On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 01:12:54 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote:

>On Oct 11, 11:02*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 01:15:05 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Oct 10, 10:06*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 07:18:10 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Oct 10, 4:09 pm, "J.C. Watts" > wrote:
>> >> >> On Oct 10, 3:26 am, Rupert > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > On Oct 9, 8:40 pm, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > > "George Plimpton" > wrote
>>
>> >> >> > > >> Check this out Its great
>> >> >> > > >>http://youtu.be/1LIyVBWaE_A
>>
>> >> >> > > > It's shit. It's unpalatable shit.
>>
>> >> >> > > > Why are "vegans" continually trying to make stuff look like and taste like meat? *Extremely* suspicious.
>>
>> >> >> > > It's mostly for people who like meat but are trying to eat "healthy".
>>
>> >> >> > > > No one likes "vegan" food - no one.
>>
>> >> >> > > Some actually do, the problem is none of them are healthy.
>>
>> >> >> > This isn't true. Just about everyone enjoys some food which is
>> >> >> > suitable for vegans. And a significant majority of those people are
>> >> >> > healthy. Furthermore a significant majority of those who consume an
>> >> >> > exclusively vegan diet are quite healthy. The American Dietetic
>> >> >> > Association has endorsed the position that appropriately-planned vegan
>> >> >> > diets are nutritionally adequate at all stages of life, and carry many
>> >> >> > significant health benefits.
>>
>> >> >> Yeah, but hamburgers taste so much better.
>>
>> >> >Well, if that's what you reckon then that's fine. I've been vegan for
>> >> >about 16 years and I definitely remember that I used to enjoy the
>> >> >taste of meat
>>
>> >> * * Then why didn't you begin contributing to decent lives for cattle by buying
>> >> grass raise beef and dairy products instead of not contributing to anything
>> >> other than the deaths of wildlife?
>>
>> >Let's be clear about what you think the upside would be. You think
>> >that I would be increasing the expected number of cows who come into
>> >existence and lead fairly happy lives, as well as reducing my
>> >contribution to collateral deaths caused by plant-based agriculture,
>> >and that would be a good thing? Is that the story?
>>
>> * * If you did it right, yes. If you didn't, no. If you bought a veal calf that
>> was soon to be slaughtered and made a deal with a farmer to raise it for you for
>> two years with no grain, then you had it humanely slaughtered and you ate that
>> instead of your soy stuff you would reduce your contribution plus benefit a
>> livestock animal in the biggest way.
>
>So how much do you suppose that would cost?

It doesn't matter what it would cost to do things like that in regards to
whether or not it would be "better" than not doing anything. And from the
animals' position having that done would be priceless. We're talking about
doubling, tripling, or whatever the lives of the animals so from their position
the cost could never enter into it.

But.

If you find the right dairy farmer you could probably work it out fairly
cheap, especially if you tell him you've been vegan for years but now you want
to try something that would actually benefit a livestock animal, instead of not
doing anything. Dairy farmers are opposed to the eliminationist position, of
course!!!, but some of them would be in favor of working with the situation. So
imo the cheapest way would be to find a farmer who would work with you, and who
will sell you a baby male dairy calf cheap, then charge you however much to
raise it to weening for you unless you can keep it at home and feed it twice a
day for a while until it can eat on its own. After the calf is weened you might
be able to board it on the farm where it was born, or maybe someplace else like
a large beef farm where the farmer would charge you so much a month to let it
hang out in the pastures. That's how people did stuff like that with some of the
farmers I knew in NC at least, so I imagine it goes on in a lot of farming
areas.

>> You could do the same with the brothers of
>> commercial laying hens. You might even be able to get them for free and give
>> them a good life, then slaughter humanely... That's probably the best way you
>> could do it, but there are variations between that and doing nothing as you are
>> now.
>>
>> >> >and I also think that I enjoy my food now about as much
>> >> >as I used to before I became vegan. And I also believe that by being
>> >> >vegan I'm reducing my expected contribution to animal suffering.
>>
>> >> * * It depends how a person does it. I feel certain there are vegans who buy
>> >> rice milk when even regular cow milk almost certainly involves fewer deaths, and
>> >> grass raised dairy undoubtedly does.
>>
>> >Well, how did you come to that conclusion; do you have any kind of
>> >estimate available for how many premature deaths are required to
>> >produce one serving of rice milk?
>>
>> "ok, get your calculator out, we'll be numerate he
>>
>> it takes 7 passes with a 30' combine to cut an acre (208' x 208'). *to
>> digest 7,000 frogs in that acre (7,000 1st cutting + 3,000 2nd cutting
>> for a total of 10,000 - hard shower), that means 1000 unlucky (slow, bad
>> jumpers, ...) frogs in the 6240 sq.ft. that constitutes *one* pass, or
>> one per 6+ sq.ft. or 5 per lineal foot of travel.
>>
>> i *did* say these numbers were conservative, didn't i?
>>
>> for the 'deluge' (i used 35,000 in the faq, divided 25k & 10k per
>> cutting), the numbers are ~3500 per pass; one for every 1½ sq.ft.; and
>> ~17 per lineal foot of travel.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>
>Yeah, ok, but we still haven't finished; you need to say how much rice
>milk you get out of an acre of rice.

You're the math guy...you tell me.

>> > The closest diderot comes to providing us with evidence we could
>> > possibly remeasure is his "500 yard long, foot-wide windrows of drowned
>> > grey and brown (rats)". *You and I could layout rats in a matching
>> > configuration and do a head count, but there wouldn't be much point
>> > since diderot goes on to say that this mass drowning occurs "whenever
>> > the rice is flooded". *Then he neglects to tell us how often he floods
>> > his fields.
>
>I didn't write this. Who is this from?

Whoever diderot was telling about it years ago.

>> rice has to grow in water, so it is flooded in april, drained for
>> harvest in july/august, reflooded and drained in october. *we flood in
>> mid-december for waterfowl, and drain in february. *in february and
>> march, the land is disced and planed." - didderot
>>
>> >> >But you may find it unlikely that you would enjoy food and/or you may
>> >> >not find the consideration about animal suffering to be compelling.
>> >> >Which is of course your choice, I have no interest in trying to get
>> >> >you to change your mind.
>>
>> >> * * I told a guy about the difference between cage free and battery farmed eggs
>> >> and he started buying cage free. So he's doing something while veganism does
>> >> nothing.
>>
>> >This assertion strikes me as irrational. Moving from battery-farmed
>> >eggs to cage-free eggs is of course an improvement, and moving to no
>> >eggs at all is at least as much of an improvement.
>>
>> * * Not from my pov. From my pov not supporting the cage free method is nothing
>> more than not supporting the cage free method. I believe the cage method is
>> cruel but that most cage free hens have lives of positive value to them. If you
>> don't know what that means yet then you just don't know.
>>
>
>Well, it's at least as much of an improvement in terms of suffering
>reduction. You obviously think that encouraging people to bring
>animals into existence whose lives will contain a balance of pleasant
>experiences over aversive experiences should be part of the goal too.

I try to think openly about things, which includes trying to think them
through. My belief is that eventually people will produce meat without need of
living animals. That means no more livestock experiencing their lives, but
instead meat grown in vats and no consciousness involved at all. From my pov
that will not be a better situation than livestock experiencing lives of
positive value, so I encourage people to appreciate them while they still are in
existence and will continue to be for a while.

>> >> Vegans help livestock like dead people help livestock, while at the
>> >> same time still contributing to the deaths of wildlife that most people do.
>>
>> >The belief is that most animals living on modern farms have lives
>> >which contain a lot of suffering, and the motivation is to reduce the
>> >number of animals who are brought into existence in order to lead such
>> >lives. Veganism sounds like one pretty rational strategy for achieving
>> >this goal. But perhaps you think that there is something wrong with
>> >the goal?
>>
>> * * I believe a lot of livestock do have lives of positive value, and that
>> almost all of them could if people took the interest. Amusingly before I started
>> posting here I imagined that sort of thing and what could be done to make their
>> lives better was the sort of things people discussed, and WHICH animals have
>> lives of positive value and which do not. LOL...you people can't get anywhere
>> near stuff like that.
>
>So how about animals in the wild? Are their lives "of positive value"?

Some are and some are not, the same as with livestock and humans and
everything else. The value can change for wildlife just as it can for livestock
also. Wild animals aren't necessarily really free to do whatever they want
either, since they're restricted by the territories of other animals as well as
other types of natural restrictions and the influence of humans. I feel that in
general the lives of domestic animals are better than those of wildlife, since
they usually don't live in fear of predators, or have to worry about getting
food, or water, or being driven off of their own territory, etc...