On 3/8/2012 12:17 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 7, 6:44 pm, George > wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> Yes, actually, I must confess I am a bit puzzled as to what your point
> is.

Then why did you write "I see", Woopert, when quite clearly and by your
own admission you *don't* see?

Uh-oh! You're not starting to have another "episode", are you, Woopert?



>>> 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.
>>
>
> Do you find it plausible that no premature deaths will take place?

Yes, eminently so.



>>>>>> 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.

Why do they have hundreds of hours to waste on trying to argue about how
many dead field animals can dance on the blades of a combine, Woopert,
but they can't spend *ONE ****ING MINUTE* trying to figure out how to
determine the least-harm "vegan" diet from among all such diets?


>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>
> Actually, that is theoretically possible

No. We know that different crops cause different numbers of animal
deaths per kcal, and so if two "vegan" diets are identical except that
one contains a higher CD food than the other, then by definition they
cause different amounts of harm.

You ****wit.



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

And you have never given any practical suggestions for how to determine
the least-harm "vegan" diet from among all such diets. It's because you
don't care about reducing animal harm - not really. *All* you care
about is assuming a sanctimonious moral pose by not putting animal bits
in your mouth.


>>
>>>>>> 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.
>
> The challenge was for you to name a diet containing animal flesh that
> caused less harm than many vegan diets, so gathered wild nuts and
> fruits don't count.

Of course they count, you ****wit, because I never proposed a meat-only
diet.