On Mar 2, 11:51*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> 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.


I think Rupert is using you for an amusing diversion in his spare time
like the rest of us do.