View Single Post
  #67 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
Glen Glen is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 32
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 06/03/2012 03:35, George Plimpton wrote:
> 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.

>
> It is.
>
>
>> 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.

>
> No, that's not the reason.


Yes it is. You're racked with guilt.

>>>> It /may/ cause some deaths
>>>
>>> It does.

>>
>> No it doesn't.

>
> It does.
>
>
>>>> but it isn't a fact that it *WILL* cause them.
>>>
>>> It is a fact.

>>
>> It's *your* fact.

>
> It's a fact.


No it's only your baseless fact.


It's a fact that is conceded by any "vegan" who has
> seriously looked at it.
>
>
>>> Of course, you have made *no* effort to verify.

>>
>> It's your claim and you haven't supported it with evidence.

>
> You have made no serious effort to verify that the foods you eat cause
> no death.


It's your claim that every food I eat causes animal deaths in crop
production. You haven't supported that claim. It's baseless and it's
not my job to support your baseless claims. Do your own work.

>>>> Eating meat *WILL* cause them.
>>>
>>> As many?

>>
>> Numbers are irrelevant.

>
> They are? So, if you admit that *some* of your vegetables cause animal
> death - and they do - then you're a murderer, right?


No. If I personally killed them or paid a food producer to kill them
on my behalf then yes I would be a murderer like you. I or rather
Derek explained this to you last time I was here.
__________________________________________________ ____
Meat eaters who fail to justify the deaths accrued during the
production of their food often try to head off any criticism from
vegans by demanding that they too must accept liability for the deaths
accrued during the production of their food. Farmers, they say, who
kill animals collaterally while producing vegetables, are under the
employ of vegetarians, just as farmers who kill animals to produce
meat are under the employ of meat eaters. The liability for these
animal deaths in both food groups is identical, they say, and the
vegan therefore has no grounds for criticising the meat eater. But
this is a dishonest argument which relies on ignoring the relationship
between the consumer (employer) and the farmer (employee). Unlike the
servant or agent who acts directly under his employer's dictates, the
farmer is an independent contractor who carries out his job according
to his own method. From Wiki;

[Historical tests centered around finding control between a supposed
employer and an employee, in a form of master and servant
relationship. The roots for such a test can be found in Yewens v
Noakes, where Bramwell LJ stated that:

"...a servant is a person who is subject to the command of his
master as to the manner in which he shall do his work."

The control test effectively imposed liability where an employer
dictated both what work was to be done, and how it was to be done.
This is aptly suited for situations where precise instructions are
given by an employer; it can clearly be seen that the employer is the
causal link for any harm which follows. If on the other hand an
employer does not determine how an act should be carried out, then the
relationship would instead be one of employer and independent
contractor. This distinction was explained by Slesser LJ:
"It is well established as a general rule of English law that an
employer is not liable for the acts of his independent contractor in
the same way as he is for the acts of his servants or agents, even
though these acts are done in carrying out the work for his benefit
under the contract. The determination whether the actual wrongdoer is
a servant or agent on the one hand or an independent contractor on the
other depends on whether or not the employer not only determines what
is to be done, but retains the control of the actual performance, in
which case the doer is a servant or agent; but if the employer, while
prescribing the work to be done, leaves the manner of doing it to the
control of the doer, the latter is an independent contractor."]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicario...in_English_law

Unlike the meat eater who demands the death of animals for his food,
vegans do not command their employers to kill animals during the
production of their vegetables. The farmers they employ are not their
agents or servants subject to their commands as to the manner in which
they shall do their work. The relationship between the farmer and the
consumer is merely one of employer and independent contractor. Unlike
the vegan, meat eaters cannot escape criticism for the deaths accrued
during the production of their food, and trying to foist liability for
collateral deaths accrued during vegetable production onto vegans to
head off that criticism is a dishonest tactic long made plain by me
many years ago here on these animal-related forums.
__________________________________________________ ___

> You didn't even read the article I linked to start the thread, did you?
> You should read it:
> http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/11419...-fails-and-one


That's the position of a broken vegan. Not a genuine one.

>>> You haven't attempted to verify that, either.

>>
>> I have no need to verify your irrelevancies.

>
> You absolutely have a requirement to verify your claims. You claim your
> diet doesn't cause any animal death. Prove it.


I never made that claim. I don't deny that /some/ animals die. You claim
that animals die during the production of everything I eat. That's what I
deny and I'll keep denying it until you provide evidence to support your
baseless claim. Are we clear on that now?
>
>>>>>> 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.

>
> Even involuntary manslaughter is a crime.


I'm not even guilty of that. Read Derek's post.

>>>>>> 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.

>
> You do *not* know that. Saying that you do is a lie.


I live on a farm in the middle of a very large farming community.
It's my father's farm and his father's before him. It's not a proper
working farm any more because he had a stroke about 2 years ago.
My sister and her husband keep some of it going but it's nothing
like it was. We've sold all the machinery and will sell the farm
when he dies. When I say no animals died during the production
of my food it's a fact.

>>> 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.

>
> *Some* animals are killed by all vegetable production,


Yes, *some* sometimes but not all times.


flushed

>> If any animals are killed they
>> aren't killed because of my cruelty. You can't say the same.

>
> Of course I can. I don't kill any animals.


Yes you do. I don't though. You can't say the same.

> The simple fact is, you commission the deaths of animals.


No you do. I don't.


>>> "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

>
> You don't have any convictions.


Yes I do and I live by them.

You are congratulating yourself for
> following a morally empty rule. It's as morally empty as "chew 12 times
> before swallowing." It's just a rule - no ethics behind it.
>
>
>>>>>> 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.

>
> http://web.archive.org/web/200411070...ood/vegan.html


Davis' guesswork was debunked years ago. http://jgmatheny.org/matheny%202003.pdf

> From a former rice farmer:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt....o/GOmWEfsbmhAJ


I read that /story/ and then read the comments underneath it.
__________________________________________________ __________
This is seven year old uncorroborated hearsay, from a hunter, come book
seller called Robert (Bob) A Sykes. - It has no validity.
__________________________________________________ ______________
"There is an "article" circulating on the Internet that describes how
thousands of frogs and other animals are killed in the mechanized
harvesting of grain crops. This "collateral animal deaths" story is an
elaborate hoax. The author, a "Texas organic rice farmer" is a gifted
writer, but he should use his talents elsewhere.

The author's numbers describe a plague of frogs of biblical
proportions. However, it is questionable if he has even been on a rice
farm. The major point that our author has missed is that rice fields
are harvested dry. The irrigation water is drained, and the ground is
left to dry before the harvesters go out in the field (otherwise, they'd
sink in the mud). There just aren't that many amphibians in the field.

Regrettably, there probably are some small animal deaths. However,
the number of deaths in a mile of rice harvesting pales in comparison to
the road kill on a mile of highway. Harvesters move slowly, and they
are not the high speed machines described in this article.

At Lundberg Family Farms, we care deeply for the animals that we share
our fields with. For example, every spring before field work begins, we
search the fields for nests, rescuing eggs for a local incubation
centers (mature pairs re-nest when the nests are disturbed like this).
After hatching, the fledglings are raised and released back into the
wild. Last year, we rescued over 3,000 duck eggs. After harvest, we
flood our fields to provide habitat for winter migratory birds and
waterfowl. They eat the rice that is left in the fields and contribute
fertilizer for next spring. There are autumn days when the sky is
blackened by canadian geese (and the sound is beautiful)! We see ducks,
geese, cranes, rails, pheasants, egrets, herons, swans, and even bald
eagles resting in our fields.

We are committed to sustainable and organic farming techniques. We
see our farming operation as a "partnership with nature," and would
not continue if rice harvesting resulted in the "death toll" that this hoax
suggests.

--> Kent Lundberg.

Kent Lundberg
Lundberg Family Farms
http://www.lundberg.com
__________________________________________________ ________

An elaborate hoax.

<flushed>