C. James Strutz wrote:

"Useless Subject" wrote in message
...


C. James Strutz wrote:

Most vegans know that it's impossible to eliminate 100% of animal

casualties

in products they buy and use.

They wouldn't make outlandish moral claims if they knew and accepted
that.


I agree that most vegans don't think beyond steak=animal.

Exactly right.

I also agree that
there are other animal casualties involved in vegetable production.

Right again.

Your concession is accepted, jimmy. You're still a
whiny asshole.

Bit vegetable production is also a significant component of livestock
production. The issue should be how to minimize animal casualties since they
cannot be practically eliminated.

No, ****wit. The issue is "vegans'" outrageous claims.
"vegans" claim to be doing something "good" by not
eating meat. They clearly aren't: animals continue to
be killed, in large numbers and without consequence, in
order to produce food for them.

The number of animals killed to produce cattle and
other livestock feed is IRRELEVANT, jimmy, because
we're talking ONLY about the food "vegans" eat. We're
talking about the fact that animals are still killed,
without consequence, to produce food for "vegans", and
the sanctimonious, hypocritical "vegans" don't care.
All they care about is their bogus pose.


Let's compare two cases (normalizing to one "steer unit"). Case 1: how many
total animal casualties may be attributed to the steer being slaughtered for
food? Case 2: how many total animal casualties are incurred during the same
period of time for people eating only vegetable produce?

Let's list the ways that lives are lost in Case 1.
- the steer's life
- animal casualties to production of food for the steer
- animal casualties to transporting the steer and food for the steer
- incidental animals casualties

Same for Case 2:
- animal casualties to production of food for people
- animal casualties to transporting food for people
- incidental animal casualties

I contend that the steer is a relatively inefficient converter of grain to
meat (losses from conversion of food to calories, excretion, etc.) in terms
of volume.

That's irrelevant. We're not talking about caloric
efficiency, jimmy, you moronic ****.

More people could be fed from the grain a steer eats in it's
lifetime than the steer's meat would feed. Converting the steer's meat to an
equivalent amount of grain, it's easy to see that more grain must be
produced in Case 1 than in Case 2. Therefore, there are proportionally more
animal casualties in Case 1 than in Case 2.

Which is IRRELEVANT to the ****witted, hypocritical,
sanctimonious, self-congratulatory "vegans'" claim,
jimmy. Their claim is that they are following a
principle, when they are not; they are following a
stupid, ****witted rule that is NOT based on any principle.

If they were really following a principle of, say, "it
is wrong to cause harm to animals", then they would
CARE about animal collateral deaths in fruit/vegetable
production, and they would take steps to minimize
those, too. But they don't, and they never will. It's
[need whiny voice for this] "toooo haaaaaaaaaaaard!",
and moral consistency is not what these goddamned
mother****ing shitbags are about. What they're about,
jimmy, and what YOU'RE about, is adopting a pose from
which they imagine they can look down on the rest of us
and wag a finger in our faces. They want the adoption
of that pose to be easy, and doing something simple
like not eating any animal parts is easy. Doing
something REAL, like growing all their own food in such
a way that the rates of collateral death and injury for
animals are brought down to the same levels as the
rates for humans, is really hard. Morally LAZY
shitbags, which universally describes "vegans", can't
be bothered.



Many veg-ns are shocked and stunned to learn their diet does
*nothing* to eliminate animal suffering and death.


I believe that veg-n diet does reduce animal deaths.


The idea is to minimize animal casualties
through the choices they make.

No, the idea is to assume a moralistic posture and make judgmental
assessments of the dietary choices of others. If each and every animal
has a soul or some amount of sentience, how many voles, rats, mice,
birds, fish, deer, rabbits, skunks, etc., does it take to consider the
balance tilted toward harm? IOW, how many animal casualties do you
justify before meat consumption is morally acceptable?


That's a question that people have to answer for themselves. The issue that
you have with some vegans is that they don't respect other people's
individuality.


If the goal is minimization, they needn't go to the extreme of veganism.
Plenty of humane alternatives are available which would allow them to
have their steak and eat it, too. Those alternatives include hunting,
grass-fed beef, and home-grown livestock.


Well, there is still the matter of the life of the steer. Grass-fed beef is
a better alternative than grain-fed beef.


You must get over your confusion about the minimization issue. The
solution offered is radical, and has very little, if any, bearing on
markets that could be affected were more moderate steps taken.


I'm not confused about minimization. I think you are too anal in your
anti-vegan stance. And it's quite odd that coming from a vegan.


Vegans choose not to eat meat, dairy, etc.
because it contributes less to animal casualties.

Please justify your claim that veganism contributes less to animal
casualties.


See above.


The cattle industry is
responsible for a far greater number of collateral animal casualties

than

vegan's collective contribution.

Strawman since cattle ranching in and of itself needn't rely on grain
for feed.


The vast majority of cattle ranching does rely on grain for feed.


You don't want vegans to know that because
it discredits your wild accusations.

You're the one engaging in deceit.


I think my points are quite valid.

C. James Strutz wrote:

"Jonathan Bald" wrote in message
nk.net...


Irrelevant, ASSHOLE. "Vegans" are not minimizing, and
they ONLY are claiming to be "virtuous" by means of an
invalid comparison. The correct comparison is not
"vegans" to meat eaters, ASSHOLE. The correct
comparison is animal deaths caused by "vegans" to human
deaths caused by "vegans" in the course of obtaining
food. The number of the former is vastly higher than
the latter, and we all know it.


You are incoherent. Get help.

I'm perfectly coherent, scumbag. You are incoherent.
You are even more incoherent than "vegans", scum,
because you can explain NEITHER why you start down the
road of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism, nor why you
stop short.

Your attempt to establish virtue by means of comparison
not only is invalid, scumbag, but is in fact indicative
of even LESS virtue. Every respectable thinker on
ethics in the course of history has made clear that
virtue does not reside in a comparison with the
unvirtuous, but rather in doing the right thing in
absolute terms, IRRESPECTIVE of what others do.

The phony, sham virtue you want to set up actually
means that the animal death toll you cause could go UP,
and you still would consider yourself
virtuous...provided the death toll of your dietary
enemy went up by a greater comparison.

Why are you so willfully stupid, jimmy?

"usual suspect" wrote in message
...
C. James Putz wrote:
They wouldn't make outlandish moral claims if they knew and accepted
that.

I agree that most vegans don't think beyond steak=animal.

You should have stopped right here. This is the main issue.

I also agree that
there are other animal casualties involved in vegetable production. But
vegetable production is also a significant component of livestock
production.

Not entirely accurate. The market for grass-fed livestock is growing.

The issue should be how to minimize animal casualties since they
cannot be practically eliminated.

That would be a fine issue, but vegan activists aren't concerned with
minimization. The vegan "solution" is radical and based on the flawed
notion that not eating meat means no animals die.

Let's compare two cases (normalizing to one "steer unit"). Case 1: how
many
total animal casualties may be attributed to the steer being slaughtered
for
food? Case 2: how many total animal casualties are incurred during the
same
period of time for people eating only vegetable produce?

Let's list the ways that lives are lost in Case 1.
- the steer's life
- animal casualties to production of food for the steer

Grass-fed animals -- wild game, cattle, lamb, etc. -- do not have
collateral deaths, aside from insects they step upon. Would you count
those?

- animal casualties to transporting the steer and food for the steer
- incidental animals casualties

Your argument is valid only if we consider grain-fed animals.
Alternatives exist which do away with your second point.

Same for Case 2:
- animal casualties to production of food for people
- animal casualties to transporting food for people
- incidental animal casualties

I contend that the steer is a relatively inefficient converter of grain
to
meat (losses from conversion of food to calories, excretion, etc.) in
terms
of volume.

What about grass-fed beef? What about grass-fed lamb? What about game?
These are all valid alternatives.

More people could be fed from the grain a steer eats in it's
lifetime than the steer's meat would feed.

How many people could be fed from the grasses consumed by a deer,
buffalo, or cow?

Converting the steer's meat to an
equivalent amount of grain, it's easy to see that more grain must be
produced in Case 1 than in Case 2. Therefore, there are proportionally
more
animal casualties in Case 1 than in Case 2.

I think most people would remain undisturbed by such details.

Many veg-ns are shocked and stunned to learn their diet does
*nothing* to eliminate animal suffering and death.

I believe that veg-n diet does reduce animal deaths.

Only marginally.

The idea is to minimize animal casualties
through the choices they make.

No, the idea is to assume a moralistic posture and make judgmental
assessments of the dietary choices of others. If each and every animal
has a soul or some amount of sentience, how many voles, rats, mice,
birds, fish, deer, rabbits, skunks, etc., does it take to consider the
balance tilted toward harm? IOW, how many animal casualties do you
justify before meat consumption is morally acceptable?

That's a question that people have to answer for themselves. The issue
that
you have with some vegans is that they don't respect other people's
individuality.

Especially when based upon a flawed moralism.

If the goal is minimization, they needn't go to the extreme of veganism.
Plenty of humane alternatives are available which would allow them to
have their steak and eat it, too. Those alternatives include hunting,
grass-fed beef, and home-grown livestock.

Well, there is still the matter of the life of the steer. Grass-fed beef
is
a better alternative than grain-fed beef.

What's so special about the life of a steer?

You must get over your confusion about the minimization issue. The
solution offered is radical, and has very little, if any, bearing on
markets that could be affected were more moderate steps taken.

I'm not confused about minimization. I think you are too anal in your
anti-vegan stance. And it's quite odd that coming from a vegan.

Address the issue rather than express your contempt for me.

I showed no contempt for you in this post aside from referring to you as
"Useless Subject" above. I answered you carefully in the same tone in which
you asked me to explain myself. My use of the word 'anal' wasn't meant to be
insulting in any way. It was simply the best word I could use to explain how
I feel about your position on this issue. Having meaningful dialogue with
you is much more constructive than slinging mud at each other.

I am out of this thread for now. I will be away from computers for the
weekend. I'll be hunting mushrooms, not deer!

The solution
you offer is extreme on one end and doesn't even fix the problem on the
other. If people want to eat meat, encourage them to eat stuff that's
humanely raised and sustainable. Encourage them to hunt, get back to
nature.

...
The cattle industry is
responsible for a far greater number of collateral animal casualties
than
vegan's collective contribution.

Strawman since cattle ranching in and of itself needn't rely on grain
for feed.

The vast majority of cattle ranching does rely on grain for feed.

That can be changed if the market demands, and the market is starting to
push in that direction.

...

"pearl" wrote in message
...
"rick etter" wrote in message
...

"pearl" wrote in message
...
"Steve Dufour" wrote in message
m...
hmmmm....it seems to me that the way to cause the least suffering is
get a rifle and go shoot a moose or an elk. Then you'd have a years
supply of meat for only a few moments' suffering.

Why not .. 'get a rifle and shoot yourself'? Then you'd cause least
suffering for 'only a few moments' suffering'.

Or maybe just grow and/or buy eco-friendly organic plant produce.
.
=====================
how often you going to spew this nonsense? Organic does not mean
cruelty-free, killer. Just like your inane posts to usenet, hypocrite.

How often you going to spew this nonsense, killer?
================
Until you understand a little truth, killer.

"LordSnooty" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:54:55 GMT, usual suspect who is actually NoNuts
J Ball wrote:

LardShit wrote:
hmmmm....it seems to me that the way to cause the least suffering is
get a rifle and go shoot a moose or an elk. Then you'd have a years
supply of meat for only a few moments' suffering.

Why not .. 'get a rifle and shoot yourself'? Then you'd cause least
suffering for 'only a few moments' suffering'.

Oh, feel the love. Misanthrope.

It's a good statement, I see no reason for it to happen.

Your base hatred of your fellow man is also well known.

You think it unfair I don't like deviants who are proud of the
suffering they cause to animals and humans? tough.
===============
that's why you display all that self-hatred, eh killer?



Or maybe just grow and/or buy eco-friendly organic plant produce.
.

Hunting is eco-friendly.

Hunting is an abuse of wildlife, usually by lard arse, unemployed
deviants, who also subject their families to the same abuse.

Oh, so you hunt?

Only deviants.
==================
you kill far more animals posting your inane ignorant delusions to usenet
than most hunters manage, hypocrite...



Have you seen how much destruction uncontrolled
ruminant populations can do to an ecosystem, much less when they start
to starve?

Hunting does not control wildlife populations, aside from keeping them
artificially high to provide amusement for bullies.

You've never supported such claims with facts.

I don't need to, anyone who has ever studied dynamics of wildlife
controls know the score, hunters know it very well.
===============
you know nothing, killer....










'You can't win 'em all.'
Lord Haw Haw.

Since I stopped donating money to CONservation hooligan charities
Like the RSPB, Woodland Trust and all the other fat cat charities
I am in the top 0.801% richest people in the world.
There are 5,951,930,035 people poorer than me

If you're really interested I am the 48,069,965
richest person in the world.

And I'm keeping the bloody lot.

So sue me.

http://www.globalrichlist.com/

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

"Useless Subject" wrote in message
...

C. James Strutz wrote:
Most vegans know that it's impossible to eliminate 100% of animal
casualties
in products they buy and use.

They wouldn't make outlandish moral claims if they knew and accepted
that.

I agree that most vegans don't think beyond steak=animal. I also agree
that
there are other animal casualties involved in vegetable production. But
vegetable production is also a significant component of livestock
production.
=============
No, it is not. No crops are grown for the beef I buy and eat. No crops
are grown for the game I eat.
You've now lost on that count, because now I can easily replace 100s of
1000s of calories with the deaths of just a couple of animals,
from that many calories of factory-farmed, mono culture crop foods. Where
is the benefit in fewer/less/no animal deaths and suffering by eating all my
calories in veggies?



The issue should be how to minimize animal casualties since they
cannot be practically eliminated.
==================
By including meat. that should be obvious to even the most brain-dead
vegan. It seems to go right over all their heads though.
Why is that? Because they have only simple rules to live by. Simple rules
for simple minds. Meat bad, veggie good. regardless
of the circumstances.



Let's compare two cases (normalizing to one "steer unit"). Case 1: how
many
total animal casualties may be attributed to the steer being slaughtered
for
food?
=====================
1

Case 2: how many total animal casualties are incurred during the same
period of time for people eating only vegetable produce?
====================
100s, 1000s? None of you *compassionate* vegan types really care to find
out.




Let's list the ways that lives are lost in Case 1.
- the steer's life
- animal casualties to production of food for the steer
=================
none needed. grass grows just fine. without any extra inputs. Cows, being
what they are, well, cows, can convert that grass into human edible protein
without any intervention from us at all. There also is no need for hormanes
or routine anti-biotics for growing cows. Again, grass does just fine.
Now, how often to you eat grass?


- animal casualties to transporting the steer and food for the steer
================
none needed. Cows are grown right here, slaughtered right here, and eaten
right here. Again, there is no need for transporting grass as it grows just
fine all by itself.

- incidental animals casualties
=================
Which would be what? Those run over by plows, harvesters, sprayers? Don't
think so, none needed. Those that are poisoned to protect the storage
silos? Don't think so.



Same for Case 2:
- animal casualties to production of food for people
==================
100s, 1,000s, 1,000,000s? How many you want?

- animal casualties to transporting food for people
=======================
Don't forget processing too. Changing your soy into tofu meat substitutes
is a process intensive operation requiring lots of power.


- incidental animal casualties
=================
millions poisoned deliberatly, millions poisoned by pesticides, how many
killed in the production of the petro-chemical industry that provides all
the fuels, power, poisons needed to put your *eco* veggies on your plate.



I contend that the steer is a relatively inefficient converter of grain to
meat (losses from conversion of food to calories, excretion, etc.) in
terms
of volume.
=====================
Really? You contend this do you? How good are you at converting grass to
protein? I contend that you are very inefficient at this, to the extreme of
non-existant.
What resources need to go into growing grass? millions of pounds of
ferts/pesticides? Don't think so. millions of gallons of fuel? Millions
of kilowatts? Nope, don't think so. what's left? Oh yaeh, it does use up
a lot of precious sunlight that you could be using to tan with, right?



More people could be fed from the grain a steer eats in it's
lifetime than the steer's meat would feed.
==========================
Really? How much grass you figure it takes to keep you alive? Besides,
your background implication that the world is starving because some people
eat meat is just another vegan delusional ly.



Converting the steer's meat to an
equivalent amount of grain, it's easy to see that more grain must be
produced in Case 1 than in Case 2.
==================
Really? You must have missed math class those days thay did addition, eh?



Therefore, there are proportionally more
animal casualties in Case 1 than in Case 2.
======================
Wrong. your stupidity knows no bounds, does it killer?



Many veg-ns are shocked and stunned to learn their diet does
*nothing* to eliminate animal suffering and death.

I believe that veg-n diet does reduce animal deaths.
=====================
I believe you're wrong, and you';ve yet to prove that you are right.



The idea is to minimize animal casualties
through the choices they make.

No, the idea is to assume a moralistic posture and make judgmental
assessments of the dietary choices of others. If each and every animal
has a soul or some amount of sentience, how many voles, rats, mice,
birds, fish, deer, rabbits, skunks, etc., does it take to consider the
balance tilted toward harm? IOW, how many animal casualties do you
justify before meat consumption is morally acceptable?

That's a question that people have to answer for themselves. The issue
that
you have with some vegans is that they don't respect other people's
individuality.

If the goal is minimization, they needn't go to the extreme of veganism.
Plenty of humane alternatives are available which would allow them to
have their steak and eat it, too. Those alternatives include hunting,
grass-fed beef, and home-grown livestock.

Well, there is still the matter of the life of the steer. Grass-fed beef
is
a better alternative than grain-fed beef.
======================
Um... How much better? care to redo your above *calculations*?



You must get over your confusion about the minimization issue. The
solution offered is radical, and has very little, if any, bearing on
markets that could be affected were more moderate steps taken.

I'm not confused about minimization. I think you are too anal in your
anti-vegan stance. And it's quite odd that coming from a vegan.

Vegans choose not to eat meat, dairy, etc.
because it contributes less to animal casualties.

Please justify your claim that veganism contributes less to animal
casualties.

See above.
==================
You didn't show any such thing...



The cattle industry is
responsible for a far greater number of collateral animal casualties
than
vegan's collective contribution.

Strawman since cattle ranching in and of itself needn't rely on grain
for feed.

The vast majority of cattle ranching does rely on grain for feed.
======================
And you do nothing to make any changes in that production.
meat eaters, on the other hand, are making changes. You can look for
grass-fed, free range meats anywhere now. Your following simple rules
eliminates any part you could have in making these changes come about.
Stopping eating meat is just a blip, not even regeristing. Even if somehow
you managed to make a dent in the meat demand, all you would accomplish is
the greater 'suffering' that you claim factory-farmed animals now endure.
Producers aren't just going to throw up their hands and quit, they're going
to put even more animals into the same system designed for fewer to make up
the loses by producing even cheaper. We provide an alternative, a
lucrative, and more eco-friendly alternative. Try thinking with what ever
part of your brain isn't fried for a change.


You don't want vegans to know that because
it discredits your wild accusations.

You're the one engaging in deceit.

I think my points are quite valid.
================
No, they are not. They are the same old diatribes without any thought.


Now, go have that nice blood-drenched dinner, hypocrite.

"LordSnooty" wrote
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:36:02 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:

[..]

On the other hand, so-called "ethical vegetarianism" is
fundamentally hypocritical. The reason is that animals
are killed gruesomely and in large numbers in the
course of growing, storing and distributing vegetables,

That's because it's a lie. You are deliberately confusing the odd
accident,

Grain fields are routinely soaked with Roundup to supress weeds. Try
ingesting 1/1000 your bodyweight in Roundup.

with the deliberate slaughter of animals to produce food.

What's accidental about using Roundup?

It
simply doesn't happen in vegetable production, whereas in meat
production there is no dispute.

There's no dispute that animal populations have been and and are still being
decimated by herbicides and pesicides, these are not accidents.

You're in denial.

-snip-

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 15:14:06 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

"LordSnooty" wrote
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:36:02 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:

[..]

On the other hand, so-called "ethical vegetarianism" is
fundamentally hypocritical. The reason is that animals
are killed gruesomely and in large numbers in the
course of growing, storing and distributing vegetables,

That's because it's a lie. You are deliberately confusing the odd
accident,

Grain fields are routinely soaked with Roundup to supress weeds. Try
ingesting 1/1000 your bodyweight in Roundup.

That is why I regularly campaign against Monsanto and lazy farmers who
use the poison, and I buy organic, as well as grow your own. It's the
only way to go

So it looks like it may be the veggies in your meat and two veg diet,
that are causing the suffering after all.

with the deliberate slaughter of animals to produce food.

What's accidental about using Roundup?

Nothing. It is a wanton act of abuse, not only on wildlife but on
humans too.

It
simply doesn't happen in vegetable production, whereas in meat
production there is no dispute.

There's no dispute that animal populations have been and and are still being
decimated by herbicides and pesicides, these are not accidents.

Not in my diet.

You're in denial.

You are struggling to find a desperate shred of credibility for your
nonsense argument.







'You can't win 'em all.'
Lord Haw Haw.

Since I stopped donating money to CONservation hooligan charities
Like the RSPB, Woodland Trust and all the other fat cat charities
I am in the top 0.801% richest people in the world.
There are 5,951,930,035 people poorer than me

If you're really interested I am the 48,069,965
richest person in the world.

And I'm keeping the bloody lot.

So sue me.

http://www.globalrichlist.com/

"LordSnooty" wrote
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 15:14:06 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

"LordSnooty" wrote
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:36:02 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:

[..]

On the other hand, so-called "ethical vegetarianism" is
fundamentally hypocritical. The reason is that animals
are killed gruesomely and in large numbers in the
course of growing, storing and distributing vegetables,

That's because it's a lie. You are deliberately confusing the odd
accident,

Grain fields are routinely soaked with Roundup to supress weeds. Try
ingesting 1/1000 your bodyweight in Roundup.

That is why I regularly campaign against Monsanto and lazy farmers who
use the poison, and I buy organic, as well as grow your own. It's the
only way to go

Organic farmers still use chemicals, they just use less of them. Very, very
few vegans grow their own, and they still believe their diets are
death-free.

So it looks like it may be the veggies in your meat and two veg diet,
that are causing the suffering after all.

No, EVERYTHING does.

with the deliberate slaughter of animals to produce food.

What's accidental about using Roundup?

Nothing. It is a wanton act of abuse, not only on wildlife but on
humans too.

Those "wanton acts of abuse" live in the history of virtually every vegan's
diet.

It
simply doesn't happen in vegetable production, whereas in meat
production there is no dispute.

There's no dispute that animal populations have been and and are still
being
decimated by herbicides and pesicides, these are not accidents.

Not in my diet.

Bullshit.

You're in denial.

You are struggling to find a desperate shred of credibility for your
nonsense argument.

I don't have to struggle at all, the truth is very easy to support.

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:44:25 +0100, "Jane" wrote:


"swamp" wrote in message ...
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 04:16:25 -0400, LordSnooty
wrote:

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 05:21:59 GMT, swamp
wrote:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 20:20:23 GMT, frlpwr wrote:

Jon wrote:

(snip)

"vegans", or so-called
"ethical vegetarians", engage in a classic logical
fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It runs like this:

If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.

I do not eat meat;

Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.

Why do you refuse to be corrected on this point?

The above should go like this:

If I eat meat, I cause farmed animals to suffer and die.

I do not eat meat;

Therefore, I do not cause farmed animals to suffer and die.

As long as we're shooting for accuracy, it should be:

If I eat meat, I cause farmed animals to suffer and die.

I do not eat meat, therefore, I do not cause farmed animals to suffer
and die,

Very good.

and make this point because it helps me ignore the death and
suffering my own diet causes.

What death and suffering?

That caused by your very existence.

you have scientific, peer reviewed data that
a particular company, farm, product is a direct cause of wildlife
deaths?

The peer-reviewed study you suggest is about as necessary as one
showing starvation will cause starvation.

That's a false analogy, since one event (starving) will always cause
the same condition (starvation), but the same can't be said for the
other half of your analogy where one event (eating vegetables)
will always cause the same condition (collateral deaths).

The analogy, simplified, is that life causes death. The two are
inseparable.

Before
showing you the fallacy in your argument over collateral deaths,
look again at the first premise in Jonathan Ball's syllogism at the
start of this thread.

"If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die."

This proposition is false, since the event (If I eat meat) always
assumes a necessary condition (I cause animals to suffer and die).

Of course it's false. Jon's parroting ar/evs. You're not off to a good
start.

A necessary condition for an event is something which is
absolutely required to exist or happen if the event is to occur.
Ergo; causing suffering and death to animals is absolutely
required to exist or must happen if I am to eat meat.

Correct about the death, not about the suffering, and one's diet is
irrelevant.

A sufficient condition for an event, on the other hand, does
not have to exist for the event to occur, but if it exists, then
the event will occur.

How can an event occur if pre-conditions don't exist?

Ergo; causing animals to suffer and die
isn't absolutely required to exist or happen, since meat can
be sourced from animals which no one has caused to suffer
or die, but if it does suffer and die from natural causes or
accident, then I am still able to eat meat.

Do you believe in miracles?

A more formal way for saying that one thing, p, is a sufficient
condition for some other thing, q, would be to say "if p then q,"
which is a standard hypothetical proposition. Confusing
necessary and sufficient conditions is one way to understand
how some of the rules of inference with hypothetical propositions
can be violated. The fallacy of affirming the consequent, for
example, makes the assumption that a sufficient condition is also
a necessary condition.
http://atheism.about.com/library/glo..._necessary.htm

Stop w/ the pseudo logical nonsense. You don't understand it anyway.
Here are the facts. Your live at the expense of other lives.
"Suffering" isn't a necessary part of the equation. Death is.

Another example of affirming the consequent is shown in your
proposition, "If I eat vegetables, collateral deaths will occur."

This proposition is false; since the event (If I eat vegetables)
always assumes a necessary condition (collateral deaths will
occur).
Ergo; collateral deaths are absolutely required to exist or
must happen if I am to eat vegetables.

For the sufficient condition; collateral deaths aren't absolutely
required to exist or happen, but if they do exist, then I am still
able to eat vegetables. The fallacy of affirming the consequent,
for this example makes the same assumption as the last in that
a sufficient condition is also a necessary condition

CDs are an absolute outcome of farming whether you deny them or not,
ergo your "affirming the consequent" argument is duly dismissed.

The only way not to kill animals is to not exist. I suggest you'd have
better luck taking a sideways look at David Harrison's argument. Think
of all the veggies that wouldn't get planted if it weren't for ar/evs.

--swamp

Dutch wrote:

"frlpwr" wrote
wrote:

frlpwr wrote:

Jon wrote:

(snip)

"vegans", or so-called
"ethical vegetarians", engage in a classic logical
fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It runs like this:

If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.

I do not eat meat;

Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.


Why do you refuse to be corrected on this point?

The above should go like this:

If I eat meat, I cause farmed animals to suffer and die.

Because that's not the thinking, and it would be absurd
to think it could be.

I would be absurd to think otherwise. As I said in the snipped portion
of my previous post, no vegan thinks her diet effects the suffering and
dying of shelter animals, circus animals, animals displaced by human
development, laboratory animals, animals killed in vehicular
accidents,etc..

You're REALLY obfuscating here, stick to the topic of diets.

I am, silly. It is because veganism is all about consumables that
"farmed animals" or "food and fiber animals" is clearly implied in a
vegan's, "...I do not contribute to the suffering and death of
animals..." claim.

A more precise
wording of the fallacy would be as follows:

Eating meat contributes to the deaths of animals.

Talk about obfuscation! Eating meat does not "contribute" to the death
of animals, it requires it.

A more precise wording of the above statement would be as follows:

Eating meat requires the death of food animals.

I don't eat meat therefore *MY diet* doesn't contribute to the deaths of
animals.

This is true if you insert "food" before "animals".

The virulent rhetoric of anti-meat campaigners makes it crystal clear that
collateral deaths associated with their non-meat diets are *right* off their
radar screen. Virtually every new vegan who comes here is caught off-guard
by the cd argument.

It's true that many vegans are oblivious to the field deaths associated
with various crops. Once informed, I don't recall any dismissing them
as unimportant. Unquantified or unquantifiable, yes.

We are missing an all important point here. Conceding that an unknown
number of field animals die from cultivation, the voles, the mice, the
woodchucks, the gophers, the moles, the rabbits, the shrews, do not
experience suffering over time, as do most industrially produced
livestock. Field animals live their lives contentedly, then BLAMMM, the
blade.

"frlpwr" wrote
Dutch wrote:

"frlpwr" wrote
wrote:

frlpwr wrote:

Jon wrote:

(snip)

"vegans", or so-called
"ethical vegetarians", engage in a classic logical
fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It runs like this:

If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.

I do not eat meat;

Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.


Why do you refuse to be corrected on this point?

The above should go like this:

If I eat meat, I cause farmed animals to suffer and die.

Because that's not the thinking, and it would be absurd
to think it could be.

I would be absurd to think otherwise. As I said in the snipped
portion
of my previous post, no vegan thinks her diet effects the suffering
and
dying of shelter animals, circus animals, animals displaced by human
development, laboratory animals, animals killed in vehicular
accidents,etc..

You're REALLY obfuscating here, stick to the topic of diets.

I am, silly. It is because veganism is all about consumables that
"farmed animals" or "food and fiber animals" is clearly implied in a
vegan's, "...I do not contribute to the suffering and death of
animals..." claim.

You brought up circus and shelter animals, that was a diversion, nobody was
ever referring to them in this context. It was not a valid refutation of the
cd argument, the charge still stands, most vegans are at least subconciously
are committing the fallacy, their posts here confirm it.

A more precise
wording of the fallacy would be as follows:

Eating meat contributes to the deaths of animals.

Talk about obfuscation! Eating meat does not "contribute" to the death
of animals, it requires it.

That wasn't obfuscation, but I accept your term as more accurate.

A more precise wording of the above statement would be as follows:

Eating meat requires the death of food animals.

I don't eat meat therefore *MY diet* doesn't contribute to the deaths of
animals.

This is true if you insert "food" before "animals".

Correct, but that is not the mind set that most vegans have. When they talk
about 'not requiring the deaths of animals' they have not factored cds into
it. CDs are simply not on their radar screen at all.

The virulent rhetoric of anti-meat campaigners makes it crystal clear
that
collateral deaths associated with their non-meat diets are *right* off
their
radar screen. Virtually every new vegan who comes here is caught
off-guard
by the cd argument.

It's true that many vegans are oblivious to the field deaths associated
with various crops.

Most, and nearly 100% fail to consider them as actually "animals killed in
order to feed *them*".

Once informed, I don't recall any dismissing them
as unimportant. Unquantified or unquantifiable, yes.

There have been a wide variety of responses to this revelation. Derek washes
his hands of them, LordSnooty demands peer-reviewed data proving they exist,
one way or another the killing of those animals lives is dismissed in some
way to defend the counter-attack against vegan self-righteousness.

We are missing an all important point here. Conceding that an unknown
number of field animals die from cultivation, the voles, the mice, the
woodchucks, the gophers, the moles, the rabbits, the shrews, do not
experience suffering over time, as do most industrially produced
livestock. Field animals live their lives contentedly, then BLAMMM, the
blade.

That's a red herring, vegans oppose ALL killing of animals for their meat,
even wild animals killed by hunters humanely with a single shot. Arguably
they oppose this even more than slaughterhouses. Lets be straight about it.
AR/veganism is about man *using* animals as a benefit to themselves. it's
not about animal suffering.

"Dutch" wrote in message
...
"LordSnooty" wrote
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 15:14:06 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:

"LordSnooty" wrote
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:36:02 GMT, Jonathan Ball
wrote:

[..]

On the other hand, so-called "ethical vegetarianism" is
fundamentally hypocritical. The reason is that animals
are killed gruesomely and in large numbers in the
course of growing, storing and distributing vegetables,

That's because it's a lie. You are deliberately confusing the odd
accident,

Grain fields are routinely soaked with Roundup to supress weeds. Try
ingesting 1/1000 your bodyweight in Roundup.

That is why I regularly campaign against Monsanto and lazy farmers who
use the poison, and I buy organic, as well as grow your own. It's the
only way to go

Organic farmers still use chemicals, they just use less of them.
===============
Some organic pesticides are very short-lived. great for residueless crops,
but some need to be sprayed more than once per growing season because of
that.
That spraying is still mechanized and fueled by the petro-chemical industry.


Very, very
few vegans grow their own, and they still believe their diets are
death-free.

So it looks like it may be the veggies in your meat and two veg diet,
that are causing the suffering after all.

No, EVERYTHING does.

with the deliberate slaughter of animals to produce food.

What's accidental about using Roundup?

Nothing. It is a wanton act of abuse, not only on wildlife but on
humans too.

Those "wanton acts of abuse" live in the history of virtually every
vegan's
diet.

It
simply doesn't happen in vegetable production, whereas in meat
production there is no dispute.

There's no dispute that animal populations have been and and are still
being
decimated by herbicides and pesicides, these are not accidents.

Not in my diet.

Bullshit.
=================
Isn't denial just a wonderful thing to watch?



You're in denial.

You are struggling to find a desperate shred of credibility for your
nonsense argument.

I don't have to struggle at all, the truth is very easy to support.

usual suspect wrote:

frlsht wrote:

(snip)

Run-off, evaporation and accelerated transpiration rates make it enormously
wasteful. Flood irrigation leads to soil compaction and changes in soil
chemistry. It's used, primarily, in underdeveloped countries or in the western US for use on _pastureland_, _grassland_, _alfalfa fields_ and grain crops of the water-guzzling type.

Thanks for your useless lecture.

Not useless, since it directs attention to the crops most commonly
watered by flood irrigation, _pastureland_, _grassland_, _alfalfa
fields_, all used to feed livestock. Further, it shows that flood
irrigation systems waste water and damage the soil, proving that growers
who use this method are poor land stewards, even without calculating the
toll their practices take on wildlife.

Vegans hooked on rice can select wild varities grown on natural floodplains.

Most vegans eat standard crop rices as a daily staple.

Do you have any evidence to substantiate this?

(snip)

That photo of the mangled fawn that you creeps use to 'prove' the existence of
field deaths...it's of a silage field.

I've used a combine to harvest cotton (and milo and maize). I've seen what happens to deer, rabbits, snakes, and birds.

Not that I believe your red dirt anecdote, but haven't you yokels heard
of flushing bars?

Do you wear cotton clothing?

Exclusively, except for synthetic outerwear and footwear.

Your lifestyle is NOT cruelty-free.

I would not be foolish enough to claim it is.

(snip)

Lastly, explain how dying in the field where you were born is as "horrid" as being transported for hours, sometimes days, to a slaughterhouse, being unloaded into a holding pen with hundreds of strange animals, being pushed and shocked with prods wielded by unfamiliar humans, slipping and sliding in the feces and gore of the
animals ahead, and having a bolt gun discharged into your brain, sometimes twice, sometimes three times.

First, many animals don't die in the field itself; some of them are bound into bales (straw, hay)

What would prevent a live animal from chewing its way out of a bale of
hay? It's certainly capable of chewing its way into one.

some are transported with grains or other products

Okay, so some are, unfortunately, relocated without their consent.

Second, transportation to slaughter rarely is a matter of days;

The 48-Hour law exists for a reason. Slaughterhouse guru, Grandin, sets
32 hours as the maximum travel time without unloading and reloading
livestock for a rest stop. There are fewer slaughterhouses in the US
then there were a decade ago and they are more specialized. More
animals are being transported farther distances, not less animals and
not shorter distances.

finishing lots are usually adjacent to slaughterhouses.

Uh, how do you think the cattle get to the feedlots, Mr.
My-Family-Are-Ranchers? Do you think they're born there?

Third, animals find slipping and sliding in manure less distasteful than humans
According to Temple Grandin, the single most stressful aspect of
pre-slaughter handling is loss of footing.

(if you'd grown up around cattle you'd know that)

I grew up around swine. I know that animals do not have the same
aversion to feces as we do. I also know that animals are terrified of
losing their balance and avoid slippery surfaces like the plague.

I'm not saying it's a pretty picture for the end of any animal's life.

That's a switch.

The fact remains, animals suffer and die regardless of what one eats regardless of your personal dietary preferences.

The prolonged suffering of animals sent to commercial slaughter is not
comparable to the suffering of an ex-sanguinated field mouse. How long
does it take for a 2" animal to lose enough blood to induce
unconsciousness and death?

The only way around that is to grow your own food or co-op with others whose sensitivities match your own.

This is what I do, but my location makes it easier for me than most.

(snip)

Where are your "facts" showing: 1) a vegan diet causes more suffering and death. 2) field deaths are as "horrid" as slaughterhouse deaths.

1) http://www.animalrights.net/articles/2002/000083.html

You mean this?

"One study Davis mentions, for example, found a 50 percent reductionin
gray-tailed voles from just a single mowing of alfalfa."

This is the closest the article comes to quantifiable data. Alfalfa is
a feed crop for livestock and it's cut lower and more often than most
grain crops grown for human consumption.

2) personal experiences in agriculture

You know better than to offer anecdotes as evidence. If we're going to
start accepting tales of personal experiences, I'd like to add my own.
Everyday I trudge across a wide field, cut with gang-mowers a minimum of
once a month, to feed cats. This is unused cemetary land, pesticides
and poisons are prohibited by law. Consequently, there is a large
resident population of voles, gophers and shrews.

The cemetary workers mow the weeds to the bare ground. Unlike growers,
they are unfettered by concerns about soil quality and the benefits of
crop residue. By the evening of the day they mow, the entire field is
riddled with newly dug tunnels and holes. It's clear to me that most of
the animals living in the field survive the close-cropping of their
vegetative cover.

(snip)

My brain works quite well, skag.

I've noticed a marked disintegration whenver Ball isn't around for you
to imitate.

(snip)

Okay, now you've got something else to prove. Please show that compassion is an
incorrect human response to the suffering of others.

In general, the compassion of a vegetarian diet is completely misplaced

A diet is not capable of compassion or cruelty, goofy.

and unfounded. Dietary abstention from animal parts does not mean that such a diet
is free of animal death or suffering.

Maybe not, but such a diet is free from the suffering and death of
animals held in the throes of the meat industry. It is free from the
suffering and death of animals stalked and killed in the morning mist by
humans wearing, gulp, flannel shirts.

In specific, your sense of compassion is overshadowed by your personal support of animal rights terrorism.

I believe people who hurt others, unprovoked, deserve to be punished.
Cows, pigs, chickens, deer, rabbits and ducks don't, normally, hurt
others intentionally.

(snip)

What's the bloody point in eating something that's supposed to look,taste, and/or feel like something you *won't* eat?

Because veganism is not about aesthetics, doofus, it's about reducing the demand for meat production.

It's all about aesthetics, skag.

Is this supposed to be a convincing argument?

Let me help you out here. When intelligent people say veganism is about
aesthetics, not ethics, they mean vegans avoid meat because they are
repulsed by the look, taste and feel of meat. You've just given us
evidence they aren't.

It's all about moral posturing.

If a meat-eater were to advocate eating only pasture-raised,
farm-slaughtered animals, would you say he was "posturing"?

(snip)

Please demonstrate the hypocrisy in a vegan eating a meat substitute item.

I've already explained this numerous times.

Always unsuccessfully.

Your moral posture allows you to eat, even desire, something which tastes, feels,
and smells just like a product you find quite immoral. The taste apparently still
appeals to you; your love for the cow and chicken has not yet exceeded your love for the taste of their flesh.

If anything, people who enjoy or crave the taste of meat and yet abstain
from meat products are _more_ ethical than those for whom meat has no
appeal. Their dietary choices require self-denial and self-sacrifice.

The issue is the *appeal* of such a close substitute. You still like and want to eat meat.

As long as you don't, no principle of veganism is broken.

(snip)

The magazine's quality has dropped significantly over the years. So has yours,
carpetmunch.

You'll never be anything but Ball's lowly apprentice, pal. Try to find
your own style. Mimicry doesn't become you.

"frlpwr" wrote in message ...
Dutch wrote:

"frlpwr" wrote
wrote:

frlpwr wrote:

Jon wrote:

(snip)

"vegans", or so-called
"ethical vegetarians", engage in a classic logical
fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It runs like this:

If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.<