View Single Post
  #54 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-03-2012, 08:18 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
Dutch Dutch is offline
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,025
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

"Glen" wrote in message ...
On 05/03/2012 17:49, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/5/2012 9:36 AM, Glen wrote:
On 05/03/2012 15:42, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/4/2012 9:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
snip

I don't believe that I have any way of knowing how the number of
premature deaths caused per calorically equivalent serving of tofu
compares with that for grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.

You know, intuitively and based on plausibility, that raising the
vegetable crops you would have to substitute in order to get equivalent
nutrition causes multiple CDs,and that 100% grass-fed beef or
wild-caught fish causes none.

Eating meat causes the death of animals.


Cultivating, harvesting and distributing vegetables and fruits causes
the deaths of animals, too.


That isn't true. It /may/ cause some deaths but it isn't a fact that
it *WILL* cause them. Eating meat *WILL* cause them.

There's no getting away
from that fact until you stop eating meat and go vegan.


"Going 'vegan'" doesn't mean causing no deaths of animals.


It will mean causing no deaths to farm animals. That's a fact.


So what? Does the life of a cow have more value than the life of a mouse?

There's only a small chance that animals were killed to produce my food.


There is a 100% certainty that animals were harmed, including being
killed, in order to produce your food.


No. I don't believe you. You're only saying that because you
want me to feel as guilty as you obviously do about the cruelty
and death on your plate.


That's false, he feels no guilt about the deaths caused to bring him his
food. The truth is that vegans, you, derive a perverse kick from trying to
make non-vegans feel guilty. It doesn't work by the way, it just makes you
look like a huge idiot.

You don't want to acknowledge the huge difference between fact


You have presented no "fact" that warrants any examination.


It's a fact that eating meat causes the death of animals. It's not
a fact that eating vegetables and fruit causes the death of animals.


It is a fact. Fruit orchards are heavily sprayed with pesticides. Crop
fields are sprayed with herbicides. Those are deadly chemicals. Machines
used to till, spray and harvest also kill small animals, there have been
studies done on that.

and plausibility because you want to make vegans feel as guilty
as you do for all the pain, misery and death on your plate.


No


Yes. I've seen this argument before from corpse eaters


How did it make you feel when you used that term? Do you think it made me
feel guilty?

trying to
defend their cruelty by saying, "We're all killers,


We are all killers of animals, full stop. I'm not saying that defend any
cruelty, I'm saying it to try and wake you out of your sleepwalking.

so leave me alone."
The deaths you cause are a necessary fact and unavoidable. The
deaths I /might/ cause are, by your own word, only "plausible" and
not a fact at all.


They are a fact.

If driving my car always caused misery and death I wouldn't
drive. If driving my car held only the plausible chance of misery
and death, like it does, I would still drive.


You are misconstruing "plausible", it doesn't mean a slim possibility.
Driving your car through a busy schoolyard is analogous to driving a
harvester through a field of grain or rice.

The difference between
doing something which always causes death and something which
only plausibly causes death is huge. You know it is but you'll never
admit to it because your guilt stops you.


The food you eat always causes misery and death to animals. Grow up and deal
with it and stop trying to shift the burden of guilt onto others.