On 3/2/2012 9:52 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 2 Mrz., 17:44, George > wrote:
>> On 3/2/2012 6:08 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 2, 2:36 pm, > wrote:
>>>> On Mar 2, 5:03 am, > wrote:
>>
>>>>> On 1 Mrz., 23:37, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:37:37 -0800 (PST), >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 27, 6:22 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:39:12 -0500, >
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> My favorite food used to be chicken. recently, while I was preparing
>>>>>>>>> chicken for my family, I had an epiphany.
>>
>>>>>>>>> I was handling the chicken parts with great caution. I had vinyl gloves
>>>>>>>>> on, and I was working hard to keep the process sanitary. I am aware of
>>>>>>>>> how unclean chicken meat generally is.
>>
>>>>>>>>> It suddenly struck me: "If I believe this has to be handled like toxic
>>>>>>>>> waste, why am I feeding it to my family!?"
>>
>>>>>>>> It's not that way with "meat". It's that way with *some* meat. Notice that
>>>>>>>> it's that way with meat from omnivores, which we are. So it makes sense that
>>>>>>>> there is a danger of exchanging microbes that can thrive in the bodies of
>>>>>>>> omnivores if you eat the bodies of omnivores without doing something to kill
>>>>>>>> those particular microbes. Notice that it's a danger in pork and chicken which
>>>>>>>> are both omnivores, and not in beef and fish because their systems are too
>>>>>>>> different. But the good part is that if you kill the microbes which is simple
>>>>>>>> enough, then the meat is good for you and your family.
>>
>>>>>>>>> It hit me like a bolt of lightning: I believe that meat is unwholesome,
>>>>>>>>> so why am I still eating it, and serving it to others!?
>>
>>>>>>>> Just make sure you kill the microbes which also results in better tasting
>>>>>>>> meat. No one likes rare chicken, and though rare pork tastes awesome it can make
>>>>>>>> a person horribly sick. So cook it.
>>
>>>>>>>>> I have always hated the cruelty that "food animals" were subjected to.
>>>>>>>>> I had to not think about it, to be able to eat meat at all. Well, I am
>>>>>>>>> thinking about it now, and it makes the thought of meat even more repugnant.
>>
>>>>>>>> Broiler chickens and their parents are not kept in little cages and the vast
>>>>>>>> majority of them get to enjoy lives of positive value, imo. The same is true of
>>>>>>>> cage free laying hens in general so if you buy cage free eggs you are supporting
>>>>>>>> a system which deliberately tries to provide lives of positive value for laying
>>>>>>>> hens. There's reason to feel good about doing that, not reason to feel bad about
>>>>>>>> it. There's reason to feel bad about buying battery cage eggs though especially
>>>>>>>> if you could get cage free simply by spending more money. Not only does buying
>>>>>>>> cage free eggs and whatever other animal friendly products deliberately
>>>>>>>> contribute to lives of positive value for livestock animals, but it also puts
>>>>>>>> you in the position of deliberately contributing to a more considerate type of
>>>>>>>> society and thinking in general. Notice that it's a level of consideration and
>>>>>>>> participation that eliminationists do NOT want other people to intentionally
>>>>>>>> rise to because it works AGAINST their selfish and lowly elimination objective.
>>
>>>>>>>>> OK! The solution seems simple: vegetarianism.
>>
>>>>>>>> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
>>>>>>>> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
>>>>>>>> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
>>
>>>>>>> Which gives her absolutely no reason why she shouldn't go vegetarian.
>>
>>>>>> Other things which you snipped suggest why it would be ethically equivalent
>>>>>> or superior if she becomes a conscientious consumer of both plant AND animal
>>>>>> products.
>>
>>>>> But, as we saw elsewhere, your case for this claim is not actually
>>>>> grounded in any evidence.
>>
>>>>> Most animal products require more collateral deaths than plant-based
>>>>> products, because grain needs to be grown and fed to the animals and
>>>>> it is a less efficient means of producing protein than directly
>>>>> feeding the grain to humans. Grass-fed beef may possibly be an
>>>>> exception, but you have demonstrated yourself unable to substantiate
>>>>> the assertion, which you nevertheless keep making, that one serving of
>>>>> soy products is likely to involve hundreds of times as many deaths as
>>>>> one serving of grass-fed beef.
>>
>>>>> I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility that there might be some
>>>>> dietary choices she might make which are not vegetarian and yet are
>>>>> nevertheless just as good as a vegetarian diet, but you haven't given
>>>>> her practical guidance about any specific such choice. In the absence
>>>>> of specific practical advice going vegetarian is a good strategy for
>>>>> her to reduce her contribution to animal suffering. It's also better
>>>>> for her health to be vegetarian than not.
>>
>>>> Rupert, you've just put forth the most lucid argument I've seen here
>>>> in a decade.
>>
>>> Thanks.
>>
>> It was shit. When an idiot - truly a works-to-be-stupid idiot - like
>> Douchebag Hamilton is praising you for saying something stupid, the best
>> thing to do is just keep your stupid ****ing mouth shut.
>
> Your opinion is not especially well-informed or important.

Uh-huh - that's why you spend such an inordinate amount of time
responding to me.