On 3/8/2012 8:08 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 8, 4:50 pm, George > 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.
>>>>>> 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,
>
> How do you know that? For all you know the variation might be
> negligible.
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Well, assuming that's right, you would want to weigh up how much
> suffering you would be likely to prevent by obtaining the information,
> and whether there are perhaps more efficient ways of investing your
> time and energy to relieve suffering. For example I am involved with
> an organisation called Giving What We Can which tries to determine the
> interventions in the Third World which are most cost-effective at
> relieving suffering, and I did offer to help with the research at one
> stage. If suffering reduction is the goal, then it would be a question
> of where your resources are best spent.
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> No, it's because at this stage I don't have any thoughts about how to
> go about doing that which are especially useful. I could put aside
> some time and energy into thinking of ways to try to find out, sure,
> and I might possibly be able to achieve some suffering reduction that
> way. But there might very well be more efficient ways for me to invest
> my time and resources in order to achieve reduction in suffering.
>
> If you wish to believe that I don't really care about reducing
> suffering then that's no skin off my nose. I don't really know why you
> find that belief especially plausible, and I think it might be
> interesting for you to examine exactly why it is so important for you
> to believe that.
>
> I don't know what you think I would get out of following a vegan diet
> if not the desire to reduce suffering.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>
> It may be that you could achieve a reduction in suffering by replacing
> some foods in a typical consumer vegan diet with gathered wild nuts
> and fruits, but what you have claimed is that it would be rational in
> some cases to replace some of the foods with meat.

Correct. Ditch the soybeans and eat 100% grass-fed beef instead in
order to obtain protein. Keep all other elements of your diet the same.
You will effect a harm reduction thereby.