On 3/4/2012 4:28 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 3 Mrz., 19:16, George > wrote:
>> On 3/3/2012 3:56 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 3, 7:32 am, George > wrote:
>>>> On 3/2/2012 9:49 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Mar 3, 6:31 am, George > 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?
>>
>>>> Yes, and you know it already, too.
>>
>>> How interesting.
>>
>> No, it's actually quite basic.
>>
>
> Seems like obvious bullshit to me, but of course you know best Ball.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>>>> No, right.
>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>
>>>> So, you have no valid comparison for anything, because you don't know
>>>> any numbers for anything, and the plausibility case works completely
>>>> against you. You have no empirical case at all, and the theoretical
>>>> case crushes you.
>>
>>> You have not made any "plausibility case".
>>
>> I have.
>>
>
> What arguments did you produce in favour of this "plausibility case"?
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>>>> No, you don't.
>>
>>>>> Because almost all animal products require *more*
>>>>> plant food to be grown
>>
>>>> No. Monbiot wrote that hogs, for example, require virtually *no* plant
>>>> food to be grown.
>>
>>> This is false.
>>
>> It's not false.
>>
>>> It takes 8 pounds of protein in hog feed to produce one
>>> pound of pork.
>>
>> Obviously you didn't read Monbiot's essay.
>>
>> But these idiocies, Fairlie shows, are not arguments against all
>> meat eating, but arguments against the current farming model. He
>> demonstrates that we've been using the wrong comparison to judge
>> the efficiency of meat production. Instead of citing a simple
>> conversion rate of feed into meat, we should be comparing the
>> amount of land required to grow meat with the land needed to grow
>> plant products of the same nutritional value to humans. The
>> results are radically different.
>>
>> If pigs are fed on residues and waste, and cattle on straw,
>> stovers and grass from fallows and rangelands – food for which
>> humans don't compete – meat becomes a very efficient means of food
>> production. Even though it is tilted by the profligate use of
>> grain in rich countries, the global average conversion ratio of
>> useful plant food to useful meat is not the 5:1 or 10:1 cited by
>> almost everyone, but less than 2:1. If we stopped feeding edible
>> grain to animals, we could still produce around half the current
>> global meat supply with no loss to human nutrition: in fact it's a
>> significant net gain.
>>
>> Hogs do not require eight pounds of *protein* to produce a pound of
>> pork, liar.
>
> Yes, they do. This quotation you have provided doesn't give any reason
> to think that that is false.
>
>> They don't require *any* amount of human-edible food.
>>
>
> It may be that human-edible food is not required, and that would be
> relevant if we were discussing the argument about meat production
> having a bad effect on global food distribution. But we were talking
> about CDs. Even if the pigs are fed non-human-edible food, CDs will
> still be required in order to produce the food.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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 sure did. You conceded that you don't know, and don't want to know.
>>
>>> No, I didn't.
>>
>> You did, of course.
>
> So you appear to believe

You did, of course. You conceded that you don't know, and don't want to
know. You're satisfied with your smug, self-flattering assumptions.