On Mar 5, 9:45*pm, 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.
>
> > It /may/ cause some deaths
>
> It does.
>
> > but it isn't a fact that it *WILL* cause them.
>
> It is a fact. *Of course, you have made *no* effort to verify.
>
> > Eating meat *WILL* cause them.
>
> As many? *You haven't attempted to verify that, either.
>
> >>> 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?
>
> >>> 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. *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 never made that claim about all vegans. I do not claim to know what
proportion of vegans are aware of the collateral deaths issue. However
Derek, at least three of my friends, myself, Peter Singer, Gary
Francione, Joan Dunayer, are examples of vegans who are fully aware of
it. That is all I ever said.

> > 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'." *"veganism is all about sanctimonious
> self-congratulation, 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.
>
> By the way, "eating" meat doesn't cause any deaths of animals - the meat
> is already dead.
>
>
>
> >>> 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.
>
> > 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. *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.
>
>
>
> > 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?
>

One of the interesting things about this is that if you accept driving
a car as an example of causing harm to animals, then you must also
acknowledge that carbon emissions will inevitably cause serious harm
to humans in the future. It's pretty plausible that you drive a car,
and if that's the case then you can't claim not to be engaging in
activity that causes harm to humans, if you wanted to make that claim.

> > 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.