On Mar 3, 6:31*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/2/2012 8:18 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 2, 8:00 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/2/2012 10:13 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On 2 Mrz., 19:07, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 3/2/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On 2 Mrz., 16:28, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 3/2/2012 3:42 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On 1 Mrz., 17:11, George > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 3/1/2012 12:16 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 7:36:50 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> I read this a while ago, and I had the devil of a time finding the site
> >>>>>>>>>> again to share here.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/11419...al-argument-fo...
>
> >>>>>>>>>> This is an excellent and thorough elaboration of why "veganism" fails as
> >>>>>>>>>> a sound ethical approach to the human use of animals. *I really like the
> >>>>>>>>>> author's turn of phrase, "the vegan shuffle." *By that, he means the
> >>>>>>>>>> flip-flop back and forth between animal "rights" and the reduction of
> >>>>>>>>>> animal suffering when "vegans" are confronted with the inescapable and
> >>>>>>>>>> undeniable fact that "veganism" is not a reliable means for achieving
> >>>>>>>>>> either one.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Why is veganism not a good means for reducing animal suffering?
>
> >>>>>>>> Because refraining from consuming animal bits doesn't say anything about
> >>>>>>>> the number of animals harmed by what you do consume.
>
> >>>>>>> Why not?
>
> >>>>>> How would it?
>
> >>>>> Most animal products are produced on factory farms which cause a lot
> >>>>> of suffering.
>
> >>>> Irrelevant. *That says *nothing* about the harm caused by the non-animal
> >>>> products you *do* eat.
>
> >>> I gave good reasons for thinking that less suffering and premature
> >>> death is caused in order to produce what I eat than is required in
> >>> order to produce a typical modern Western diet including animal
> >>> products.
>
> >> We're not talking about a "typical" western diet, you ****wit. *The
> >> "vegan" diet is *already* a highly atypical diet. *You must contrast it
> >> with another atypical diet that has been proposed to you.
>
> > I will gladly do so when you specify which atypical diet you want to
> > talk about.
>
> I have done, numerous times.
>

Really?

> >>>> * *You know nothing about it.
>
> >>> That's not true.
>
> >> It is true. *You've already admitted not to know which of wheat or maize
> >> causes more animal harm. *You don't know anything about the amount of
> >> harm caused by *any* non-animal produce.
>
> > I know something.
>
> You don't know anything.

Wrong.

> *You've already admitted to ****wit you have no
> idea how many animal CDs are caused by the cultivation of soybeans, for
> example.
>

Yes, that is true.

> > Specifically, I know that less collateral deaths are
> > required to produce plant-based food than almost all animal products.
>
> No, you don't know that, because you have no ****ing idea how many CDs
> are incurred by either one.
>

Yes, I do know that. Because almost all animal products require *more*
plant food to be grown in order to produce a calorically equivalent
serving than plant food products.

> >>>> Which causes more harm, a commercially farmed apple or a commercially
> >>>> farmed orange? *Don't think about it, don't blabber your usual wheeze,
> >>>> just state it, right now.
>
> >>> Obviously I wouldn't have any idea.
>
> >> Yes, obviously - my whole point. *You don't know, and more to the point,
> >> you don't care to know - you can't be bothered.
>
> > I have no reason to think it is within my power to find out.
>
> You don't care. *That's all we needed to know. *Concession noted.

I didn't concede anything. You dishonestly snipped what I wrote.