"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message
...
>
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
>> C. James Strutz wrote:
>> <...>
>>>>3. "fewer animals die" -- as though ethics is a counting
>>>>game.
>>>
>>> Sorry, but I agree with the "counting game" argument.
>>
>> You shouldn't. I've addressed this issue before with what I
>> called "Objecting to the 1001st death." What you wrote
>> previously about grains fed to cattle illustrates this
>> objection. You contend that no matter how many deaths may be
>> attributable to grain (or whatever) production, those who eat
>> meat are responsible for at least one more animal death. In
>> the example, the veg-n pats himself on the back for not eating
>> meat even though his diet causes 1000 animals to die; those
>> animals won't be eaten by humans. The veg-n also
>> sanctimoniously impugns the character of those who eat the
>> meat of the 1001st animal to die -- let's say it's a steer,
>> from which a few hundred meals can be made (very realistic
>> with sensible quarter-pound servings). Balance the ethical
>> scales: the veg-n's diet causes 1000 animals to die and the
>> omnivore's causes 1001. Is it significantly more ethical to be
>> responsible for one less animal death when you're already
>> responsible for 1000?
>
> You misunderstand me completely. I don't have real numbers but
> I'm going make some up to illustrate my point (I can try to
> find better numbers if it is necessary). Let's say a steer is
> brought to slaughter at 2 years of age and he weighs 1200 lbs.
> Let's say that he eats 1 bushel of grain a day - that's more
> than 700 bushels of grain in his lifetime.
===============================
Willful ignorance in action I see. *ALL* beeef cattle are grass
fed and grazed for most of their lives, fool. And then, only 3/4
of those go to feedlots for the last weeks of their lives. So,
you start right out with a ly, and the rest of your spew is
mmeaningless, hypocrite.



If 1 acre of land can
> produce 200 bushels of grain per year then 3-1/2 acres of land
> are required to produce enough grain for the steer. Now let's
> say that 1000 small mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, and
> amphibians are killed per acre as a result of producing the
> grain - that's more than 3500 collateral deaths attributed to
> that one steer.
===================================
Again, you're initial claim is false, making you next claim
false. Besides, many cows are grass-fed their entire life and
never get a morsel of grains. Too bad you've proven yourself to
be a lying, delusional propagandists, killer.



>
> Now let's say that a person can make a serving from 1 cup of
> grain - that's about 150 servings from 1 bushel, or 10,500
> equivalent servings that went into feeding that steer during
> his lifetime. If 70% of the steer is edible then it can provide
> more than 3300 servings using your 1/4 pound/serving number.
>
> Let's normalize these numbers and make comparisons. I'm doing
> some rounding with my numbers but 10,500/3300 is a little more
> than 3. That means that feeding people grain instead of beef
> would save almost 2000 collateral deaths (3500/3), and would
> require little more than 1 acre of land (3.5/3). The life of
> the steer got lost in the rounding! :^)
>
> I have to say that I'm a little surprised by my own
> calculations. I had read somewhere that it takes something on
> the order of 50 times the grain to feed cattle compared to that
> which would be required to feed people. My number was about 3
> times. Still, when you consider how many steers there are the
> numbers become staggering.
>
>> In a sense, too, the veg-ns are objecting to the consumption
>> of mere *fractions* of an animal death. I think the scales
>> should account for that, but the illustration sufficiently
>> shows the moral relativism of vegans.
===============================
Wishful thinking. Alll it shows is the depths tp which vegans
will go with their lys and delusions to try to absolve themselves
of the guilt they feel for all the bloody footprints they track
around.


>>
>> Fuller explanation of Objecting to the 1001st Death:
>> http://tinyurl.com/dkgtb
>>
>>> America dropped atomic bombs on Japan at the end of WWII
>>> because many more soldiers would have died had we not. We
>>> killed people to prevent, in all probability, many times more
>>> deaths. How about the death penalty? Or what about
>>> euthanasia? Or stem cell research? Or abortion? Moral ethics
>>> aren't absolute.
>>
>> You're overlooking the issue at hand while basically
>> re-stating *my* point with these examples. Your disagreement
>> isn't with me, but with veganism. Veganism's sense of ethics
>> IS an absolute. Vegans don't distinguish between acceptable
>> and unacceptable deaths, or cruel or non-cruel treatement.
>> They say *ALL* animal deaths are unacceptable, and that just
>> about everything in a human:animal context is exploitation of
>> the latter by the former. They call for an end to *all*
>> fishing, *all* hunting, *all* animal research, *all* fur and
>> leather production, *all* livestock production, and even use
>> of honey. Many of them go even further and want an end to
>> humans having pets.
>
> I disagree with both of you! I have shown you above what I mean
> by the so called "counting game" and how eliminating beef would
> reduce the number of collateral deaths.
===================================
No, you haven't, fool. The number of deaths could easily be
reduced by replacing 100s of 1000s of calories of killer veggies
with the death of one meat animals. Too bad you're too stupid
and brainwashed to understand the real truth, hypocrite.

Although my numbers may not be completely accurate, I
> think they at least make a very clear point. I disagree with
> vegans because they usually don't consider collateral deaths at
> all, hence ignorance. I also disagree with vegan's wish to end
> all hunting, etc. because somebody has to replace the predators
> that we have all but eliminated. The natural balance of nature
> is out of whack and it would only be worse if we eliminated
> hunting. Many vegans also don't consider other things that
> effect the lives of animals: development and the fragmenation
> of habitat, pesticide and fertilizer runoff from producing
> food, and the ever increasing human population among other
> things.
>
>> And in many cases their alternatives to the above produce
>> worse conditions for animals. They suggest replacing meat with
>> proteins from soy and grains, like tofu and seitan or even
>> beans and rice; these alternatives to meat do nothing to
>> decrease the number of animal deaths caused by one's diet and
>> may in fact increase animal deaths. They likewise recommend
>> synthetic furs and leather even though these are made from
>> petrochemicals which cause immense pollution and environmental
>> harm during drilling and refining, all of which harms people
>> and many more animals than it would take to make a fur or
>> leather jacket or a pair of leather shoes. And natural fibers
>> like cotton and hemp are no safer for animals than is the
>> abattoir -- they're no different from grain crops with respect
>> to collateral deaths, and in many regards they're worse since
>> crops like cotton are heavily treated with pesticides and
>> defoliants (at harvest) which are highly toxic for non-target
>> species. See Rick's links.
>>
>>>>The onus isn't on those who eat meat to reduce animal
>>>>suffering or death. It's on those who oppose people consuming
>>>>meat and who make categorical statements of their own moral
>>>>superiority. When faced with the facts, they ultimately make
>>>>the same argument you did and claim a virtue relative to the
>>>>actions of others. They're not more ethical because others
>>>>are ethically "worse" than they are (at least according to
>>>>their capricious standard); they fail their own ethics test
>>>>when they measure themselves by their own standard.
>>>
>>> Is it ethical to wash one's hands of responsibility for the
>>> deaths of living things just because one doesn't claim moral
>>> superiority?
>>
>> I don't think meat-eaters, farmers, ranchers, researchers,
>> etc., are washing their hands; they fully accept that animals
>> die in the course of their consumption and/or work.
>
> Most meat-eaters also have no clue about collateral deaths,
================================
ROTFLMAO VEGANS have no clue fool! And when presented with the
facts, they try, like you, to ly their way out of their
complicity by focusing on what they6 think others are doing! You
really are a hoot, hypocrite!!


and only a vague
> clue about fragmentation, runoff, pollution, population, etc.
> The root problem is that most people are way too self-centered
> to worry about those things. We want tasty food in our
> stomaches, warm (or cool) homes, transportation, nice clothes,
> and other conveniences without considering the impact on the
> earth and on other lives - even the impact on human lives in
> other places. Vegans aren't the only ones guilty of ignorance,
> and so why pick on just them?
>
>>> The onus to minimize the suffering or death of any living
>>> thing should be on all of us regardless of what claims we do
>>> or don't make.
>>
>> Aside from images of isolated cases of wanton animal cruelty
>> which is already against the law (and, in many instances, the
>> videos and images have been used to prosecute those particular
>> cases), I've yet to see credible evidence that research,
>> livestock production, farming, etc., is a widespread abuse of
>> animals. Those images and videos are of isolated incidents. I
>> can find many, many more images of prevailing conditions on
>> various farms that show animals are treated very well.
>
> I think people tend to find what they look for, vegans and
> anti-vegans alike.
>
> >> The disagreement that you and
>>> others have with vegans is the attitude of morel superiority
>>
>> I have nothing against morel or chantrelle superiority.
>
> Then why do you write things like "It's on those who oppose
> people consuming meat and who make categorical statements of
> their own moral superiority." See above.
>
>>> of SOME of them
>>
>> ALL vegans adopt a shitty, condescending attitude towards
>> others who consume meat, dairy, and eggs (and wear fur, favor
>> animal research, etc.), and many also deem those who use honey
>> as reprobates.
>
> I knew this would raise a comment! We will have to agree to
> disagree on this issue.
>
>>> and not their wish to minimize animal deaths. AFter all,
>>> what's wrong with trying to minimize animal deaths?
>>
>> Nothing if THAT's what they're actually doing. Most vegans,
>> though, prattle incessantly about NOT harming animals at
>> all -- as though they're causing zero harm by simply not
>> eating them, not wearing their hides or fur, etc.
>
> At least we both agree that zero harm is unattainable and
> unrealistic.
>
>> The real issue, though, is the result. Are they actually
>> reducing harm to animals or are they just intending to cause
>> less harm? The end results show us if they're ethical or not.
>> And in the instances I outlined above -- objecting only to the
>> 1001st death, recommending high-CD foods in place of larger
>> ruminants, recommending synthetics (or even natural fibers)
>> instead of leather or fur, etc. -- the results aren't
>> remarkably better than the _status quo ante_ of "uninformed"
>> consumption; indeed, they're probably much worse. Thus, one's
>> intentions don't make one ethical; one's effects and results
>> do.
>
> Well, if the end result is unattainable then does that make a
> person unethical? Misguided perhaps, but not necessarily
> unethical. And if you try to inform people with extreme
> negativity then it's no wonder they reject your information.
> You alienate them while, at the same time, reinforcing your own
> beliefs that vegans have an aire of moral superiority and are
> unethical. It goes 'round and 'round and nothing gets
> accomplished. How are you any different than them in terms of
> "effects and results"?
>
>
>