I realize that citing research papers and otherwise using rational arguments
runs contrary to the spirit of Usenet, but for what it's worth -- here's an
interesting article that's relevant to the recent discussions:

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

Least Harm: A Defense of Vegetarianism from Steven Davis's Omnivorous
Proposal

by Gaverick Matheny

(Accepted in revised form January 30, 2003)

Abstract: In his article, "Least Harm," Steven Davis argues that the number
of animals killed in ruminant-pasture production is less than the number of
animals killed in crop production. Davis then concludes the adoption of an
omnivorous diet would cause less harm than the adoption of a vegetarian
diet. Davis's argument fails on three counts: first, Davis makes a
mathematical error in using total rather than per capita estimates of
animals killed; second, he focuses on the number of animals killed in
production and ignores the welfare of these animals; and third, he does not
count the number of animals who may be prevented from existing. When we
correct these errors, Davis's argument makes a strong case for, rather than
against, adopting a vegetarian diet: vegetarianism kills fewer animals,
involves better treatment of animals, and likely allows a greater number of
animals with lives worth living to exist.

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

Full text: http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...least-harm.pdf

Oh, and since this is Usenet: All of yo mommas wear combat boots! Nyah,
nyah, nyah!

--
Alex Chernavsky

http://www.astrocyte-design.com/

"Alex Chernavsky" wrote in message
news 8

Thanks a lot for posting this Alex, it has an excellent line of facts and
logic.

When anyone posts about cds now I will point them to this link, and refuse
to take the thread any further until this paper is rebutted. Anyone else
should do likewise IMO.

John

Alex Chernavsky wrote:
I realize that citing research papers and otherwise using rational arguments
runs contrary to the spirit of Usenet, but for what it's worth -- here's an
interesting article that's relevant to the recent discussions:

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

Least Harm: A Defense of Vegetarianism from Steven Davis's Omnivorous
Proposal

by Gaverick Matheny

(Accepted in revised form January 30, 2003)

Abstract: In his article, "Least Harm," Steven Davis argues that the number
of animals killed in ruminant-pasture production is less than the number of
animals killed in crop production. Davis then concludes the adoption of an
omnivorous diet would cause less harm than the adoption of a vegetarian
diet. Davis's argument fails on three counts: first, Davis makes a
mathematical error in using total rather than per capita estimates of
animals killed;

The vegan claim is that "no animal dies because I don't eat animal
flesh." It's *not* an error to estimate aggregate dead animals rather
than per capita. It's the aggregate which is at issue.

second, he focuses on the number of animals killed in
production and ignores the welfare of these animals;

No, he doesn't.

and third, he does not
count the number of animals who may be prevented from existing.

Is Gaverick Matheny a pseudonym used by Davey "Houseboat" Harrison?

When we correct these errors,

Rather, "When we move the goalposts..."

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 00:49:18 GMT, usual suspect wrote:

Alex Chernavsky wrote:
I realize that citing research papers and otherwise using rational arguments
runs contrary to the spirit of Usenet, but for what it's worth -- here's an
interesting article that's relevant to the recent discussions:

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

Least Harm: A Defense of Vegetarianism from Steven Davis's Omnivorous
Proposal

by Gaverick Matheny

(Accepted in revised form January 30, 2003)

Abstract: In his article, "Least Harm," Steven Davis argues that the number
of animals killed in ruminant-pasture production is less than the number of
animals killed in crop production. Davis then concludes the adoption of an
omnivorous diet would cause less harm than the adoption of a vegetarian
diet. Davis's argument fails on three counts: first, Davis makes a
mathematical error in using total rather than per capita estimates of
animals killed;

The vegan claim is that "no animal dies because I don't eat animal
flesh." It's *not* an error to estimate aggregate dead animals rather
than per capita. It's the aggregate which is at issue.

second, he focuses on the number of animals killed in
production and ignores the welfare of these animals;

No, he doesn't.

and third, he does not
count the number of animals who may be prevented from existing.

Is Gaverick Matheny a pseudonym used by Davey "Houseboat" Harrison?

That's the whole idea behind being a veg*n you stupid moron. Even the
Gonad has admitted that.

When we correct these errors,

Rather, "When we move the goalposts..."

"Alex Chernavsky" wrote

I realize that citing research papers and otherwise using rational
arguments
runs contrary to the spirit of Usenet, but for what it's worth -- here's
an
interesting article that's relevant to the recent discussions:


Gaverick Matheny - engineering school dropout who did NO research

Steven Davis et al - respected scientists who did several studies

And it shows.


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

Least Harm: A Defense of Vegetarianism from Steven Davis's Omnivorous
Proposal

by Gaverick Matheny

(Accepted in revised form January 30, 2003)

Abstract: In his article, "Least Harm," Steven Davis argues that the
number
of animals killed in ruminant-pasture production is less than the number
of
animals killed in crop production. Davis then concludes the adoption of
an
omnivorous diet would cause less harm than the adoption of a vegetarian
diet. Davis's argument fails on three counts: first, Davis makes a
mathematical error in using total rather than per capita estimates of
animals killed; second, he focuses on the number of animals killed in
production and ignores the welfare of these animals; and third, he does
not
count the number of animals who may be prevented from existing. When we
correct these errors, Davis's argument makes a strong case for, rather
than
against, adopting a vegetarian diet: vegetarianism kills fewer animals,
involves better treatment of animals, and likely allows a greater number
of
animals with lives worth living to exist.

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

Full text: http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...least-harm.pdf

Oh, and since this is Usenet: All of yo mommas wear combat boots! Nyah,
nyah, nyah!

--
Alex Chernavsky

http://www.astrocyte-design.com/

"John Coleman" wrote ..

"Alex Chernavsky" wrote

8

Thanks a lot for posting this Alex, it has an excellent line of facts and
logic.

When anyone posts about cds now I will point them to this link, and refuse
to take the thread any further until this paper is rebutted. Anyone else
should do likewise IMO.

Grasping at straws, head in sand. Did you even read Davis et al?

Derek Matheny - college dropout - ARA - no research, made it all up in his
head

Steven Davis et al - published scientists - did several studies for his
paper

Who do you believe? Duh.. lemmee see...

"Alex Chernavsky" wrote in message
news
I realize that citing research papers and otherwise using rational
arguments
runs contrary to the spirit of Usenet, but for what it's worth -- here's
an
interesting article that's relevant to the recent discussions:

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

Least Harm: A Defense of Vegetarianism from Steven Davis's Omnivorous
Proposal

by Gaverick Matheny

(Accepted in revised form January 30, 2003)

Abstract: In his article, "Least Harm," Steven Davis argues that the
number
of animals killed in ruminant-pasture production is less than the number
of
animals killed in crop production. Davis then concludes the adoption of
an
omnivorous diet would cause less harm than the adoption of a vegetarian
diet. Davis's argument fails on three counts: first, Davis makes a
mathematical error in using total rather than per capita estimates of
animals killed; second, he focuses on the number of animals killed in
production and ignores the welfare of these animals; and third, he does
not
count the number of animals who may be prevented from existing. When we
correct these errors, Davis's argument makes a strong case for, rather
than
against, adopting a vegetarian diet: vegetarianism kills fewer animals,
involves better treatment of animals, and likely allows a greater number
of
animals with lives worth living to exist.

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

Full text: http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...least-harm.pdf

Oh, and since this is Usenet: All of yo mommas wear combat boots! Nyah,
nyah, nyah!

--
Alex Chernavsky

http://www.astrocyte-design.com/



Can we still eat eggs and fish?

Alex Chernavsky wrote:

I realize that citing research papers and otherwise using rational arguments
runs contrary to the spirit of Usenet, but for what it's worth -- here's an
interesting article that's relevant to the recent discussions:

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

Least Harm: A Defense of Vegetarianism from Steven Davis's Omnivorous
Proposal

by Gaverick Matheny

Matheny's silly bit of sophistry has been seen here,
and dismissed, months ago. It is not a worthwhile
defense of "veganism" at all.

The issue first it completely fails to address, while
taking shots at Davis that are totally inconsistent
with what "vegans" really believe, is that the "vegan"
choice not to *consume* animal parts does not address,
in any way at all, the collateral deaths that "vegans"
DO, in fact, help to cause. "veganism" is founded on
the belief that it is ABSOLUTELY wrong to cause the
needless (non self defense) death or suffering of
animals. The choice not to *consume* animal parts
simply does NOTHING to stop collateral death and
suffering of animals in agriculture in the course of
producing what "vegans" do eat. Because "veganism" is
based on this *absolute* belief, it is not sufficient
to claim to be "minimizing" animal suffering and death
RELATIVE TO OMNIVORES. Matheny illustrates, once
again, that "vegans" are fundamentally about declaring
themselves "virtuous" based on an invidious comparison
with others.

The second major problem with the bit of sophistry is
that, because of the basis - animal "rights" - from
which "vegans" derive their silly, inconsequential rule
("do not consume animal parts"), "vegans" NECESSARILY
must focus on the deaths, NOT the quality of life,
despite Matheny's pathetic attempt to invoke
utilitarian considerations. That is, "aras"/"vegans"
would be against the consumption of meat EVEN IF all
meat animals enjoyed the most pleasant animal welfare
conditions imaginable. To their way of thinking, the
deliberate death of the animal necessarily trumps any
considerations of its welfare during its life. This is
why no "ara", really, can be a disciple of Singer; they
must be Reganites, or abandon it altogether.

John Coleman wrote:

"Alex Chernavsky" wrote in message
news 8

Thanks a lot for posting this Alex, it has an excellent line of facts and
logic.

It's complete bullshit, Coleman, you cheap 2p sophist.

wrote:

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 00:49:18 GMT, usual suspect wrote:


Alex Chernavsky wrote:

I realize that citing research papers and otherwise using rational arguments
runs contrary to the spirit of Usenet, but for what it's worth -- here's an
interesting article that's relevant to the recent discussions:

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

Least Harm: A Defense of Vegetarianism from Steven Davis's Omnivorous
Proposal

by Gaverick Matheny

(Accepted in revised form January 30, 2003)

Abstract: In his article, "Least Harm," Steven Davis argues that the number
of animals killed in ruminant-pasture production is less than the number of
animals killed in crop production. Davis then concludes the adoption of an
omnivorous diet would cause less harm than the adoption of a vegetarian
diet. Davis's argument fails on three counts: first, Davis makes a
mathematical error in using total rather than per capita estimates of
animals killed;

The vegan claim is that "no animal dies because I don't eat animal
flesh." It's *not* an error to estimate aggregate dead animals rather
than per capita. It's the aggregate which is at issue.


second, he focuses on the number of animals killed in
production and ignores the welfare of these animals;

No, he doesn't.


and third, he does not
count the number of animals who may be prevented from existing.

Is Gaverick Matheny a pseudonym used by Davey "Houseboat" Harrison?


That's the whole idea behind being a veg*n

Your use of pseudonyms is the whole idea of being a
"vegan"? Why would that be so, ****wit? That makes
even less sense than your usual bullshit, and since
that makes no sense at all, you're into the red ink
with that one.

Anticorporation wrote:
"Alex Chernavsky" wrote in message
news
I realize that citing research papers and otherwise using rational
arguments
runs contrary to the spirit of Usenet, but for what it's worth -- here's
an
interesting article that's relevant to the recent discussions:

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

Least Harm: A Defense of Vegetarianism from Steven Davis's Omnivorous
Proposal

by Gaverick Matheny

(Accepted in revised form January 30, 2003)

Abstract: In his article, "Least Harm," Steven Davis argues that the
number
of animals killed in ruminant-pasture production is less than the number
of
animals killed in crop production. Davis then concludes the adoption of
an
omnivorous diet would cause less harm than the adoption of a vegetarian
diet. Davis's argument fails on three counts: first, Davis makes a
mathematical error in using total rather than per capita estimates of
animals killed; second, he focuses on the number of animals killed in
production and ignores the welfare of these animals; and third, he does
not
count the number of animals who may be prevented from existing. When we
correct these errors, Davis's argument makes a strong case for, rather
than
against, adopting a vegetarian diet: vegetarianism kills fewer animals,
involves better treatment of animals, and likely allows a greater number
of
animals with lives worth living to exist.

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

Full text: http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...least-harm.pdf

Oh, and since this is Usenet: All of yo mommas wear combat boots! Nyah,
nyah, nyah!

--
Alex Chernavsky

http://www.astrocyte-design.com/




Can we still eat eggs and fish?

At this point, you may eat whatever you like (except
humans and endangered animal species.) Fish and eggs,
of course, are not vegetarian.

"Dutch" wrote in message
...
8
Derek Matheny - college dropout - ARA - no research, made it all up in his
head

You post yet more ad hominem fudge, very predictable - when you can't
disprove you disaprove. The article is by Gaverick Matheny, is peer
reviewed, published in a journal (Journal of Agricultural and Environmental
Ethics 16: 505-511, 2003), the same journal as the original article, and
referenced.

Steven Davis et al - published scientists - did several studies for his
paper

has he rebutted Gaverick Matheny?? NO

Who do you believe? Duh.. lemmee see...

You try and appeal to authority, another fallacy. I don't need beliefs,
Gaverick has provided the facts, he has specifically reported an error in
Steven Davis' calculations, so Davis is now required to rebutt this, or his
paper remains discreditted.

Again Dutch, you completely discredit yourself as an unbiased judge in
rational debate. There is simply no point in debating you because you refuse
to admit to the weight of facts.

John

John Coleman wrote:
Derek Matheny - college dropout - ARA - no research, made it all up in his
head

You post yet more ad hominem fudge, very predictable - when you can't
disprove you disaprove. The article is by Gaverick Matheny,

So? He's a drop out and an activist, not a scientist.

is peer reviewed,

Is it?

published in a journal (Journal of Agricultural and Environmental
Ethics 16: 505-511, 2003), the same journal as the original article, and
referenced.

So? Your crappy website is referenced, but that doesn't make it true or
accurate.

Steven Davis et al - published scientists - did several studies for his
paper

has he rebutted Gaverick Matheny?? NO

Gav Matheny hasn't rebutted Davis.

Who do you believe? Duh.. lemmee see...

You try and appeal to authority, another fallacy. I don't need beliefs,
Gaverick has provided the facts,

No, he has not.

he has specifically reported an error in
Steven Davis' calculations,

No, he didn't. He moved the goalposts and redefined veganism.

so Davis is now required to rebutt this, or his
paper remains discreditted.

Davis' thesis remains unharmed by Matheny's response.

Anticorporation wrote:

Can we still eat eggs and fish?

I wouldn't recommend it. See these two articles from the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2983045.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/220462.stm

Of course, you have to take this stuff with a grain of salt, as the BBC is
known to be a bastion of pro-animal-rights radical activism.

--
Alex Chernavsky

http://www.astrocyte-design.com/

"Jay Santos" wrote in message
ink.net...
Anticorporation wrote:
"Alex Chernavsky" wrote in message
news
I realize that citing research papers and otherwise using rational
arguments
runs contrary to the spirit of Usenet, but for what it's worth -- here's
an
interesting article that's relevant to the recent discussions:

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

Least Harm: A Defense of Vegetarianism from Steven Davis's Omnivorous
Proposal

by Gaverick Matheny

(Accepted in revised form January 30, 2003)

Abstract: In his article, "Least Harm," Steven Davis argues that the
number
of animals killed in ruminant-pasture production is less than the number
of
animals killed in crop production. Davis then concludes the adoption of
an
omnivorous diet would cause less harm than the adoption of a vegetarian
diet. Davis's argument fails on three counts: first, Davis makes a
mathematical error in using total rather than per capita estimates of
animals killed; second, he focuses on the number of animals killed in
production and ignores the welfare of these animals; and third, he does
not
count the number of animals who may be prevented from existing. When we
correct these errors, Davis's argument makes a strong case for, rather
than
against, adopting a vegetarian diet: vegetarianism kills fewer animals,
involves better treatment of animals, and likely allows a greater number
of
animals with lives worth living to exist.

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

Full text: http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...least-harm.pdf

Oh, and since this is Usenet: All of yo mommas wear combat boots! Nyah,
nyah, nyah!

--
Alex Chernavsky

http://www.astrocyte-design.com/




Can we still eat eggs and fish?

At this point, you may eat whatever you like (except humans and endangered
animal species.) Fish and eggs, of course, are not vegetarian.

I meant if you consume these things can you still be vegan-correct, or, is
this crossing the line? I do not like to eat cows and pigs and stuff
because of the drugs and antibiotics and hormones, not based on cruelty.
And, the economic thing does not really apply to me.

As far as the chicken eggs, I go with the free-range stuff, but, only
because they do not screw with them so much. I am not quite sure about that
fish pain study yet though. but, I do worry about the toxins now being
found in fish, last I heard that is how all the bald eagles died, I just
wonder what made them lose their hair in the first place, was this genetic
or toxicity induced?

Then their is the question of organic cows milk, is this just seen as a
form of slavery by the vegetarian community?