"sumbeotch at s***bum dot ***" <youwantmyanus@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:_ZjXj.22$HJ5.8@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> this is idealism.
>
>
> if you don't eat the meat... the meat gets processed into additives,
> adjuncts and other chemicals - ingredients for commercial food product
> and other items.
>
> are you that inept?
>
>
> it is NOT that easy dear.
>
>
>
> no wonder people can't take us vegans seriously!
>
> a war against my own kind is worse than the one between the meatatarians
> and myself.
>
>
>
>
> don't you read labels?
>
> research them... you'll find out most of that **** they add to foods
> comes from an animal!
>
>
> you do realize that many vegan foods have casein in it? you know that
> comes from an animal?
>
> that's just the wee tiny part of a very big pile.
You seem to be missing the main point, EVEN IF the food you eat is
completely devoid of animal parts, if it was commercially produced it
contains a legacy of animal suffering. This applies to non-food items as
well.
> "Rudy Canoza" <pipes@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:DbSdnYhnkofWCbHVnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> All "vegans" begin their belief in "veganism" by
>> subscribing to a logically fallacious argument:
>>
>> If I eat meat, I cause harm to animals
>>
>> I do not eat meat;
>>
>> Therefore, I do not cause harm to animals.
>>
>> This argument contains a classic fallacy: Denying the
>> Antecedent. It is obvious there are other ways to
>> cause harm to animals. The one that is much discussed
>> in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian/talk.politics.animals
>> is collateral animal deaths in agriculture. Uncounted
>> millions of animals are slaughtered in the course of
>> vegetable agriculture, either unintentionally as a
>> result of mechanized farming, or intentionally by pest
>> control. Once "vegans" recognize the fact of animal
>> CDs, the fallacy of the argument becomes clear.
>>
>> However, we still observe "vegans" spending tremendous
>> time and mental energy trying to get rid of the last
>> trace of animal parts from their diet. I call this the
>> Search for Micrograms, i.e., micrograms of animal parts
>> in food. The idea, of course, is to determine if there
>> are any micrograms of animal parts in a food item, and
>> if so, exclude it from their diet.
>>
>> Not long ago, in alt.food.vegan, a "vegan" posted a
>> comment to the effect that canned black olives are in a
>> juice that contains octopus ink, to make the juice
>> dark. She wasn't able to substantiate the rumor - it
>> smacked of a very narrow, "vegan"-oriented urban legend
>> - and none of the other participants seemed especially
>> eager to eliminate canned black olives from their
>> diets. Nonetheless, it provided an excellent example
>> of the bizarre, obsessive Search for Micrograms.
>>
>> Meanwhile, with only rare exceptions, the observation
>> that "vegans" do virtually *nothing* to reduce the
>> animal collateral death toll caused by the production
>> and distribution of the foods they personally eat goes
>> all but unchallenged. What little challenge is mounted
>> is not credible. One "vegan" poster in a.a.e.v. and
>> t.p.a., one of the more egregious sophists in the
>> groups, claims that she is doing "all she can" by
>> buying "locally produced" fruit and vegetables - as if
>> the geographic locale of production has anything to do
>> with the care farmers might take to ensure they don't
>> kill animals. It simply is not credible.
>>
>> How, then, to explain the bizarre Search for
>> Micrograms? It is as if, despite some of them knowing
>> that the original argument is fallacious, "vegans"
>> *still* accept it.
>>
>> I think it is pretty much a given that "veganism" is a
>> form of religion. Although "vegans" prefer to dwell on
>> what they call "ethics", their devotion to the
>> religious injunction - don't eat animals - gives them
>> away. In that light, the obsessive Search for
>> Micrograms takes on the character of a religious
>> ritual; sort of like performing the stations of the
>> cross, or reciting a prayer 20 or 30 times.
>
>
|
