View Single Post
  #59 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-03-2012, 04:01 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,,
George Plimpton George Plimpton is offline
external usenet poster
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 3/5/2012 4:20 PM, Glen wrote:
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
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.

So, if you kill animals and leave the corpses in the field to rot,
that's okay, but eating them is immoral? How does that work?

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


So, why do you keep killing mice?

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

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.

I do admit it.

He even refuses to admit the deaths of the animals he eats.

Bullshit. Of course I admit them. What about it?

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

That's correct: the *eating* doesn't cause the deaths. The meat is
already dead long before I buy it.

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

But you *ARE* guilty.

So are you.

You can't escape that guilt.

Neither can you. The difference is, omnivores admit theirs. "vegans"
fatuously try to deny theirs, so they can continue to propagate the
fiction that they lead "cruelty-free" lives.

It doesn't work by the way

I think it does.

It doesn't. Animals die so that you can eat. This is not in rational

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.

It is. Animals die in vegetable production. 0

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 is a certainty.

It's not a fact that all vegetable production kills animals.

It is a fact that vegetable production kills animals, and *you* don't
care to know which vegetables cause differing amounts of animal death.
You don't eat any animals, and that's good enough for you, but your
conclusion - that your diet doesn't cause any animals to die - is a lie.

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.

It didn't make him feel guilty at all.

What your use of the term did was prove your sanctimony, your view of
yourself as morally superior because you don't put animal parts in your
mouth - you leave them to rot in the field.

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.

Yes, "we" are, and that includes you. Your diet causes animal death -
not in rational dispute.

I'm not saying that defend any

Yes you are.

He's not.

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. 0

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.

You are.

What is plausible is that a meat-including diet could cause fewer animal
deaths that a typical "vegan" diet. What is a *fact* is that vegetable
agriculture causes animal death.

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.

You are closing your eyes to it, in order to try to sustain the myth of
your moral superiority, but it is nonetheless true.