> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> >
>> > Dutch wrote:
>> >> > wrote in message
>> >> oups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > Dutch wrote:
>> >> >> > wrote
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > rick wrote:
>> >> >> >> > wrote
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Dave wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> snip...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Modern methods of crop cultivation require
>> >> >> >> >> significant
>> >> >> >> >> chemical imputs in the form of synthetic
>> >> >> >> >> fertilizers
>> >> >> >> >> and *cides, which can harm the environment as a
>> >> >> >> >> result of their production, transportation and
>> >> >> >> >> usage.
>> >> >> >> >> In order to maintain soil fertility and keep pests
>> >> >> >> >> under
>> >> >> >> >> control in traditional organic systems crop
>> >> >> >> >> rotations
>> >> >> >> >> are normally used. I don't know if there are crop
>> >> >> >> >> rotations available that produce human consumable
>> >> >> >> >> crops on all of the land all the time but in
>> >> >> >> >> practise
>> >> >> >> >> grass-clover leys seem to feature rather
>> >> >> >> >> prominently.
>> >> >> >> >> It surely makes sense to have cattle grazing on
>> >> >> >> >> such
>> >> >> >> >> a ley, and producing milk at the same time and
>> >> >> >> >> veal
>> >> >> >> >> and beef are then natural byproducts of this.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Well, I would question whether we have the right to
>> >> >> >> > kill the
>> >> >> >> > cattle for
>> >> >> >> > food, unless it could somehow be shown that we were
>> >> >> >> > actually
>> >> >> >> > reducing
>> >> >> >> > the number of animal deaths by doing this.
>> >> >> >> =========================
>> >> >> >> Quite easy to do when compared to your tofu meat
>> >> >> >> substitutes.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Do it, then.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You're the one claiming we have a moral obligation, give
>> >> >> "detailed
>> >> >> evidence"
>> >> >> that tofu causes fewer animal deaths than free-range
>> >> >> beef.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > I didn't claim you have a moral obligation not to buy
>> >> > free-range beef.
>> >> > I suspect you do, and I have cited some calculations in
>> >> > support of that
>> >> > claim.
>> >>
>> >> Those calculations don't show anything of the sort.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Why not?
>>
>> Because the concept of being morally required to kill the
>> fewest number of
>> animals possible is a ruse. You don't do it with any other
>> consumer
>> alternative, all you do is ban animal products.
>>
>
> It's not a ruse. It's something I try to live up to, across the
> board.
====================================
No, you don't. You're proven that with all your inane posts to
usenet. All you have is a spew about meat, and what you think
others are doing.


>
>> >> > But I don't have conclusive evidence. Based on the
>> >> > inconclusive
>> >> > evidence I have encountered so far I have decided not ot
>> >> > eat free-range
>> >> > beef.
>> >>
>> >> You don't have any knowledge at all of the farming
>> >> practises that go into
>> >> most of the food you eat. Do you know much about fruit
>> >> growing, how about
>> >> wheat, rice? I know something about them, I grow wheat, I
>> >> know apple
>> >> growers, both are deadly businesses. I wouldn't live within
>> >> a hundred
>> >> miles
>> >> of an apple orchard, that's how bad the pesticides are. The
>> >> herbicides in
>> >> grain farming is no better.
>> >>
>> >
>> > All right. There are collateral deaths involved in
>> > pasture-ruminant
>> > production as well. Show me some plausible numbers and then
>> > we'll have
>> > a basis for reaching a conclusion. Until then, I'll stick
>> > with my
>> > current best guess.
>>
>> Go ahead and base your life around guesses about made-up moral
>> imperatives.
>> I plan to enjoy my food to the maximum, and my life, and that
>> doesn't
>> include anal-retentive dogmas, it includes prime rib and
>> chicken parmesan.
>>
>
> Well, I know you don't agree with the moral foundation, but you
> haven't
> provided any arguments against it. The arguments for it are
> presented
> in David DeGrazia's "Taking Animals Seriously". Any time you
> want to
> address what he has to say in there I'll be happy to talk to
> you about
> it.
============================
Yet your being here proves that you have no intentions of 'taking
animals seriously' You spew about meat, and that's it.
Not having read the book, I'll bet that that is all that he
discusses also. Quite typical of the vegan/AR fringe lunacy.
Does he even discuss any aspect of your life outside of meat
production? Overall, i'd say our diets have the least impact on
animals and if you were really serious about animals you'd do far
more than spew about a product that you don't even use anyway.
So far, I've seen nothing to indicate that you do anything else.
You obviously haven't researched any portion of the diet you
consume now.


>
>> >> >> >> And, if we don't have the 'right' to kill cattle for
>> >> >> >> the food we
>> >> >> >> eat, why do we have the 'right' to kill field animals
>> >> >> >> for the
>> >> >> >> food we eat?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > We don't have the right to kill animals unnecessarily.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Who defines what is necessary? You?
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > I don't claim to offer a moral principle that gives
>> >> > absolutely
>> >> > unambiguous moral guidance in evey conceivable situation.
>> >> > The word
>> >> > "unnecessary" is vague and it will sometimes be hard to
>> >> > decide whether
>> >> > a given action is in accordance with the moral principle.
>> >> > In those
>> >> > cases, we'll just have to make a good faith effort to
>> >> > work out what is
>> >> > the right thing to do.
>> >>
>> >> I agree, but I don't see much good faith effort or a
>> >> coherent moral
>> >> principle in veganism. Veganism is based soley on a rule
>> >> which
>> >> restricts/prohibits use of animal products, that is all.
>> >> Other crops,
>> >> like
>> >> cotton to name one, which cause a lot of environmental
>> >> damage, go totally
>> >> unmentioned. Yet my consumption of meat is moral violation?
>> >> Give me a
>> >> ****ing break. Who the hell do you think you are?
>> >>
>> >
>> > Well, I've told you my moral principle. Make every
>> > reasonable effort
>> > not to provide financial support for practices that cause or
>> > support
>> > unnecessary harm.
>>
>> You aren't doing that at all, you're prohibiting animal
>> products, that is
>> all.
>>
>
> You have no basis for saying I'm not doing that.
>
>> > It's up to you to decide whether you think that's a
>> > good principle, and if so, what's involved in following it.
>>
>> It's a vague, meaningless principle and you aren't following
>> it.
>>
>
> There is some vagueness. It's not meaningless. I would like to
> hear
> your reasons for saying I'm not following it.
==========================
One, you're here on usenet. You have no need to be, you just
like the entertainemnt.
two, all you focus on is what you think others are doing, and
never consider your own bloody footprints.


>
>> > I think any
>> > serious attempt to follow it would involve a pretty drastic
>> > restriction
>> > of meat consumption, but that's just my opinion.
>>
>> It's not a serious moral principle.
>>
>
> Ipse dixit.
>
>> > I dare say there'd be
>> > a case for restricting cotton consumption as well, I don't
>> > know much
>> > about that particular issue. You'll note that I haven't been
>> > giving you
>> > any sermons. I'm the one who gets most of the sermons around
>> > here. I
>> > just happen to think that ethical veganism is a defensible
>> > position and
>> > I'm throwing in my two cents' worth about the attacks you're
>> > making on
>> > it.
>>
>> It's defensible morally to restrict the consumption of animal
>> products, but
>> it's not defensible to set up some bogus vague moral principle
>> and pretend
>> that you're following it.
>>
>
> Well, as I say, I accept the moral principle and I've told you
> where to
> find arguments in its favour. If you want to address those
> that's fine.
> And if you have some serious suggestion to make about how I can
> better
> follow it, I'll be happy to listen to that too. It's a moral
> principle
> that I accept and I'm trying to live up to it. Is that all
> right with
> you?
============================
No, you are not trying. You've proven that because, like all
other usenet vegans, you have focused only on those that you
think are doing something 'bad.' You have taken NO interest in,
or looked into the foods that *you* eat.


>
>> >
>> >> >> > Probably we
>> >> >> > don't have the right to kill as many animals in crop
>> >> >> > production as
>> >> >> > we
>> >> >> > do.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Then you must stop.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > I must make every reasonable effort not to provide
>> >> > financial support to
>> >> > institutions that cause or support unnecessary harm. That
>> >> > may involve
>> >> > growing some of my own vegetables. I'm not convinced it
>> >> > involves buying
>> >> > up my own land and growing all of my own food.
>> >>
>> >> You sound like a recorded message.
>> >>
>> >> >> > I would support efforts to reform crop production.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> How?
>> >> >
>> >> > Well, I might put pressure on politicians to make reforms
>> >> > which will
>> >> > reduce the impact on animal welfare, try to make the
>> >> > public more aware
>> >> > of the issue, that sort of thing.
>> >>
>> >> I'll believe it when I see it. So far it would appear that
>> >> the issue of
>> >> collateral deaths is off-limits to veganism, cuts a little
>> >> to close to
>> >> home
>> >> for a movement focused on demonizing others.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I don't agree with you that the movement is focussed on
>> > demonizing
>> > others.
>>
>> I know you don't, no vegan does.
>>
>
> But you think they're wrong. If you had any reasons to offer
> for
> thinking that they're wrong that would be interesting.
==========================
It's easy. Every vegan here on usenet is here to demonize those
that eat meat. They have taken zero interest discussing the
impacts of the foods *they* eat.


>
>> > I think the focus is on trying to reduce the harm caused by
>> > the
>> > factory-farming industry.
>>
>> That's the first time I have heard that term in our
>> discussion, meat does
>> not have to come from "factory farms", mine doesn't.
>>
>
> Great.
==================
Practically all your veggies do though, hypocrite.


>
>> > I agree the issue of the harm of collateral
>> > deaths should be raised too. Perhaps I will try to make my
>> > friends in
>> > the movement more aware of the issue.
>>
>> They will think you're crazy. Collateral deaths has no legs as
>> an issue
>> within "the movement", it hits too close to home.
>>
>> >
>> >> >> In the meantime would you consume meat if it involved
>> >> >> little or no
>> >> >> intensive crop rearing?
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Only if I was convinced it wouldn't involve additional
>> >> > harm to animals.
>> >> > Not much research has been done on this topic, based on
>> >> > reading Davis
>> >> > and Matheny at the moment I think it's probably best not
>> >> > to.
>> >>
>> >> Use your own imagination. If I shot a bull moose and
>> >> offered you some
>> >> meat,
>> >> that would almost certainly be a lower impact at ~1/5000 of
>> >> a death per
>> >> serving than your current main courses.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I really don't see how you can be confident of that when you
>> > admit that
>> > there are no reliable estimates of the cost of crop
>> > production. Matheny
>> > estimates a vegan diet kills 0.3 wild animals per year.
>>
>> Matheny hasn't done any research, he's a college dropout.
>>
>
> Still, he does argue for his conclusions. You can address the
> arguments
> if you want to.
==========================
If I argue my conclusions that the sky is pink does that mean
it's so?



>
>> > Do you have a
>> > corresponding estimate for a diet which includes some game?
>> > Or do you
>> > have an estimate which is better than Matheny's? If not, it
>> > looks like
>> > you haven't got a conclusive argument.
>>
>> You are going to believe whatever "the movement" and it's
>> shills like
>> Matheny tell you to believe. That's your prerogative, but
>> don't come on aaev
>> claiming that it's rational.
>>
>
> I'm afraid your saying this doesn't persuade me that you've got
> a
> conclusive argument.
=======================
ROTFLMAo This from the thouroughly brainwashed.

>
>> >> >> >> >> Animals can also benefit organic agriculture in
>> >> >> >> >> various other ways. For example, manure is
>> >> >> >> >> recognized as a good fertilizer, ducks like
>> >> >> >> >> eating slugs and pigs can dig over a patch to
>> >> >> >> >> remove weeds prior to planting.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >From a least harm point of view, using any
>> >> >> >> >> reasonable criteria, I feel sure that
>> >> >> >> >> supermarket/resturant grains, legumes,
>> >> >> >> >> vegetables and nuts compare favourably
>> >> >> >> >> with supermarket/resturant meat, eggs
>> >> >> >> >> and dairy products but I think the best
>> >> >> >> >> option of all is to source both plant and
>> >> >> >> >> animal products from local organic farms
>> >> >> >> >> that you can trust, fish from handline
>> >> >> >> >> fisheries and nuts and wild plants from
>> >> >> >> >> local woodlands.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > I'm not altogether convinced about the animal
>> >> >> >> > products from
>> >> >> >> > organic
>> >> >> >> > farms. I think in most cases these would probably
>> >> >> >> > lead to more
>> >> >> >> > collateral deaths overall because of the extra land
>> >> >> >> > use.
>> >> >> >> ==============================
>> >> >> >> Why? You suggesting that regular animals of the
>> >> >> >> fields can't
>> >> >> >> live in pastures with cattle? Replacing mono-culture
>> >> >> >> crop fields
>> >> >> >> with pastures to graze cattle would *reduce* CDs.
>> >> >> >> There is no
>> >> >> >> way that you can say that more animals are going to
>> >> >> >> die from
>> >> >> >> pasture grazing that mono-culture food production.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Davis estimates that 7.5 animals/ha die in
>> >> >> > ruminant-pasture food
>> >> >> > production.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> With no spraying or cultivation.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Don't recall that qualification. All right, if you say
>> >> > so. There was a
>> >> > fairly generous margin of error in Matheny's
>> >> > calculations. Are you
>> >> > saying some ruminant-pasture-based animal products cause
>> >> > less harm per
>> >> > serving of food than mono-culture crops? Can you provide
>> >> > some evidence
>> >> > of that?
>> >>
>> >> Only to tell as a farmer you that hay is not seeded, weeded
>> >> or
>> >> cultivated,
>> >> just mown and baled. It's the next best thing to pasture.
>> >> It also does
>> >> not
>> >> strip the soil of nutrients like crops grown for human
>> >> consumption. I can
>> >> only use my fields every other year, while the hay fields
>> >> can be mowed
>> >> several times a year. The whole argument comparing animal
>> >> feed with human
>> >> food is another sham.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Well, I guess that would have to be taken into account as
>> > well. The day
>> > I see some serious research which makes a decent case that
>> > ruminant-pasture-based animal products cause less harm per
>> > serving of
>> > food than mono-culture crops, I'll re-evaluate my position.
>>
>> Thank for illustrating my point. You have drawn a conclusion
>> based on little
>> or no data, and to alter that position you require "serious
>> research".
>>
>
> Because little or no data is the best we've got at the moment,
> and I
> have to take some position. Other things short of "serious
> research"
> would also suffice for me to re-evaluate my position. But what
> I've
> seen on here so far doesn't cut the mustard.
====================
Of course not, to the brainwashed common sense means nothing. No
rational thinking person could even consider that a tofu meat
substitute would cause less death and suffering to animals than
venison. But then, vegans have a corner on the market of
irrationality. Tell us about the bananas you eat, hypocrite.


>
>> >
>> >> >> >> The fish is an
>> >> >> >> > interesting suggestion. I'm not sure about that
>> >> >> >> > one. It would
>> >> >> >> > be nice
>> >> >> >> > to see some research done on this topic to
>> >> >> >> > determine what
>> >> >> >> > really causes
>> >> >> >> > the least harm.
>> >> >> >> =====================
>> >> >> >> It isn't the veggies you eat...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Show me some evidence.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Be honest with yourself, then believe your own common
>> >> >> sense.
>> >> >
>> >> > Appealling to my common sense doesn't convince me of his
>> >> > claim.
>> >>
>> >> You have to be willing to attempt to be objective. As long
>> >> as you have
>> >> the
>> >> typical vegan tape running in your head none of this is
>> >> never going to
>> >> make
>> >> sense.
>> >
>> > Well, I'm doing my best. I just don't see how I can
>> > reasonably be sure
>> > that any particular animal product that I can actually buy
>> > causes less
>> > harm per serving of food than crop production.
>>
>> You can't, just like you can't be sure that rice or bananas or
>> apples cause
>> less harm per serving than salmon, or bread.
>>
>
> So in trying to minimize the extent to which I financially
> support
> unnecessary harm, I have to make a guess based on the best
> available
> research at the moment, and that's what I've tried to do.
==========================
No, you haven't. You have 'looked' only at meat production and
declared it 'bad.' You have done zero research into the products
you do use.


>
>> > I think that more
>> > research should be done along the lines of Davis. Then some
>> > kind of
>> > serious debate can start. In the meantime, I'll have to go
>> > with my
>> > current best guess based on what I've read so far.
>>
>> You are never going to know, because there simply are too many
>> animals to
>> count and nobody cares to do it, including vegans. Farmers are
>> too busy
>> farming and vegans are never going to do it because it shoots
>> the hell out
>> their little game.
>


http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm
http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm
http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm
http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/p...eFactSheet.pdf http://www.hww.ca/hww2.asp?cid=4&id=230 http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_Wildl...on/pg7f2b6.htm http://ipm.ncsu.edu/wildlife/small_grains_wildlife.html http://www.hornedlizards.org/hornedlizards/help.html http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/bulletins/b-5093.html Since your non-animal clothing isn't cruelty-free either, here's a couple to cover some problems with cotton. http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/ To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a field, here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that there can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field. http://www.ext.colostate.edu/Pubs/natres/06507.html http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html http://www.utextension.utk.edu/publi...les/pb1600.pdf http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/v...a=458&q=150643 http://faculty.njcu.edu/fmoran/vol4fieldmouse.htmTo cover your selfish pleasure of using usenet, and maintaining a web page on same, here's are a couple dealing with power and communications. http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html http://www.towerkill.com/index.html