On 3/7/2012 8:30 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 7 Mrz., 17:20, George > wrote:
>> On 3/6/2012 11:16 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 6, 4:54 pm, George > 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.
>>
>> Barely.
>>
>
> No, I did correct him, full stop.

Weakly. Basically, you mumbled it.


>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> Nope. Not in the least. "vegans" claim to be causing no harm of a
>> particular kind, even though they are causing it. I never made any
>> claim not to be causing harm anywhere. I never claimed to be causing no
>> harm, and I never claimed to be minimizing. Recognizing that some harm
>> to someone's interests is inevitable, and that reducing it can be
>> desirable, I am always open to suggestions. I recycle as much waste as
>> I know how to do; when I was much younger, I recycled nothing. I always
>> turn out the light when I leave a room in the house. I set my
>> thermostat to a lower temperature in cool weather and a higher
>> temperature in warm weather than I did when I was younger. I suggest
>> these things to others, and I am receptive to their suggestions.
>>
>> Above all else, I don't compare myself to others in trying to decide if
>> I'm doing what is right. That comparison, more than anything else, is
>> what completely queers "veganism" - it is entirely predicated on such an
>> invidious comparison, and that's immoral.
>
> Veganism is not predicated on a comparison.

Of course it is.


> You have just admitted that you engage in activities that cause harm
> to humans even though you believe that humans have rights, but you say
> that you are "trying to do the best you can".

Nope - I absolutely did *not* say I'm doing the best I can. I also
didn't say that I try not to impose environmental harm on humans due to
their "rights"; it's because of their interests, and because of my wish
to benefit from their similar consideration.


> You haven't got any
> grounds on which to criticise vegans who try to do the best they can
> to reduce the harm they cause to animals.

1. "vegans" are *NOT* "doing the best they can" - this has been
established beyond dispute in several ways, focusing on the
absolute *fact* that "vegans" don't even conduct any analysis
whatever on which vegetable crops are least-harm within the
universe of all vegetable crops, and also on the *fact* that
it is possible to follow a meat-including diet that is lower
harm than many "vegan" diets.

"vegans" are not doing the best they can - never.

2. "vegans" absolutely *do* engage in a loathsome comparison with
omnivores. Their conclusion about their virtue is false.