"Rat & Swan" wrote
Dutch wrote:

[..]

If animals have the right to not be "used", then why do they not have
the
right to not be killed? If you say they DO have such a right, then you
have
instantly made human life, in fact ALL life on earth untenable.

Used, killed, by moral agents,

That cannot be true, veganism focuses soley on a few specific *uses* of
animals by humans, not the myriad of ways they are killed.

not by other animals or other
moral patients,

Why should we so restrict the ways we feed ourselves when obviously the very
design of the ecosystem is organisms consuming other organisms?

and not if the animal products (like a
moulted feather or dropped antler) involve no cruelty or
exploitation.

Red herring, nobody is talking about feathers or road kill, or guano, dung,
or mother's milk.

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.

Not an absolute, but a principle. It is Antis who wish to
define it as absolute, to create a strawman they can then
attack. Virtually anyone will fail to carry out ethical
ideas absolutely -- we are human, not angels or gods. Even
the church assumes we will all sin, many times, although the
goal is to avoid sin. Antis ask vegans to be something not
even God requires of us, and then attack us for being human.

To counter their nonsense on insisting we must remain
infallible lest we imperil our claim that animals deserve
rights against us, I've tried to show that though children
are used as slaves for our benefit, unwittingly buying
goods from their slavers doesn't show a contempt for
human rights, but rather the impossible position faced
by consumers duped into believing the goods they buy
are produced ethically. To escape this counter, to date,
every anti I've put this to has refused to accept the
existence of child slave labour.


I never denied it, I don't know how you're defining "it" nor to what
extent
exists in it's various forms. To be sure, unfair labour practises and
exploitation of children exists, that should be sufficient to establish
your
tu quoque position. But it doesn't work, nowhere are children
deliberately
and rountinely run over or chewed up with machinery and poisoned.
Nowhere
are they killed wherever their numbers appear to be out of balance.

Because animals' rights aren't recognized, and because they are seen
as property, as objects, as things.

Wild animals are not seen as property, they're seen as wild animals.
Domesticated animals ARE property, and they are also animals.

There's such a cognitive disconnect here.

I'll agree with you there.

I have said many times

You like to preface your remarks by saying that you have said things many
times before, why? It adds nothing to your comments except to make it sound
like you're a broken record.

that CDs result from the same lack of consideration, the same
immoral system, which allows animals to be deliberately raised
and killed for products -- that it is a general disrespect for
their moral status which causes both.

If cds and livestock production are so damned similiar then why are there a
million AR books and websites condemning one and zero condemning the other?

There's your cognitive disconnect.

Antis respond by whining
that nowhere are children treated like CDs or animals in
culling programs. OF course they aren't: children's rights, while
routinely ignored in some areas, are not dismissed entirely.
They are not victims of a systematic denial of their moral status,
as animals are. What else would you expect?

It's correct that animal rights (as you mean it) are not recognized by most
people, that's not surprising. What is significant is that they aren't
recognized by ARAs who constantly claim to be the advocates of animals. They
are NOT, they are the advocates of particular way of thinking about certain
animals. It's a narrow quasi-political dysfunctional idealism.

More to
the point, no anti here is claiming to be more in tune with human rights
than anyone else, as vegan/ARAs are claiming to be in tune with
so-called
"animal rights".

ARAs ARE more in tune with animals' rights. They are the only
people who believe animals HAVE rights.

Fine, that's my point. *I* don't claim to be more in tune with human rights
than anyone else. I don't claim to know if this or that product contains a
legacy of exploitation more than anyone else knows. ARAs *do* claim to be
more in tune with animals rights. Therefore this tu quoque about human
rights is nothing but a wet noodle. If people act in concert with the
principle of human rights by choosing products selectively or in other ways,
that is completely independent of and unrelated to whether or not they say
they believe in the rights of animals in one breath and buy products without
consideration of cds in the next. It's a red herring and a tu quoque
argument from start to finish.


snip

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.

I might also. I would not hesitate on ethical grounds.

That kind-a throws Jon's argument for the vegan's
weird search for micrograms into the dustbin, doesn't
it?

Not at all, you're both lying.

Once again, when someone says something that doesn't fit your
prejudices, call them a liar.

It doesn't fit my impression of you AT ALL, you are ALL about appearances.
You would not risk someone seeing you eat a rib. Derek, I would believe
anything of him, I doubt if he's even a vegetarian.

No vegan would eat a rack of ribs.

*Sigh* Because ethical vegans believe the methods of producing
meat are immoral.

Partly, but also because vegans demonize meat-eaters and despise meat-eating
so much that it would be too much of a mental switch.

*grinds teeth,restraining self from using
term of personal insult.*

Your little tirades don't bother me, but as we know, they don't advance your
cause, do they ?

Look -- I ate meat for many years,
up to my mid-30's. I LIKE meat; I would love to be able to
eat meat again. But I don't for ETHICAL REASONS.

I don't believe you. That's what you THINK, but if you started eating meat
again your thinking would change. Funny how the mind works. Nonetheless, I
fully support your freedom to have your personal ethics. Too bad you don't
respect me enough to allow me mine. Too bad you've given up the joys of
great food in life for a shallow ****ed up principle.

If those
ethical reasons were eliminated, many vegans would eat meat,
I suspect, or at least entertain the possibility of it.

If abstaining from meat ceased to be a source of moral self-gratification
then I agree most vegans would stop being vegans. That's the hook that keeps
them in it.

Jonathan Ball wrote:
This is a first; you now saying that both sides are even.

No, that's a hypothetical construction for your benefit.

You'll learn soon enough, you can't do that with dishonest ideologues
like "aras"/"vegans". If you hypothesize something, they consider that
to be your position. That ****ing shitworm Dreck Nash does that all the
time, and is doing it now, over this chocolate/child slavery non-issue.

Dreck is one of the most extreme cases of a dishonest ideologue I've
ever encountered -- even to the point of being a caricature.

...
My position has always been that it's morally better to minimize animal
suffering and death than to do nothing at all. I believe that
avoiding meat accomplishes that end to some degree.

You're not minimizing anything. You also cannot document any decline
in animal casualties from your diet. Your belief is axiomatic; it's
formed of dogma and your "sense," not from any reasonable evidence.

It's also formed by a dirty, unhealthy, hate-based wish to try to exalt
himself over others.

What's most ironic is his qualification in his last sentence -- "to some
degree." It really begs the question, To *what* degree? That takes us
back to the questions about beating and molesting children, Gacy vs
Dahmer, etc. He simply has no moral compass, only his feeling about
what's right on his flimsy sliding scale. It's his article of faith, and
an unreasoned, unprincipled one at that.

...
Seriously as in it's hard for me to take what you say about
"lifestyles" with a straight face.

People who understand that substance is more important than style lead
lives; "vegans" and other morally confused people who elevate style over
substance lead "lifestyles".

It's hard to imagine a more pejorative word than "lifestyle", when what
ought to be the topic is "life". "vegans" are obsessed with "lifestyle".

Yes, and I'm finding that's true whether the "alternative lifestyle" is
of a sexual ("gay") or a dietary/political nature. And obsession is the
definitely the operative word in groups with a "lifestyle."

How inefficient?

Sorry, I don't have a percentage for you.

How about finding one to back up at least one of your allegations?

It would be a waste of time. He's talking ONLY about some weird notion
of resource efficiency that doesn't take VALUE into account, and in
which he doesn't believe, anyway. There are quite obviously elements of
his "lifestyle" that are less "efficient" in terms of resource
utilization than others.

I considered this earlier when I responded to the guy who wants to bulk
up using soy. One of the links I provided him compared bioavailability
of soy protein to dairy protein. The article mentioned that the lowest
grade dairy protein was still more bioavailible than the highest yield
soy protein. Efficiency in and of itself can make matters penny wise and
pound foolish.

There is no moral reason, in terms of resource allocation, that grain
should NOT be fed to cattle, any more than there is a moral reason that
there shouldn't be expensive cars in addition to cheap cars, or cars at
all instead of bicycles.

The whole resource inefficiency things is a canard, anyway. "vegans"
don't *really* give a shit about resource use efficiency. It's just
another termite-eaten club they grasp to try to "win".

My point in asking him to substantiate his claim of inefficiency was to
show that it's a canard. It sounds reasonable to him -- like his "sense"
about everything else -- so he says it off the cuff. Remember, we've
already dealt with Dreck's and pearl's feed:beef nonsense. I don't think
CJS would make such an ass out of himself with math like those two did,
but it would be funny if he'd try.

...
Your position has nothing to do with ethics.

Exactly right. It's about "lifestyle", a component of which is a need
to try to portray himself as "more ethical".

At least to "some degree." Hehe.

snip

usual suspect wrote:
Jonathan Ball wrote:

This is a first; you now saying that both sides are even.


No, that's a hypothetical construction for your benefit.


You'll learn soon enough, you can't do that with dishonest ideologues
like "aras"/"vegans". If you hypothesize something, they consider
that to be your position. That ****ing shitworm Dreck Nash does that
all the time, and is doing it now, over this chocolate/child slavery
non-issue.


Dreck is one of the most extreme cases of a dishonest ideologue I've
ever encountered -- even to the point of being a caricature.

...

My position has always been that it's morally better to minimize animal
suffering and death than to do nothing at all. I believe that
avoiding meat accomplishes that end to some degree.


You're not minimizing anything. You also cannot document any decline
in animal casualties from your diet. Your belief is axiomatic; it's
formed of dogma and your "sense," not from any reasonable evidence.


It's also formed by a dirty, unhealthy, hate-based wish to try to
exalt himself over others.


What's most ironic is his qualification in his last sentence -- "to some
degree." It really begs the question, To *what* degree? That takes us
back to the questions about beating and molesting children, Gacy vs
Dahmer, etc. He simply has no moral compass, only his feeling about
what's right on his flimsy sliding scale.

Exactly the same as WankHar. See-jimmy and WankHare are much alike on several points:

- both "largely" vegetarian for (supposedly) ethical reasons
- neither one is "vegan"
- neither one can say why he isn't "vegan"

It's his article of faith, and
an unreasoned, unprincipled one at that.

Just like the rest of 'em.


...

Seriously as in it's hard for me to take what you say about
"lifestyles" with a straight face.


People who understand that substance is more important than style lead
lives; "vegans" and other morally confused people who elevate style
over substance lead "lifestyles".



It's hard to imagine a more pejorative word than "lifestyle", when
what ought to be the topic is "life". "vegans" are obsessed with
"lifestyle".


Yes, and I'm finding that's true whether the "alternative lifestyle" is
of a sexual ("gay") or a dietary/political nature. And obsession is the
definitely the operative word in groups with a "lifestyle."

How inefficient?


Sorry, I don't have a percentage for you.


How about finding one to back up at least one of your allegations?


It would be a waste of time. He's talking ONLY about some weird
notion of resource efficiency that doesn't take VALUE into account,
and in which he doesn't believe, anyway. There are quite obviously
elements of his "lifestyle" that are less "efficient" in terms of
resource utilization than others.


I considered this earlier when I responded to the guy who wants to bulk
up using soy. One of the links I provided him compared bioavailability
of soy protein to dairy protein. The article mentioned that the lowest
grade dairy protein was still more bioavailible than the highest yield
soy protein. Efficiency in and of itself can make matters penny wise and
pound foolish.

There is no moral reason, in terms of resource allocation, that grain
should NOT be fed to cattle, any more than there is a moral reason
that there shouldn't be expensive cars in addition to cheap cars, or
cars at all instead of bicycles.

The whole resource inefficiency things is a canard, anyway. "vegans"
don't *really* give a shit about resource use efficiency. It's just
another termite-eaten club they grasp to try to "win".


My point in asking him to substantiate his claim of inefficiency was to
show that it's a canard. It sounds reasonable to him -- like his "sense"
about everything else -- so he says it off the cuff. Remember, we've
already dealt with Dreck's and pearl's feed:beef nonsense. I don't think
CJS would make such an ass out of himself with math like those two did,
but it would be funny if he'd try.

...

Your position has nothing to do with ethics.


Exactly right. It's about "lifestyle", a component of which is a need
to try to portray himself as "more ethical".


At least to "some degree." Hehe.

snip

"usual suspect" wrote in message .. .
Jonathan Ball wrote:
..
Remember, we've
already dealt with Dreck's and pearl's feed:beef nonsense.

'dealt with'? lol. Your idiotic troll-fest(er)s are fooling nobody.

Let's see boil provide evidence to support his 95% feedlot
beef gain (on liveweight yet). chortle

************************************************** *****

Data and calculations-- feed : beef ..

Live-weight 900 1040 1146 1258 1403 lb
'harvest' 1 ..... 2 .... 3 .... 4 ...... 5
Fat % 17.7 ........22.6 ..... 28.1 .......30.3 ..........34.0
Protein % 14.5 ........13.9 .......12.6 ......12.0 ..........11.6
Water % 51.3 ...... 48.0....... 43.9 ...... 42.3.......... 40.1
Bone % 16.4 ....... 15.4 ...... 15.4 ...... 15.3 .........14.3
carcass weight 450 550 650 750 850 lbs.
http://ars.sdstate.edu/BeefExt/BeefR...ht_and_mar.htm

(protein + water = meat)
(1) 65.8% of 450lbs carcass, (4) 54.3% of 750lbs carcass.
= 296.1 = 407.25
-- a gain of 111.15lbs of meat for + 300lbs of carcass weight-
37.0% of carcass gain.
(1) 73.8lbs of carcass bone, (4) 114.75lbs - an increase
of 40.95lbs for a 300 lbs increase in carcass weight-
13.65% of carcass gain.
(1) 79.65lbs of carcass fat, (4) 227.25lbs of fat- an increase
of 147.6 lbs of fat for a 300lb increase in carcass-
49.2% of carcass gain.

That is just the (4) 62% dressing percentage (carcass).
Looking at the figures we can find out how much of the total
live-weight gain was not carcass.

1) 900; ..............and 4) 1258 lb (-live weight)
1) - 450; ..............and 4) - 750 lbs. (-carcass)
= 450 = 508

508 - 450 = 58 lbs increase in wastage (viscera, fat, etc).

Total increase; carcass + wastage -- 300 + 58 = 358lbs.

Meat gain- % of total high-concentrate ration live-weight gain;

111.15/358 * 100 = 31% .
----------------------------------------------------------
Add 10% of that 31% for fat content = 34.1 % beef gain.
----------------------------------------------------------
[Round to 34].


['... 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/xplo...sci/g02052.htm ]


feed: meat (without fat);

31% of 3lbs (48oz) = 14.88oz total edible meat
(minus fat content) from 3lbs live weight gain.

25.83lbs = 413.28oz.
------------------------------------------------
413.28 feed / 14.88 meat (no fat) = 27.77 : 1.
------------------------------------------------
[round to 28]

'When an animal makes 20 grams of meat protein,
it adds them to 80 grams of water to make meat.'
http://www.aps.uoguelph.ca/~swatland/ch2_4.htm

-80% water content -
14.88 * 20% = 2.97oz (meat protein (DM) from 3lbs live-weight).

1lb = 16oz. 16.8lbs * 16 = 268.8oz
----------------------------------------------------------------
268 feed (DM) / 2.97 meat protein (DM/no fat) = 90.23 : 1 .
----------------------------------------------------------------
[Round to 90]

All trimmed beef (with the exception of short ribs)
contains up to 10% fat..

'Which beef cuts are the leanest?
All trimmed beef cuts, with the exception of short ribs,
meet Health Canada's definition of "lean" meat. This means,
all these beef cuts contain no more than 10% fat. In fact,
many trimmed beef cuts qualify as "extra lean", with 7.5%
fat or less. Cuts from the hip, such as round steak/roasts,
sirloin tip, are usually the leanest choices.'
http://www.beefinfo.org/nut_faq.cfm.

'Ground beef, whether it comes from the chuck or the round,
is of equal quality. The only difference lies in the amount of
fat in the product -- the more fat, the less the value.

Common ground beef percentages (and the terms
often associated with them) a

70 percent lean, 30 percent fat (ground beef)
80 percent lean, 20 percent fat (ground chuck)
85 percent lean, 15 percent fat (ground round)
90 percent lean, 10 percent fat (ground sirloin)
...
The price goes up with each decrease in fat content, so
ground beef (70-30) is the logical choice if price is the
most important factor. But fat cooks out of ground beef,
resulting in greater shrinkage. The higher fat content also
makes it a poor choice for those concerned about fat
and calories in their diet.

At the other end of the spectrum, the ground sirloin (90-10)
will be the most expensive, and because of the small amount
of fat, it might be dry, crumbly and tasteless. But, for the
health-conscious, it may be just what the doctor ordered.
http://www.dispatch.com/news/food/fo...17/282614.html.

As we can see from the agricultural research data, the
percentage of lean decreases -(1) 65.8%, (4) 54.3%
of carcass weight, with increase in fat (1)17.7, (4)30.3,
whilst bone and viscera, etc, also continue to develop.
The net amount of gain of meat protein + water (meat)
is only 31% of the total (4) live weight feedlot increase.
Add to that 10% of that 31% for fat content to give
you 34% beef gain.

The ratio for feed : beef inc.10% fat;

34% beef gain (inc.10% fat) of 3lbs live weight gain =

48 * 34% = 16.32oz

25.83lbs * 16 = 413.28oz
------------------------------------------------
413.28oz of feed / 16.32 oz beef = 25.32 : 1
------------------------------------------------
[Round to 25]

Adding the beef's 10% fat content to the 31%
meat protein (DM) of 3lbs of live weight gain;

3lbs = 48oz. 48 * 31% = 14.88
14.88 * 10% = 1.49 fat

(for every 20 grams of triglyceride, it can only add 1
gram of water to make fat)
1.49 oz fat / 21 = 0.07oz water (-) = 1.42oz fat (DM).

1.42oz fat (DM) + 2.97oz meat protein (14.88*20%)
= 4.39oz beef (DM/inc. fat)

feed (DM) -16.8lbs * 16 = 268.8oz
--------------------------------------------------------
268.8 feed (DM) / 4.39 beef (DM/inc.fat) = 61.23 : 1
--------------------------------------------------------
[round to 61]

So;
==========================================

The ratio of feed to beef (inc. fat) is 25 : 1.
The ratio of feed to meat (minus fat content) is 28 : 1.
The ratio of feed (DM) to beef (DM/inc.fat) is 61 : 1.
The ratio of feed (DM) to meat protein (DM/no fat) is 90 : 1.

==========================================

**************************************************

Criticism without supporting evidence will be ignored.

"pearl" wrote in message
...
"usual suspect" wrote in message
.. .
Jonathan Ball wrote:
..
Remember, we've
already dealt with Dreck's and pearl's feed:beef nonsense.

'dealt with'? lol. Your idiotic troll-fest(er)s are fooling nobody.

Let's see boil provide evidence to support his 95% feedlot
beef gain (on liveweight yet). chortle


snippage of typical spew...

beef cows need eat nothing m,ore than grass. No grains or other crops
needed.
Blows your whole rant right out of the water, lys.

"pearl" announced

The ratio of feed (DM) to meat protein (DM/no fat) is 90 : 1.

I'm disappointed, you haven't reached 100 yet. I'm guessing you'll be there
by February.

Dutch wrote:
[..]

If animals have the right to not be "used", then why do they not have
the
right to not be killed? If you say they DO have such a right, then you
have
instantly made human life, in fact ALL life on earth untenable.

Used, killed, by moral agents,

That cannot be true, veganism focuses soley on a few specific *uses* of
animals by humans, not the myriad of ways they are killed.

The same is true of human death -- humans die and are killed in a
myriad of ways (of old age, by disease, by accident, by error)
but law and ethics focus on only a few.

not by other animals or other
moral patients,

Why should we so restrict the ways we feed ourselves when obviously the very
design of the ecosystem is organisms consuming other organisms?

For the same reason we restrict ourself from farming and eating
people but not tomatoes.

and not if the animal products (like a
moulted feather or dropped antler) involve no cruelty or
exploitation.

Red herring, nobody is talking about feathers or road kill, or guano, dung,
or mother's milk.

Most do directly, and all by implication. The "roadkill argument"
is to the Anti argument what the CD argument is supposed
to be against ARists -- it proves your claim
that AR or veganism is based on a rule rather than a moral principle
is false, and you can't deal with it. It skewers your prejudices
and demonstrates them for what they are.

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.

Not an absolute, but a principle.

snip
To be sure, unfair labour practises and
exploitation of children exists, that should be sufficient to establish
your
tu quoque position. But it doesn't work, nowhere are children
deliberately
and rountinely run over or chewed up with machinery and poisoned.
Nowhere
are they killed wherever their numbers appear to be out of balance.

Because animals' rights aren't recognized, and because they are seen
as property, as objects, as things.

Wild animals are not seen as property, they're seen as wild animals.

They are seen as, collectively, property of the state. That is
why states create game preserves and National parks, why they
prosecute poachers, and why states sell hunting licenses. If
states recognized moral rights of animals individually, states
would not engage in culling of herds, etc.

Domesticated animals ARE property, and they are also animals.

Duh....

There's such a cognitive disconnect here.

I'll agree with you there.

I have said many times

You like to preface your remarks by saying that you have said things many
times before, why? It adds nothing to your comments except to make it sound
like you're a broken record.

that CDs result from the same lack of consideration, the same
immoral system, which allows animals to be deliberately raised
and killed for products -- that it is a general disrespect for
their moral status which causes both.

If cds and livestock production are so damned similiar then why are there a
million AR books and websites condemning one and zero condemning the other?

Because CDs are accidents, a sideeffect of the system of vegetable
production, a method, not an inherent part of vegetable production.
They would not exist IF farmers saw "pests" as ARists do. The
system which uses animals as products is the source of the whole
thing, the central issue, and is rightly seen as such. We attack
the central cause, and refuse to be diverted to perepheral issues until
the major one is adquately addressed. CDs are mentioned now and then,
usually as part of a general opposition to agribusiness, but they
really are a red herring as used by Antis.

There's your cognitive disconnect.

Antis respond by whining
that nowhere are children treated like CDs or animals in
culling programs. OF course they aren't: children's rights, while
routinely ignored in some areas, are not dismissed entirely.
They are not victims of a systematic denial of their moral status,
as animals are. What else would you expect?

It's correct that animal rights (as you mean it) are not recognized by most
people, that's not surprising. What is significant is that they aren't
recognized by ARAs who constantly claim to be the advocates of animals. They
are NOT, they are the advocates of particular way of thinking about certain
animals. It's a narrow quasi-political dysfunctional idealism.

As usual, false. ARists are advocates for animals as supporters of
human rights are advocates for people. Not all bad things that
happen to people are violations of rights. Not all violations of
rights are equally central and serious.

More to
the point, no anti here is claiming to be more in tune with human rights
than anyone else, as vegan/ARAs are claiming to be in tune with
so-called
"animal rights".

ARAs ARE more in tune with animals' rights. They are the only
people who believe animals HAVE rights.

Fine, that's my point. *I* don't claim to be more in tune with human rights
than anyone else. I don't claim to know if this or that product contains a
legacy of exploitation more than anyone else knows.

Do you have an opinion on female genital mutilation, child indentured
servitude, or womens' rights under the Taliban? Then you do claim to
be more in tune with human rights than at least some other people.

ARAs *do* claim to be
more in tune with animals rights. Therefore this tu quoque about human
rights is nothing but a wet noodle. If people act in concert with the
principle of human rights by choosing products selectively or in other ways,
that is completely independent of and unrelated to whether or not they say
they believe in the rights of animals in one breath and buy products without
consideration of cds in the next. It's a red herring and a tu quoque
argument from start to finish.

It simply demonstrates that ARists are no more personally immoral
or hypocritical than anyone else. We ALL are hypocritical and
sinful and incomplete in our application of principle. We
are all human. Personal attacks go both ways, once you bring
them in.

snip

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.

I might also. I would not hesitate on ethical grounds.

That kind-a throws Jon's argument for the vegan's
weird search for micrograms into the dustbin, doesn't
it?

Not at all, you're both lying.

Once again, when someone says something that doesn't fit your
prejudices, call them a liar.

It doesn't fit my impression of you AT ALL,

Because your impression of me is wrong.

you are ALL about appearances.

If I were, I would do many things I do not.

You would not risk someone seeing you eat a rib.

I wouldn't care who saw me, if I believed the animal
had not been unjustly treated.

Derek, I would believe
anything of him, I doubt if he's even a vegetarian.

Because your impression of him is probably wrong, too.

No vegan would eat a rack of ribs.

*Sigh* Because ethical vegans believe the methods of producing
meat are immoral.

Partly, but also because vegans demonize meat-eaters and despise meat-eating
so much that it would be too much of a mental switch.

Again, your prejudices have the better of you.

*grinds teeth,restraining self from using
term of personal insult.*

Your little tirades don't bother me, but as we know, they don't advance your
cause, do they ?

Look -- I ate meat for many years,
up to my mid-30's. I LIKE meat; I would love to be able to
eat meat again. But I don't for ETHICAL REASONS.

I don't believe you. That's what you THINK, but if you started eating meat
again your thinking would change.

It would be a result, not a cause. If I changed my ethical views,
I would change my conduct. You did.

Funny how the mind works. Nonetheless, I
fully support your freedom to have your personal ethics. Too bad you don't
respect me enough to allow me mine. Too bad you've given up the joys of
great food in life for a shallow ****ed up principle.

Ah,ah...watch it, Dutch. You just admitted I act on principle.

Watch out, or your blinding prejudice might let in a little light.

If those
ethical reasons were eliminated, many vegans would eat meat,
I suspect, or at least entertain the possibility of it.

If abstaining from meat ceased to be a source of moral self-gratification
then I agree most vegans would stop being vegans. That's the hook that keeps
them in it.

Or their devotion to principle....

Rat

"Rat & Swan" wrote


Dutch wrote:
[..]

If animals have the right to not be "used", then why do they not have
the
right to not be killed? If you say they DO have such a right, then you
have
instantly made human life, in fact ALL life on earth untenable.

Used, killed, by moral agents,

That cannot be true, veganism focuses solely on a few specific *uses* of
animals by humans, not the myriad of ways they are killed.

The same is true of human death -- humans die and are killed in a
myriad of ways (of old age, by disease, by accident, by error)
but law and ethics focus on only a few.

That's a misleading comment on several levels. First, the law_does address
accidental deaths, by charging those responsible with negligent homicide,
manslaughter, or any number of other charges as applicable. In addition, it
is incumbent on_everyone to take every conceivable measure to ensure they do
not happen. Failure to so is itself a crime. Disease and old age are red
herrings, they are of course, facts of every life. The real issue here is
the ubiquitous killing of animals in food production. You pay lip service to
the fact here when pressed, but it's not addressed in vegan philosophy and
it's not addressed to any degree in vegans' day-to-day lives. It remains a
huge contradiction in the vegan raison d'être that cannot be rationalized
away.

not by other animals or other
moral patients,

Why should we so restrict the ways we feed ourselves when obviously the
very
design of the ecosystem is organisms consuming other organisms?

For the same reason we restrict ourselves from farming and eating
people but not tomatoes.

I don't see the very design of the ecosystem embracing cannibalism, except
in very rare and isolated circumstances. Species consume *other* species.

and not if the animal products (like a
molted feather or dropped antler) involve no cruelty or
exploitation.

Red herring, nobody is talking about feathers or road kill, or guano,
dung,
or mother's milk.

Most do directly, and all by implication.

The discussion here is *entirely* about killing and using animals. You're
just muddying the waters.

The "roadkill argument"
is to the Anti argument what the CD argument is supposed
to be against ARists -- it proves your claim
that AR or veganism is based on a rule rather than a moral principle
is false, and you can't deal with it. It skewers your prejudices
and demonstrates them for what they are.

It's a strawman. The rule of veganism is that's wrong to kill and eat
animals. Nobody is claiming that vegans would have a moral objection to
roadkill. I insist that vegans would not eat roadkill on aesthetic grounds,
but that's an aside.

No the cd argument says that vegans believe that it's wrong to kill and eat
animals but implicitly believe that it's not wrong to kill animals in the
course of food production. This is inconsistent with the claimed principle,
which is that animals possess basic rights. It's also inconsistent with one
of the primary vegan claims, about animal death and suffering.

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.

Not an absolute, but a principle.

snip
To be sure, unfair labour practices and
exploitation of children exists, that should be sufficient to establish
your
tu quoque position. But it doesn't work, nowhere are children
deliberately
and routinely run over or chewed up with machinery and poisoned.
Nowhere
are they killed wherever their numbers appear to be out of balance.

Because animals' rights aren't recognized, and because they are seen
as property, as objects, as things.

Wild animals are not seen as property, they're seen as wild animals.

They are seen as, collectively, property of the state. That is
why states create game preserves and National parks, why they
prosecute poachers, and why states sell hunting licenses. If
states recognized moral rights of animals individually, states
would not engage in culling of herds, etc.

Domesticated animals ARE property, and they are also animals.

Duh....

It's an important point. ARAs are wont to say that animals are treated as
property, as if that means they are not seen as animals also. Both can be
true.


There's such a cognitive disconnect here.

I'll agree with you there.

I have said many times

You like to preface your remarks by saying that you have said things
many
times before, why? It adds nothing to your comments except to make it
sound
like you're a broken record.

that CDs result from the same lack of consideration, the same
immoral system, which allows animals to be deliberately raised
and killed for products -- that it is a general disrespect for
their moral status which causes both.

If cds and livestock production are so damned similar then why are there
a
million AR books and websites condemning one and zero condemning the
other?

Because CDs are accidents, a sideeffect of the system of vegetable
production, a method, not an inherent part of vegetable production.

In reality, they ARE an inherent part of vegetable production. The fact that
a tomato can theoretically can be grown on a patio with no (visible) animal
deaths is hardly more significant than the fact that a chicken leg can
theoretically be obtained without killing the chicken.

They would not exist IF farmers saw "pests" as ARists do.

If "ARists" ran commercial farms we would all starve.

The
system which uses animals as products is the source of the whole
thing, the central issue, and is rightly seen as such.

I agree it's the central issue. The issues of animal suffering, health, and
environmental impact are peripheral issues used by ARAs in dishonest ways to
promote the central issue.

We attack
the central cause,

No, you much more frequently dishonestly attack the peripheral issues.

and refuse to be diverted to perepheral issues until
the major one is adquately addressed.

ARism lives on peripheral issues.

CDs are mentioned now and then,
usually as part of a general opposition to agribusiness, but they
really are a red herring as used by Antis.

You only object to peripheral issues when they gore your ox, otherwise you
exploit them mercilessly with the most livid rhetoric you can muster..

There's your cognitive disconnect.

Antis respond by whining
that nowhere are children treated like CDs or animals in
culling programs. OF course they aren't: children's rights, while
routinely ignored in some areas, are not dismissed entirely.
They are not victims of a systematic denial of their moral status,
as animals are. What else would you expect?

It's correct that animal rights (as you mean it) are not recognized by
most
people, that's not surprising. What is significant is that they aren't
recognized by ARAs who constantly claim to be the advocates of animals.
They
are NOT, they are the advocates of particular way of thinking about
certain
animals. It's a narrow quasi-political dysfunctional idealism.

As usual, false. ARists are advocates for animals as supporters of
human rights are advocates for people. Not all bad things that
happen to people are violations of rights. Not all violations of
rights are equally central and serious.

In the realm of human rights, being killed routinely without thought is a
serious violation of rights. Even livestock are afforded more consideration
than animals killed in the course of vegetable production.

More to
the point, no anti here is claiming to be more in tune with human
rights
than anyone else, as vegan/ARAs are claiming to be in tune with
so-called
"animal rights".

ARAs ARE more in tune with animals' rights. They are the only
people who believe animals HAVE rights.

Fine, that's my point. *I* don't claim to be more in tune with human
rights
than anyone else. I don't claim to know if this or that product contains
a
legacy of exploitation more than anyone else knows.

Do you have an opinion on female genital mutilation, child indentured
servitude, or womens' rights under the Taliban? Then you do claim to
be more in tune with human rights than at least some other people.

My awareness of those things does not make me a better person unless I do
something about them.

ARAs *do* claim to be
more in tune with animals rights. Therefore this tu quoque about human
rights is nothing but a wet noodle. If people act in concert with the
principle of human rights by choosing products selectively or in other
ways,
that is completely independent of and unrelated to whether or not they
say
they believe in the rights of animals in one breath and buy products
without
consideration of cds in the next. It's a red herring and a tu quoque
argument from start to finish.

It simply demonstrates that ARists are no more personally immoral
or hypocritical than anyone else. We ALL are hypocritical and
sinful and incomplete in our application of principle. We
are all human. Personal attacks go both ways, once you bring
them in.

My point is that when it comes to violations of human rights, most of if not
all of us are less than perfect in addressing how they leak into our lives,
this applies to ARAs and omnivores alike. We agree that exploitation of
children and mutilation of women is wrong, but we mostly lack the time
and/or energies to do anything about these things. There's no demonstrable
link between this and the issue of animal rights as you claim, because we DO
NOT agree on the the fundamental basis for the idea of animal rights. That
argument is a tu quoque and a red herring.

-snips-

Look -- I ate meat for many years,
up to my mid-30's. I LIKE meat; I would love to be able to
eat meat again. But I don't for ETHICAL REASONS.

I don't believe you. That's what you THINK, but if you started eating
meat
again your thinking would change.

It would be a result, not a cause. If I changed my ethical views,
I would change my conduct. You did.

The two are more interchangeable that you imagine. People act according to
their beliefs and believe according to their actions.

Funny how the mind works. Nonetheless, I
fully support your freedom to have your personal ethics. Too bad you
don't
respect me enough to allow me mine. Too bad you've given up the joys of
great food in life for a shallow ****ed up principle.

Ah,ah...watch it, Dutch. You just admitted I act on principle.

There is a principle involved, that it's immoral to use animals for personal
gain, to treat them as objects. The problem is that the principle becomes
lost in a myriad of misguided rationalizations and misstatements about
peripheral issues, (aka "lies")

What should be happening is this..

You: I believe that it's wrong to use animals for personal gain, therefore I
won't do it.

Me: I don't think it's wrong, so I will keep doing it.

Result: We both get to believe we live according to our principles (and go
to heaven as applicable) and meanwhile you get to benefit from my principles
by using modern medicine and products, and I don't bother mentioning the
hypocrisy of it all.

Watch out, or your blinding prejudice might let in a little light.

That's rich.

If those
ethical reasons were eliminated, many vegans would eat meat,
I suspect, or at least entertain the possibility of it.

If abstaining from meat ceased to be a source of moral
self-gratification
then I agree most vegans would stop being vegans. That's the hook that
keeps
them in it.

Or their devotion to principle....

If it were widely understood that veganism was not categorically more animal
or environmentally friendly, or more healthy, many people would simply take
the sensible path and limit the amount of "factory farmed" meat in their
diets, and not become addicted to this "moral gratification" syndrome that
plagues the mental processes of vegans. Self-righteousness is a ubiquitous
mental disorder that is not unique to ARism. Anyone who wished to remain a
vegan strictly "on principle" would do so.

"Dutch" wrote in message

This info
should include the types of animals and also the types of vegetables,
including those organically grown and grown on small farms and sold at
farmers markets.

Or what, you'll pretend they don't exist?

Or it'll be completely useless.

googlesux wrote:
This info
should include the types of animals and also the types of vegetables,
including those organically grown and grown on small farms and sold at
farmers markets.

Or what, you'll pretend they don't exist?

Or it'll be completely useless.

Get over it. What kinds of animals? Snakes, birds, rodents, deer,
raccoons, etc. Pretty much anything which lives in and around farmland.
What kind of crops? Anything in which machinery is used for planting,
harvesting, spraying, and transporting. Storage, too, is an issue since
laws require preventive measures to kill insects and rodents around
storage facilities.

The "problem" isn't really one as far as normal people are concerned;
farmers have long accepted that animals will be crushed by machinery,
baled in with hay and straw, mutilated by implements, etc. Most
consumers either don't consider it an issue or they don't consider it at
all; the latter, of course, is shared by those who don't eat meat. It's
only an issue to veg-ns and ARAs who mistakenly believe that a complete
lack of meat in their diet means animals don't die for their food. And
it's only become an issue to those who want to continue with statements
of moral and ethical superiority. You share in the bloodletting.
Remember that when you sanctimoniously eat your tofu and belittle others
who eat meat. Animals die either way.

Any disruption of the land, whether it be to farm or to build
subdivisions, reduces the amount of land left for other animals,
resulting in the deaths of many. And Davis, a professor of
animal science at Oregon State who grew up on a farm, says as a
child he saw animals killed by the routine operation of farm
machinery, so there's no way to have a bloodless farm.

"If they say they don't want to kill an animal so they can eat,
I think their conclusion is misguided because they are killing
animals so that they can eat that vegetarian diet," Davis says.
"Those animals happen to be a little bit invisible. They are not
as obvious to the man on the street as killing a steer in the
slaughterhouse. But nonetheless, it's still going on...."

Davis admits he doesn't really know how many animals are lost
each year to agriculture, but he suspects it runs in the
millions. Not many farmers do a before-and-after survey, so the
best data are really just estimates....

It's not a perfect world... but perhaps with a lot
more thought and cooperation, a better alternative might be
found. But unless someone comes up with a brilliant idea,
whether you eat meat or just fruit and vegetables, you're going
to have to share somewhat in the bloodletting.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scite...ard020501.html

See also:
http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/news...pr02/davis.htm
http://www.bds.org.uk/Research/Silag...entperrier.htm
Etc.

"googlesux" wrote
"Dutch" wrote in message

This info
should include the types of animals and also the types of vegetables,
including those organically grown and grown on small farms and sold at
farmers markets.

Or what, you'll pretend they don't exist?

Or it'll be completely useless.

Then you can go on pretending they don't exist?

rick etter wrote:

(snip)

Again, can you 'feed the world' on hothouse veggies?

Can you "feed the world" on pasture-raised cattle?

(snip)

anmlkllr wrote:
Again, can you 'feed the world' on hothouse veggies?

Can you "feed the world" on pasture-raised cattle?

Yes, but it might require a little bit more deforestation. Are you open
to some logging?

"frlpwr" wrote in message ...
rick etter wrote:

(snip)

Again, can you 'feed the world' on hothouse veggies?

Can you "feed the world" on pasture-raised cattle?

He's not making that claim. The point he's making is that pasture-raised
cattle ought be included in any list of animal friendly alternatives. To
exclude that while including factory-farmed veggies is hypocritical. Either
that or drop the self serving animal-friendly arguments altogether and just
take a rights stance.


(snip)

"frlpwr" wrote in message ...
rick etter wrote:

(snip)

Again, can you 'feed the world' on hothouse veggies?

Can you "feed the world" on pasture-raised cattle?
=======================
Yes, stupid. Virtually all cows are grass fed for most of their lives!