On 3/7/2012 8:56 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 7 Mrz., 17:52, George > 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.

No, it's right. It's unspoken in many cases, but it's always there.


>>> 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?

When did I suggest he was violating the polar bears' *rights*? I
didn't. I said his driving is killing polar bears, you stupid ****.


>
>>> 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,

Bullshit.


> partly because there is no reliable
> information available about that anyway, the research has not been
> done.

There's that disgusting "animal rights passivism" on display again - why
can't some ****ing idealistic "vegan" stop marching and participating in
PeTA stunts and *DO* the ****ing research, you ****ing idiot?

Why can't those two arrogant cocksuckers Gaverick Matheney and Nathan
Nobis do it, you stupid ****? They went to a lot of effort to try to
refute Steven Davis; why can't they do a similar effort to determine
which vegetables are least-harm?

The simple fact, you mother****ing idiot, is that "vegans" don't care.
This has been established thoroughly: they do NOT care. The easy, lazy
and casual assumption that not putting animal parts in their mouths is
sufficient is just too convenient.



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

That's a lie. What I haven't done is help "vegans" figure out how to
salvage their bankrupt belief system.


>> "vegans" are not doing the best they can - never.
>>
>
> You've given no rational grounds for thinking so.

I have proved it beyond all doubt.

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

No, right. "glen" is a perfect example.