On Mar 8, 7:02*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/8/2012 9:41 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 8, 5:45 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> > Okay, so how do you know that?
>
> Because a given number of kcals of 100% grass-fed beef causes fewer CDs
> than the same kcals of soybeans.

But you need to factor in the death caused by slaughtering the cow,
and also any deaths the farmer has to cause to protect the cattle from
predators, and I don't know how the comparison would come out then.
You also need to take account of other harms the cow may suffer like
being dehorned and branded without anaesthetic.