On Mar 9, 5:04*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/8/2012 11:39 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On Mar 8, 7:02 pm, George > *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,
>
> One. *Big ****ing deal. *Meanwhile, if you eat a serving of soybeans
> from a field that killed a couple of thousand animals, you bear moral
> responsibility for all of them - we have established that everyone who
> consumes the product bears responsibility for the entire population of
> CDs, not some goofy pro rata share.
>

You didn't establish any such thing. You asserted it. I am not
interested in what I bear moral responsibility for according to your
idiosyncratic views. I am interested in my expected contribution to
the amount of suffering and premature death of conscious creatures
that actually takes place.

> There is simply no getting around the fact that you ****wits are
> assigning some vague, touchy-feely emotional value to livestock animals.
> * You don't want to eat them, and you can't really say why. *You try,
> but you fail. *You come up with heavy volumes of turgid, leaden
> gobbledygook to try to give it a patina of "scholarship", but in the end
> it's nothing but your childish feelings.
>
> It really is a head-in-the-sand belief system. *You don't want to eat
> meat because with each bite, you'd be thinking about the poor little
> roly-poly piggy or the sad-eyed moo-cow that was killed, or the grieving
> hen mommy who lost her eggs. *But because your cooked vegetable mush
> left the animals it caused to die in the fields, unseen, you - being
> children - can easily ignore them. *Out of sight, out of mind.
>
> I don't think you idiots have any idea of the extent to which normal
> people view you as emotional children.

You also think that I don't believe you're an idiot.