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.
>
>