Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
>
> >
> > rick wrote:
> >
> >>"Rupert" > wrote in message
> roups.com...
> >>
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >>========================
> >>You already claimed to have done that research. You provide your
> >>data, killer.
> >>see below...
> >>
> >
> >
> > No, I didn't. I claimed to have read some information about intensive
> > rearing of animals.
>
> That information isn't going to help you minimize
> animal death and suffering.
>

Why not?

> > "Factory-farming" sounds like a pretty reasonable
> > description to me. I don't need to point you to all the descriptions of
> > it in the literature. You claimed crop production was more deserving of
> > the title "factory-farming". Fine. The onus is on you to prove it.
> >
> >
> >>>>>>>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.
> >>
> >>====================
> >>No, you haven't. You've spewed vegan propaganda without any
> >>data. Show your proof, fool. Aterall, you claimed to have done
> >>all the research.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I have pointed out that intensively reared animals suffer considerably.
>
> You didn't define suffering. You didn't show how you
> know they suffer. Rick is right - you went looking for
> "vegan" propaganda, found it, and now claim to have
> done "research".
>

Why is "research" in quotes? Is it a quote from me? You see, I don't
think I ever actually said the word.

I have read numerous descriptions of factory farms, such as those in
Peter Singer, "Animal Liberation", 2nd ed., David DeGrazia, "Taking
Animals Seriously", Mylan Engel, Jr., "The Immorality of Eating Meat",
and have concluded on that basis that intensively farmed animals endure
a considerable amount of suffering.

>
> > I have pointed out that most animal food production requires more plant
> > production than plant food production. And I have linked to an article
> > which discusses Davis' ruminant-pasture model of food production, and
> > compares it to a vegan model.
> >
> > If you feel there's a contention I've made which isn't adequately
> > supported by all of this, tell me what it is.
>
> It's this: your claim that being "vegan" is ipso facto
> the death-and-harm minimizing stance. Your bogus
> "research" doesn't support that claim. It can't.
>

I have supported that claim as follows: intensive farming methods cause
considerable suffering, most animal food production requires more plant
production than plant food production, and therefore causes more CDs,
and furthermore, I linked to article which compares Davis'
ruminant-pasture model of food production with a vegan model and
concludes that it causes more deaths.

Now, of course, I *might* be wrong in my estimate that I'm contributing
to as little suffering and death as I can. But I've yet to see anyone
provide practical suggestions for further reducing my contribution to
suffering and death, together with evidence that it actually will.
Mostly what I've seen has just been gratuitous abuse.


>
> >>>>>>>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,
> >>
> >>=====================
> >>You haven't proven that all animals "suffer" in these ways,
> >>killer. It has been proven though that your crops kill massive
> >>numbers of animals in very brutal, very inhumane ways.
> >>
> >
> >
> > It's also been proven that factory-farmed animals live lives with a
> > great deal of misery and suffering in them, more suffering than would
> > be involved in being killed by a combine harvester, or even a more
> > protacted death from chemicals.
>
> No, that hasn't been proved at all. You haven't even
> tried.
>

I've done about as good a job of proving it as he did of proving his
claim. Anyway, I've given you references now to descriptions of
factory-farming on which I base my judgement. If you want to contest
it, provide some argument.

>
> >> cause more suffering than being killed in a relatively short
> >>
> >>>time by a combine harvester.
> >>
> >>==============================
> >>LOL Forget all those chemical applications already, killer?
> >>Tell us how having your guts turn to mush over several days is a
> >>"humane" way to die...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>>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?
> >>
> >>=================
> >>Then you do eat some meats, eh?
> >
> >
> > No.
>
> But it is easily conceivable that subtracting some
> high-CD vegetable from your diet, and replacing it with
> meat from a large ruminant, could reduce your personal
> death toll. Hence, you aren't minimizing.
>
> >
> >
> >>Again, you have failed to answer
> >>the question. Why the complete ban/avoidance/whatever you want
> >>to call it, of ALL meats?
> >>
> >
> >
> > You're asking me why I don't eat meat? I don't particularly want to,
> > and I don't see any reason why I should.
>
> If your goal is allegedly to minimize harm, perhaps you
> should consider adding some meat to your diet to
> replace some high-death vegetables.
>

The article I linked to leads me to doubt that that would actually
further reduce the harm I cause. If you think I'm wrong, provide some
evidence.

> We know why you don't eat meat: because you think it
> elevates you morally, and you like to tell the world
> how virtuous you are.

Unsupported abuse.

> This isn't about actually
> *being* virtuous, because if it were, you'd quickly
> understand that following a principle-free consumption
> rule doesn't make you virtuous. Instead, what it's
> about is bragging to the world how virtuous you are.
>

More unsupported abuse. When have I done any bragging. I've outlined
the ethical principles I follow, and the basis on which I decide the
course of action which will best comply with them. What's the point of
all this waffle? If you want to argue against my case, *argue* against
it for Christ's sake.

>
> >>>Do you have some evidence that the production of the meat you
> >>>eat causes fewer deaths than the production of vegetables?
> >>>==========================
> >>
> >>SUre, come on down and see them. You can even pet them if you
> >>like. They are pasture raised, no hormones, no antibiotics, no
> >>feed crops. They are not confined, though they do have a
> >>3-sided barn for shelter when they want. The chickens next door
> >>run freely through our back yard, and again, then do have a coop,
> >>but are left to roam on their own.
> >>The beef I eat from these animals replaces 100s of 1000s o
> >>calories that YOU get from mono-culture factory farming. I count
> >>the number of animals daths for my meat by 100s of meals per
> >>death. You're lucky if you an say 100s of deaths per meal.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I would be interested to know where you got that last figure from.
>
> If you buy a bag of rice that comes from paddies where
> thousands of animals were killed, every person eating
> rice from those paddies shares in the moral
> responsibility for all of the thousands of deaths. The
> deaths are not divisible.
>

I don't accept that. Each purchaser makes an expected contribution to
the amount of deaths that occur. The expected contributions add up to
produce the total expected contribution.

> Rice farming is especially lethal. Birds, rodents,
> amphibians, and reptiles are all killed. When a paddy
> is flooded, burrowing animals and small birds and
> perhaps some reptiles are killed. When the paddy is
> later drained, water-loving animals that have taken up
> residence in it are killed. When the harvesting
> machinery goes through the paddy, animals are killed.
> In several hundred acres of rice farmland, thousands of
> animals are killed.
>

Okay, important stuff to know. Are more killed than wheat? As you
pointed out, that would be worth me knowing. Why don't you tell me
that, if you know.

> >
> > Pasture forage production does involve the deaths of some animals. You
> > would have to take those into account as well. There is some discussion
> > of the issue in the article I linked to.
>
> This is not about a counting game. You may not
> conclude that you are more moral than meat eaters
> because you believe you cause fewer deaths than they
> cause. It should be about adhering to moral
> principles. But you don't. You try to make your
> virtue dependent on a comparison with others.
>

I've given the moral principle on which I base my dietary choices. I
haven't said I'm more moral than anyone else; obviously I have no basis
on which to conclude that, because I don't know about every aspect of
other people's behaviour.

As I say, I believe I'm morally obliged to make every reasonable effort
not to provide financial support to practices that cause or support
unnecessary harm. If you've got some practical suggestions for how I
can do that I'm happy to hear them.

>
> >
> > But sure, maybe you are in a position where you can ethically eat some
> > meat. Fine. More power to you.
> >
> >
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>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,
> >>
> >>============================
> >>No, you have repeated a vegan ly. There is NO requirment to grow
> >>crops for animals, fool. None.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Most animals do require crops to be grown to feed them, and most animal
> > food production does require more plant production than plant food
> > production. There are exceptions.
>
> You're missing his point. There is no hard and fast
> requirement to grow crops for animal feed AT ALL. Meat
> can be produced without growing any crops for feed.
>

It can be, but it isn't very often. That was my point.

>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >>=========================
> >>Yes, I have killer. Many times, and long before you arrived.
> >>But then, you should know that, since afterall, you did all that
> >>research, right killer?
> >>
> >
> >
> > You really are quite bizarre. You think that somehow my claim to have
> > made an informed decision to become vegan
>
> It was not and still is not an informed decision. It
> is based on bad data, flawed moral reasoning, and
> willful blindness.
>

If you think the data is bad, point me to the better data. If you think
there are flaws in the moral reasoning, point to them. If you think
there is evidence of wilful blindness, show it.

>
> > entails that I should have
> > gone through all the Usenet archives to find out what arguments you
> > have offered in the past? If you want to convince me, just present me
> > with the arguments.
>
>
> >>>I believe I have a moral obligation to minimize my contribution
> >>>to
> >>>animal suffering.
> >>
> >>==================
> >>Yet are not doing that, and have failed to prove you even try.
> >>
> >
> >
> > How about an argument for why I'm not doing that?
>
> Because you could substitute some quantity of a
> lower-CD vegetable for a higher-CD one you currently
> consume. You can't possibly believe the current
> strictly vegetarian diet you consume is the least-harm
> one from among all strictly vegetarian diets. You have
> no rational basis for believing it to be: you don't
> know how much harm each element of your diet causes.
>

Point taken. Well, can you point me to any useful information?

>
> >>> I do my best to live up to it.
>
> The context is lost, but if by "it" you mean a
> commitment to cause the least harm, then NO, you do not
> do your best, as I just showed.
>

I think I do about as well as I can. It's a process of striving for
continual improvement. As you say, I should investigate which crops
cause more harm than other crops. Do you have any helpful suggestions
for where I can find the information?

>
>
> >>>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.
> >>
> >>================
> >>Your crop production ALWAYS does...
> >>
> >
> >
> > No. Buying plant products isn't necessarily contributing to cruel
> > farming practices more than you have to.
>
> Yes, it is. You don't have to buy at all. You could,
> if you wanted, produce all your own "harm-free" foods.
> By buying, you necessarily are consuming some
> harm-causing foods...and you don't have any idea how
> much harm; nor do you make any effort to find out.
>

Yes, I do. I'm making effort now. I'm asking you. If you don't know,
I'll do my own research.

>
> >>> 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?
> >>
> >>================
> >>Becaause it has been presented many times. I you wee really open
> >>minded and looking for real answers, you'd find it.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I see. You refuse to actually present the suggestion or provide a link
> > to it, but the burden is still on me to go through the usenet archives
> > and find it. Well, I have had a look, and I may have another one. But
> > do you have any particular reason for not just presenting the
> > suggestion? I've asked you quite a few times now.
>
> I've given you an implied answer: learn how much harm
> each vegetable you consume causes, then eliminate the
> high-harm ones from your diet. You won't do it; you
> want someone else to do the heavy lifting for you.
>

Yes, I will do it. It's a good idea. And I will grow my own vegetables.
I don't think I'll rent out a farm and grow all my own food, however. I
think that's a bit above and beyond the call of duty.

>
> >
> >
> >>>>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.
> >>
> >>====================
> >>And you'e more interested in remaining an ignorant, brainwashed
> >>loon, eh?
> >>
> >
> >
> > Oh, for heaven's sake. Why don't you just provide some suggestions?
> > It's pathetic.
> >
> > [rest deleted]
> >