Dutch wrote:
> > wrote
> >
> > Dutch wrote:
> >> > wrote
> >> >
> >> > Dutch wrote:
> >> >> > wrote
> >> >> > So, as I say, at the moment I'm comfortable with being vegan and
> >> >> > advocating veganism, but I'm open to exploring alternatives.
> >> >>
> >> >> A vegan exploring alternatives is an oxymoron. If you are prepared to
> >> >> explore alternatives to the simplistic idea of veganism then you
> >> >> aren't a
> >> >> vegan. If I tell a vegan that I can improve their diet wrt animal
> >> >> death
> >> >> and
> >> >> suffering by substituting some fish or game, he will always find a way
> >> >> to
> >> >> deny, equivocate or refuse to listen to that idea.
> >> >
> >> > I'll be a vegan as long as I avoid meat, fish, dairy, and eggs.
> >>
> >> That just makes you a strict vegetarian. Veganism is based on a
> >> particular
> >> unwavering and completely irrational belief system.
> >>
> >
> > Whatever. I think you'll find the dictionary is on my side here.
>
> Dictionaries are not reliable sources for in-depth analyses of ideas. To
> start with, veganism relates to all your consumption choices, not only your
> food.
>
> > I'm
> > not too fussed about the label.
>
> The "label" is not the issue, it's the idea of veganism, which is a
> derivative of the animal rights movement, not simply a dietary preference.
>

Well, it may be the issue for you, but since you don't get to define
what my ideas are then I would have thought the main point was whether
my ideas count as "veganism" by your definition. If they don't, then
you'll be obliged to discuss my ideas, not what you consider to be
"vegan ideas".

> >> > If I
> >> > ever stop doing that, then I won't be a vegan anymore. If you tell me
> >> > that you can improve my diet with respect to animal suffering by
> >> > substituting some fish or game, I'll ask you for the detailed evidence.
> >>
> >> Of course you will, and no amount of "detailed evidence" I could present
> >> will ever be enough.
> >
> > Well, why do you think that?
>
> From many years of experience dealing with countless vegans. The issue of
> animal death and suffering is just one of the sleazy ploys used by vegans to
> attempt to disgrace non-believers into compliance. If we argue that it is a
> weak argument the vegan will simply engage in disinformation, demand
> peer-reviewed studies, photographs, statistics, or shift to a different
> argument, like health or the environment. The believer can always find ways.
>

Well, I don't think it's very reasonable of you to make assumptions
about me based on your past experience with other people. And
incidentally I do think peer-reviewed studies would be desirable.

> > In any event, you haven't provided any so far.
>
> A typical vegan gets most of their protein from commerically grown soya and
> rice based products. They also consume grains, imported fruit and other
> off-season foods. Numerous servings a day of such products has a cost in
> collateral death and suffering of animals due to the impact of farming on
> wildlife. No vegan to my knowledge has ever attempted to calculate this
> cost, or even address it genuinely in any way.

It's a shame that not many people have tried to calculate the cost.
Matheny has provided an estimate, based on Davis' research into
collateral deaths caused by alfalfa production. That's a start.

> One animal such as a large
> freshly caught salmon, a deer or any pastured ruminant could eliminate
> dozens or even hundreds of those servings.

But ruminant-pasture production also involves collateral deaths. I
can't know whether the salmon or the deer would be preferable without
an estimate of the cost of crop production. All I have to go on is
Matheny's highly provisional estimate, and based on that I have my
doubts. I'll keep my eyes open for better data, and the day I see some
I'll consider re-evaluating my diet.

> A mostly self-sufficent farmer
> has a much lower overall impact than this typical vegan.

That may or may not be. You yourself admit there are no reliable
estimates of the cost of this typical vegan diet, so surely you must
concede it's very hard for you to tell.

> Even a typical
> rural diet derived from locally raised stock and produce is probably better
> than the vegan's shrink-wrapped, imported tofu fare. It's not that a
> vegetarian is bad, the preposterous pseudo-ethics that vegans attach to the
> diet that is what is sick.