On 3/4/2012 4:29 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 3 Mrz., 19:18, George > 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.

Not in the least, and you don't believe that anyway. It's just the
sorty of childish whining to which you've been reduced.

>>>>>>> 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?

Cut it out, woopee. Just cut the shit, now.