On 3/3/2012 4:00 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 3, 6:37 am, George > 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.

Nope - true.


>> 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.

Concession noted and accepted.


>>>>> 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.

It does.


>>>>>>>> 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.

All you need to know is that it exceeds the expected value of CDs for a
nutritionally equivalent amount of grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.



>>>>>>>> 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.