View Single Post
  #39 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
Rupert Rupert is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On Mar 5, 4:39*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/4/2012 12:09 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 4 Mrz., 18:02, George > *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.

>
> It is false. *The conversion ratio is not of protein into protein, you
> ****ing liar.
>


It's not 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.

>
> We're talking about the environmental effects, you sleazy fat ****.
>


Actually, the original context was that we were talking about CDs. I
never said anything about the environmental effects.

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

>
> It is the truth.


Where did I concede that I don't know and don't want to know?