View Single Post
  #28 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rupert
 
Posts: n/a
Default



rick wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> >
> > rick wrote:
> >> Dutch, ruperts message didn't show up on my server, so I'll
> >> piggy-back on yours...
> >>
> >> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > "Rupert" > wrote
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Dutch wrote:
> >> >>> > wrote
> >> >>>
> >> >>> [..]
> >> >>>
> >> >>> > I think you'll find "factory-farming" usually refers to
> >> >>> > the
> >> >>> > intensive
> >> >>> > rearing of animals. Have you got a justification for
> >> >>> > calling
> >> >>> > mono-culture crop production "factory-farming"?
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Don't like people turning your pet pjoratives back on you
> >> >>> eh?
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >> Well, "factory-farming" is a simple descriptive term.
> >> ========================
> >> Yes, it is, and as I explained, far more descriptive of crop
> >> farming....
> >>

> >
> > Well, I wasn't very convinced by what you said.

> ====================
> Only because you're brainwashing has your mind closed. Try to
> reute what you have been told, don't just say nah, nah, nah,
> killer.
>


Well, the only fact you provided was that beef cattle start out on
pasture. I asked for a reference on this. But, however that may be, it
hardly proves your case. To prove your case, you would need to examine
the details of crop production and intensive rearing of animals and
compare them, and demonstrate that the former deserved the label
"factory farming" more than the latter. You didn't do this.

>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> > It carries much more baggage than that.
> >> >
> >> >> It doesn't matter
> >> >> very much what it actually refers to, I was just surprised
> >> >> that he
> >> >> thought this was a correct application of the word.
> >> ==================
> >> It's very correct, unless of course you have an agenda to
> >> promote
> >> that doesn't have anything to do with reality, eh killer?
> >>

> >
> > Well, feel free to support your case.

> ================
> LOL I already did, fool. You have yet to support your
> contentions. vegans never do, and never will, because all you
> have is a simple rule for your simple minds....
>


You made an attempt to support your case, but I wasn't that impressed
with it so far. I have provided arguments for my contentions. If you
want to address them, go ahead.

>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> > I realize that, because you don't fancy yourself as
> >> > supporting
> >> > "factory farming".
> >> >
> >> > Vegans typically have idealized views of themselves.
> >> >
> >> >> Anyway, I intended (correctly or otherwise) to use the word
> >> >> to
> >> >> refer to
> >> >> intensive rearing of animals. Furthermore this clearly
> >> >> involves a lot
> >> >> more suffering than what he was referring to.
> >> ===========================
> >> LOL More suffering that slicing, dicing, shredding and having
> >> your guts rotted out?

> >
> > Yes.

> ================
> Show it then, fool.
>
>


I believe that being confined for most of your life in cages or stalls
that are too narrow for you to turn around, and being subject to
unanaesthetized branding, dehorning, debeaking, castration, and tail
docking, cause more suffering than being killed in a relatively short
time by a combine harvester.

> >
> >> You must be totally brainwashed, eh fool?
> >> Do some meat animals 'suffer?' I'm sure that some probably
> >> do,
> >> according to your definition. But they are not "ALL" meat
> >> animals, fool.

> >
> > Just the great majority of them.

> ==================
> Then why the complete ban on all meats, killer? Your veggies
> kill far more animals than the meats I eat.
>


What complete ban on all meats?

Do you have some evidence that the production of the meat you eat
causes fewer deaths than the production of vegetables?

>
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Does it? How do you know? How much animal death and
> >> > suffering
> >> > results from cultivation, planting, spraying, harvesting,
> >> > storage protection, etc, etc..
> >> >
> >> >>> > Anyway, it's all very well to abuse me for supporting
> >> >>> > these
> >> >>> > practices,
> >> >>> > but you don't offer any serious alternative to doing so.
> >> >>> > If
> >> >>> > you had a
> >> >>> > serious proposal for my further reducing the
> >> >>> > contribution I
> >> >>> > make to
> >> >>> > animal suffering then I would consider it.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Stop supporting commercial agriculture, it kills countless
> >> >>> billions
> >> >>> of animals. Anyway, it's you who proposed that killing
> >> >>> animals is
> >> >>> to be avoided, why should we now determine for you how you
> >> >>> are going to live up to it? Do your own homework.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm sorry, can you quote me as saying that buying products
> >> >> whose
> >> >> production involved the death of animals is absolutely
> >> >> prohibited? I
> >> >> don't think you can.
> >> ==================
> >> Then why the ignorant prohibition on buying meat? Obviouly
> >> it
> >> really has NOTHING to do with animal death and suffering,
> >> then,
> >> eh killer?
> >>

> >
> > I believe that the most practical way to minimize one's
> > contribution to
> > animal suffering is to be vegan.

> ====================
> A contention that you have never proen, or even tried to support
> with any data.
>


I have pointed out that veganism avoids support of intensive rearing of
animals, I have pointed out that animal food production requires more
plant production than plant food production, and I have linked to an
article that discusses Davis' model of ruminant-pasture food production
and compares it with a vegan model. You, on the other hand, have never
supported your contention that it is possible to cause less suffering
than that caused by a vegan diet by eating some meat. You might be
right in this, but you have never proven it, or even tried to support
it with any data.

>
> Perhaps there are also some ways of
> > doing this that involve buying some meat. I'm interested to
> > hear any
> > evidence you have about this matter.

> ===============
> No you aren't. You'e a closed-minded fool that makes claims that
> you cannot support.
>


Um, yeah. Really intelligent. Really cogent argument. Keep up the good
work.

>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> > I see, so it's fine to cause death and suffering of animals
> >> > when it fits conveniently into your chosen lifestyle but not
> >> > when it fits into mine.
> >> >
> >> >> What I do think is that we should make every
> >> >> reasonable effort to minimize our contribution to the
> >> >> suffering of
> >> >> animals.
> >> ====================
> >> Then why are you posting to usenet, killer?
> >>

> >
> > It's not clear to me that posting to usenet contributes to the
> > suffering of animals.

> =======================
> O course it isn't clear to you, killer. Anything that
> contradicts your fantasy is just ignored. So much or all that
> research you did on your lifestylr choices and animal death and
> suffering fool. Ty looking up power poduction and communications
> as a start, killer.
>


Well, maybe I will. But perhaps first you could address this point for
me: How do I contribute to power production and communications
infrastructure by posting to usenet? My family would use this computer
regardless of whether I posted to usenet.

>
> >
> >>
> >> And I have done my homework on that, I believe that the best
> >> >> way to do it is to become vegan.
> >> ==============================
> >> ROTFLMAO You've done zero homework fool. Propaganda doesn't
> >> mean anything. Tell use how many animals died for your diet
> >> prior to your conversion, and how many now die after your
> >> conversion.
> >>

> >
> > There was some discussion of this issue in the article I linked
> > to.

> ==================
> No fool, YOU claimed that the best way was to be vegan, because
> YOU researched it! It's quite obvious that that was a ly. You
> have researched nothing! You read a few propaganda sites and
> declare yourself vituous... What a hoot!
>


I'm sorry, I'm not following you here. I didn't read a few propaganda
sites, I read a few philosophy books. I don't see how you've refuted my
claim that I obtained some information and decided on the basis of it
that veganism would reduce my contribution to animal suffering.

>
> >
> >>
> >> If you've got some suggestions for how
> >> >> I can do better I'm happy to listen to them.
> >> ====================
> >> You've been given them, killer.

> >
> > This is simply a lie. Stop evading the question and answer it.

> ================
> No it is not a ly, fool. You claimed to have done the research,
> and it's now benn proven that you lied. If yu had, you would
> easily find what we ae talking about.
>
>


I read some information about modern farming techniques, and concluded
on that basis that veganism would contribute less to animal suffering.
I have read about Davis' model for pasture-ruminant production, but I
have my doubts that contributing to such production would reduce my
contribution to animal suffering, for reasons outlined in the article I
linked to. I haven't come across any other suggestions for reducing my
contribution to animal suffering beyond what I do by going vegan.
Perhaps this reflects poorly on the amount of research I've done.
Whatever. You claimed that you had given me some suggestions, and this
is simply false. I'm still waiting for you to give me some. It's
getting very boring.

> >
> >> And if you HAD done your
> >> homework, which you just exposed as a ly, you would know that
> >> thee are alternatives.
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > A typical vegan could reduce the net amount of animal death
> >> > and
> >> > suffering associated with his or her diet by the
> >> > introduction
> >> > of some carefully selected meat, fish or game, a person who
> >> > supplements their diet by hunting or fishing for example.
> >> > Also
> >> > a person who also grows much of their own food *and*
> >> > consumes
> >> > meat probably does much better than that typical urban
> >> > vegan.
> >> >
> >> > Don't misunderstand, I am not suggesting you do these
> >> > things, I
> >> > am just asking you to acknowledge that they are viable
> >> > choices.
> >> >
> >> >> I'm not altogether convinced that the suggestion "stop
> >> >> supporting
> >> >> commerical agriculture" is entirely feasible for me. If
> >> >> you've
> >> >> got some
> >> >> ideas as to how I can do it I'm happy to listen to those,
> >> >> as
> >> >> well.
> >> ====================
> >> LOL You mean anything that won't be an inconvenience or
> >> violate
> >> your simple rule for your simple mind, right killer?
> >>

> >
> > No.
> > ================

> Yes, obviously. Because of everything in your life that causes
> massive animal death and suffering, all YOU cry about is those
> that eat meat.


I believe I have a moral obligation to minimize my contribution to
animal suffering. I do my best to live up to it. I don't think I've
been "crying" about those who eat meat, but I do think it's a shame
that some people contribute to cruel farming practices more than they
have to, and meat-eating frequently involves this. I am open to
conviction about whether eating some meat might be compatible with
minimizing one's contribution to animal suffering. I'm still waiting
for someone to provide a practical suggestion for further reducing my
contribution to animal suffering together with evidence that it will
actually do this. It's a simple enough request. Why don't you respond
to it instead of engaging in gratuitous abuse?

> Something YOU have no control over. You focus on
> what others are doing because it is far easier than actually
> doing anything in YOUR life to make a real difference.
>
>


Yeah. Right. Whatever you say. As I say, I'll be interested to hear any
suggestions you have for how I can make more of a difference than I
already have. But I'm beginning to suspect you're more interested in
just tossing out insults.

> >>
> >> >
> >> > Of course "feasible" is something you define for yourself. I
> >> > would like you to show me the respect to allow me to do the
> >> > same for myself.
> >> >

> >