On 3/6/2012 4:35 AM, Glen wrote:
> 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.

No. You are wrong, again.


>>>>> 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

It's a fact, "glen". Rupert has confirmed it for you. Listen to him.


>> It's a fact that is conceded by any "vegan" who has
>> seriously looked at it.

Ask Rupert, "glen".


>>>> 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.

It is *your* claim that they don't. Prove it.


>>>>> 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.

Sorry, you commission the deaths. Not in dispute.


>
>> 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.

It's the untenable and fake moral position of *every* "vegan", "glen".
The *fact* of animal collateral deaths in agriculture - CDs - means that
"vegans" are not living a "cruelty free 'lifestyle'", as they all begin
by claiming, so they are *not* respecting so-called "animal rights".
The fact that a well-chosen meat-including diet can cause fewer CDs than
most "vegan" diets means they aren't minimizing their harm, so they are
not doing the best they could from a utilitarian perspective.

"glen", my boy, the problem here is that you have been caught out in the
worst possible hypocrisy, and your palpable anger and terror over this
is evidence of crippling cognitive dissonance. You just can't come to
grips with the fact - it is a *FACT*, "glen", my boy - that the easy,
*LAZY* claim you thought you established to moral superiority is deader
than a Texas salad bar.


>>>> 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.

You did, you ****ing shit-4-braincell liar. You claimed to have eaten a
specific meal that caused no animal death or suffering:

"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 as a fact, you ****ing liar. You bought
commercially produced vegetables and whatever else you ate last night,
and you have no idea how it was produced. You lied.


>>>>>>> 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.

You are complicit in it. As much as I like Derek, and I do, he is wrong
about this denial of shared responsibility.

Anyway, why did you bring up "intent" if you're not worried about
vicarious moral responsibility? This has been discussed to death here,
and there has never been a credible refutation of it; "vegans" just deny
it even as they accuse others of it. Of *course* you share moral
responsibility for the CDs caused by your diet, because you *could*
avoid them if you really wanted to do so. You *choose* to incur that
responsibility.


>>>>>>> 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.

Good for you. You don't grow all your own food. You don't even grow a
major portion of 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 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.

Some *ALL* the time.


> flushed

Restored, you sniveling little bitch:

*Some* animals are killed by all vegetable production, including
the vegetables you eat. You don't even have any idea within the
broad category of vegetables which ones cause a lot of death and
which ones cause not so much. You can't be bothered. It isn't
about the animals at all - it's about you and your convenience and
your casual, unwarranted assumption of ethical superiority. In
fact, your ethics is shit.

You *really* don't want to address that, do you, "glen" my boy? You
make *NO* effort to choose, within all "vegan" diets, that which causes
the least harm. No, your smug, sanctimonious self-congratulation for
making the ethically meaningless and purely symbolic gesture of
refraining from putting animal parts in your mouth is all you do. You
start by lying that you are causing no animal deaths, then you retreat
to saying or implying you are "minimizing", and in the end you are
reduced to saying "I'm doing better than you", and *NONE* of them is
true simply based on the fact that you refrain from putting animal bits
in your mouth. You're a ****ing sanctimonious liar, "glen" my boy.


>
>>> 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. I don't kill a single one.


>> The simple fact is, you commission the deaths of animals.
>
> No you do. I don't.

Sorry, "glen" my boy. If you don't, then I do; if I do, then you do.
We both have *exactly* the same relationship with the unknown farmers
and ranchers who produce our food. It is impersonal, they are unknown
to us, we don't "ask" them to do any specific thing, but we both know
full well what they do, and we both know full well that it includes -
*always* - the killing of animals.

Sorry, "glen" my boy, but you bear moral responsibility for the deaths
of animals, exactly the same as I do, and by exactly the same mechanism.
The difference, "glen" my boy, is that I don't deny it; you, a
dishonest sanctimonious lying shitbag, do. That means I'm better than you.


>
>
>>>> "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 don't. You merely follow a silly rule that is not based on any
valid ethics at all.


>> 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.

*NO* ethics, "glen" my boy. It's ethically empty.


>>>>>>> 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

Davis may not have proved that a meat-including diet will always cause
fewer CDs than a "vegan" diet, but he *DID* establish that animals of
the field die in the course of vegetable agriculture, and that sniveling
shitworm Matheny did *not* refute that, nor did he even attempt to
refute it.

You ****ed up, "glen" my boy - yet again.


>
>> 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.

That's an empty claim by another sanctimonious, lying "vegan".


> __________________________________________________ ______________
> "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.

A self-serving *dry* rice farmer whose business depends crucially on
hoodwinking ecotopian "vegans" like you. In no way does he *guarantee*
that no animals are killed. He talks a lot of blabber about saving
wildfowl, but makes no mention of rodents or amphibians or reptiles.


> An elaborate hoax.

No, "glen" my boy.

Yes, of course you had to erase desperately the testimony of a Tennessee
farmer who talked about killing *eleven* fawns in a four acre patch of land:
http://www.tndeer.com/tndeertalk/ubb...156&page=32 0


Note that that farmer wasn't even discussing it in the context of trying
to debunk the absurd "vegan" claim to a "cruelty free 'lifestyle'" - he
was inquiring of other farmers how me might avoid killing them.

You're doomed, "glen" my boy - flushed out as a fulsome and
sanctimonious liar.