On Mar 8, 4:50*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> 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?
>

No, I'm not.

I found what you wrote mildly amusing. Writing "I see" was an
expression of my amusement. It was ironic, writing "I see" was meant
to draw attention to the fact that the point of what you wrote is very
unclear.

> >>> 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.
>

Well, there's not much one can say about that, is there.

Even if no premature deaths take place that is still not an especially
good reason to think that no rights violation has occurred. You
believe humans have property rights, don't you?

> >>>>>> 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?
>

For all I know they have.

It's pretty difficult to get reliable information about how many
collateral deaths are actually occurring, and how many of them are
actually caused by human activity and not by predation. Gaverick
Matheny made use of Steven Davis' data to estimate that the production
of a vegan diet causes 0.3 of a death per year. If that's the average
then that would suggest you're not very likely to achieve substantial
reductions by putting enormous effort into doing research about how
much harm is caused by the production of the different kinds of crops.
Gaverick Matheny is a utilitarian; he may very well feel that he can
do more good by investing his time and energy in other ways, and I
would say he's probably right about that. I conjecture that is the
reason Gaverick Matheny has not embarked on the exercise. I don't know
the details of Nathan Nobis' ethical views, but he may very well have
a similar reason.

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