"Mr.Smartypants" > wrote in message
...
> On Mar 2, 5:03 am, Rupert > wrote:
>> On 1 Mrz., 23:37, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:37:37 -0800 (PST), Rupert
>> > >
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > >On Feb 27, 6:22 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> > >> On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:39:12 -0500, ToolPackinMama
>> > >> >
>> > >> 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.

Translation: He just repeated the same bullshit that you believe.