View Single Post
  #57 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-03-2012, 12:20 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,,
Glen Glen is offline
external usenet poster
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 32
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 05/03/2012 20:18, Dutch wrote:
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:

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?

So that means a lot to me. I don't want to kill farm animals. The
surest way to stop killing them is to stop eating them.

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

Yes he does but he won't admit it. He won't admit anything. He even
refuses to admit the deaths of the animals he eats.

"By the way, "eating" meat doesn't cause any deaths of
animals - the meat is already dead." - George

The truth is that vegans, you, derive a perverse kick from trying to
make non-vegans feel guilty.

But you *ARE* guilty. You can't escape that guilt.

It doesn't work by the way

I think it does.

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.

No it isn't.

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.

There's a plausible chance that some animals die in crop fields.
It's not a fact that all vegetable production kills animals.

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


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?

Yes but you're already racked with it anyway. You deserve it.

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

We are all killers of animals, full stop.

That proves my point. But my response is no, we are not all killers.

I'm not saying that defend any

Yes you are. Of course you are. You feed off the misery, pain,
blood and death of peaceful animals. You do it because you've
told yourself it's alright to do it because the animal can never
criticise you. You're now trying to get away from my criticism
by telling me I'm not in a position to criticise you because I'm
a killer as well. Well tough shit. I'm not a dumb animal and
I *DO* criticise you.

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.

Not until it's supported by evidence.

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"

No I'm not.
1. having an appearance of truth or reason; seemingly worthy
of approval or acceptance

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.

I don't believe you.