References: k.net
In-Reply-To:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 208
Message-ID: t
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 17:42:01 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.164.68.157
X-Complaints-To:
X-Trace: newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net 1073670121 68.164.68.157 (Fri, 09 Jan 2004 09:42:01 PST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 09:42:01 PST
Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net
Path: kermit!newsfeed-east.nntpserver.com!nntpserver.com!chi1.webusenet. com!news.webusenet.com!pd7cy2so!shaw.ca!elnk-pas-nf1!newsfeed.earthlink.net!stamper.news.pas.earthl ink.net!newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net.POSTED!ee 405dca!not-for-mail
Xref: kermit alt.food.vegan:85453

Gary Beckwith wrote:

Gee, I didn't know you could read minds and you know why all vegans make
the choices they do. How do you know that all vegans think that by
making their choice that they do not cause any animals to suffer? Where
do you get that idea? I, and most logical people, know that all
industry causes some kind of suffering. Any time something is
transported, the fuel had to come from somewhere. The materials in the
truck, the packaging, everything comes with a cost. That does not mean
we are idiots for becoming vegetarian. It just means we want to
minimize our impact.

==========================
Yet you just admitted that you don't. You don't even try to. All you do is
follow a simple rule for simple minds, 'eat no meat'. No where have you, or
can you prove that your diet does anything to alleviate the death and
suffering of animals. In fact, you may be causing even more. The point is,
you don't know, and you don't care to find out.



There you go again... reading my mind. If I was causing more death I
would want to know.

Non sequitur. If you FALSELY believe, as you do
FALSELY believe, that not consuming animal parts
necessarily means you are causing less death, then you
clearly *don't* want to know.

I've asked many times for you and your buddy to
give us some numbers, show us some evidence.

My claim does not require numbers, DUMMY. My claim is
about YOUR claim, and my claim is logic-based, not
empirical. My claim is that your claim is a logical
absurdity. Your claim is that following a dietary
rule, "don't consume animal parts", is sufficient to
conclude that you cause less animal suffering and
death. You are wrong.

You've provided nothing.
At least not on this thread... You made the claim, that a vegan diet
causes more death and suffering than a meat eating diet.

No, you stupid liar, he did not make any such claim,
nor have I.

Back it up or stop wasting bandwidth.

Stop lying about what we have said.




And that's only how some of us feel. I, unlike

you, do not pretend to know how all vegetarians feel about anything.

Anyone who thinks that a meat-eater causes less suffering of animals
than a vegetarian has been using some "fuzzy logic".

==========================
Nope. Perfectly logical. It's your brain that has turned mushy, killer.
Tell me how many animals die for 1 grass fed cow, or for one deer.
Care to give it a try? ow many animals die for the same number of calories
for that tofu replacement? care to try? I didn't think so, killer.
There are many meat-included diets that can do far better in lessening
animal cruelty than your veggie diet.



I guess this string of open ended questions is the closest I'm going to
get to some "evidence" of your claim. Now I see where your fuzzy logic
is. I guess it's all about the *number* of deaths to you.

And to YOU TOO, you moron! You are claiming that
following your dietary rule, "don't consume animal
parts", *necessarily* means you cause less animal
suffering and death. You consider causing less animal
suffering and death to be virtuous, and you wish to be
virtuous, so you follow the silly, ****witted,
LOGICALLY INADEQUATE dietary rule.

Comparing
one cow's death to a few thousand bugs, or even a million microbes.

No, dummy. He's comparing it to the number of deaths
of sentient, "subject-of-a-life" animals like mammals
and birds and some amphibians and reptiles.

How much rice do you eat, killer?

Maybe the number of deaths is all that matters to you, but to me it's
not just about numbers.

You are plainly lying, as your statement above plainly
indicates: "It [being vegetarian] just means we want
to minimize our impact." That is, you want to cause
less death and suffering. So, liar, why did you lie?
Why do you claim that it's not about numbers, when you
have already said it is about numbers ("minimize" is a
numerical claim, dummy)?



Remember, meat has

to be transported, grown, and packaged too.

==========================
Nope. My beef is raised, slaughtered and packaged within a few miles of my
house. many of your veggies come from across the country and around the
world.



maybe your beef is, but not most people's beef.

Ah, but you have CATEGORICALLY said that a strictly
vegetarian diet causes less suffering and death than a
meat-including diet! Are you now admitting that it is
possible that *some* meat-including diet causes less
animal death and suffering than YOUR strictly
vegetarian diet? Are you now admitting, DUMMY, that
following the stupid dietary rule, "don't consume
animal parts", is NOT logically linked to the amount of
animal suffering and death? I certainly hope so,
DUMMY, because that's the correct logical conclusion,
and reaching it would at least be evidence of your
ability to learn, if not of your adopting a correct
moral posture.

The same can be said
about vegetables. there are many people who eat mostly locally grown
vegetables,

1. Prove that such people exist.
2. Prove that fewer animals suffer and die as a result
of *consuming* only locally grown vegetables and
fruit.

You DUMMY: you *still* don't get it. Until you can
PROVE that fewer animals are killed in the course of
growing, harvesting, processing and distributing your
vegetables, or ANY vegetables, then you are dead in the
water.

just like you do your beef. so that point is moot.

Nope. YOU haven't yet made a claim to consume ONLY
locally grown produce. Your diet may well cause MORE
animal suffering and death than Rick's, right? RIGHT?
The answer is unarguably YES. Therefore, following
your ****witted dietary rule, "don't consume animal
parts", is IRRELEVANT if you want to KNOW that you
cause less animal suffering and death.

NOW do you see what this is about, killer? You are
making a moral claim based on following an irrelevant
rule. You need to adhere to moral principles, not
rules, in order to make any moral claims.




And every cow and chicken

eats the same grains that you are saying are so detrimental to animals
anyway.

==========================
Nope. Just another veg*n ly and delusional brainwashing.


Sorry those are facts.

No, they are not. Your claim - that following your
****witted dietary rule leads logically to a sound
moral conclusion - is not based in fact.

Do you have any idea how much water a head of
cattle drinks in one day? I do. I've designed energy systems to power
water pumps to supply water to cattle. The truth is that animal farming
takes up much more resources than vegetable farming.

So what? Are you now changing your moral claim? Are
you now saying that he who consumes, directly and
indirectly, less water is the more moral person? How
do you propose to support that ****witted claim?

And that for every
pound of meat, 10 pounds of grain were consumed by the cattle. That's
not brainwashing, it's the truth.

It's not the truth at all, and it's also irrelevant to
your bogus moral claim. Each pound of *feedlot weight
gain* in a head of cattle comes from about 6 to 8
pounds of grain, not 10. However, the animal ENTERS
the feedlot already weighing some 400-500 pounds, a lot
of which is already meat. The ratio of grain:beef for
the meat already on the animal when it enters the
feedlot is ZERO, you moron. That means the total
grain:beef ratio is more like 4:1 or 5:1.

I don't think I would hire you to hoe weeds in my
garden, let alone do any "energy systems" design, if
you are so numerically illiterate.