View Single Post
  #46 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-03-2012, 05:40 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
Mr.Smartypants[_4_] Mr.Smartypants[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 107
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On Mar 4, 10:21*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/4/2012 9:10 PM, Rupert wrote:





On Mar 5, 6:08 am, George *wrote:
On 3/4/2012 8:55 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 5, 5:48 am, George * *wrote:
On 3/4/2012 8:27 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 5, 4:40 am, George * * *wrote:
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, [email protected] 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.


You have all sorts of very interesting insights


These aren't exceptionally interesting, but they're still accurate.


So when I say "You're a fool" and you say "Concession noted and
accepted", I don't really believe that you appear to have lost touch
with reality?


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.


So you appear to believe.


Because it is.


You reckon?


Guaranteed.


How do you know?


I have lots of experience with your insincerity and time-wasting efforts.



Tell him what hogs eat, Goober.