Woopert, "glen" here is a "vegan" who claims his diet doesn't kill *any*
animals. What do you have to say to him, Woopert?


On 3/5/2012 3:47 PM, Glen wrote:
> On 05/03/2012 20:45, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 3/5/2012 11:16 AM, Glen wrote:
>>> 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 *is* true.
>
> No it isn't. Not in every case. It's a plausible effect but it isn't a
> certain fact that vegetarian food causes animal deaths. You want
> to make it a fact to make your guilt go away.
>
>>> It /may/ cause some deaths
>>
>> It does.
>
> No it doesn't. Evidence please.
>
>>> but it isn't a fact that it *WILL* cause them.
>>
>> It is a fact.
>
> It's *your* fact. A /fact/ that needs evidence to support it.
>
>> Of course, you have made *no* effort to verify.
>
> It's your claim and you haven't supported it with evidence.
> Do your own work and don't blame anyone but yourself when
> you come back empty handed.
>>
>>> Eating meat *WILL* cause them.
>>
>> As many?
>
> Numbers are irrelevant. Kill one man and you're a murderer.
> Kill a whole battalion and you're a hero. Kill every man and
> you're a god.
>
>> You haven't attempted to verify that, either.
>
> I have no need to verify your irrelevancies. You do.
>
>>>>> 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, it's ethical for the food you eat to cause countless deaths of small
>> field animals, but not ethical to slaughter meat animals? How could
>> that be?
>
> Intent. Look it up.
>
>>>>> 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 just don't *want* to believe it.
>
> I know as a fact that no animals were killed or harmed in
> order to produce the vegetarian meal I ate this evening. I
> also know as a fact that at least one animal was harmed and
> killed mercilessly to produce the rotting corpse you ate today.
>
>
> Pretty interesting - Woopert has
>> been arguing for years that "vegans" are fully aware that animals are
>> slaughtered in the course of producing vegetables, as a matter of
>> course, and here you are to prove him wrong.
>>
> I don't deny that some animals are occasionally killed to produce
> vegetables and fruit. What I reject is your claim that all vegetable
> production causes it. I don't deny that some people are occasionally
> killed in road incidents. What I would reject would be the claim that
> all road trips kill people.
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> No, I don't want you to feel guilty about that at all. What I want is
>> for you to abandon the disgusting pretense that you pursue a "cruelty
>> free 'lifestyle'."
>
> But it *IS* cruelty free on my part. If any animals are killed they
> aren't killed because of my cruelty. You can't say the same.
>
>
> "veganism is all about sanctimonious
>> self-congratulation, and that alone makes it loathsome and immoral.
>
> I do congratulate myself for having the strength to stand by my
> convictions if that's what you mean. Yes. Meat eating is all about
> greed and not having the strength to admit it, and that alone makes
> it loathsome and immoral.
>
>>
>>>>> 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 that farming vegetables and fruit causes the death of
>> animals.
>
> Then it should be easy for you to present your evidence to support
> this /fact/ shouldn't it. I'm not just going to take your word on it. I
> want facts supported by evidence.
>
>> By the way, "eating" meat doesn't cause any deaths of animals - the meat
>> is already dead.
>
> You killed it. You want to pretend you didn't because your guilt
> would suffocating you if you admitted it. You live in a delusion.
>
>>>>> 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 trying to
>>> defend their cruelty by saying, "We're all killers, so leave me alone."
>>
>> I'm not trying to defend anything, although I can. What I'm doing is
>> showing that your position is repulsive because it is a lie.
>
> No but yours is. You don't believe you're responsible for the deaths
> you cause and yet you want vegans to believe they're responsible
> for the deaths they don't cause. Your position is repulsive because
> it's a lie.
>
>>> 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.
>>
>> No, the deaths you cause are a fact.
>
> Evidence. You need evidence to support a fact. If you don't produce
> evidence to support it I cannot accept it as fact.
>
>> When I have written of
>> plausibility, I have meant that it is plausible that a carefully chosen
>> meat-including diet causes fewer deaths than the typical, and perhaps
>> even *every*, "vegan" diet.
>
> I know what you wrote, and that wasn't it.
>
>>> If driving my car always caused misery and death I wouldn't
>>> drive.
>>
>> Driving your car *does* always cause misery and death, but you keep
>> right on driving. Or, does the carbon emitted from *your* car somehow
>> not contribute to global warming, which is killing polar bears this very
>> minute?
>
> I don't believe that. You obviously do. So how does it feel to be
> a murderer George? Why are you still emitting carbon while under
> the understanding that it kills animals and no doubt people?
>
>>
>>> If driving my car held only the plausible chance of misery
>>> and death, like it does, I would still drive.
>>
>> Driving your car causes misery and death. You simply close your eyes to
>> it. You're a filthy hypocrite.
>
> You're a murderer. Admit that you're a murderer. Denounce human
> rights from the highest rooftop, you filthy hypocrite.