"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> 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
m...
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
===========================
LOL Thanks for admitting you are wrong, fool. I talk about
real-world, viable diets. You have to resort to a diet that you
cannot, will not, and won't even consider as one as your only
example! What a hoot! As I have said, Therefore, your argument
is bogus, again.



>
>>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.
=============================
No fool, they do not. Your willful ignorance and propaganda
delusions are showing, hypocrite. They are fed no crops, and are
not sent to feed-lots. Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.


>
> 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,
=============================
Still willfully ignorant, eh killer? they are not sent to
feed-lots, despite your continued lys, hypocrite, Therefore,
your argument is bogus, again.


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;
=====================
You've been show the idiocy of your claims, many times already
fool. Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.

> begin idiocy and willful ignorance...
> [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
> stop continued idiocy, but willful ignorance is still
> intatct...



> 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.
========================
Nope. Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.

>
>>> 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.
=======================
Because of a silly claim that you have continued to fail at
proving, killer.
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.


>
>>>>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.
==========================
No fool, I am not. Unlike you, I'm not telling to force anybody
to eat anything at all. I just rightly point out that IF saving
animals is your real goal, and you wish to maintain a real-world,
modern conveninece oriented diet, then your vegan one is NOT the
solution. But then, you've already proven that saving animals
from unnecessary deaths is NOT any goal of yours, hypocrite.
Afterall, here you are spewing your innane, willful ignorance for
all the world to se, killer. Therefore, your argument is bogus,
again.


>
>>>>> 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?
=======================
Not as practiced by you and every other vegan here on usenet,
hypocrite. I've always told you that somewhere I'm sure there is
at least one person living their 'ethics' in regards to animal
death and suffering. YOU are not that person, and YOU continue
to kill far more animals than necessary because YOU won't even
pick and choose among the food that YOU do eat, much less
actually look for a real reduction in your bloody footprints,
hypocrite. Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.


>
>>> 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;
=====================
No, you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about,
killer.
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.

snip typical idiocy...
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.


>>>>> 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.
=====================
No, you haven't, because you have failed to prove that a vegan
diet does anything you have claimed, killer.
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.


>
>>>>> (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.
> ======================================
No, fool. He places as much blame on you because you made the
choices you did fully knowing the outcome, and without any
coersion or outside force from anybody else. the choices you
k=]make are fully yours, knowing that they are death sentences to
the animals you claim to care about. You are comlicit,
hypocrite. Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.


> [ 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.
=============================
Nope. You failed again, killer. You yet to prove the original
claim of veganism, killer. Therefore, your argument is bogus,
again.


>
>>>> 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.
> =================================
It's completel supported and proven, killer. You make the choice
to buy his food knowing full well how he produces it. YOU could
make other choices, yet you don't. You are therefore rewarding
the farmer for producing his veggies in a manner that provides
you cheap, clean, convienent food. Therefore, your argument is
bogus, again.



>>>> 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.
=====================
No fool, it was so foolish as to not even deserve a response.
You've been shown many times that the analogies are bogus and
that you have a real hard time with analogies. It ether of the
two cases above, many actions are taken to avoid and punish any
such occurances when neglegence is involved. Now, if in your
warped view of the world, if you believe punishment=reward, then
go for it hypocrite. Otherwise, you have lost again as there are
no prior actions taken, nor are there any punishments given for
the killing oif animal in the production of your veggies. In
fact, many of those deaths are deliberate, intentional and
targeting animals for death and suffering. Therefore, your
argument is bogus, again.


>
>>>>> 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.
> ==============================
No fool. The dodge is all yours because you have never, and will
never be able to support your original claim.
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.


>>What a hoot!!! your argument is bogus, again.
>
> Apparently not.
> =========================
completly, fool...


>>>>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.
=========================================
LOL You couldn't do that form of gathering if you wanted to,
fool. You'd kill yourself withing a month! Again, my choice is
at least a viable option. You have failed at proving your claims
about veganism, again, hypocrite.
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.



>
>>>>> 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?
============================================
Because the focus is on your idiocy fool. You can try to deflect
it all you want, but you remain the head hypocrite in charge of
willful ignorance and stupidity.
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.