On Mar 3, 7:00*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/2/2012 8:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On Mar 2, 7:50 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/2/2012 9:51 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On 2 Mrz., 17:02, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 3/2/2012 3:58 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> No. The reasons she gave were a legitimate health concern about
> >>>>>>>>> chicken
>
> >>>>>>>> No, they were not. *Billions of people eat chicken without falling ill.
> >>>>>>>> The issue is in the proper handling and cooking of it.
>
> >>>>>>> The fact that billions of people eat it without falling ill does not
> >>>>>>> mean there are not serious health concerns with it
>
> >>>>>> Actually, it does show that.
>
> >>>> It shows it. *You know it does. *It shows that there are no serious
> >>>> health concerns with the *consumption* of chicken per se.
>
> >>> You're an unbelievable fool.
>
> >> You're a ****ing shitbag who loves refighting battles you lost long ago.
>
> > I've never lost any argument with you.
>
> *ALL* of them - you've lost all of them, rupie (or do you prefer woopert?)
>
> >>>>>>>>> and a dislike of the cruelty that farm animals have to endure.
> >>>>>>>>> Those are valid reasons.
>
> >>>>>>>> They aren't, as has been shown too many times to count.
>
> >>>>>>> Then it should be possible for you to show me just one place where it
> >>>>>>> has been shown.
>
> >>>>>> You go back and read some of my posts on it. *You'll see it there.
>
> >>>>> Where do I find these posts?
>
> >>>> In a newsgroup that is well known to you. *That newsgroup is called
> >>>> alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian, and it is carried by virtually all major
> >>>> commercial Usenet services. *I believe you are already familiar with it.
>
> >>> How do I go about sorting through the enormous number of posts you
> >>> have made to this newsgroup
>
> >> Figure it out, Dr. Windbag. *Surely you can put that maths Ph.D. to some
> >> good use.
>
> > You think my mathematical training can help me here?
>
> Maths whizzes have done a lot of work in computer science. *Computers
> might help you.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> * * * She thinks she is adopting a<snicker>
> >>>>>>>>>> "cruelty free 'lifestyle'",
>
> >>>>>>>>> I don't believe she used that phrase.
>
> >>>>>>>> She didn't use it, but it's clearly her underlying wish and belief.
>
> >>>>>>> Your mind-reading skills are amazing
>
> >>>>>> No mind-reading needed. *It's the fundamental assumption of all
> >>>>>> so-called "ethical" vegetarians.
>
> >>>>> Wrong.
>
> >>>> Nope. *It's right. *You know it is. *I know that you know it, too.
>
> >>> No.
>
> >> Yes. *It *is* the fundamental assumption of "vegans", *you* know that it
> >> is, and *I* know that you know.
>
> > Previously you said "all".
>
> Yes. *It's so: **all* "vegans".
>

No. Counterexamples include me, Derek, Peter Singer, Gary Francione,
and Joan Dunayer. There are no doubt many others.

> >>>>>> What do you think the sappy trolling
> >>>>>> bitch meant when she wrote,
>
> >>>>>> * * * * *I have always hated the cruelty that "food animals" were subjected to.
>
> >>>>> I think she meant just what she said.
>
> >>>> Yes, and she believes that by not eating "food animals" [sic], she is
> >>>> avoiding all responsibility for any cruelty to animals.
>
> >>> You have no rational foundation for that assertion.
>
> >> Of course I have.
>
> > What is it?
>
> The common "vegan" fallacy.
>

Your rational foundation for the assertion is a fallacy?

> >>>>>>http://www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/...s_&_answers/#9......
>
> >>>>> This source makes clear that considerable precautions have to be taken
> >>>>> to reduce the risk of illness, and it does not specify to what level
> >>>>> the risk is reduced.
>
> >>>> Ha ha ha ha ha! *You can't give any coherent meaning to "considerable."
> >>>> In fact, the precautions are absurdly easy. *I give virtually no
> >>>> thought to them when preparing chicken, they are so easy - it's
> >>>> virtually automatic.
>
> >>> I wouldn't know. Preparing chicken is not part of my experience.
>
> >> It is part of my experience and part of the experience of hundreds of
> >> millions of people around the world.
>
> > Fascinating.
>
> Not really. *In fact, it's actually a commonplace.
>

Quite, I was obviously being sarcastic.

> >>>> Anyway, you snarky little shit, I answered your question:
>
> >>> Wrong.
>
> >> No, right: *I answered your question.
>
> > Yes, you are right. I apologise. You did answer my question. I said
> > "Is that based on some study?" and you said "I believe so", offering
> > not the slightest bit of evidence for your contention.
>
> I posted links to sites from reputable organizations that are known for
> conducting exactly that type of study. *You don't think your own
> government's official bodies would post that kind of advice based on
> nothing more than the idle speculation of bureaucratic functionaries.
> They do studies - you know they do. *I haven't seen specific studies on
> that topic, but you know they've done them.
>
> >>>> I believe
> >>>> studies have been done to measure the amount of salmonella contamination
> >>>> to which one might be exposed if one follows the precautions.
>
> >>> You believe all sorts of things
>
> >> This is a well founded belief. *USDA and other food safety
> >> organizations' safe food handling guidelines are based on research.
>
> > All right, so some studies have been done, and you have no idea what
> > the outcomes of those studies were.
>
> It is a reasonable assumption that the temperature to which they claim
> chicken should be cooked - 165F - was not arbitrarily chose, but rather
> was chosen because studies showed that there were no detectable living
> salmonella bacteria present in chicken that reached that temperature.
>
> >>>> * *Actually,
> >>>> you already knew that studies had been done, and we all know that you
> >>>> knew it.
>
> >>> Wrong.
>
> >> No, I'm right.
>
> > Yes, actually, you are right, Ball. I apologise, I should be more
> > careful. I did know that studies had been done about the matter and I
> > never wished to suggest otherwise. My claim was that you didn't have
> > any idea what the outcomes of these studies were because you had never
> > read any of them.
>
> I don't need to have read them. *It is a reasonable inference that the
> recommendations were based on the results of the studies.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Being vegetarian is a very good choice for your health. Two
> >>>>>>>>> doctors have told me so.
>
> >>>>>>>> They're quacks.
>
> >>>>>>> You're an idiot
>
> >>>>>> No, and you don't believe it, anyway.
>
> >>>>> Yes, you are an idiot
>
> >>>> No, you don't believe that.
>
> >>> That is really quite extraordinarily funny.
>
> >> No, it's a true statement. *You do not believe I'm an idiot.
>
> > Of course I believe you're an idiot when
>
> You don't believe I'm an idiot at all.
>

Is that really what you think, Ball?

> >>>>>>>>>> As for the "cruelty free 'lifestyle'"
> >>>>>>>>>> issue, we *all* know that's nonsense.
>
> >>>>>>>>> She didn't use the phrase "cruelty free lifestyle". She indicated that
> >>>>>>>>> she wanted to reduce the amount of cruelty required to support her
> >>>>>>>>> lifestyle, and from that point of view going vegetarian is a good
> >>>>>>>>> idea.
>
> >>>>>>>> No, it isn't. *It has been amply demonstrated that a carefully chosen
> >>>>>>>> meat-including diet can easily reduce cruelty even more than the
> >>>>>>>> typically ill-considered "vegan" diet.
>
> >>>>>>> Well, I would be interested to hear more about that.
>
> >>>>>> You've heard all about it numerous times from Dutch, from me and from
> >>>>>> others right here.
>
> >>>>> I'd be most appreciative if you would remind me. What practical steps
> >>>>> can I take to reduce the amount of suffering caused in order to
> >>>>> produce the food I eat?
>
> >>>> That's not what you were asking above.
>
> >>> Yes, it was.
>
> >> No, it wasn't. *I was talking about the amply demonstrated fact that a
> >> well chosen meat-including diet can easily reduce cruelty even more than
> >> a typically ill-considered "vegan" diet, and then you changed direction
> >> and asked me how to help you give more consideration to your "vegan"
> >> diet. *That's not what you asked earlier.
>
> > First I wrote
>
> > "She didn't use the phrase "cruelty free lifestyle". She indicated
> > that she wanted to reduce the amount of cruelty required to support
> > her lifestyle, and from that point of view going vegetarian is a good
> > idea."
>
> > On that occasion I did not ask any question.
>
> > Then you wrote " It has been amply demonstrated that a carefully
> > chosen
> > meat-including diet can easily reduce cruelty even more than the
> > typically ill-considered `vegan' diet."
>
> > I repeatedly asked you to give me more information about the matter,
> > because I take an interest in how to reduce the amount of cruelty
> > required to produce my food,
>
> No, you don't. *If you did take such an interest, you would have done
> some research to determine which non-animal-based products caused the
> least CDs, but you've never done it.
>

Yes, I have.

> > and if you had some genuinely helpful
> > suggestions then I would be genuinely interested to know.
>
> You changed your question. *Cut the shit - you changed it, and you and I
> both know you did.
>

Yawn.

> >>>>>>>>>> Happily for civil discourse, she
> >>>>>>>>>> didn't get into the silly sophism about environmental degradation.
>
> >>>>>>>>> It's not silly sophism.
>
> >>>>>>>> It certainly is.
>
> >>>>>>> Ipse dixit.
>
> >>>>>> *AREN'T* you just the scholar, now?
>
> >>>>> I am a scholar because
>
> >>>> You're not a scholar.
>
> >>> Your opinion is not especially important to me.
>
> >> Ha ha ha ha ha! *What a laughable lie that is!
>
> > I had a really good laugh when I read this.
>
> Not a fraction as good as the one I had.
>

Good to hear.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, the solution has
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> created a new problem for me... I don't know how to cook vegetarian meals.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am asking you good people to post your favorite recipes.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is not a food recipe newsgroup. *If you want recipes, look for a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suitable group, or use a search engine to look for recipes; or, go to a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bookstore and buy a cookbook.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, your reason for wanting vegetarian recipes is unsound.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Indeed it is.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you assert, but
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've demonstrated it. There is no principle, none whatever, behind
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "veganism." *It's purely about self-exaltation.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Nope - proved right time and again.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> How did you prove it?
>
> >>>>>>>>>> By showing that "veganism" is internally contradictory. *You already
> >>>>>>>>>> know this.
>
> >>>>>>>>> Veganism is a practice. It can't be internally contradictory.
>
> >>>>>>>> It's a belief system first, and that belief system is internally
> >>>>>>>> contradictory, as we have well established.
>
> >>>>>>> It's not a belief system.
>
> >>>>>> It is a belief system.
>
> >>>>> Wrong.
>
> >>>> No, I'm right.
>
> >>> Much joy may this belief bring you.
>
> >> Oh, it does - it really does!
>
> > Good.
>
> Indeed.
>
> >>>>> It is a practice.
>
> >>>> It is a belief system that is manifested in a practice that does not
> >>>> lead to the claimed result.
>
> >>> Actually,
>
> >> Actually, you bullshitted, as you always do on this topic.
>
> > Wrong.
>
> Nope; right.
>
> >>>>>> * * It's the belief that if one doesn't consume
> >>>>>> animal bits, one doesn't harm animals.
>
> >>>>> Possibly some vegans believe that,
>
> >>>> *ALL* "vegans" start by believing it. *You did.
>
> >>> Wrong.
>
> >> No, I'm right.
>
> > Much joy may this belief bring you.
>
> See above.
>
> >>>>> But that's
> >>>>> neither here nor there. Plenty of vegans are fully aware that plant-
> >>>>> based agriculture harms animals;
>
> >>>> They were aware of it *after* they ran their mouths and got put in their
> >>>> place by informed omnivores.
>
> >>> Some of them, yes,
>
> >> All of them, you included. *No, you did not know *before* adopting the
> >> silly belief system of "veganism" as an adolescent that there were
> >> collateral animal deaths in agriculture. *You just didn't. *Stop lying
> >> about it.
>
> > I became a vegan when I was a young adult, not an adolescent. I
> > pondered the question during adolescence and became aware of the
> > collateral deaths argument as the result of listening to a radio
> > program about the issue.
>
> But until you heard that program, you *began* by thinking that getting
> the animal bits out of your diet meant you didn't cause any harm to animals.
>

I heard the program when I was an adolescent, many years before I
first went vegetarian.

> >> You are the most egotistical little **** seen in this group since those
> >> two shitwipes Michael Cerkowski and Karen Winter got chased out.
>
> > Why, Ball, I've never known you to say anything so hurtful.
>
> It's the truth. *You have a grotesquely inflated opinion of yourself.
> You resemble several extremely arrogant people I've known who make a big
> point of trying to portray themselves as having been precociously aware
> of things at very young ages. *I once had the misfortune to get involved
> with a woman like that, who claimed to have been palling around at age
> 13 or so with people in their mid 20s and even older who treated her as
> a complete social and intellectual peer. *This arrogant self-flattery
> permeated her entire persona. *She really was a ****, in exactly the
> same sense that you are an insufferable little prick.
>

I was a precocious child, but I don't think that this is an example of
being precocious. It just happens to be the truth, that's all.

>
>
> >>>>> for example I myself have been aware of the fact since adolescence,
>
> >>>> You were *not* aware of it from the outset. *You adopted the silly
> >>>> belief system of "veganism", ran your mouth to try to demonstrate your
> >>>> fake moral superiority, then got told.
>
> >>> Wrong.
>
> >> No, right. *You were not aware as a snot-nosed teenager of the
> >> phenomenon of animal CDs.
>
> > Much joy may this belief bring you.
>
> See above.
>
>
>
> >>>>>> * * That's a belief, and a fallacious one at that.
>
> >>>>>> For the overwhelming majority of "vegans" - and you know this - that's
> >>>>>> as far as it goes. *They assume, incorrectly, that because they aren't
> >>>>>> consuming animal bits, they therefore aren't causing any animal harm.
> >>>>>> When an exceptionally foolish "vegan" tries to assert this with much
> >>>>>> more knowledgeable and logical omnivores, they retreat to the equally
> >>>>>> false position of "least harm", but then it is shown that they have
> >>>>>> never measured the harm caused - *never* - and that even *within* a
> >>>>>> "vegan" diet and<scoff> * * *"lifestyle", they may not be causing the least
> >>>>>> possible harm, let alone less than all consumption regimens that include
> >>>>>> animal products.
>
> >>>>> Plenty of vegans can reasonably claim that, given the information
> >>>>> available to them and the limited resources they have to invest in
> >>>>> gathering further information, they have made the rational choice with
> >>>>> respect to trying to reduce the amount of suffering caused by their
> >>>>> diet, given that they are not going to make extreme sacrifices such as
> >>>>> dropping out of society and growing all their own food.
>
> >>>> *NO* "vegan" is entitled to make that claim plausibly. *You didn't read
> >>>> what I wrote, you ****ing imbecile. *I said that even *within* the whole
> >>>> set of "vegan" diets, they make no effort - *ZERO* - to choose the
> >>>> least-harm diet.
>
> >>> Some of them make some effort, and some of them don't.
>
> >> *NO* "vegan" makes any effort at all to do that. *The *only* effort any
> >> of them makes is to ensure there are no animal bits in their plates.
>
> > Wrong.
>
> Nope - I'm right. *That's all any of them do. *It's all *you* have ever
> done - you admitted it.
>

False.

> >>> My claim is that, given the limited time and resources one has
> >>> available for gathering information,
>
> >> Bullshit. *That's an empty and lame rationalization for doing nothing.
>
> > I didn't do nothing.
>
> You've done nothing.

Wrong.

> *You've done nothing because you don't care.
> You've taken that one empty, meaningless step that you think allows you
> to exalt yourself over those who consume animal parts, and that's all
> you ever thought you needed to do.
>
> >>>> * *They have never measured, and they don't even look for
> >>>> information from someone who might have measured.
>
> >>> Some of them do make some effort, some don't.
>
> >> None do - not one.
>
> > Wrong.
>
> Nope; I'm right. *You know it, too.
>
> >>>> They haven't even
> >>>> thought about it.
>
> >>> Some of them have, some haven't.
>
> >> None have - not one.
>
> > Wrong.
>
> No; right.
>
> >>>> * *They simply assume, with no basis for it, that not
> >>>> consuming any animal bits necessarily means that what they *do* consume
> >>>> is the least-harm basket of consumption goods, and that assumption is
> >>>> false.
>
> >>> Why? How could they further reduce the harm caused by their diet?
>
> >> By measuring and then picking the least-harm foods. *But no one has done
> >> that.
>
> > It's not possible to get reliable information about which are the
> > least-harm foods
>
> It takes some effort. *You don't want to expend any effort. *You're the
> sort of smug, arrogant, self-satisfied little prick who thinks your
> sanctimony is all that is required.
>

How do you know, Ball? Have you looked into this yourself, have you?

I'm at a bit of a loss to know what your point is. You don't care
enough about animals to stop eating meat. I do. For some reason you
want to make a big deal out of the alleged fact that I "haven't tried
hard enough" to find the least-harm plant foods. Why? Why exactly
would it be so important to you to insist on this point?

> >>>> * *There are innumerable combinations of goods for consumption that
> >>>> contain no animal bits, and simply picking one more or less at random
> >>>> does not guarantee that it's the least-harm combination from the entire
> >>>> population.
>
> >>> No, it doesn't, but it's a pretty good rule of thumb
>
> >> It isn't. *It's worthless. *They might be choosing not only a diet that
> >> causes more harm than a perfectly plausible meat-including diet,
>
> > No,
>
> Yes.
>

That is an unargued and false assertion.

> >> but also one that causes more harm than another easily followed meat-free
> >> diet. *Because they make no effort to measure, they just don't know, and
> >> *THEREFORE* they are not entitled to make any claim about the harm their
> >> diet causes.
>
> > I am entitled to make the claims which I make about my diet.
>
> You aren't.
>
> > They are grounded in evidence.
>
> They aren't. *They're grounded in nothing but egotism and wishful thinking.
>

No, that's false. I have provided the evidence and you have done
nothing to undermine it.

>
>
> >>>> * *No "vegan", for example, has *EVER* done an analysis to
> >>>> determine which of wheat or maize is the lower CD-causing grain. *THEY
> >>>> DON'T CARE.
>
> >>> I haven't done that, and it's not because I don't care,
>
> >> It is *precisely* because you don't care, you arrogant self-righteous ****.
>
> > Wrong.
>
> Nope. *I'm right.
>
> >>>>>> No, "veganism" is nothing but an empty and fallacy-based belief system.
> >>>>>> * * *This has been demonstrated to you more times right here in a.a.e.v.
> >>>>>> than you could possibly count.
>
> >>>>> You've demonstrated absolutely no such thing
>
> >>>> I have demonstrated exactly what I said: *"veganism" is an empty,
> >>>> fallacy-based belief system.
>
> >>> Wrong.
>
> >> No, I'm right, and you know it, too.
>
> > Much joy may this belief bring you.
>
> See above, you snotty little do-nothing prick.
>
> How's the telemarketing work going, by the way?

I worked for Positive Response Telemarketing Agency for a month or so
in 2007, you weirdo. Since then I did two years of teaching at Sino-
British College in Shanghai, a lectureship at Australian Catholic
University, lecturing and tutoring at Sydney University, and am now
doing a post-doctoal position at the Unviersity of Münster. You're a
bit behind the times.