Please see my response to Jonnie/Bill elsewhere

Rat

"Dutch" wrote in message ...
"C. James Strutz" wrote

[..]
Look, we are measuring "ethics" and "moral superiority" in terms of number
of animal deaths. By that measure my "sense" (here we go again) is that
veg*n diet will win over carnivorous diet.

Which vegan diet, which *omnivorous* diet?

If we look at the best case scenario of each diet, the
vegan diet accrues no deaths at all while the meatarian
diet always includes at least one.

Looking at the worst case scenario where cattle are
housed in a feedlot their entire lives, the vegan diet
wins outright again owing to the collateral deaths
caused by the farmer while growing crops to feed
his livestock.

Rat & Swan wrote:


Please see my response to Jonnie/Bill elsewhere

It was crap: just your usual evasive crap.

"Derek" wrote

"Dutch" wrote
"C. James Strutz" wrote

[..]
Look, we are measuring "ethics" and "moral superiority" in terms of
number
of animal deaths. By that measure my "sense" (here we go again) is
that
veg*n diet will win over carnivorous diet.

Which vegan diet, which *omnivorous* diet?

If we look at the best case scenario of each diet, the
vegan diet accrues no deaths at all while the meatarian
diet always includes at least one.

I agree, nominally (i.e. we are ignoring the deaths of very small animals,
which is itself "sizesim").

Looking at the worst case scenario where cattle are
housed in a feedlot their entire lives, the vegan diet
wins outright again owing to the collateral deaths
caused by the farmer while growing crops to feed
his livestock.

I agree, a vegan diet wins in those two extreme cases. It also wins in many
other less extreme cases, in fact it probably wins in most cases. But that's
not enough, for the **absolute** rule against the consumption of animal
products that veganism preaches to be truly based on empathy for the
suffering of animals, it must win ALWAYS. Since it doesn't, the correct rule
would be more like, prefer factory farmed vegetables over factory farmed
meat, prefer home grown vegetables over home grown meat, prefer fresh caught
fish or pastured/hunted animals over factory farmed vegetables, prefer hand
picked rice over machine harvested, etc etc etc.. That is the type of rule
system that *truly* reflects a concern for the welfare of all animals.

Dutch wrote:

"Derek" wrote

"Dutch" wrote

"C. James Strutz" wrote

[..]

Look, we are measuring "ethics" and "moral superiority" in terms of

number

of animal deaths. By that measure my "sense" (here we go again) is

that

veg*n diet will win over carnivorous diet.

Which vegan diet, which *omnivorous* diet?

If we look at the best case scenario of each diet, the
vegan diet accrues no deaths at all while the meatarian
diet always includes at least one.


I agree, nominally (i.e. we are ignoring the deaths of very small animals,
which is itself "sizesim").


Looking at the worst case scenario where cattle are
housed in a feedlot their entire lives, the vegan diet
wins outright again owing to the collateral deaths
caused by the farmer while growing crops to feed
his livestock.


I agree, a vegan diet wins in those two extreme cases.

The counting game is irrelevant, and it is a mistake
for opponents of "ar" to get caught up in it. The
"win" for a "vegan" diet does not in any way establish
the ethical superiority of "veganism", for two among
several reasons:

1. "veganism" does not begin by comparing death tolls
between diets; that's a fallback position for
"vegans".

2. virtue is not established by comparison to others'
behavior, and in fact, trying to make virtue
comparative
is immoral per se.

It also wins in many
other less extreme cases, in fact it probably wins in most cases. But that's
not enough,

It is ZERO. It counts for nothing.

for the **absolute** rule against the consumption of animal
products that veganism preaches to be truly based on empathy for the
suffering of animals, it must win ALWAYS. Since it doesn't, the correct rule
would be more like, prefer factory farmed vegetables over factory farmed
meat, prefer home grown vegetables over home grown meat, prefer fresh caught
fish or pastured/hunted animals over factory farmed vegetables, prefer hand
picked rice over machine harvested, etc etc etc.. That is the type of rule
system that *truly* reflects a concern for the welfare of all animals.

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message
link.net...
Dutch wrote:

"Derek" wrote

"Dutch" wrote

"C. James Strutz" wrote

[..]

Look, we are measuring "ethics" and "moral superiority" in terms of

number

of animal deaths. By that measure my "sense" (here we go again) is

that

veg*n diet will win over carnivorous diet.

Which vegan diet, which *omnivorous* diet?

If we look at the best case scenario of each diet, the
vegan diet accrues no deaths at all while the meatarian
diet always includes at least one.


I agree, nominally (i.e. we are ignoring the deaths of very small
animals,
which is itself "sizesim").


Looking at the worst case scenario where cattle are
housed in a feedlot their entire lives, the vegan diet
wins outright again owing to the collateral deaths
caused by the farmer while growing crops to feed
his livestock.


I agree, a vegan diet wins in those two extreme cases.

The counting game is irrelevant, and it is a mistake
for opponents of "ar" to get caught up in it.

I'm making the point that even the counting (or rather estimating) of animal
deaths does NOT arrive at a conclusion of veganism, unless one stacks the
deck specifically in advance as Dreck did.

The
"win" for a "vegan" diet does not in any way establish
the ethical superiority of "veganism", for two among
several reasons:

1. "veganism" does not begin by comparing death tolls
between diets; that's a fallback position for
"vegans".

2. virtue is not established by comparison to others'
behavior, and in fact, trying to make virtue
comparative
is immoral per se.

It also wins in many
other less extreme cases, in fact it probably wins in most cases. But
that's
not enough,

It is ZERO. It counts for nothing.


for the **absolute** rule against the consumption of animal
products that veganism preaches to be truly based on empathy for the
suffering of animals, it must win ALWAYS. Since it doesn't, the correct
rule
would be more like, prefer factory farmed vegetables over factory farmed
meat, prefer home grown vegetables over home grown meat, prefer fresh
caught
fish or pastured/hunted animals over factory farmed vegetables, prefer
hand
picked rice over machine harvested, etc etc etc.. That is the type of
rule
system that *truly* reflects a concern for the welfare of all animals.

"Dutch" wrote in message ...
"Derek" wrote
"Dutch" wrote
"C. James Strutz" wrote

Look, we are measuring "ethics" and "moral
superiority" in terms of number of animal deaths.
By that measure my "sense" (here we go again)
is that veg*n diet will win over carnivorous diet.

Which vegan diet, which *omnivorous* diet?

If we look at the best case scenario of each diet, the
vegan diet accrues no deaths at all while the meatarian
diet always includes at least one.

I agree, nominally (i.e. we are ignoring the deaths of very
small animals, which is itself "sizesim").

Looking at the worst case scenario where cattle are
housed in a feedlot their entire lives, the vegan diet
wins outright again owing to the collateral deaths
caused by the farmer while growing crops to feed
his livestock.

I agree, a vegan diet wins in those two extreme cases.
It also wins in many other less extreme cases, in fact it
probably wins in most cases. But that's not enough

It is to those who want to follow a diet that accumulates
the least, so you ought to take Jon's advice and quit this
counting game before you even start it.

for the **absolute** rule against the consumption of
animal products that veganism preaches to be truly
based on empathy for the suffering of animals, it must
win ALWAYS.

I don't think it does preach an **absolute** rule for the
consumption of animal products, and this can be shown
in their literature on breast feeding.

[ From the International Vegetarian Union:
Is breastfeeding vegan?
Don't be silly! Of course it is.]
http://www.ivu.org/faq/

On another page from their site they define veganism as;

[VEGANISM may be defined as a way of living which
seeks to exclude, as far as possible and practical, all
forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for
food, clothing or any other purpose.
In dietary terms it refers to the practice of dispensing
with *all* animal produce - including meat, fish, poultry,
eggs, *animal milks*, honey, and their derivatives.

Abhorrence of the cruel practices inherent in dairy,
livestock and poultry farming is probably the single most
common reason for the adoption of veganism, but many
people are drawn to it for health, ecological, spiritual
and other reasons.] *my emphasis*
http://www.ivu.org/faq/definitions.html

So, as you can see for yourself, their official views on
milk are ambiguous, but then again, so are mine when
it comes to the consumption of meat. Even though I
consider myself a vegan of many years standing, if I had
a friend who ran a shelter for pigs, and one of them died
from a heart attack, I'd be there for that night's BBQ in
a shot. The only reason I don't eat meat is because I
cannot sanction the deaths of animals who I believe have
a right not to be killed for my benefit. If they happen to
die from natural causes I would eat them. My veganism
is purely from an ethical point of view but allows me to
scavenge meat from contented animals that have died
from natural causes, while "Usual Suspect's" veganism,
on the other hand, is from a health point of view which
doesn't allow him to eat any meat at all under any
circumstances. Veganism has at least two flavours to it.

Since it doesn't, the correct rule would be more like,
prefer factory farmed vegetables over factory farmed meat,
prefer home grown vegetables over home grown meat,
prefer fresh caught fish or pastured/hunted animals over
factory farmed vegetables, prefer hand picked rice over
machine harvested, etc etc etc.. That is the type of rule
system that *truly* reflects a concern for the welfare of
all animals.

I don't think it does, because killing a healthy young animal
for its meat and hide will always be wrong to someone who
believes an animal has a higher value while alive than dead.
If animal farms were run in a way that allowed complete
contentment and old age for its charges, then I would be in
favour of Harrison's argument, but, as things are with that
dirty great abattoir standing in the middle of it all, I'm for
the abolishment of all livestock farming. Maybe I ought to
move to Ohio where the road kills Ma Bishop boasts about
might supply me in venison all year round.

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message link.net...
Dutch wrote:
"Derek" wrote

If we look at the best case scenario of each diet, the
vegan diet accrues no deaths at all while the meatarian
diet always includes at least one.

I agree, nominally (i.e. we are ignoring the deaths of
very small animals, which is itself "sizesim").

Looking at the worst case scenario where cattle are
housed in a feedlot their entire lives, the vegan diet
wins outright again owing to the collateral deaths
caused by the farmer while growing crops to feed
his livestock.

I agree, a vegan diet wins in those two extreme cases.

The counting game is irrelevant

Not to those who want to follow a diet that accumulates
the least, it isn't, so you ought to quit this counting game
before you even start it because it leaves the way clear
for any ARist to claim that following the least harm
principle is a glowing testament to his views on animal
rights.

and it is a mistake for opponents of "ar" to get caught up
in it.

That's good advice.

C. James Wuss wrote:
They only abhor the idea of the above when pronouncing their
self-righteousness. Their consumption of agricultural products which do
not avoid such casualties makes them hypocrites and demagogues.

Read carefully: you're way over the top with your notion that vegans
think
they are morally superior, or that they think that a vegan lifestyle
will
eliminate all animal suffering and deaths.

http://www.johnkinsella.org/conversations/vegan.html
http://www.veganforlife.org/ethics.htm
http://www.vegan.com/vegandownload.php
http://www.vegsource.com/joanne/letters/dynamic.htm
http://www.vegsource.com/joanne/letters/crueltyfree.htm
http://www.vegsource.com/joanne/letters/vegan_life.htm
http://www.veganoutreach.org/advocac...yofethics.html
http://www.veganvalues.org/veganism_religion.htm

I didn't even look at PETA, PCRM, or any of the other better-known
sites. They, too, make a lot of statements about the moral and ethical
superiority of a vegan diet and lifestyle. They also allege, as a couple
of the quotes I offered (but you snipped), a vegan diet is free of
cruelty and animal suffering. Shame on you for failing to note their
remarks, and even more shame for continuing to say that vegans don't
make claims of moral superiority. *That* is why I mentioned something
about clinging to your orthodoxy, holding fast to your disputable dogma,
in light of proof to the contrary.

Look, we are measuring "ethics" and "moral superiority" in terms of number
of animal deaths.

Compare this to your statement that I'm "over the top." I really want
you to re-consider how morally superior it is to accept a few less
animal casualties either way. Would you suggest that Jeffrey Dahmer was
more ethical than or "morally superior" to John Wayne Gacy simply
because he raped and killed fewer young men? If both sides being
compared cause the *same* kind of 'harm,' perhaps neither is more
ethical than the other. There really is no qualitative distinction to be
made; yet the veg-n side continues to make such distinctions (as noted
in the links I provided above). You will not accept such a premise that
both sides are even because deep down inside you continue to cling to
the false notion that no animals die since you don't eat their flesh.
You are wrong.

By that measure my "sense" (here we go again) is that
veg*n diet will win over carnivorous diet.

In terms of morality and ethics, both are on the same level since both
diets result in a similar number of animal casualties. All your moral
posturing does is make you a hypocrite: you claim to loathe animal
suffering and death, yet you continue to benefit from farming practices
which cause the same.

I've given reasons for my
position but I can't prove it with hard numbers. You can't prove your
position with hard numbers either. Why can't you accept that neither of us
really know *unequivocally* which is morally superior?

I seriously think you should pose that question to the vegan activists
(and yourself) rather than me. I'm not the one making claims of moral
superiority; I'm debunking those. I'm not the one who suggests one kind
of food is unethical for reasons of animal suffering and death; I'm
debunking such claims.

Your argument boils down to claims you can't support; your claims are
still based on denying the antecedent ("no or fewer animals die because
I don't eat them"); and you use a very relative scale of morality to
give your position some kind of moral footing it doesn't really deserve.
The very fact that your claims are still hung up on a counting game
*PROVES* that your position is neither moral nor ethical.

I have never set myself up as being any more righteous than anyone else.

You claimed that a diet which you allege "minimizes" animal casualties
is more ethical than a diet containing meat.

Just because I think that veg*n diet wins in our dispute doesn't mean that I
am more or less righteous than anyone else.

Righteous, no. Self-righteous, yes.

A vegetarian lifestyle is a
personal endeavor for me and I don't get in anybody's face about it.

Seriously, why is your diet a "lifestyle"?

No, I'm not frustrated; I also think my points have been sufficient to
convince *reasonable* persons.

I remain both reasonable and unconvinced.

Is it reasonable to get all hung up on the counting game?

How many meals, at a reasonable serving size of a quarter pound, can you
get from a deer which dresses at 100 pounds? I see 400 meals per deer.
Pennsylvania allows one antlered and one unantlered deer per archery
season. That's 800 meals if you use both tags. Add more if you also hunt
with muzzleloader and/or rifle. If that's not enough, hunt other game as
well. How much meat do you need?

I don't need any! :^)

You'd have 800 meals' worth from two decent-size deer with no other
animal injuries involved. Time for you to address the issue honestly.
How many animals die or are injured producing 800 meals of rice, wheat,
oats, barley, or other grains?

You have no more verifiable facts than I do.

Wait, what verifiable facts did you offer?

None, neither have you.

Davis' study counts (no pun intended).

Yet you persist in coming off
as some know-all, be-all intellect with all the answers. You are even
more
righteous and sanctimonious than than the vegans you accuse of the same.
You
are a hypocrite without equal.

Address the issues at hand, not your hatred of me.

I don't hate you at all.

I remain unconvinced.

Avoiding meat contributes to the betterment of the world in other ways
beyond morality.

Please explain and justify this sentiment.

I think that meat consumption contributes to poor health in many people,

All meat consumption or over-consumption? How "many" people? Please
support this with citations (preferably not from PETA or PCRM type
activist sites).

is an inefficient use of fresh water and land for the production of food,

How inefficient?

and contributes to various forms of pollution.

So does crop agriculture, from tilling to irrigation to
pesticide/herbicide use to harvest to processing to transportation.

I just think it's a better way of life.

That's a nice sentiment of your "sense," but it's not an ethical assessment.

It was obvious that you're playing without much more than your feelings
about things even before you mentioned your "sense."

It's all you really have too.

If the issue is morality and ethics, you don't have much going for you.
If an omnivorous diet is inherently immoral or unethical because it
causes animal death, then your diet is equally immoral or unethical
because yours causes animal death as well. You're caught up in the old
counting game: Gacy versus Dahmer, beating once a week versus once a
day. IOW, you'd rather count the apples than compare them to each other.

I feel very good but it has nothing to do with you. Get some facts that
we can discuss and debate. Your "sense" can be fodder for discussion,
but your feelings aren't germane to the discussion.

Debating with you is like beating my head against the wall. I haven't
convinced you of anything and you haven't convinced me of anything. Why
can't we just understand each other and you can go off to battle the vegans
and I'll go walk in the woods somewhere.

Try comparing the apples rather than counting them. If you do that, then
either diet is the same: each causes animal casualties. I'm not keeping
you from walking in the woods somewhere. You're still trying to make a
case that veganism is inherently morally superior. You've not supported
such a claim to date.

You can play emphasis games all you want, but in the end
your argument has no more substance than anyone else's.

It has more than yours.

No it doesn't.

It absolutely does.

I'm out of this thread...

Wuss.

I really am out of here for now. It's a beautiful day here and I'm aching to
be outside.

You'll be back, and you'll continue to try to defend your untenable,
unsupported, and unsupportable assertions. I'll be ready to hit you over
the head with your "sense" again, too.

Derek wrote:

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message link.net...

Dutch wrote:

"Derek" wrote

If we look at the best case scenario of each diet, the
vegan diet accrues no deaths at all while the meatarian
diet always includes at least one.

I agree, nominally (i.e. we are ignoring the deaths of
very small animals, which is itself "sizesim").


Looking at the worst case scenario where cattle are
housed in a feedlot their entire lives, the vegan diet
wins outright again owing to the collateral deaths
caused by the farmer while growing crops to feed
his livestock.

I agree, a vegan diet wins in those two extreme cases.

The counting game is irrelevant


Not to those who want to follow a diet that accumulates
the least, it isn't,

It is:

1. They have never counted
2. They aren't causing the least

Thanks for the admission that you are causative to
animal deaths.

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message news
Derek wrote:
"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message link.net...
Dutch wrote:
"Derek" wrote

If we look at the best case scenario of each diet, the
vegan diet accrues no deaths at all while the meatarian
diet always includes at least one.

I agree, nominally (i.e. we are ignoring the deaths of
very small animals, which is itself "sizesim").

Looking at the worst case scenario where cattle are
housed in a feedlot their entire lives, the vegan diet
wins outright again owing to the collateral deaths
caused by the farmer while growing crops to feed
his livestock.

I agree, a vegan diet wins in those two extreme cases.

The counting game is irrelevant

Not to those who want to follow a diet that accumulates
the least, it isn't,

It is:

1. They have never counted

They don't need to count them, and neither did you
before acknowledging;
"If you insist on playing a stupid countig game, you'll
lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
feed for the animals you eat.

The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
Jonathan Ball 2003-05-22

2. They aren't causing the least

You've already admitted that they are.

Thanks for the admission that you are causative to
animal deaths.

I haven't.

Gender-confused Dreck wrote:

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message news
Gender-confused Dreck wrote:

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message link.net...

Dutch wrote:

"Gender-confused Dreck" wrote


If we look at the best case scenario of each diet, the
vegan diet accrues no deaths at all while the meatarian
diet always includes at least one.

I agree, nominally (i.e. we are ignoring the deaths of
very small animals, which is itself "sizesim").


Looking at the worst case scenario where cattle are
housed in a feedlot their entire lives, the vegan diet
wins outright again owing to the collateral deaths
caused by the farmer while growing crops to feed
his livestock.

I agree, a vegan diet wins in those two extreme cases.

The counting game is irrelevant

Not to those who want to follow a diet that accumulates
the least, it isn't,

It is:

1. They have never counted


They don't need to count them,

They DO need to count them if they're going to play a
counting game, moron.


2. They aren't causing the least


You've already admitted that they are.


Thanks for the admission that you are causative to
animal deaths.


I haven't.

You just did. You don't know you did, because you're
stupid. You did admit it, all the same. For $100,
payable in advance, I'll explain it to you.

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message k.net...
Gender-confused Dreck wrote:

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message news
Gender-confused Dreck wrote:

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message link.net...

Dutch wrote:

"Gender-confused Dreck" wrote


If we look at the best case scenario of each diet, the
vegan diet accrues no deaths at all while the meatarian
diet always includes at least one.

I agree, nominally (i.e. we are ignoring the deaths of
very small animals, which is itself "sizesim").


Looking at the worst case scenario where cattle are
housed in a feedlot their entire lives, the vegan diet
wins outright again owing to the collateral deaths
caused by the farmer while growing crops to feed
his livestock.

I agree, a vegan diet wins in those two extreme cases.

The counting game is irrelevant

Not to those who want to follow a diet that accumulates
the least, it isn't,

It is:

1. They have never counted

They don't need to count them,

They DO need to count them if they're going to play a
counting game, moron.

You didn't count them before acknowledging;
"If you insist on playing a stupid countig game, you'll
lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
feed for the animals you eat.

The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
Jonathan Ball 2003-05-22

And so neither do I or anyone before reaching the
same conclusion.

Derek wrote:

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message k.net...

Gender-confused Dreck wrote:


"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message news

Gender-confused Dreck wrote:


"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message link.net...


Dutch wrote:


"Gender-confused Dreck" wrote



If we look at the best case scenario of each diet, the
vegan diet accrues no deaths at all while the meatarian
diet always includes at least one.

I agree, nominally (i.e. we are ignoring the deaths of
very small animals, which is itself "sizesim").



Looking at the worst case scenario where cattle are
housed in a feedlot their entire lives, the vegan diet
wins outright again owing to the collateral deaths
caused by the farmer while growing crops to feed
his livestock.

I agree, a vegan diet wins in those two extreme cases.

The counting game is irrelevant

Not to those who want to follow a diet that accumulates
the least, it isn't,

It is:

1. They have never counted

They don't need to count them,

They DO need to count them if they're going to play a
counting game, moron.


You didn't count them

I never *will* count them, either, because the counting
game is illegitimate. Your continued obsession with it
indicates your claims are illegitimate, too.

Restore the part you unethically snipped out:

The counting game is irrelevant

Not to those who want to follow a diet that
accumulates the least, it isn't,

It is:

1. They have never counted
2. They aren't causing the least

Thanks for the admission that you are causative to
animal deaths.

"Jonathan Ball" wrote in message k.net...
Derek wrote:

If we look at the best case scenario of each diet, the
vegan diet accrues no deaths at all while the meatarian
diet always includes at least one.

I agree, nominally (i.e. we are ignoring the deaths of
very small animals, which is itself "sizesim").

Looking at the worst case scenario where cattle are
housed in a feedlot their entire lives, the vegan diet
wins outright again owing to the collateral deaths
caused by the farmer while growing crops to feed
his livestock.

I agree, a vegan diet wins in those two extreme cases.

The counting game is irrelevant

Not to those who want to follow a diet that accumulates
the least, it isn't,

It is:

1. They have never counted

They don't need to count them,

They DO need to count them if they're going to play a
counting game, moron.

You didn't count them

I never *will* count them.

No one needs to count them before realising;
"If you insist on playing a stupid countig game, you'll
lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
feed for the animals you eat.

The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
Jonathan Ball 2003-05-22