On Mar 6, 7:31*pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 5, 8:58 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> ....
>
> >> > On 4 Mrz., 20:31, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> >> ...
>
> >> >> > On 3 Mrz., 21:37, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> >> >> ...
>
> >> >> >> > On Mar 3, 10:05 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> >> >> >> ...
>
> >> >> >> >> > On Mar 2, 10:34 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> >> >> >> >> >> > I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility that there
> >> >> >> >> >> > might
> >> >> >> >> >> > be
> >> >> >> >> >> > some
> >> >> >> >> >> > dietary choices she might make which are not vegetarian and
> >> >> >> >> >> > yet
> >> >> >> >> >> > are
> >> >> >> >> >> > nevertheless just as good as a vegetarian diet
>
> >> >> >> >> >> Or better, with respect to health AND negative impact on
> >> >> >> >> >> animals.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> > but you haven't given
> >> >> >> >> >> > her practical guidance about any specific such choice.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> Buy local, buy organic. A free range organic chicken from a
> >> >> >> >> >> local
> >> >> >> >> >> farmer
> >> >> >> >> >> arguably supplies more nutrition per calorie at a lower
> >> >> >> >> >> environmental
> >> >> >> >> >> cost
> >> >> >> >> >> than an equivalent amount of imported and/or processed
> >> >> >> >> >> plant-based
> >> >> >> >> >> product,
> >> >> >> >> >> vegetables or fruit.
>
> >> >> >> >> > You think a local free range organic chicken involves less
> >> >> >> >> > harm
> >> >> >> >> > than
> >> >> >> >> > plant foods?
>
> >> >> >> >> Which plant foods?
>
> >> >> >> > Well, I ate potato gnocchi with tofu and lentils and carrots the
> >> >> >> > other
> >> >> >> > night, are you suggesting that I would have been better off with
> >> >> >> > a
> >> >> >> > local free-range organic chicken, from the point of view of
> >> >> >> > animal
> >> >> >> > suffering?
>
> >> >> >> I am suggesting that it is completely plausible that substituting
> >> >> >> some
> >> >> >> of
> >> >> >> the calories in your meal with some free range organic chicken
> >> >> >> presents a
> >> >> >> meal that falls within a range of environmental impacts that any
> >> >> >> reasonable
> >> >> >> person would call acceptable.
>
> >> >> > So, presumably, the answer to my question is no.
>
> >> >> The answer is that it is unknown, but entirely plausible, depending on
> >> >> a
> >> >> number of factors, that by replacing some of the food in a vegetarian
> >> >> meal
> >> >> with an equivalent number of calories of free range organic chicken
> >> >> that
> >> >> you
> >> >> would not only reduce the total amount of animal suffering but also
> >> >> make
> >> >> the
> >> >> meal more healthy and enjoyable.
>
> >> > And what's the evidence for that proposition?
>
> >> Logic. Propositions are built on logic.
>
> > No, empirical propositions don't come from logic alone, they are
> > grounded in factual evidence.
>
> You have already conceded the basic premise that modern mechanized
> agriculture kills animals. Based on that premise it is not unreasonable to
> conclude that some vegan food costs more animal lives than some non-vegan
> food. Further, it is not unreasonable to conclude that a fairly wide
> selection of both types fall within a range that would be considered
> acceptable to most people. I would add that the practice of some vegans to
> examine content labels and reject with disgust any food that might have the
> slightest trace of animal DNA is absurd given that most outdoor grown food
> likely has some trace of animal DNA.
>

Yes, all right, fine, but I am not especially convinced that free-
range organic chicken is likely to involve less animal suffering than
a calorically equivalent serving of vegan food, because chickens need
to be fed by grains that involve animal CDs, and it's a less efficient
use of grains to nourish humans than is the case with directly buying
the plant-based food.

I gave a specific example of a meal I ate and asked you if I would
have been better off with free-range organic chicken. It looks as
though the answer to that is no, or at least you are not confidently
answering yes.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> >> >> >> > In the absence
> >> >> >> >> >> > of specific practical advice going vegetarian is a good
> >> >> >> >> >> > strategy
> >> >> >> >> >> > for
> >> >> >> >> >> > her to reduce her contribution to animal suffering.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> Its one strategy, however it carries the risk of nutritional
> >> >> >> >> >> deficiencies
> >> >> >> >> >> in
> >> >> >> >> >> some people, and it tends to lead to the dreaded "holier than
> >> >> >> >> >> thou"
> >> >> >> >> >> syndrome. If those pitfalls can be avoided then it has
> >> >> >> >> >> advantages.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> > It's also better
> >> >> >> >> >> > for her health to be vegetarian than not.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> Clearly categorically false.
>
> >> >> >> >> > Wrong. Two doctors have told me that being a vegetarian is an
> >> >> >> >> > excellent choice for my health.
>
> >> >> >> >> That's not what you said.
>
> >> >> >> > The distinction is lost on me, I'm sorry.
>
> >> >> >> You said that is is better for her health to be a vegetarian. That
> >> >> >> is
> >> >> >> not
> >> >> >> the same as saying that a vegetarian diet as selected by your
> >> >> >> doctor
> >> >> >> is
> >> >> >> an
> >> >> >> excellent choice for your health.
>
> >> >> > My doctor doesn't give me any dietary advice. She just says "It is
> >> >> > good for your health that you are vegan." All she knows is that I am
> >> >> > vegan.
>
> >> >> >> The second second statement is, with some conditions, supportable,
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> first
> >> >> >> is not, it is too categorical, broad and poorly defined to be
> >> >> >> correct.
>
> >> >> > I don't agree.
>
> >> >> So if you eat nothing but potato chips and donuts that is better for
> >> >> your
> >> >> health than a balanced diet including some meat? Being a vegan simply
> >> >> means
> >> >> you AVOID certain products, it doesn't dictate what you DO eat.
>
> >> > That's a silly interpretation of my claim.
>
> >> No it's not, it is a literal interpretation. We don't all share your
> >> assumptions. All you said was that you were a vegan, period. That does
> >> NOT
> >> necessarily mean you are eating a healthy diet.
>
> > But it makes it quite likely, if the diet is reasonably sensible.
>
> Perhaps, but I would suggest that in the name of truth in advertising let's
> be precise in our wording.
>

I will do my best to be more precise in my wording in the future.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> > Obviously my claim was that
> >> > if you eat a reasonably sensible vegetarian diet then it's likely to
> >> > be healthier than a typical meat-based diet
>
> >> If that's what you are claiming then that's what you should say. *I have
> >> no
> >> way of knowing that your vegan diet is "reasonably sensible" nor that you
> >> are comparing it with a "typical" meat based diet, whatever that is. Why
> >> don't you compare a crappy vegan diet with a sensible balanced diet that
> >> includes some low fat meat?
>
> >> > and that's obviously what
> >> > my doctor believes too.
>
> >> That may be obvious to you, but you said that all your doctor knows is
> >> that
> >> your diet is vegan. Based on that she should not be telling you that your
> >> diet is healthy, you may have a severe B-12 deficiency for example.
>
> > I have regular blood tests to check for side-effects of my meds, and
> > we check my iron and B-12 levels when we do those.
>
> That's not the point. You're comparing a presumed sensible vegan diet with a
> "typical" western diet (You still haven't defined that), but if you mean one
> that includes quite a bit of fast food and fatty meat and over-eating then
> of course your diet wins any competition easily, nobody would deny that. The
> relevant comparisons for the purpose of showing that many of these
> categorical claims are wrong are the less than sensible vegan diets such as
> ones heavy on refined pasta which are not that healthy and ones that depend
> on imported and/or heavily processed meat substitutes which are not
> necessarily better than free range meat with respect to animal impact.
>
> I would never argue that a well planned vegan or vegetarian diet is bad, my
> point is that a well planned non-vegan diet can be just as good, based on
> all the same criteria, except one, that is the issue of animal
> *exploitation*.

I am skeptical that it is likely to be just as good on the issue of
animal suffering if grains need to be grown to feed the animals.