On 7 Mrz., 18:30, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/7/2012 9:24 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On 7 Mrz., 18:17, George > *wrote:
>
> >>>>> 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're a fool.
>
> Gotcha!
>

I see.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>> 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 ****.
>
> > By that logic you must also conclude that your driving will help to
> > kill humans in the future, and yet you don't think you're violating
> > human rights?
>
> Not everything that shortens a human's lifespan is a violation of his
> rights.
>

Here is a discussion of the potential effect of climate change on the
Pacific Islands.

http://www.unescap.org/mced2000/paci...nd/climate.htm

In your opinion, assuming this comes to pass, will rights violations
have occurred? Why or why not?

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>> 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?
>
> > I don't know; you'll have to ask them.
>
> You keep pretending that "vegans" *can't* do the comparison because
> there's no research on which vegetables are least-harm. *"vegans" ****
> away countless hours on other worthless defenses of "veganism" - why
> can't *any* of them be bothered to try to make "veganism" a little more
> internally coherent? *The fact that *no one* does is a crushing
> indictment of the belief system, and a validation of my attacks on it.
> They are not intellectually or morally entitled to make a single one of
> their claims for it: *not "cruelty free", not "least harm", where that
> second one includes both harm to animals and environmental degradation.
>
> The entire thing is shit.
>

Have you got some evidence that veganism is not "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're a fool.
>
> Gotcha!
>
>
>
> >>> 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.
>
> > So where have you given the suggestion, then?
>
> See my many comments about 100% grass-fed beef, wild-caught fish,
> gathered wild nuts and fruits, and even waste-fed pork.
>

What evidence do you have that these diets are lower in harm than many
vegan diets?

>
>
> >> 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.
>
> > Wrong.
>
> No, I'm right.
>
>
>
> >>>> 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.
>
> Gotcha again!