FoodBanter.com - View Single Post

Rupert

On 4 Mrz., 18:02, George Plimpton > wrote:
> 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.

Much joy may this belief bring you.