C. James Putz wrote:
>>>No, both sides are making claims that can't be backed up for lack of
>>>information. Pinning the burden of proof on the other side is very
>>>convenient.
>>
>>You're still ignoring the fact that the deaths and suffering of animals
>>are abhorred by only *one* side.
>
> I'm well aware that vegans abhor suffering and death of animals

They only abhor the idea of the above when pronouncing their
self-righteousness. Their consumption of agricultural products which do
not avoid such casualties makes them hypocrites and demagogues.

> and you don't.

It depends on what kind of animal and under what conditions. I'm not
under the delusion that my diet -- which is far stricter as far as the
presence of animal-derived ingredients than YOURS -- is free of animal
suffering or death.

>>IOW, it's the vegans and ARAs who make
>>the sanctimonious claims about their practices, but those claims are
>>meaningless without proof.
>
> You're big into people's rights. Don't you think that people have a right to
> live and eat as they want without having to prove anything to you?

Eating and living as people want is fine and well. Remember, though,
this discussion has its origin in certain ethical pronouncements by you
and others. The entire continuum of such pronouncements is unfounded.
Why do you set yourself up as more righteous than others simply because
they eat meat?

<...>
>>I'll give up the argument for the sake of peace as soon as you or anyone
>>else can substantiate that any commercially-produced diet has no or
>>minimal casualties with respect to animals. Your accounting practices
>>remain suspect.
>
> Why is that so important to you that you must beat people over the head with
> it? You know that it can't be proved either way.

The issue isn't *my* claims, it's the notion that a vegan diet is
inherently more ethical than any other diet when such self-righteous
bleatings are based on a flawed premise.

> Are you going to spend the
> rest of your life here defending an issue that is mute?

The issue isn't mute. It's also not moot. So long as veg-ns make
categorical statements of a moral or ethical nature, I will remind them
that such views are based on deceit, ignorance, or both.

>>>I think you are attributing claims to vegans that they did not make. You
>>>cannot make them support something they do not claim.
>>
>>No, go back and review the post from "googlesux." Review posts in other
>>threads by other posters like "exploratory." Review some of the claims
>>made by others in afv.
>
> People make claims they can't support. Don't you ever act on your sense of
> things in lieu of actual proof? If people want to be vegan for reasons that
> you don't agree with then they should be able to do so without having to
> prove things to you. Live with it.

The issue isn't whether I agree with their reasons or not, it's whether
their reasons are accurate, logical, and valid. When people make
misleading or uninformed claims, it's proper (and even moral) for others
to correct them or have them consider facts which show their claims are
in error. You're the one who needs to live with it.

>>>You keep turning the tables on vegans.
>>
>>They're the ones making outrageous claims. The burden is theirs.
>
> There's a skip in your record...

Is it getting through your thick forehead?

>>>I am talking about anti-vegan claims
>>>here. Things like veg*n lifestyle results in more animal casualties than
>>>eating meat.
>>
>>I find that claim to be more logically plausible than the 'vegan' claim
>>that a vegan diet results in less animal casualties.
>
> Why?

I guess it's *not* getting through your thick forehead. In essence, the
vegan response is an extremist measure that fails to address the
underlying "problem" it's based upon. Alternatives exist which would
allow a far less extreme solution, even if one were to eat meat.

As for the math, I've given examples of exceptions in which meat causes
no or very few CDs. The only vegan parallel to those examples is to grow
one's own food. Vegans won't grow their own food and they will not
accept grass-fed/fish/game as valid alternatievs to their distorted
beliefs about animal suffering and death.

No matter how you look at it, 100% of your food is grown/produced with
suffering and death unless you grow it yourself and apply the most
humane diligence. More animals die for grain and legume production than
in one hunt. The meat from one large deer or a grass-fed deer will feed
a family many meals; reduce the animal deaths even further if that
family grows their own vegetables. A commercially-grown vegan meal will
cause many more animal deaths and injuries in comparison.

>>>>Have you any reason to question an esteemed professor at Oregon State?
>>>
>>>Just the ones I stated previously.
>>
>>You didn't give reasons, you only spewed about it being from an anti-AR
>>site.
>
> No, I also said I didn't see credible references substantiating his data, or
> who funded his work.

Seems to me that Professor Davis' body count goes a lot further than
vegan activists are willing to support their grandiose claims. Stop with
the red herring about funding: his work is either valid or invalid.

Have you seen any research from pro-AR and vegan groups to substantiate
any of their claims? How about this one from www.veganoutreach.com:

Explains why people choose to follow a vegan lifestyle --
striving to live without contributing to animal suffering.
http://www.veganoutreach.org/whyvegan/index.html

They don't even address the issues of CDs while promoting veggie burgers
and rice.

Or how about this one from PETA:

A vegetarian diet is the healthiest and most humane choice for
animals, people, and the planet.
http://www.peta.org/mc/facts/fsveg5.html

Do you see any credible references supporting that assertion? Why don't
*they* go out and demonstrate that soy farming is more humane grass-fed
beef? (Hint: they'll have to backtrack on their claims about humane
choices.)

>>>Okay, but I'm still reluctant to accept it as credible for all the
> reasons I
>>>stated previously.
>>
>>That's your perogative. We have names for people who cling to their
>>'orthodoxy' in light of evidence against it.
>
> There's nothing "orthodoxy" about questioning the credibility of
> information.

If you have bonafide knowledge to refute something, you should offer it;
you shouldn't continue offering your tired dogma when it's not based on
verifiable fact.

> If you're basing your whole premise on Davis' work then it's
> very, very weak indeed.

Davis' work is only the tip of an iceberg in terms of getting a grasp on
CDs. What are you basing *your* premise on?

>>Those aren't nice names.
>
> The choice of names is yours. You can be as nice or as nasty as your
> character dictates.

I'll be as nasty as I can be if you don't support your flimsy premise
with something more substantial than you've already offered.

>>>>I'm going to stick my neck out and say that I don't think there's a
>>>>statistical difference.
>>>
>>>I think you're wrong.
>>
>>On what basis?
>
> Based on my sense of how the numbers from the "counting game" would probably
> result. Pretty much the same level of basis as your "sticking your neck
> out".

I can offer anecdotal evidence from working in agriculture. I've also
offered Davis. Many other veg-n sites note that some agricultural
products like rice are "less ethical" than others. What can you bring to
the table other than your "sense"?

>>>Why? Don't you think that fewer incidents of animal suffering and deaths
>>>make it more ethical?
>>
>>Is it more ethical to only beat a child once a week as opposed to once a
>>day? If something -- in this instance, animal causalties as a result of
>>agriculture -- is unethical, then it's unethical whether it happens once
>>or millions of times.
>
> Beating a child once a month wins over beating a child once a week every
> time.

No, both are immoral and unethical.

>>>There will always be some people who take an absolute moral stand. Don't
>>>generalize a whole group based on the actions of a few.
>>
>>See your previous comment about fewer incidents making something
>>ethical.
>
> No, I never said that. Go back and read again. I keep saying that fewer
> incidents of suffering and death is better than more incidents of suffeing
> and death. You see only black and white when, in fact, there are many shades
> of gray.

You have a warped view of morality and ethics which has you in this
quandry with respect to "minimization" and veganism being "more"
ethical. You can argue over shades of grey all you want, but at the end
of the discussion we're faced with a value judgment over morality as a
*whole unit*. The vegan argument considers that ethical behavior is a
whole unit, and makes categorical statements and distinctions with
respect to vegan behavior and other behavior. You don't have to take my
word for it, go review statements from vegans at afv, vegan activist
sites, etc.

>>You're part of the crowd discussing things in terms of morality
>>and ethics. The issue isn't just over absolutes, it's over the whole
>>concept of what is moral and ethical.
>
> When you talk about something being either ethical or not (i.e.: absolute)
> and then you say that "the issue isn't just over absolutes", I question the
> coherence of what you're saying. You must be "part of the crowd discussing
> things in terms of morality and ethics" too since we're having this
> discussion.

I'll give you an opportunity to reconsider what I wrote, which *is*
coherent.

>>That doesn't just pertain to CDs,
>>it goes to the whole nature of veganISM and AR.
>
> Maybe you would care to explain this further?

See earlier in this thread, as well as so many other threads.

>>I disagree. Other than a reflexive scan of ingredient lists to ensure no
>>animal-derived ingredients are contained, most vegans are quite sloppy
>>when it comes to shopping.
>
> Another generalization that can't be substantiated.

I think it's substantiated by the shopping and ingredient lists offered
by PETA and other activist groups who offer ideas on how to "go vegan."

>>Grass-fed is a growing market. It's also one of the sources of meat
>>which invalidates your thesis that a diet containing meat is going to
>>cause more suffering and death than a vegan diet.
>
> Well, I'll give you that grass-fed will result in fewer CDs than grain-fed,
> but that's still a far cry from "invalidating my thesis".

No, it does invalidate your beliefs since you suggest that a veg-n diet
in and of itself minimizes animal casualties. The very existence of
exceptions to your rule -- grass-fed beef, bison, game, fish, etc. --
invalidates the extreme notion that meat must be avoided to be humane,
moral, ethical, sustainable.

>>>And you are the police that hold them to it?
>>
>>I'm interested enough in the truth to ask them to support their
>>moral-ethical statements or to cease making such outlandish claims. If
>>that bothers them, or you, tough shit.
>
> I don't think you are interested in the truth.

I've tried reasoning with you, and I believe I've been quite civil about
it. I haven't made insinuations about your motives; now you seek to make
some about mine. Address the issues, Jim, and save your dislike of me
for other threads.

> You have taken a position
> that you can't substantiate and you're defending it as the truth.

I've substantiated my position. Have you substantiated your own, or are
you still shooting from the hip with your "sense" of how things are?

> You insist
> that vegans substantiate their position

Yes, when they make claims of morality with respect to diet.

> and then somehow take their failure
> to do so as support of your "truth".

I haven't quite done that. I'm waiting, though, for someone to offer
more than a "sense" of what makes them more moral or ethical than
someone else.

> I think the truth is that there is no
> absolute truth in this argument.

I think truth is truth regardless of what you think about it.