Fix your system clock, dude. It's a month fast.


rick etter wrote:

> "C. James Strutz" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"usual suspect" > wrote in message
.. .
>>
>>
>>>>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 and you
>>don't.
>
> ================
> No stupid, you don't. You only make the claim that you do. Your actions
> prove otherwise, killer.
>
>
>
>>>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?
>>
>>
>>>The fact remains that animals die for either
>>>dietary choice.
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>
>>>>There are not just two sides he vegans and anti-vegans. The
>
> prevalent
>
>>>>anti-vegan side (at least in this ng) contends that vegans insist that
>>
>>their
>>
>>>>lifestyle eliminates ALL incidental animal suffering and casualties. I
>>>>represent another side that vegans hope to MINIMIZE animal suffering
>
> and
>
>>>>casualties, thus the "counting game". Since the counting game cannot
>
> be
>
>>>>substantiated on either side, let's just give up the argument and have
>>>>peace.
>>>
>>>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. Are you going to spend
>
> the
>
>>rest of your life here defending an issue that is mute?
>>=======================
>
> Yes, it can be. It's proven that animals die by the millions for your
> selfish convenience and entertainment.
>
>
>
>>>>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.
>
> ========================
> Yes, you do. Why don't you try sometime, instead of whining for others to
> prove their claims.
>
>
> 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.
>>
>>
>>>>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...
>
> ===============
> Yours is gouged, it's stuck on hypocrite, hypocrite, hypocrite...
>
>
>
>>>>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?
>>
>>
>>>>>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.
>>
>>
>>>>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're basing your whole premise on Davis' work then it's
>>very, very weak indeed.
>>
>>
>>>Those aren't nice names.
>>
>>The choice of names is yours. You can be as nice or as nasty as your
>>character dictates.
>>
>>
>>>>>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".
>>
>>
>>>>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.
>>
>>
>>>>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'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.
>>
>>
>>>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?
>>
>>
>>>>I think that most veg*ns inherently care what's in their food and are
>>>>willing to pay higher prices (compared to non-veg*n foods). If you are
>>>>comparing two otherwise equivalent veg*n products then I agree that
>>
>>price
>>
>>>>will be a stronger influence to consumers.
>>>
>>>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.
>>
>>
>>>>Okay, but I'm not talking about people eating field corn! You reuse
>
> the
>
>>same
>>
>>>>land to produce human consumable food. If you assume that the number
>
> of
>
>>>>incidental casualties will be the same regardless of what is planted
>>
>>then it
>>
>>>>IS an apples:apples argument. As for truely grass-fed, I think it
>>
>>represents
>>
>>>>a very small part of the total number of beef that is sold. Why are we
>>>>talking about something that is statistically insignificant?
>>>
>>>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".
>>
>>
>>>>>Vegans cannot support their sanctimonious claims about morality or
>>>>>ethics with respect to animal deaths and suffering. The buck stops
>>
>>there.
>>
>>>>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. You have taken a position
>>that you can't substantiate and you're defending it as the truth. You
>
> insist
>
>>that vegans substantiate their position and then somehow take their
>
> failure
>
>>to do so as support of your "truth". I think the truth is that there is no
>>absolute truth in this argument.
>>
>>
>
>
>