On 4 Mrz., 18:05, George Plimpton > wrote:
> 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.
>

I see.

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

It would appear that you do not wish to answer my question.