On 3/4/2012 12:10 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On 4 Mrz., 18:05, George > 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
>> sort of childish whining to which you've been reduced.
>>
>
> I see.

We all see it.


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

It's an insincere and time-wasting question.