"Rupert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> usual suspect wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>> <...>
>> >>Does it? How do you know? How much animal death and
>> >>suffering results from
>> >>cultivation, planting, spraying, harvesting, storage
>> >>protection, etc, etc..
>> >
>> > (1) The number of animals involved is greater, and
>> > (2) The suffering inflicted on each animal is greater.
>> >
>> > Perhaps (1) is false when we take into account all the
>> > animals killed
>> > by the plant production necessitated by animal food
>> > production.
>>
>> Don't engage in _tu quoque_ if you want to claim that one diet
>> is
>> ethical or even more ethical compared to others.
>>
>
> It wasn't a question of engaging in "tu quoque", I was just
> acknowledging a possible point that might be made. Why
> shouldn't I make
> this point?
>
>> > But it's not false if we're only talking about the amount of
>> > plant
>> > production that would be necessary to support universal
>> > veganism.
>>
>> Have you studied food science or agriculture? I'm curious how
>> you know
>> so much about how many vegans the earth can support, etc.
>>
>> Anyway, (1) would be true regardless of how many vegans there
>> are
>> because we would still farm using pesticides (organic
>> production also
>> uses pesticides, so don't try to pull any BS about it) and
>> mechanized
>> equipment -- and on a larger scale.
>>
>
> (1) is the claim that the number of animals killed who are
> actually
> farmed for their food is greater than the number of collateral
> deaths
> caused by the food production required for universal veganism.
> It would
> not be true if there was universal veganism.
=================
See, again your focus is on everyone else! You cannot, and will
not examine your own diet/lifestyle objectivly. You won't
because you'll see it for the sham that it is. No one is
discussing what the rest of the world is doing, we're discussing
what *you* can do to live up to the so-called minimization you
claim to be striving for. By continueing to focus on everyone
else, you prove that you are not interested in what *you* an do.


>
>> > Davis estimates the death toll at 1.8 billion. More animals
>> > than that are
>> > killed in animal food production. And each animal suffers
>> > considerably
>> > more.
>>
>> Being fed, given clean water, and watched closely for sound
>> health is
>> suffering?
>
> I do believe animals suffer considerably on factory-farms. I
> have given
> my references elsewhere.
================
No, you have not. Quit lying, hypocrite...


>
>> Do you think that list in my previous post is more "humane"
>> treatment?
>> 1. Internal bleeding from poisoning (pesticides, herbicides)
>> 2. Being run over by a tractor
>> 3. Being crushed by a plow
>> 4. Being sliced and diced by various tractor implements
>> 5. Drowning (from irrigation)
>> 6. Suffocation (which happens to aquatic life when rice fields
>> are drained)
>> 7. Being burned alive (straw is often burned after harvest)
>>
>> >>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.
>> >
>> > That's not a very reasonable interpretation of my argument.
>>
>> I think it's quite a reasonable interpretation of your
>> argument.
>>
>
> Well, you're wrong.
================
It's exactly your diet/lifestyle, hypocrite. You pove that by
waving your hands at the unnecessay death and suffering you ause
or no more reason than your entertainment here.


>
>> > I believe
>> > that, on any reasonable interpretation of this principle,
>> > this will
>> > require veganism or near-veganism.
>>
>> Funny that. You take an animal rights activist's ideas to
>> heart and then
>> justify veganism accordingly. That doesn't show much thought
>> on your
>> part, but the world does need followers.
>>
>
> If you think there's a problem with my conclusions, tell me
> what it is.
===============
That by banning meat, you automatically reduce death and
suffering regardless of what you replace it with.


>
>> > It's not altogether clear to me that
>> > it requires me to stop supporting commercial agriculture.
>>
>> You summarized DaGrazia thusly:
>>
>> Make every reasonable effort to avoid providing financial
>> support to practices that cause or support unnecessary harm.
>>
>> Let me ask you which YOU consider more "necessary" between
>> advancing
>> medicine through vivisection and running over animals with
>> combines,
>> poisoning them, etc.
>>
>
> The latter. It's necessary to provide food.
=================
No, it isn't. Food was grown for 1000s of years without massive
machines and the petro-chemical industry, fool. It's just what
*you* require because of your demand for cheap, conveninet
veggies, regardless of the costs to animals.


>
>> <...>
>> >>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.
>> >
>> > Fishing? Fishing involves a fairly high death rate per
>> > serving of food.
>>
>> No, it doesn't. One large fish provides many meals. Catch your
>> own and
>> there's no bycatch.
>>
>
> If you're lucky enough to get a large fish.
>
>> > I would want to see some more evidence that fishing will do
>> > any good.
>>
>> Meat from a 20-pound fish will dress out at about half that,
>> providing
>> ten pounds of meat. At a quarter pound per serving, you have
>> 40 meals'
>> worth of fish. One dead fish, 40 meals.
>>
>> How many animals die so you can have rice and beans? Better
>> yet, tell us
>> if you eat any of the fake meat products made from soy and/or
>> gluten.
>>
>
> Not very often. Only sometimes when I go out to restaurants.
=================
Hypocrite...



>
>> > And one problem with hunting is that not all of the animals
>> > are killed,
>> > some of them are just seriously maimed.
>>
>> Then practice your shot before you go hunting, only shoot what
>> you can
>> visually identify, and only shoot when you have confidence
>> that you'll
>> kill it.
>>
>> > So the amount of suffering and
>> > death caused per serving of food is higher than it appears
>> > at first.
>>
>> No, you're straining with some very ridiculous excuses.
>>
>> > Where do you suggest I go hunting, anyway?
>>
>> In what area do you live?
>>
>
> North Sydney.
>
>> > Or where do you suggest I buy my meat?
>>
>> From a local producer of grazed ruminants.
>>
>
> I'm not convinced that would reduce my contribution to animal
> suffering, for reasons given in an article I linked to earlier.
=====================
LOL Provide proof, fool, not propaganda...


>
>> > And what is your evidence that this will actually *reduce*
>> > the amount of animal death and suffering I contribute to?
>>
>> Where's YOUR evidence that your diet causes no or less animal
>> suffering
>> and death than anyone else's?
>
> Well, animal food production mostly requires more plant
> production than
> plant food production. And I've linked to an article which
> argues that
> even Davis' ruminant-pasture model wouldn't do as well as a
> vegan model.
======================
Again, you focus only on what fits everyone in the world, and
ignore what *you* could do, but are too stupid and brainwashed to
even look.


>