On 3/6/2012 12:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 5, 9:45 pm, George > 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.

You have said that "vegans" - always put that word in quotes - generally
are aware of and do not dispute the fact that farming causes collateral
animal deaths. "glen" is an example of a "vegan" in raging denial.
Correct him, please.


>>> 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.

More likely than not, yes.


> 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.

I never made such a 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.
>