View Single Post
  #120 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
George Plimpton George Plimpton is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,258
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 3/7/2012 9:36 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 7 Mrz., 18:30, George > 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.


Heh heh heh...no, I don't think you do, Woopert.


>>>>>>> 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?


No, because they can be relocated.


>>>>>>> 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"?


You've never made the case that it is. As noted, there is an infinite
number of "vegan" diets, and they can't *all* be 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?


The grass-fed beef, wild-caught fish and gathered wild nuts and fruits
cause zero CDs.