On 7 Mrz., 17:52, George Plimpton > wrote:
> 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 a fool.

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

Wrong.

> > 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.
>

If you don't think that your contribution to global warming violates
human rights, then how do you figure Glen is violating the polar
bears' rights?

> > 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.
>

There is no reason to think that vegans would be able to achieve any
significant further reduction in harm by doing an analysis of which
vegetable crops are least-harm, partly because there is no reliable
information available about that anyway, the research has not been
done.

You have never given any practical suggestions for how to follow a
meat-including diet that is lower in harm than many vegan diets.

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

You've given no rational grounds for thinking so.

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

Wrong.