Vegetarian Discussion: Vegan-like Pork Heart Stew, Etc...

Vegan-like Pork Heart Stew, Etc...
Posts: 22

Report Abuse

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

Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)

D*@.
2006-04-05 12:03:22 EST
Since some tasty items like heart, tongue and
kidneys are simply by-products of livestock industries,
people can eat those types of products with feelings
of ethical equality or superiority to vegans who buy
pet food also made from livestock by-products, and
vegans who contribute to other things containing
livestock by-products such as:

Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides,
Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen,
Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides,
Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings

By consuming meat by-products a person will contribute to
fewer deaths than by consuming things like tofu and other
similar meat substitutes, many of which also directly support
the battery cage method of egg production.

Dave
2006-04-05 20:07:40 EST

dh@. wrote:
> Since some tasty items like heart, tongue and
> kidneys are simply by-products of livestock industries,
> people can eat those types of products with feelings
> of ethical equality or superiority to vegans

One could argue that by consuming heart, tongue and
kidneys you are increasing the profitability of the livestock
industries. You might have a point though. If all parts of
each animal raised for food were consumed, the impact
on animals and the environment would clearly be reduced.
The critical question would be do tongues, kidneys and
hearts commonly get thrown away or do they end up as
pet food. If the latter then they are not waste products
and so your argument fails.

> who buy
> pet food also made from livestock by-products, and
> vegans who contribute to other things containing
> livestock by-products such as:
>
> Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
> Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides,
> Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen,
> Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides,
> Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
> Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
> Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings

Source please.

> By consuming meat by-products a person will contribute to
> fewer deaths than by consuming things like tofu and other
> similar meat substitutes,
> many of which also directly support
> the battery cage method of egg production.


D*@.
2006-04-07 12:09:03 EST
On 5 Apr 2006 17:07:40 -0700, "Dave" <prplbn@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>*h@. wrote:
>> Since some tasty items like heart, tongue and
>> kidneys are simply by-products of livestock industries,
>> people can eat those types of products with feelings
>> of ethical equality or superiority to vegans
>
>One could argue that by consuming heart, tongue and
>kidneys you are increasing the profitability of the livestock
>industries.

How do you know? You don't even know where I get
them, so how could you know that?

>You might have a point though. If all parts of
>each animal raised for food were consumed, the impact
>on animals and the environment would clearly be reduced.

I believe for the most part they are all consumed,
some of them by vegans.

>The critical question would be do tongues, kidneys and
>hearts commonly get thrown away or do they end up as
>pet food. If the latter then they are not waste products
>and so your argument fails.

I didn't say anything about them being waste products.

>> who buy
>> pet food also made from livestock by-products, and
>> vegans who contribute to other things containing
>> livestock by-products such as:
>>
>> Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
>> Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides,
>> Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen,
>> Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides,
>> Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
>> Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
>> Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings
>
>Source please.

That list was reduced down from a larger one I compiled from a
number of online sources. I reduced it down to the most common
items. If you don't like it, then you need to find a different
society to live in, if you can. Unless you can successfully lie to
yourself and get yourself to believe that people would never dare
use animal by-products in items like those, or whatever...

>> By consuming meat by-products a person will contribute to
>> fewer deaths than by consuming things like tofu and other
>> similar meat substitutes,
>> many of which also directly support
>> the battery cage method of egg production.

Dave
2006-04-08 17:50:57 EST

dh@. wrote:
> On 5 Apr 2006 17:07:40 -0700, "Dave" <prplbn@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >> Since some tasty items like heart, tongue and
> >> kidneys are simply by-products of livestock industries,
> >> people can eat those types of products with feelings
> >> of ethical equality or superiority to vegans
> >
> >One could argue that by consuming heart, tongue and
> >kidneys you are increasing the profitability of the livestock
> >industries.
>
> How do you know? You don't even know where I get
> them, so how could you know that?

In general eating heart, tongues and kidneys increases the
profitibility of the livestock industries.

> >You might have a point though. If all parts of
> >each animal raised for food were consumed, the impact
> >on animals and the environment would clearly be reduced.
>
> I believe for the most part they are all consumed,

Then your byproduct argument is another red herring.

> some of them by vegans.
>
> >The critical question would be do tongues, kidneys and
> >hearts commonly get thrown away or do they end up as
> >pet food. If the latter then they are not waste products
> >and so your argument fails.
>
> I didn't say anything about them being waste products.

If they are not waste products then your argument is a red
herring.

> >> who buy
> >> pet food also made from livestock by-products, and
> >> vegans who contribute to other things containing
> >> livestock by-products such as:
> >>
> >> Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
> >> Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides,
> >> Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen,
> >> Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides,
> >> Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
> >> Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
> >> Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings
> >
> >Source please.
>
> That list was reduced down from a larger one I compiled from a
> number of online sources.

Would you like to share any of them.

> I reduced it down to the most common
> items. If you don't like it, then you need to find a different
> society to live in, if you can.

Vegan biodegrable detergents are definitely available. I bet
that also applies to some of the other items on your list.
I'm not taking your word for it in any case. What animal
products do paper, plastics and steel ball bearings contain
for example?

> Unless you can successfully lie to
> yourself and get yourself to believe that people would never dare
> use animal by-products in items like those, or whatever...
>
> >> By consuming meat by-products a person will contribute to
> >> fewer deaths than by consuming things like tofu and other
> >> similar meat substitutes,
> >> many of which also directly support
> >> the battery cage method of egg production.


D*@.
2006-04-09 09:02:42 EST
On 8 Apr 2006 14:50:57 -0700, "Dave" <prplbn@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>*h@. wrote:
>> On 5 Apr 2006 17:07:40 -0700, "Dave" <prplbn@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> Since some tasty items like heart, tongue and
>> >> kidneys are simply by-products of livestock industries,
>> >> people can eat those types of products with feelings
>> >> of ethical equality or superiority to vegans
>> >
>> >One could argue that by consuming heart, tongue and
>> >kidneys you are increasing the profitability of the livestock
>> >industries.
>>
>> How do you know? You don't even know where I get
>> them, so how could you know that?
>
>In general eating heart, tongues and kidneys increases the
>profitibility of the livestock industries.
>
>> >You might have a point though. If all parts of
>> >each animal raised for food were consumed, the impact
>> >on animals and the environment would clearly be reduced.
>>
>> I believe for the most part they are all consumed,
>
>Then your byproduct argument is another red herring.
>
>> some of them by vegans.
>>
>> >The critical question would be do tongues, kidneys and
>> >hearts commonly get thrown away or do they end up as
>> >pet food. If the latter then they are not waste products
>> >and so your argument fails.
>>
>> I didn't say anything about them being waste products.
>
>If they are not waste products then your argument is a red
>herring.

No it's not. It's just another fact that you hate to see
pointed out.

>> >> who buy
>> >> pet food also made from livestock by-products, and
>> >> vegans who contribute to other things containing
>> >> livestock by-products such as:
>> >>
>> >> Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
>> >> Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides,
>> >> Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen,
>> >> Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides,
>> >> Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
>> >> Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
>> >> Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings
>> >
>> >Source please.
>>
>> That list was reduced down from a larger one I compiled from a
>> number of online sources.
>
>Would you like to share any of them.

It couldn't matter. You don't care anyway.

>> I reduced it down to the most common
>> items. If you don't like it, then you need to find a different
>> society to live in, if you can.
>
>Vegan biodegrable detergents are definitely available. I bet
>that also applies to some of the other items on your list.
>I'm not taking your word for it in any case. What animal
>products do paper, plastics and steel ball bearings contain
>for example?

I don't know. I don't care either. Neither do you. In fact
you care less than I do, to the point that you absurdly and
dishonestly want to deny that humans would dare use
animal by-products in things that you had considered to be
"safe" for vegans. Cognitive disonance is what causes
some of your absurd/dishonest bahavior, and this is
certainly one area where that's the case. And of course
so does your contribution to cds. What it *always!* keeps
coming down to is the extremely significant fact that you
people don't really care about human influence on animals
...you just care about promoting veganism. Regardless of
the impact it would really have on animals, you people will
always supportf the vegan/"ar" objective because you
have become convinced that it's ALWAYS the most ethical
possible choice. So you hate what I point out because it
suggests that some alternative(s) might be ethically
equivalent or superior to veganism/"ar".

>> Unless you can successfully lie to
>> yourself and get yourself to believe that people would never dare
>> use animal by-products in items like those, or whatever...
>>
>> >> By consuming meat by-products a person will contribute to
>> >> fewer deaths than by consuming things like tofu and other
>> >> similar meat substitutes,
>> >> many of which also directly support
>> >> the battery cage method of egg production.

Dave
2006-04-09 11:30:54 EST

dh@. wrote:
> On 8 Apr 2006 14:50:57 -0700, "Dave" <prplbn@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >> On 5 Apr 2006 17:07:40 -0700, "Dave" <prplbn@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> Since some tasty items like heart, tongue and
> >> >> kidneys are simply by-products of livestock industries,
> >> >> people can eat those types of products with feelings
> >> >> of ethical equality or superiority to vegans
> >> >
> >> >One could argue that by consuming heart, tongue and
> >> >kidneys you are increasing the profitability of the livestock
> >> >industries.
> >>
> >> How do you know? You don't even know where I get
> >> them, so how could you know that?
> >
> >In general eating heart, tongues and kidneys increases the
> >profitibility of the livestock industries.
> >
> >> >You might have a point though. If all parts of
> >> >each animal raised for food were consumed, the impact
> >> >on animals and the environment would clearly be reduced.
> >>
> >> I believe for the most part they are all consumed,
> >
> >Then your byproduct argument is another red herring.
> >
> >> some of them by vegans.
> >>
> >> >The critical question would be do tongues, kidneys and
> >> >hearts commonly get thrown away or do they end up as
> >> >pet food. If the latter then they are not waste products
> >> >and so your argument fails.
> >>
> >> I didn't say anything about them being waste products.
> >
> >If they are not waste products then your argument is a red
> >herring.
>
> No it's not. It's just another fact that you hate to see
> pointed out.

The concept of byproducts is meaningless if it is a broad enough
definition to include products that (a) enhance the profitability of
the livestock industries and (b) are used for something significant.
By consuming any of these products you are condoning and
encouraging more of the same in the future.

> >> >> who buy
> >> >> pet food also made from livestock by-products, and
> >> >> vegans who contribute to other things containing
> >> >> livestock by-products such as:
> >> >>
> >> >> Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
> >> >> Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides,
> >> >> Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen,
> >> >> Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides,
> >> >> Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
> >> >> Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
> >> >> Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings
> >> >
> >> >Source please.
> >>
> >> That list was reduced down from a larger one I compiled from a
> >> number of online sources.
> >
> >Would you like to share any of them.
>
> It couldn't matter. You don't care anyway.

Evasion noted.

> >> I reduced it down to the most common
> >> items. If you don't like it, then you need to find a different
> >> society to live in, if you can.
> >
> >Vegan biodegrable detergents are definitely available. I bet
> >that also applies to some of the other items on your list.
> >I'm not taking your word for it in any case. What animal
> >products do paper, plastics and steel ball bearings contain
> >for example?
>
> I don't know. I don't care either. Neither do you. In fact
> you care less than I do, to the point that you absurdly and
> dishonestly want to deny that humans would dare use
> animal by-products in things that you had considered to be
> "safe" for vegans.

No. I deny that vegans would necessarily have to avoid all
the products on your list, not that it is possible to find
biodegradable detergents that use animal products.

> Cognitive disonance is what causes
> some of your absurd/dishonest bahavior, and this is
> certainly one area where that's the case. And of course
> so does your contribution to cds. What it *always!* keeps
> coming down to is the extremely significant fact that you
> people don't really care about human influence on animals
> ...you just care about promoting veganism. Regardless of
> the impact it would really have on animals, you people will
> always supportf the vegan/"ar" objective because you
> have become convinced that it's ALWAYS the most ethical
> possible choice.

Ad hominem.

> So you hate what I point out because it
> suggests that some alternative(s) might be ethically
> equivalent or superior to veganism/"ar".

I merely seek to point out that most of your objections
to AR/veganism appear to be based on unsound
reasoning.

> >> Unless you can successfully lie to
> >> yourself and get yourself to believe that people would never dare
> >> use animal by-products in items like those, or whatever...
> >>
> >> >> By consuming meat by-products a person will contribute to
> >> >> fewer deaths than by consuming things like tofu and other
> >> >> similar meat substitutes,
> >> >> many of which also directly support
> >> >> the battery cage method of egg production.


D*@.
2006-04-10 12:59:52 EST
On 9 Apr 2006 08:30:54 -0700, "Dave" <prplbn@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>*h@. wrote:
>> On 8 Apr 2006 14:50:57 -0700, "Dave" <prplbn@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> On 5 Apr 2006 17:07:40 -0700, "Dave" <prplbn@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> Since some tasty items like heart, tongue and
>> >> >> kidneys are simply by-products of livestock industries,
>> >> >> people can eat those types of products with feelings
>> >> >> of ethical equality or superiority to vegans
>> >> >
>> >> >One could argue that by consuming heart, tongue and
>> >> >kidneys you are increasing the profitability of the livestock
>> >> >industries.
>> >>
>> >> How do you know? You don't even know where I get
>> >> them, so how could you know that?
>> >
>> >In general eating heart, tongues and kidneys increases the
>> >profitibility of the livestock industries.
>> >
>> >> >You might have a point though. If all parts of
>> >> >each animal raised for food were consumed, the impact
>> >> >on animals and the environment would clearly be reduced.
>> >>
>> >> I believe for the most part they are all consumed,
>> >
>> >Then your byproduct argument is another red herring.
>> >
>> >> some of them by vegans.
>> >>
>> >> >The critical question would be do tongues, kidneys and
>> >> >hearts commonly get thrown away or do they end up as
>> >> >pet food. If the latter then they are not waste products
>> >> >and so your argument fails.
>> >>
>> >> I didn't say anything about them being waste products.
>> >
>> >If they are not waste products then your argument is a red
>> >herring.
>>
>> No it's not. It's just another fact that you hate to see
>> pointed out.
>
>The concept of byproducts is meaningless if it is a broad enough
>definition to include products that (a) enhance the profitability of
>the livestock industries and (b) are used for something significant.
>By consuming any of these products you are condoning and
>encouraging more of the same in the future.

My consumption of heart meat contributes to no more animal
deaths than your/vegans' contribution to glass and plywood, etc.

>> >> >> who buy
>> >> >> pet food also made from livestock by-products, and
>> >> >> vegans who contribute to other things containing
>> >> >> livestock by-products such as:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
>> >> >> Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides,
>> >> >> Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen,
>> >> >> Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides,
>> >> >> Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
>> >> >> Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
>> >> >> Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings
>> >> >
>> >> >Source please.
>> >>
>> >> That list was reduced down from a larger one I compiled from a
>> >> number of online sources.
>> >
>> >Would you like to share any of them.
>>
>> It couldn't matter. You don't care anyway.
>
>Evasion noted.

Your lack of caring--which I correctly predicted--remains noted.

>> >> I reduced it down to the most common
>> >> items. If you don't like it, then you need to find a different
>> >> society to live in, if you can.
>> >
>> >Vegan biodegrable detergents are definitely available. I bet
>> >that also applies to some of the other items on your list.
>> >I'm not taking your word for it in any case. What animal
>> >products do paper, plastics and steel ball bearings contain
>> >for example?
>>
>> I don't know. I don't care either. Neither do you. In fact
>> you care less than I do, to the point that you absurdly and
>> dishonestly want to deny that humans would dare use
>> animal by-products in things that you had considered to be
>> "safe" for vegans.
>
>No. I deny that vegans would necessarily have to avoid all
>the products on your list,

That's because you don't care enough to find out, so you
can cling to your warm fuzzy feelings toward veganism. The
truth would be too disturbing for you, quite obviously.

>not that it is possible to find
>biodegradable detergents that use animal products.
>
>> Cognitive disonance is what causes
>> some of your absurd/dishonest bahavior, and this is
>> certainly one area where that's the case. And of course
>> so does your contribution to cds. What it *always!* keeps
>> coming down to is the extremely significant fact that you
>> people don't really care about human influence on animals
>> ...you just care about promoting veganism. Regardless of
>> the impact it would really have on animals, you people will
>> always supportf the vegan/"ar" objective because you
>> have become convinced that it's ALWAYS the most ethical
>> possible choice.
>
>Ad hominem.

Whatever way you choose to label it, it still correctly explains
why you/"they" behave as you/"they" do. Your cognitive
dissonance prevents you from accepting facts which could
disrupt your complete faith veganism.

>> So you hate what I point out because it
>> suggests that some alternative(s) might be ethically
>> equivalent or superior to veganism/"ar".
>
>I merely seek to point out that most of your objections
>to AR/veganism appear to be based on unsound
>reasoning.

You know, I couldn't help but notice you're seeking that
very hard, though failing completely. So I'm forced to wonder:

1. Why are you seeking it?
2. Why do you rarely but sometimes appear to try to present
the ludicrous impression that you're in favor of decent AW,
while you make it obvious that you really favor the "ar"
elimination objective which you continue "seeking"
unsuccessfully to defend?


Leif Erikson
2006-04-10 13:53:58 EST
Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant cracker whom David Eitelbach ridiculed
and despised, blabbered:
> On 9 Apr 2006 08:30:54 -0700, "Dave" <prplbn@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant cracker whom David Eitelbach ridiculed and despised, blabbered:
> >> On 8 Apr 2006 14:50:57 -0700, "Dave" <prplbn@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant cracker whom David Eitelbach ridiculed and despised, blabbered:
> >> >> On 5 Apr 2006 17:07:40 -0700, "Dave" <prplbn@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Fuckwit David Harrison, ignorant cracker whom David Eitelbach ridiculed and despised, blabbered:
> >> >> >> Since some tasty items like heart, tongue and
> >> >> >> kidneys are simply by-products of livestock industries,
> >> >> >> people can eat those types of products with feelings
> >> >> >> of ethical equality or superiority to vegans
> >> >> >
> >> >> >One could argue that by consuming heart, tongue and
> >> >> >kidneys you are increasing the profitability of the livestock
> >> >> >industries.
> >> >>
> >> >> How do you know? You don't even know where I get
> >> >> them, so how could you know that?
> >> >
> >> >In general eating heart, tongues and kidneys increases the
> >> >profitibility of the livestock industries.
> >> >
> >> >> >You might have a point though. If all parts of
> >> >> >each animal raised for food were consumed, the impact
> >> >> >on animals and the environment would clearly be reduced.
> >> >>
> >> >> I believe for the most part they are all consumed,
> >> >
> >> >Then your byproduct argument is another red herring.
> >> >
> >> >> some of them by vegans.
> >> >>
> >> >> >The critical question would be do tongues, kidneys and
> >> >> >hearts commonly get thrown away or do they end up as
> >> >> >pet food. If the latter then they are not waste products
> >> >> >and so your argument fails.
> >> >>
> >> >> I didn't say anything about them being waste products.
> >> >
> >> >If they are not waste products then your argument is a red
> >> >herring.
> >>
> >> No it's not. It's just another fact that you hate to see
> >> pointed out.
> >
> >The concept of byproducts is meaningless if it is a broad enough
> >definition to include products that (a) enhance the profitability of
> >the livestock industries and (b) are used for something significant.
> >By consuming any of these products you are condoning and
> >encouraging more of the same in the future.
>
> My consumption of heart meat contributes to no more animal
> deaths

False. More animals are bred.


Dave
2006-04-11 20:11:19 EST

dh@. wrote:
> On 9 Apr 2006 08:30:54 -0700, "Dave" <prplbn@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >dh@. wrote:
> >> On 8 Apr 2006 14:50:57 -0700, "Dave" <prplbn@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On 5 Apr 2006 17:07:40 -0700, "Dave" <prplbn@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> Since some tasty items like heart, tongue and
> >> >> >> kidneys are simply by-products of livestock industries,
> >> >> >> people can eat those types of products with feelings
> >> >> >> of ethical equality or superiority to vegans
> >> >> >
> >> >> >One could argue that by consuming heart, tongue and
> >> >> >kidneys you are increasing the profitability of the livestock
> >> >> >industries.
> >> >>
> >> >> How do you know? You don't even know where I get
> >> >> them, so how could you know that?
> >> >
> >> >In general eating heart, tongues and kidneys increases the
> >> >profitibility of the livestock industries.
> >> >
> >> >> >You might have a point though. If all parts of
> >> >> >each animal raised for food were consumed, the impact
> >> >> >on animals and the environment would clearly be reduced.
> >> >>
> >> >> I believe for the most part they are all consumed,
> >> >
> >> >Then your byproduct argument is another red herring.
> >> >
> >> >> some of them by vegans.
> >> >>
> >> >> >The critical question would be do tongues, kidneys and
> >> >> >hearts commonly get thrown away or do they end up as
> >> >> >pet food. If the latter then they are not waste products
> >> >> >and so your argument fails.
> >> >>
> >> >> I didn't say anything about them being waste products.
> >> >
> >> >If they are not waste products then your argument is a red
> >> >herring.
> >>
> >> No it's not. It's just another fact that you hate to see
> >> pointed out.
> >
> >The concept of byproducts is meaningless if it is a broad enough
> >definition to include products that (a) enhance the profitability of
> >the livestock industries and (b) are used for something significant.
> >By consuming any of these products you are condoning and
> >encouraging more of the same in the future.
>
> My consumption of heart meat contributes to no more animal
> deaths than your/vegans' contribution to glass and plywood, etc.

Unsupported assertion.
>
> >> >> >> who buy
> >> >> >> pet food also made from livestock by-products, and
> >> >> >> vegans who contribute to other things containing
> >> >> >> livestock by-products such as:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
> >> >> >> Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides,
> >> >> >> Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen,
> >> >> >> Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides,
> >> >> >> Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
> >> >> >> Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
> >> >> >> Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Source please.
> >> >>
> >> >> That list was reduced down from a larger one I compiled from a
> >> >> number of online sources.
> >> >
> >> >Would you like to share any of them.
> >>
> >> It couldn't matter. You don't care anyway.
> >
> >Evasion noted.
>
> Your lack of caring--which I correctly predicted--remains noted.

Continued evasion noted.
>
> >> >> I reduced it down to the most common
> >> >> items. If you don't like it, then you need to find a different
> >> >> society to live in, if you can.
> >> >
> >> >Vegan biodegrable detergents are definitely available. I bet
> >> >that also applies to some of the other items on your list.
> >> >I'm not taking your word for it in any case. What animal
> >> >products do paper, plastics and steel ball bearings contain
> >> >for example?
> >>
> >> I don't know. I don't care either. Neither do you. In fact
> >> you care less than I do, to the point that you absurdly and
> >> dishonestly want to deny that humans would dare use
> >> animal by-products in things that you had considered to be
> >> "safe" for vegans.
> >
> >No. I deny that vegans would necessarily have to avoid all
> >the products on your list,
>
> That's because you don't care enough to find out, so you
> can cling to your warm fuzzy feelings toward veganism. The
> truth would be too disturbing for you, quite obviously.

Why won't you reveal your sources - what are you trying to hide?

> >not that it is possible to find
> >biodegradable detergents that use animal products.
> >
> >> Cognitive disonance is what causes
> >> some of your absurd/dishonest bahavior, and this is
> >> certainly one area where that's the case. And of course
> >> so does your contribution to cds. What it *always!* keeps
> >> coming down to is the extremely significant fact that you
> >> people don't really care about human influence on animals
> >> ...you just care about promoting veganism. Regardless of
> >> the impact it would really have on animals, you people will
> >> always supportf the vegan/"ar" objective because you
> >> have become convinced that it's ALWAYS the most ethical
> >> possible choice.
> >
> >Ad hominem.
>
> Whatever way you choose to label it, it still correctly explains
> why you/"they" behave as you/"they" do. Your cognitive
> dissonance prevents you from accepting facts which could
> disrupt your complete faith veganism.

I am not a vegan.
>
> >> So you hate what I point out because it
> >> suggests that some alternative(s) might be ethically
> >> equivalent or superior to veganism/"ar".
> >
> >I merely seek to point out that most of your objections
> >to AR/veganism appear to be based on unsound
> >reasoning.
>
> You know, I couldn't help but notice you're seeking that
> very hard, though failing completely. So I'm forced to wonder:
>
> 1. Why are you seeking it?

It's something to do.

> 2. Why do you rarely but sometimes appear to try to present
> the ludicrous impression that you're in favor of decent AW,

I am.

> while you make it obvious that you really favor the "ar"
> elimination objective which you continue "seeking"
> unsuccessfully to defend?

I only defend the AR "elimination" objective against bogus
arguments such as the idea that it is distorting reality not to
take into account the fact that you controlled the animal's
breeding and/or its environment when considering its death.


D*@.
2006-04-12 13:03:31 EST
On 11 Apr 2006 17:11:19 -0700, "Dave" <prplbn@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>*h@. wrote:
>> On 9 Apr 2006 08:30:54 -0700, "Dave" <prplbn@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >dh@. wrote:

>> >> Cognitive disonance is what causes
>> >> some of your absurd/dishonest bahavior, and this is
>> >> certainly one area where that's the case. And of course
>> >> so does your contribution to cds. What it *always!* keeps
>> >> coming down to is the extremely significant fact that you
>> >> people don't really care about human influence on animals
>> >> ...you just care about promoting veganism. Regardless of
>> >> the impact it would really have on animals, you people will
>> >> always supportf the vegan/"ar" objective because you
>> >> have become convinced that it's ALWAYS the most ethical
>> >> possible choice.
>> >
>> >Ad hominem.
>>
>> Whatever way you choose to label it, it still correctly explains
>> why you/"they" behave as you/"they" do. Your cognitive
>> dissonance prevents you from accepting facts which could
>> disrupt your complete faith veganism.
>
>I am not a vegan.

You still consider it to be the most ethical possible choice,
whether you say you're a vegan or not.

>> >> So you hate what I point out because it
>> >> suggests that some alternative(s) might be ethically
>> >> equivalent or superior to veganism/"ar".
>> >
>> >I merely seek to point out that most of your objections
>> >to AR/veganism appear to be based on unsound
>> >reasoning.
>>
>> You know, I couldn't help but notice you're seeking that
>> very hard, though failing completely. So I'm forced to wonder:
>>
>> 1. Why are you seeking it?
>
>It's something to do.

No. Try again. Why are you seeking it?

>> 2. Why do you rarely but sometimes appear to try to present
>> the ludicrous impression that you're in favor of decent AW,
>
>I am.

Why do you want me to consider you an idiot then? Are you
one? If so, do you consider it something to be proud of? Should
I consider you "special" because you have a defective brain?

>> while you make it obvious that you really favor the "ar"
>> elimination objective which you continue "seeking"
>> unsuccessfully to defend?
>
>I only defend the AR "elimination" objective against bogus
>arguments such as the idea that it is distorting reality not to
>take into account the fact that you controlled the animal's
>breeding and/or its environment when considering its death.

Why do you seek to defend the elimination objective against
certain facts? Do you seek to defend it against all facts, or only
against some of them?
Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)


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