View Single Post
  #93 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
Rupert Rupert is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On Mar 6, 4:54*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> 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.
>


I did.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> 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.
>


It seems to be implicit in your accusing vegans of hypocrisy while
denying that you yourself are a hypocrite.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> 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.