Rudy Canoza wrote:
> PinBoard wrote:
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
snip OP
>>
>> This is a straw man argument.
>
> No, it isn't.

It setup a false position comparing DVD and TV's to equate meat and non
meat foods. A straw man.

>"vegans" make this bogus "inefficiency" argument all the
> time. Here's an example of it in alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian from
> just yesterday:
>
> The truth can no longer be dodged. Livestock farming
> gobbles up agricultural land, water and energy that
> could far more efficiently be devoted to growing
> food for people to eat directly. Meat, therefore,
> is a rich person's food and those who consume it -
> whether in India, Denmark or England - cause
> malnourishment and death among the world's poorest
> people.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...87ba15c70a9667
>
>
>
> This vegetarian extremist site,
> http://www.all-creatures.org/articles/tomeat.html, is one of dozens or
> even hundreds that belabor the same *wrong* point. This claim of
> "inefficiency" reveals massive ignorance of what "efficient" means.
>
>

As I wrote "..it would seem reasonable to raise the issue of relative
efficiency".

>>
>> If you want something to play DVD's - you'd buy a DVD player. If you
>> wanted to watch TV - you'd buy a TV. Two different items with two
>> different functions. The choice is FUNCTIONAL.
>
> If I were to argue as the people who wrongly make this bogus
> "inefficiency" argument, I would say that DVD players and television
> receivers both supply undifferentiated "electronic entertainment". Your
> point about different functionality applies equally well to animal and
> vegetable sources of nutrition: meat provides a different function to
> the consumer than vegetables.

You must be able to see that this is a very weak argument. - No one goes
out to purchase "electronic entertainment" per se, but they do go out to
get "food".

http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourc...e+Search&meta=

>
>
>>
>> If you want to eat - you eat food.
>
> No, that's completely wrong. Different foods are not the same in the
> personal utility calculations of consumers. NO ONE thinks, "I just want
> basic calories and protein, and I don't care what form they're in."

Ask some one like this person, to dispel that assumption:

http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/od...arving-boy.jpg

(Or me when I've just come back from the pub!)

>
>
>> Food has the same function; to nourish. The choice is NOT FUNCTIONAL.
>> (In many cases, it's an aesthetic choice).
>
> The choice *is* functional: the function of consuming the thing you want.

Weak semantics. - It is plain to see that food's principle purpose, and
hence function is to provide nutrition; not to "consume the thing you want".

>
>
>>
>> If there's a non-functional choice of the item being discussed (be it
>> food or shirts) then it would seem reasonable to raise the issue of
>> relative efficiency).
>
> The functional choice is there. You just want to ignore it for
> ideological reasons.

I understand the different functions, and hence choices; it is you that
are ignoring them, or more correctly, dismissing them.