On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 20:11:55 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>> On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 16:35:25 GMT, "rick" > wrote:
>>>"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>>>>
>>>> There's no perfect solution to this problem of the collateral
>>>> deaths found in agriculture, and the vegan's critic is often
>>>> foolishly persuaded to try using this dilemma to his
>>>> advantage
>>>> when he's run out of valid arguments.
>>>====================
>>>LOL It's the vegan that has no valid argument fool. You've
>>>yet to EVER prove your claims that your deit is better.
>>>I have easily shown that there are diets that are better than
>>>many vegan diets, and yours in particular, killer.
>>
>> No, you can't beat foraging for wild vegetables and fruits.
>=====================
>You don't do that do you, fool!
Nevertheless, your grass fed beef or hunted meat cannot best
forging for wild vegetables and fruits. Whether I forage or not
is irrelevant.
>You cannot claim that grass-fed beef isn't an option
Grass fed beef isn't a viable option because those animals
accrue collateral deaths like any other steer in the feedlot
from the crops they are fed.
While the meat pushers on these vegetarian and animal-
related forums try to convince vegans that grass fed
beef is that: grass fed, and therefore has a much lesser
association with the collateral deaths caused by farmers
growing animal feeds, they neglect to mention that
grass fed beef is also fed grains at the feedlot just like
any other steer, and therefore has a larger association
with collateral deaths than they would like to admit.
Meat-labeling guidelines are all over the place, allowing
producers to make whatever claims they want to with
impunity, so U.S.D.A. has "proposed minimum
requirements for livestock and meat industry production/
marketing claims, when adopted, will become the United
States Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing
Claims." They are as follows;
[SUMMARY: These proposed minimum requirements
for livestock and meat industry production/marketing
claims, when adopted, will become the United States
Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims.
.....
Grass Fed Claims--Background: This claim refers
to the feeding regimen for livestock raised on grass,
green or range pasture, or forage throughout their
life cycle, with only limited supplemental grain
feeding allowed. Since it is necessary to assure the
animal's well being at all times, limited supplementation
is allowed during adverse environmental conditions.
Grass feeding usually results in products containing
lower levels of external and internal fat (including
marbling) than grain-fed livestock products.
Claim and Standard:
[sbull] Grass Fed.--Grass, green or range pasture, or
forage shall be 80% or more of the primary energy
source throughout the animal's life cycle.
Dated: December 20, 2002.
A.J. Yates,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 02-32806 Filed 12-27-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt
These "proposed minimum requirements mean that
grass fed beef can in fact be fed up to 80% grains for
60 days in a feedlot, just like any other steer, and still
qualify as grass fed beef.
Comments from disgruntled grass fed beef producers
bear this out and reveal the lie behind grass fed beef;
[Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the
most commented upon topic in this docket. We
will not belabor all the points of concern which
are addressed but will focus on the areas of
concern to our cooperative of growers. While
Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method
IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS
NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that
you need to define both as what they ARE since
that is what is motivating the consumer.
While the intent of this language would suggest
that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished,
especially in Feedlots, the language as written is
not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing
80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at
the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef
animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for
70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be
fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under
these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with
consumer expectations as is borne out in the
website comments.]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc213.pdf
and
Dear Mr. Carpenter,
The proposed definition of the claim ?grass fed,? as it
may appear on future USDA approved beef labels, is
meaningless in the context of the current United States
cattle market and would violate consumer trust if put
into effect.
The huge majority of all beef cattle in the United States
are ?finished? on a grain-based ration in a commercial
feed lot. Even so, virtually all American cattle spend
80% or more of their lives on pasture eating grasses,
legumes and naturally occurring seeds (grain). Calling
these animals ?grass fed,? as proposed in the new label
claim definition, ignores the fact that in most cases their
whole diet for the last few months of their lives contains
no grass at all. Calling these animals ?grass fed? therefore
becomes meaningless since virtually all cattle are grass fed
as in the proposed definition.
However, for the last decade, a small, but growing number
of producers, including ourselves, have been marketing
cattle finished exclusively on pasture and hay without the
use of unnatural levels of grain-based seeds. This grass-
finished beef has been marketed as ?grassfed? or ?grass-
fed?, and these terms have come to be recognized by
millions of consumers. The enormous publicity over the
last year for grassfed meats (following on best-selling
books such as The Omega Diet and Fast Food Nation)
has reinforced the perception that ?grass fed? is
synonymous with grass-finished and, by extension, that no
supplemental grain has been provided to the animals.
So, I feel that to call an animal that has received as much
as 20% of its total nutrition in a grain feeding finishing
program ?grass fed? could be misleading and confusing
to the consumer. Grain finishing of ruminants is an artificial
feeding practice born of our unique circumstances here in
the United States. Grass feeding is the basis for ruminant
health consistent with the genetic structure and nutritional
requirements of the animals. The claim ?grass fed? as used
on a USDA-approved label should mean that a grassfed
animal has received no grain other than that which is naturally
occurring on pasture or in hay feeds.
I am glad that the USDA is attempting to bring some order
to the grassfed meat discussion, but I join those voices that
have been raised calling for a larger forum in which to discuss
the definition of the grassfed claim as well as other new claims.
I ask that the March 31, 2003, deadline for public comment
be extended indefinitely to give all citizens, most particularly
those who have been building the grassfed meats market, our
customers, and those who support our efforts, the opportunity
to have our perspective thoroughly considered.
Thank you for your serious consideration of my comments.
Sincerely,
Ernest Phinney
General Manager
Western Grasslands Beef]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc102.txt
Grass fed beef, then, isn't exactly what it's name
implies, and has just as much an association with
the collateral deaths found in crop production as
any other steer in the feedlot.
>> Grass fed beef and hunted meat will always include the
>> death of an animal or animals. The vegan will always beat
>> the flesh eater where deaths are concerned, so you can
>> take your CD laden grass fed beef and shove it, Rick.
>======================
>ROTFLMAO
What a silly response.
>>>He argues;
>>>>
>>>> (Critic)
>>>> Abstaining from meat doesn't meet with the vegan's moral
>>>> requirement to not kill animals intentionally for food;
>>>> animals still die for their food during crop production.
>>>=========================
>>>By the millions upon millions, and in mnany cases far more than
>>>for some meat-inckuded diets. Therefore, your argument is
>>>bogus, again.
>>
>> Rather, you've just committed the same fallacy: the perfect
>> solution fallacy. Thanks for that demonstration.
>========================
>No, I did not
You're arguing that the vegan's solution to the deaths associated
with man's diet should be rejected because animal deaths would
still exist after veganism is implemented, and that, dummy, is
using the perfect solution fallacy: a false dilemma.
>>>> This argument commits The Perfect Solution Fallacy by
>>>> assuming a perfect solution exists where no animals are
>>>> killed for their food in the practical World,
>>>===========================
>>>Nice stretch
>>
>> You can't even bring yourself to concede that a vegan can
>> eat a single meal without killing animals,
>================================
>No fool, I never claimed that at all.
Then, do you accept the fact that a vegan can eat a meal
without any association of collateral deaths involved?
>> so when arguing
>> that the vegan's solution to the problem of animal deaths
>> surrounding diet should be rejected because animal deaths
>> still exist after veganism is implemented, you commit the
>> perfect solution fallacy.
>========================
>No
Absolutely yes. Other examples include;
(critic)
This "terrorist safety net" is a bad idea. Terrorists will still be
able to get through!
(Rejoinder)
Yes, some terrorists would still be able to get through, but
would it be worth stopping those terrorists that it would stop?
(critic)
These anti-drunk driving ad campaigns are not going to work.
People are still going to drink and drive no matter what.
(Rejoinder)
It may not eliminate 100% of drunk driving, but is the amount
by which it would reduce the total amount of drunk driving
enough to make the policy worthwhile?
(Critic)
Seat belts are a bad idea. People are still going to die in car
wrecks.
(Rejoinder)
It may not save 100% of people involved in car wrecks, but
isn't the number of lives that would be saved enough to make
seat belts worthwhile?
As we can see, to reject a solution (veganism) to the animal
deaths found in man's diet on the basis that some deaths
will still occur after the solution is implemented invokes the
perfect solution fallacy, especially while that arguer insists
all foods cause animal deaths. In short, you're posing a false
dilemma to get your point accepted, and that wont do.
The Perfect Solution Fallacy.
The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs
when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists
and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part
of the problem would still exist after it was implemented.
Presumably, assuming no solution is perfect then no solution
would last very long politically once it had been implemented.
Still, many people (notably utopians) seem to find the idea of
a perfect solution compelling, perhaps because it is easy to
imagine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy
>>>> and so their solution to
>>>> abide by their stated moral requirement to not kill animals
>>>> for
>>>> food by abstaining from meat doesn't meet that requirement,
>>>> and so their solution (veganism) should be rejected because
>>>> some part of the problem (CDs) would still exist after it was
>>>> implemented.
>>>=============================
>>>Another nice move
>>
>> Agreed, because it's about time you realised your argument
>> against the vegan is a fallacy.
>========================
>You've already been proven wrong, killer.
I've shown that your argument against the vegan poses a false
dilemma. Get used to it.
>>>> (Rejoinder)
>>>> Some animals die during crop production, but those deaths
>>>> aren't requested, condoned or intentionally caused by vegans,
>>>===========================
>>>Yes, they are.
>>
>> No. I don't request that collateral deaths occur, I don't
>> condone
>> them, and nor do I intentionally cause them. You don't get to
>> say what others condone.
>======================
>Your pal Aristotle has already told you, in english, that you are
>complicit, hypocrite.
Rather, his theory on moral responsibility shows that the
farmer is blameworthy for the deaths he voluntarily
causes, and that he cannot escape that blame by claiming
he is compelled externally by the vegan to cause those
deaths.
[ Aristotle (384-323 BCE) seems to have been the first
to construct explicitly a theory of moral responsibility.
.....
The remainder of Aristotle's discussion is devoted to
spelling out the conditions under which it is appropriate
to hold a moral agent blameworthy or praiseworthy for
some particular action or trait. His general proposal is
that one is an apt candidate for praise or blame if and
only if the action and/or disposition is voluntary.
According to Aristotle, a voluntary action or trait has
two distinctive features. First, there is a control condition:
the action or trait must have its origin in the agent. That
is, it must be up to the agent whether to perform that action
or possess the trait -- it cannot be compelled externally.
Second, Aristotle proposes an epistemic condition: the agent
must be aware of what it is she is doing or bringing about.]
http://plato.stanford.edu/entr*ies/m...ponsibility/#2
>>>> and this meets with their moral requirement to not kill
>>>> animals intentionally for food.
>>>==========================
>>>false. You know the animals are there
>>
>> No, I don't.
>=====================
>Then you are willfully and terminally ignorant.
Then, in light of YOUR fact that all vegan foods accrue
animal deaths, to reject veganism on the basis that animal
deaths will still occur after its implementation you invoke
the perfect solution fallacy once again. Nice going, Rick;
you're the perfect demonstration for showing this fallacy
to its maximum effect.
>>> the farmer knows the animals are there
>>
>> That's correct. He causes them.
>=====================
>And you reward him, killer.
No, I don't, no matter how many times you repeat that
unsupported claim.
>>> and you REWARD him for their deaths
>>
>> No, I don't reward him for anything but the crops he produces.
>> I certainly don't reward him for the deaths he causes. Do you
>> reward taxi drivers for the deaths they cause while going about
>> their work, or our servicemen for the collateral deaths they
>> cause while making a grab for Saddam's oil? You're laughable.
Did you get that: you're laughable.
>>>> Furthermore, the crops grown to feed
>>>> farmed animals far outweigh those grown ourselves,
>>>==========================
>>>Strawman, killer.
>>
>> Not at all. In fact, of the total domestic consumption of
>> cereal
>> grains 72% are used to feed livestock, 11% are for direct human
>> consumption, and the remaining 17% are used by the food
>> industry
>> to produce different food products and alcoholic beverages.
>> Therefore, almost 90% of the cereal grains are consumed
>> indirectly
>> by Americans. A similar pattern occurs for soybeans and oil
>> seeds.
>> A large fraction of soybeans is used for feeding livestock,
>> either
>> directly or in the form of by-products (bean meal) of soy oil
>> production, and in the food industry to produce soy oil for
>> human
>> consumption.
>> http://dieoff.org/page55.htm
>=======================
>ROTFLMAO Propaganda sites!!
No, by David Pimentel - Cornell University and Mario Giampietro
Isiituto Nazionale dell; Nutrizione, Rome. Also, to show that the
information I've given isn't from "propaganda sites", like you presume,
the paragraph starts off with, "For instance, according to FAO (199lc)
the cereal grains consumed directly per capita are just a small fraction
of the total per capita cereal grains consumption (directly and indirectly)
in the United States. In fact, of the total domestic consumption of cereal
grains 72% are used to feed livestock ...." Bad dodge, Rick.
>What a hoot!!! your argument is bogus, again.
Apparently not.
>>>The fact remains that there is NO need to feed
>>>crops to animals for you to eat meat.
>>
>> The fact remains that they ARE fed crops, and that the crops
>> required take up 72% of the total domestic consumption of
>> cereal grains. A similar pattern occurs for soybeans and soy
>> oil.
>=======================
>Ther fact remains that YOU do not gather wild veggies
I can do if I wanted to beat your grass fed beef and hunted meat,
and that's something you ought to include when offering a least-
harm diet if you weren't the meat pusher that you are.
>>>> and they also cause collateral deaths proportionally, as does
>>>> fishing our oceans for other sources of meat, known as by-
>>>> catch. So while the vegan abstains from farmed meat and
>>>> fish he in fact reduces those collateral deaths from what they
>>>> would be if he were to eat those meats.
>>>>
>>>> A harsh critic of veganism even declared;
>>>>
>>>> "This counting game will ALWAYS work against
>>>> meat eaters. Far more of every bad thing you've
>>>> mentioned occurs as a result of people eating meat,
>>>> because so much of agriculture is simply to feed
>>>> the livestock. There would be far less agriculture
>>>> in general if everyone were vegetarian."
>>>> Jonathan Ball 4th May 03
>>>>
>>>> And
>>>>
>>>> "If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll
>>>> lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
>>>> have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
>>>> grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
>>>> eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
>>>> deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
>>>> CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
>>>> feed for the animals you eat."
>>>> Jonathan Ball 22nd May 03
>>
>> I see you have no comment in response to Jonathan's
>> statements. Like he says, "If you insist on playing the
>> counting game, you'll lose." He's right, you've lost.
>====================
>your argument is bogus, again.
Non sequitur and therefore a dodge. Why don't you criticise
Jon for those comments if you don't agree with them, Rick?