"John Coleman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
>> > It does, it asks people to go vegan, so can farmers! It promotes
>> > veganic
>> > farming. If others fail to take up these ideas, that is their fault,
>> > not
>> > veganisms.
>>
>> You have it wrong John, we're accountable for the lifestyles we actually
>> live, not the lifestyles we imagine.
>
> There is no individual accountability in society accept for individual
> actions. The food system is produced socially not individually, and highly
> influenced by vested interests - buyers have little choice if they want
> vegan friendly goods. If farmers choose to produce food in an unvegan way,
> that is largely their responsibility, and partly societies.
========================
You, individually have other choices! You choose not to make those choices
because of your conveninece and selfishness. By not making the choices that
back up you so-called ethics, you are proving that your claims mean nothing
to you. You do not have to accept what is produced for the rest of us, but
you do. You accept it because you are too lazy and selfish to actually live
up to your claims of not exploiting animals.


>
>> in livestock barns and feedlots, not the lives of imaginary animals that
>> spend their lives in idyllic, stress-free conditions and die completely
>> painlessly.
>
> Sure.
==================
Then you are party to the death and suffering your lifestyle causes, and no
amount of preaching about some mythical food source that you do not use will
make any difference to the animals you kill.


>
>> > It absolutely implies a numbers game, yet it provides no credible or
>> > authoitative numerical facts.
>>
>> You're just being silly. All it says is that many animals die in
> agriculture
>> that are not addressed by the vegan in his simplistic moral equation, "I
>> consume no animal products=I harm no animals".
>
> So what, this issue is dealt with by veganic agriculture.
======================
No, it cannot, if you do not participate in it. Why is it that you continue
to spew about some mythical foods, and continue to use the ones that you
know causes massive death and suffering? Oh, yeah, you're too lazy and
selfish to change...


>
> Let me put this to you. In pre slavery abolition America, even pro
> abolitionists exploited black labour, heck even the slaves used things
> that
> were the product of the exploitation of other slaves. Are you suggesting
> that the abolitionists share the same burden of responsibility as the pro
> slavers? In cases of "moral judgement" it is intent that counts, often
> more
> so than consequences. That is why some vegans may consider themselves
> morally superior.
==================
Anaologies are really hard for you, huh? Vegans do *nothing* to live up to
their so-called morals. They follow a simple rule for their simple mind.

>
>> People are notoriously blind to flaws in their own beliefs. This *is* a
> flaw
>> because it almost always introduces a false sense in vegans.
>
> Veganism is about not intentionally exploiting animals - this is
> achievable,
=========================
Then live it fool! You do not, and no vegan wannabe here on usenet does
either! You are all too lazy, selfish and ignorant to really make a
difference.


> vegans really do attempt to not exploit animals.
====================
No, you do not. Your inane posts to usenet prove that, killer.


If some vegans have a
> "false sense" then that is an issue with them and not veganism. The idea
> of
> cds and veganic agriculture probably were not included in the definition
> of
> veganism because they should be patently obvious and probably because at
> the
> time the society started going, were impractical for most, as indeed it
> still is.
=====================
Veganism isn't about what 'the most' do, it's about what *you* as an
individual can do, and should do. You don't even try!


>
>> > Veganism is inclusive
>>
>> Vegans exclude anyone who eats meat from their little morally superior
> club.
>
> They exclude people who intentionally eat meat, but there are a range of
> opinions on what else is eaten. Some include honey for example, I believe
> this is incorrect. Some such as myself would see taking a roadkill as
> acceptable, or also the use of second hand leather goods and so on. There
> are no specifics on many such issues, it is up to the individual. The use
> of
> animal products in medicine is also contentious.
>
>> The only time vegans are not dogmatic is when they are cutting themselves
>> slack for not following the rule of non-animal product consumption.
>
> Not true, see above. You cannot presume to speak for all vegans.
================
Neither can you. Veganism as practiced by thiose here on usenet is a false
religion, period. based on lys and delusions...


>
>> > Sure, vegans can choose not to eat rice if they want to and still be
>> > vegans.
>>
>> You completely missed the point. YOU said "it is both practical and
> possible
>> NOT to eat meat" as if to say that because a step is "practical and
>> possible", and it reduces animal deaths, that it OUGHT TO be taken. Yet
>> vegans freely consume rice, even though "it is both practical and
>> possible
>> NOT to eat rice" AND rice causes animal deaths. Can you not see the
>> hypocrisy?
>
> No, because cds in plant food production are incidental,
===========================
No, there are not. many animals are deliberately targetted for death!


they are not the
> objective of plant food production, furthermore veganism is about
> exploitation.
===========================
LOL And killing animals that get in the way of providing you with clean,
cheap, convenient veggies isn't exploitation? You really are just too
stupid for this, aren't you?

Road traffic fatalities are an inneviable consequence of
> driving cars, that does not make all car drivers the same as someone who
> sets out to run people over.
=====================
Again, analogies are really really hard for you, aren't they? There is no
comparison there. Untold amounts of money and many laws are on the books to
try to alleviate the problem of traffic fatalities. Negligence is punished
for deliberately violating laws and procedures enforce these provisions.
Nothing of the sort applies to crop production and the massive numbers of
animals that die there. In fact, you continue to reward the farmer for
producing the most veggies the cheapest, regardless of the cost in animal
lives. And, again, many of these animals are deliberately targeted for
death! Hardly accidental, wouldn't you say?


Intent is part of the moral equation. Of course
> we can have endless fruitless discussions about morality and get nowhere.
> The facts will remain that exploiting and causing intentional suffering to
> animals should be avoided where practical and possible. That is the vegan
> agenda.
================
One you don't even try to live up to, hypocrite. You prove that with each
ignorant post you make to usenet, fool.

>
>> "it is both practical and possible NOT to eat rice"
>
> Your point is absurd because all human activity involves CDs, one can say
> the same of potato eating. However, if we really can say that rice
> production causes less deaths than say potatoes, then vegans should pick
> potatoes.
========================
But they don't. That's part of point. They exclude meat, and make no
comparisons between the rest of their foods. It's quite easy to show that
tofu consumption would be far worse than meat. Maybe even so-called factory
farmed meat, as the ratio of beans used to end product is terrible. Ay
least form the vegan perspective.


>
>> It's not hard to extrapolate in general terms.
>
> I agree, which is why we don't need veganism to be a science. Veganic
> agriculture would produce the least exploitation and suffering.
=======================
Which you do not paticipate in. Why is it that you can never compare diet
to diet individually, but have to always resort to this mythical food?


>
>> You just said that it's hard to establish numbers. I agree, but it's not
>> hard to extrapolate in general terms. A 30lb salmon represents an animal
>> death.
>
> No it does not. A salmon is an omnivore and so itself consumes many other
> animals to grow. When you eat up the food chain, energy efficiency is lost
> and CDs rise geometrically.
===========================
No, fool. That salmon required no artifically inputs of 'energy'.
Everyone of your mono-culture crops do. Your continued reliance on lys and
delusions is pathetic.


>
>> If small animals are taken into account, then 30lb of tofu likely
>> represents at least one animal death also, when you consider all that
>> goes
>> into the cultivating, planting, spraying, harvesting and processing of
> soya
>> beans. The equation is more startling when larger animals are considered.
>
> Even herbivores eat huge quantities of insects and are responsible for
> CDs.
> No real numbers are available. If you have real numbers post them, or drop
> this issue.
=======================
LOL Ok, let's add the bugs fool! You lose big time. Your mono-culture
crops probably kill billions and billions of bugs. You really don't have a
clue, do you?


>
>> > I agree, over eating is unvegan.
>>
>> I disagree, overeating is not "un-vegan", it is not an issue on ANY vegan
>> publication I know of.
>
> True, then perhaps it should be an issue.
>
>> Really, eating a moose steak is not a "sin" in veganism?
>
> A person who eat meat is not a vegan, so is not "in veganism". Some
> "vegans"
> eat honey, they are frowned upon by some vegans, others are not so
> concerned.
======================
Then you just opened the door for meat. IF exploitation is the determining
factor, why is providing 100s of meals from the death of one animal not
considered when the other choice is veggies that have killed 100s or 1000s
of animals for the same number of meals. Obviuosly vegans have no problem
with killing large numbers of animals and letting them rot, so why is the
'best case' use of 100s of 1000s of calories from one death bad?


>
>> A huge proportion of the plant material in the human food chain is
> processed
>> through animals, because it is not edible for humans. A large proportion
> of
>> the land used to produce this plant material is arid, non-arable,
> untended,
>> or too mountainous for growing. The very lives of many of the worlds
>> populations depends on raising animals.
>
> So what? That desn't mean many people can't be more vegan, and I would has
> at a guess most land could be productive on plant foods, apart from a few
> extreme areas like Tibet. Personally I would migrate rather than kill
> animals to live. But this is a side issue.
================
News flash fool, you already kill animals to live. Heck, you already kill
animals for your selfish entertainment, hypocrite.


>
>> People can't eat trees.
>
> You can eat palm hearts, fruit and nuts, and some tree roots.
====================
So where are all these naturally occuring groves of crop producing trees?
What natural habitats are you going to detroy to plant all these non-native
trees?


>
>> > There is no reason it would not work for most.
>>
>> That's a pie-in-the-sky assertion that cannot be taken seriously.
>
> There is substantial literature on reforestation.
=================
Reforest grasslands and rangeland? Doesn't work that way fool.


>
>> >> That's a strawman, certain animal products can easily be shown to
>> >> cause
>> >> fewer animal deaths than certain plant based products.
>> >> http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm
>> >
>> > Exceptions mislead!
>>
>> It is no exception to refer to pastured animals. Free-range meat is
>> available and produced in great quantities in other parts of the world.
>
> Where it is often detrimental to the environment and biodiversity. Free
> range meat is not what is eaten on average, and may well not be affordable
> to most people or productive enough for all to "enjoy".
=======================
ROTFLMAO You casually dismiss a readily available foodsource as untenable
and not productive to the discussion, yet at the same time promote a
completely mythical food source as a panacea. You trult are ignorant, are
you killer?
Besides, we aren't discussing what 'everyone' eats, we're discussing what an
individual 'could' do if they really cared about animal death and suffering.
We have already determined that you do nothing.


>
>> > This is hypothetical, no such numbers exist.
>>
>> Yes they do. If I eat a 6oz steak from a moose with a carcass weight of
>> 1500lb, I am responsible for 1/3000 of an animal death
>
> You may only be responsible for 1/3000 of the animals death, but you also
> necessitated the deaths of all the animals it killed.
======================
And those 1000s and 1000s of animals would be what? Nice little strawman
there fool, but the fact is that the deaths for you food are directly
attributable to production of your food. Besides, if you want to go
there, then let's carry it out all the way. You crop fields have provided
an unatural habitat for an unnatuarlly large population of animals. Many of
the animals that your crops kill also kill animals to live. Therefore you
have just increased the number of *your* CDs throughout the growing season
to include not only the animals you directly kill, but also the animals that
were killed during the season by those animals.
Have a nice blood-drenched dinner, hypocrite.


>
> Actually I agree that meat eaters are collectively responsible for all the
> animals they pay to be killed. In the US about 1 million animals are
> slaughtered per hour (not all for meat) and therefore Americans meat
> eaters
> are responsible for most those deaths collectively. If most people went
> vegan, that whole food system and the slaughter would mostly cease.
=================================
No, the 'slaughter' of animals would not cease fool. They would just
increase in the numbers of animals that are sliced, diced, shredded,
dismembered and poisoned inhumanely for cheap, conveninet veggies.


>
>> > It is quiet practical and achievable with commendable results. We can
> put
>> > men on the moon, build cities and easily have more compassion for other
>> > beings.
>>
>> I think you are already living on the moon John.
>
> I think you still have no case against veganism, just a desire to
> criticise
> vegans on some subjective moral principles.
====================
You still have no case 'for' veganism, hypocrite. especially since you
don't even try to live it.

>
> John
>
>