On 3 Mrz., 19:18, George Plimpton > wrote:
> 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.
>

You appear to have lost touch with reality.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>> 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.
>

And how exactly do I know that?

>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>> * * *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.