceptable. I hope not!



Dutch
2005-09-15 00:22:41 EST

"larrylook" <noemail@email.com> wrote
> Some here feel vegans are hypocrites because they knowingly kill more by
> eating vegetables, and should eat grass fed cows (GFC), even though they
> find this terribly distasteful.

That's not it, vegan are hypocritical because they bitterly condemn
non-vegans for the deaths of livestock animals yet deny or pay no attention
to all the deaths they cause themselves.

> But vegans don't knowingly kill more. They think they are killing less
> and have good intentions. Dutch (and some of the more foul mouthed) might
> point out that once vegans learn about CD's they now know about the
> killing and should switch to eating GFC's with their meals if they want to
> minimize death.

No, that's not it, they don't need to change their diets, they need to
modify their claims, adjust their perspectives. Killing animals in the
course of obtaining food is something all humans do, vegan attempts to place
themselves *above* the rest of us are bogus.

> But the concerns that Derek brings up so eloquently and honestly about the
> GFC label and it's validity would certainly matter greatly to the
> vegetarian. So I can't see how we are accused of knowingly causing more
> death if the point of the anti's (antivegetarians) is so muddled and
> unproven with regards to the supposed no deaths associated with GFC. How
> can we be accused of knowingly causing more deaths if we don't know it?
> You guys need to come up with a better argument.

There's plenty of evidence of cds in agriculture, you're being willfully
blind.

> I think what worries you anti's is that the vegans think they are doing
> some good and that bothers you. But it's not clear that *you* want to
> do good and you ought to think about that! Don't worry so much about us
> feeling we're doing something good. Do you think that lessing death and
> suffering of animals is worthwhile? I don't really get that impression.

Yes, it is worthwhile, but vegans need to stop posing like they hold a
monopoly on compassion, it's self-serving and insulting, and nonsense.

> I'd like you anti's to state your opposition to:
> 1. Greyhound racing (where old and poor performing dogs aren't well cared
> for).
> 2. They running of the bulls in Spain (where animals are taken of
> advantage of)
> 3. Hunting methods like trapping which are very painful.
> 4. Cock and dog fighting.
> 5. Canned hunting (for trophy animals in fenced preserves)
> I certainly hope your against these activities. If your not, than it's
> hardly worth discussing things with you.

I'm opposed to those activities because they are activities which use
animals in callous ways for nothing more than tittilation. Keeping animals
humanely for food is not comparable to them.




Dutch
2005-09-15 00:32:53 EST

"larrylook" <noemail@email.com> wrote
> If you tell me that there's a fox in backyard and by shooting it I'll
> prevent 10 hen deaths, I'm not sure I'd do it. I don't enjoy killing
> foxes.

So your enjoyment trumps the suffering of animals, but we knew that.

> In addition I'd have to be convinced of the proof the hens would die also.
> I don't think you've proven to me that if my boss takes me to dinner at a
> restaurant and I order veggies, I've killed less than if I ordered a bacon
> burger. Derek has raised all kinds of legitimate concerns about the label
> GFC (grass fed cow). I don't think people can be practically expected to
> research what went in to the production of every meal.

Nobody forces vegans to make unsupportable claims about their lifestyles, or
unsupportable attacks on non-vegans. Tough titty if it's too hard.

The restaurant isn't
> providing a facts sheet with with burger telling me about the cow's life
> and what it was fed - this isn't realistic. You live in a dreamworld -
> not the real world. You haven't convinced me vegetarians are hypocrites
> if they believe they are killing less.

I believe they are killing less, than *some people* but that's not enough to
warrant the extreme moral position that vegans take.

> Besides you haven't answered the question as to what you'd do if
> scientists came up with tasty healthy artificial food that involved no
> CD's. Would you still eat your bacon burger?

The question is, would you eat lab-raised meat if it caused fewer death than
vegetables?

> Would you eat a dolphin if this practice were socially acceptable. I
> hope not!

How do you know what *you* would do if different social mores existed? You
don't, that's why such hypothetical questions are meaningless, and you rely
heavily on them.




Dutch
2005-09-15 00:49:49 EST
Veganism is made possible by the ready availability of a wide variety of
commerically grown produce, manufactured meat substitutes like tofu and
tempeh, and by modern supplements. It's an artificial environment. If a
vegan were plopped down in the wilderness to survive, he'd either die or
he'd quickly learn to fish and hunt.



Rudy Canoza
2005-09-15 01:15:16 EST
semi-literate larrylook lied:

> Derek has raised all kinds of legitimate concerns about the label
> GFC (grass fed cow).

He hasn't raised ONE legitimate "concern", you
imbecile. He's told a bunch of lies and done his usual
deny-the-obvious schtick. Grass-fed beef is not fed
any grain.

Rick
2005-09-15 06:41:25 EST

"larrylook" <noemail@email.com> wrote in message
news:AeKdnSYKntE7dLXeRVn-3A@comcast.com...
> If you tell me that there's a fox in backyard and by shooting
> it I'll prevent 10 hen deaths, I'm not sure I'd do it. I don't
> enjoy killing foxes.
========================
You really love strawmen, don't you hypocrite? Keeps you from
actually discussing the real impacts you have, right, killer?


> In addition I'd have to be convinced of the proof the hens
> would die also. I don't think you've proven to me that if my
> boss takes me to dinner at a restaurant and I order veggies,
> I've killed less than if I ordered a bacon burger.
============================
Bingo, thanks for the admission, fool. I'm not trying to prove
that you kill less by being vegan, dolt. That's nthe point,
veganism isn't about killing less, it's all about your
'feelings', fool.


Derek has raised all kinds of legitimate concerns about the
label
> GFC (grass fed cow).
========================
No, he has not, fool.

I don't think people can be practically expected to
> research what went in to the production of every meal.
===========================
Really? Then why do you claim that all your veggies are better
than any meat, hypocrite? You've obviously done NO reseaqrch
into the death and suffering your veggies cause. Why is that?
Ignorance, stupidity, or hypocrisy?


The restaurant isn't
> providing a facts sheet with with burger telling me about the
> cow's life and what it was fed - this isn't realistic.
===========================
It's not telling you the facts about your veggies either, fool.
They could be the most sprayed, processed veggies around and you
wouldn't know it, nor would you care since you have your ignorant
simple rule for your simple mind.


You live in a dreamworld - not the
> real world. You haven't convinced me vegetarians are
> hypocrites if they believe they are killing less.
=================================
ROTFLMAO Do you read what you write, idiot? What you think you
are doing has no bearing on what actually happens, and you have
been told what your diet causes. I have to think you just love
having blood on your hands, hypocrite..


>
> Besides you haven't answered the question as to what you'd do
> if scientists came up with tasty healthy artificial food that
> involved no CD's.
============================
You never asked it fool. But it would still cause far more death
and suffering than grass-fed beef or game! It would still be a
processed nightmare of the petro-chemical industry.


Would you
> still eat your bacon burger? Would you eat a dolphin if this
> practice were socially acceptable. I hope not!
====================
You just love those strawmen, don't you fool. It's already
proven that YOU love to kill animals for no more reason than you
selfishness and entertainment, hypocrite
>
>



D*@.
2005-09-15 20:04:08 EST
On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:49:22 -0400, "larrylook" <noemail@email.com> wrote:

>Some here feel vegans are hypocrites because they knowingly kill more by
>eating vegetables, and should eat grass fed cows (GFC), even though they
>find this terribly distasteful.
>
>But vegans don't knowingly kill more. They think they are killing less and
>have good intentions.

I've noticed that often when the truth is pointed out, vegans will lie
about it.

>Dutch (and some of the more foul mouthed) might point
>out that once vegans learn about CD's they now know about the killing and
>should switch to eating GFC's with their meals if they want to minimize
>death. But the concerns that Derek brings up so eloquently and honestly
>about the GFC label and it's validity

If Derek cared he would encourage people to find out if the animals had
been fed grain, and how much, etc. Instead he dishonestly pretends that
grass raised beef is not available, because he doesn't care and does NOT
want people to deliberately contribute to fewer cds by eating grass raised
animal products. I know it. You know it. And I know that you know it.

>would certainly matter greatly to the
>vegetarian.

Here are some "vegetarian" products which contain egg whites, contributing
to the cds involved with raising chickens as well as those involved with the
grain in the products, and also contributing to battery farming:

Worthington Meatless Chicken, Turkey, Ham, Vegetarian Hot Dogs
and Prosage Patties

Lightlife Chicken Nuggets and Chicken Patties

Boca Meatless Chick'n and Breakfast Patties

Quorn Meat-Free Patties, Nuggets and Cutlets

Morningstar Farms Garden Veggie Patties, Chick Patties,
Chik'n Nuggets, Corn Dogs

>So I can't see how we are accused of knowingly causing more
>death if the point of the anti's (antivegetarians) is so muddled and
>unproven with regards to the supposed no deaths associated with GFC.

It's for people who actually care about human influence
on animals that the info is really posted. We see that Etter
cares more about livestock than any vegans posting to
these ngs, and spends most of his posts pointing out how
vegans are lying about things related to human influence
on animals, afaik.

>How
>can we be accused of knowingly causing more deaths if we don't know it?

You don't care. That's the point. So of course you surely
won't care enough to make any changes that promote life
and death for livestock, even if it would reduce the number
of overall deaths which you contribute to. Right? Right!!

>You guys need to come up with a better argument.

You don't care. You won't care. It's for people who might
care that the info is presented, and it's for people who might
care that you oppose the info. You don't care, and you don't
want anyone else to care.

>I think what worries you anti's is that the vegans think they are doing some
>good and that bothers you.

It's that you don't care, and can't be made to care, though
you dishonestly pretend that you do care. That has bothered
me for most of my life.

>But it's not clear that *you* want to do good
>and you ought to think about that! Don't worry so much about us feeling
>we're doing something good. Do you think that lessing death and suffering
>of animals is worthwhile?

Probably more than you do. Also, I feel quite confident that I'm much
more in favor of providing decent lives for livestock than you are. And
so is everyone else who promotes grass raised animal products.

>I don't really get that impression.

That's because you can't care about the animals, so you can't
imagine anyone else caring either. You want to eliminate livestock,
not provide decent lives for them, even in situations where doing
so would significantly reduce the number of animals deaths per
serving of food. You can't be made to care.

Dutch
2005-09-15 21:05:42 EST
<*h@.> wrote
>You want to eliminate livestock,
> not provide decent lives for them

That's an invalid choice fallacy, he may want both.


Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron