On Mar 3, 6:37*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/2/2012 8:25 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 2, 8:06 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/2/2012 10:38 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On 2 Mrz., 19:33, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 3/2/2012 9:35 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On 2 Mrz., 16:43, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 3/2/2012 3:43 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On 1 Mrz., 23:46, dh@. wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:36:50 -0800, Goo wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> "veganism" is not a reliable means
>
> >>>>>>>> * * * · 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.
> >>>>>>>> What they try to avoid are products which provide life
> >>>>>>>> (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
> >>>>>>>> to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
> >>>>>>>> in order to be successful:
>
> >>>>>>>> tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
> >>>>>>>> filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
> >>>>>>>> insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
> >>>>>>>> heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
> >>>>>>>> gelatin capsules, *adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
> >>>>>>>> plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
> >>>>>>>> wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings
>
> >>>>>>>> * * * * The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
> >>>>>>>> slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
> >>>>>>>> as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
> >>>>>>>> their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
> >>>>>>>> animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
> >>>>>>>> ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
> >>>>>>>> future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
> >>>>>>>> livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
> >>>>>>>> consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
> >>>>>>>> being vegan.
> >>>>>>>> * * * * From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
> >>>>>>>> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
> >>>>>>>> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
> >>>>>>>> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
> >>>>>>>> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
> >>>>>>>> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
> >>>>>>>> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
> >>>>>>>> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
> >>>>>>>> derived from grass raised animals.
>
> >>>>>>> You keep on making this claim over and over again, just as you have
> >>>>>>> for at least six years, but when challenged to provide actual evidence
> >>>>>>> for it you are unable to provide any.
>
> >>>>>> ****wit doesn't have any evidence, of course, but for certain there is a
> >>>>>> strong logical case to be made. *What do you think the number of deaths
> >>>>>> caused raising one grass-fed steer might be? *How many deaths can
> >>>>>> plausibly be attributed to the farming of one hectare of rice in a wet
> >>>>>> paddy?
>
> >>>>> I don't have any idea about the answers to either of those questions,
> >>>>> and I was talking about soya-based products, not rice.
>
> >>>> But you certainly ought to be able to think in terms of what's plausible
> >>>> and seems to make sense, can't you? *Oh, wait - maybe not.
>
> >>> I don't really have any feel for what's "plausible" or "seems to make
> >>> sense" in this area.
>
> >> That's obviously a lie, but even telling it shows that you don't care to
> >> know.
>
> > I would be interested in knowing if I thought that it was feasible to
> > find out.
>
> You don't care about the feasibility of finding out. *You don't care
> about knowing the answer, period.

False.

> *You don't care to know *which*
> "vegan" diet is the least-harm diet, so that you might really validly
> claim to be "minimizing". *You don't care about any of it. *You just
> want to pat yourself on the back and act superior.
>

You're a fool.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>> Some assumptions have to be made concerning the distribution of the
> >>>>>> products, such as pest extermination when storing the rice,
> >>>>>> refrigeration when storing the beef, but we will ignore those and focus
> >>>>>> solely on the process of raising and harvesting the initial product -
> >>>>>> that is, up to the time when the product leaves the control of the
> >>>>>> primary producers, i.e. the rancher and the rice farmer.
>
> >>>>>> There can be no doubt that raising the rice kills many animals - you
> >>>>>> have always conceded that vegetable agriculture kills animals. *There
> >>>>>> can be no doubt that raising a 100% grass-fed steer kills far fewer
> >>>>>> animals - quite plausibly, *no* additional animals beyond the steer itself.
>
> >>>>>> Forget about ****wit's lack of hard evidence. *You have to make a wholly
> >>>>>> implausible case to try to suggest that calorically equivalent servings
> >>>>>> of beef and rice have a collateral death toll that favors the rice..
>
> >>>>> I never said anything about rice.
>
> >>>> **** off.
>
> >>> You **** off,
>
> >> No, you **** off, you little prick.
>
> > Go and stuff your head as far as it will go up a dead yak's anus.
>
> Go suck the green festering flesh of your mother's ****. *Oh, wait - you
> already did that, which is why you're psychotic.
>

You have a weird imagination.

> >>>>> But I also don't have any idea about what could be said about
> >>>>> calorically equivalent servings of beef and rice, either.
>
> >>>> You ought to have. *If you don't, you're trying not to have any idea.
>
> >>> Wrong.
>
> >> No - right.
>
> > Actually,
>
> Actually, I was right, once again.
>

Much joy may this belief bring you.

> >>> If you have some idea, then why don't you tell me how you arrived at
> >>> this idea.
>
> >> I have done. *I have elaborated that the production of any vegetable
> >> crop plausibly causes many animal CDs, and the production of one 100%
> >> grass-fed steer plausibly causes no CDs.
>
> > So how does that help me to arrive at a conclusion about the matter?
>
> Easily: *if you want to follow a positively lower CD diet than
> "veganism", eat grass fed beef plus some fruits and vegetables you pick
> from wild plants or cultivate yourself in your home garden.
>

It does not follow from what you said above that this diet would
involve less suffering and premature death.

Is it your opinion that I can buy beef that I can be sure is 100%
grass-fed in the European Union?

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>> * *Now I get the pleasure once again of telling you what you do and don't
> >>>>>> believe, because I know: *you do not believe that the rice causes fewer
> >>>>>> CDs than the beef.
>
> >>>>> No, I don't. I lack a belief one way or the other, because I have no
> >>>>> evidence one way or the other.
>
> >>>> No, that's false. *You do not lack any belief one way or another. *We
> >>>> know this because you have already said you know that vegetable
> >>>> agriculture kills animals. *You have *some* sense as to what might be a
> >>>> plausible number of animals killed for different types of agriculture.
>
> >>> Not enough to know how to compare calorically equivalent servings of
> >>> rice and grass-fed beef.
>
> >> Bullshit. *As previously established, a 100 gram serving of rice - or
> >> soybeans or whatever - carries the weight of many animal CDs,
>
> > How many? Give me a range.
>
> According to diderot, many thousands.
>

So many tens of CDs per gram of rice?

>
>
> >> versus
> >> *no* CDs for a 100 gram serving of 100% grass-fed beef. *You can do the
> >> comparison.
>
> > No I can't, I have no ranges of numbers on the basis of which to make
> > the comparison.
>
> You *know* that plausibly, the steer causes no CDs, and the vegetable
> products cause many.
>

"Many" doesn't mean anything. Specify a number range.

> >> Adjust the serving sizes to their caloric equivalents - the
> >> comparison is still many-to-none.
>
> > I am not sure I agree that 100% grass-fed beef has no CDs, anyway.
>
> Plausibly, it does. *A steer wanders of rangeland feeding until it's old
> enough and big enough to slaughter. *How, plausibly, would that steer
> cause any CDs by grazing?
>

You snipped a sentence which has a bearing on your question.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>> (I assume you're talking about fully grass-fed beef, by the way, the
> >>>>> cattle are put out to pasture the whole year round. Yes?)
>
> >>>> Obviously.
>
> >>>>> In any case I never said anything about rice. I was talking about
> >>>>> tofu.
>
> >>>> Fine.
>
> >>>>>> * * You just don't believe it, and we all know you don't
> >>>>>> believe it.
>
> >>>>> I don't have any opinion one way or the other, because I don't have
> >>>>> sufficient information.
>
> >>>> That's false. *You have information on what might be plausible numbers.
>
> >>> No, I don't.
>
> >> You do.
>
> > Where did I get this information from? From listening to you?
>
> Why, yes, actually.

So what are the plausible numbers?