On Jun 1, 5:03 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 1, 2:48 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> On May 31, 7:14 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> >> > On May 26, 4:50 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> >> > > Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
> >> > > with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
> >> > > reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
> >> > > ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
> >> > > of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
> >> > > *consumption*.
>
> >> > > The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
> >> > > the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
> >> > > could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
> >> > > for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
> >> > > that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
> >> > > livestock.
>
> >> > > In order to examine the efficiency of some process,
> >> > > there must be agreement on what the end product is
> >> > > whose efficiency of production you are examining. If
> >> > > you're looking at the production of consumer
> >> > > electronics, for example, then the output is
> >> > > televisions, stereo receivers, DVD players, etc.
> >> > > Rather obviously, you need to get specific. No
> >> > > sensible person is going to suggest that we ought to
> >> > > discontinue the production of television sets, because
> >> > > they require more resources to produce (which they do),
> >> > > and produce more DVD players instead. (For the
> >> > > cave-dwellers, an extremely high quality DVD player may
> >> > > be bought for under US$100, while a comparable quality
> >> > > television set is going to cost several hundred
> >> > > dollars. $500 for a DVD player is astronomical - I'm
> >> > > not even sure there are any that expensive - while you
> >> > > can easily pay $8000 or more for large plasma TV
> >> > > monitor, which will require a separate TV receiver.)
>
> >> > > What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of
> >> > > "inefficiency"? They're clearly saying that the end
> >> > > product whose efficiency of production we want to
> >> > > consider is "food", i.e., undifferentiated food
> >> > > calories. Just as clearly, they are wrong. Humans
> >> > > don't consider all foods equal, and hence equally
> >> > > substitutable. As in debunking so much of "veganism",
> >> > > we can see this easily - laughably easily - by
> >> > > restricting our view to a strictly vegetarian diet,
> >> > > without introducing meat into the discussion at all.
> >> > > If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food production
> >> > > efficiency, they would be advocating the production of
> >> > > only a very small number of vegetable crops, as it is
> >> > > obvious that some crops are more efficient to produce -
> >> > > use less resources per nutritional unit of output -
> >> > > than others.
>
> >> > > But how do "vegans" actually behave? Why, they buy
> >> > > some fruits and vegetables that are resource-efficient,
> >> > > and they buy some fruits and vegetables that are
> >> > > relatively resource-INefficient. You know this by
> >> > > looking at retail prices: higher priced goods ARE
> >> > > higher priced because they use more resources to
> >> > > produce. If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food
> >> > > production efficiency, they would only be buying the
> >> > > absolutely cheapest fruit or vegetable for any given
> >> > > nutritional requirement. This would necessarily mean
> >> > > there would be ONLY one kind of leafy green vegetable,
> >> > > one kind of grain, one variety of fruit, and so on.
>
> >> > > If "vegans" were to extend this misuse of "efficiency"
> >> > > into other consumer goods, say clothing, then there
> >> > > would be only one kind of shoe produced (and thus only
> >> > > one brand). The same would hold for every conceivable
> >> > > garment. A button-front shirt with collars costs more
> >> > > to produce - uses more resources - than does a T-shirt,
> >> > > so everyone "ought" to wear only T-shirts, if we're
> >> > > going to focus on the efficiency of shirt production.
> >> > > You don't "need" any button front shirts, just as you
> >> > > don't "need" meat. But look in any "vegan's" wardrobe,
> >> > > and you'll see a variety of different kinds of clothing
> >> > > (all natural fiber, of course.) "vegans" aren't
> >> > > advocating that only the most "efficient" clothing be
> >> > > produced, as their own behavior clearly indicates.
>
> >> > > The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
> >> > > to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product,
> >> > > then see if that product can be produced using fewer
> >> > > resources. It is important to note that the consumer's
> >> > > view of products as distinct things is crucial. A
> >> > > radio can be produced far more "efficiently", in terms
> >> > > of resource use, than a television; but consumers don't
> >> > > view radios and televisions as generic entertainment
> >> > > devices.
>
> >> > > The critical mistake, the UNBELIEVABLY stupid mistake,
> >> > > that "vegans" who misconceive of "inefficiency" are
> >> > > making, is to see "food" as some undifferentiated lump
> >> > > of calories and other nutritional requirements. Once
> >> > > one realizes that this is not how ANYONE, including the
> >> > > "vegans" themselves, views food, then the
> >> > > "inefficiency" argument against using resources for
> >> > > meat production falls to the ground.
>
> >> > > I hope this helps.
>
> >> > The argument is that we can produce perfectly tasty and nutritious
> >> > food at the cost of a lot less environmental destruction.
>
> Tasty and nutritious for whom? What if I hate it and do not thrive on it?
>
> Vegans argue categorically that meat causes more environmental destruction
> than plants, this is the insidious lie of veganism which hides the real
> truth about agriculture, the truth that vegans can't abide in their
> simplistic worldview, that in many cases plants are worse than meat. The
> truth is much more complex, and it does not offer an easily defined soapbox
> for groups like vegans to announce their moral superiority.
>
> >> That's the wrong argument.
>
> > Sorry, I'm not clear here what you're claiming. You claim the argument
> > is flawed? Fine, then offer reasons why we should agree with you. You
> > haven't done this yet, I was simply pointing out this fact.
>
> He's claiming that it's the wrong argument. He's made a considerable effort
> to delineate his argument, you've done nothing in this thread, zero. And now
> you're demanding HE offer reasons?? You have nerve, if nothing else.
>
> >> But it figures that's the one a stupid,
> >> over-reaching **** like you would try to make.
>
> > I have not endorsed any particular argument for veganism in this
> > thread,
>
> Right, NOTHING. You say nothing, you refer indirectly and vaguely to implied
> arguments allegedly made by other people. Then you have the gall to demand
> that others support their arguments.
>
> > I have merely pointed out that you have totally failed to
> > engage with any argument that is actually endorsed by a significant
> > number of people.
>
> Another one of your impertinent little references to the opinions held by
> some cohort of "significant" people who shall remain silent.
>
> > The irony of your calling me "stupid" and "over-reaching" is very
> > amusing.
>
> I'd call you a dilettante. Does that amuse you too? You project this
> attitude that we ought to be grateful that a deep thinker like you deigns to
> grace us with his presence. Well you ought to get over yourself rupe, you
> ain't half as smart as you think you are.
>

Okay, let's just say for the sake of argument that I've got an over-
inflated idea about my level of insight into moral philosophy. Well,
there it is. We know what I think about it and we know what you think
about it. What of it? I'm here to discuss issues in animal ethics, not
to discuss my failings as a person. You want to set up a forum about
what a contemptible individual Rupert McCallum is, go ahead. This
forum is about animal ethics.

> > However, I won't bother to reply to your next post unless you
> > adhere to reasonable rules of civility.
>
> Nice little back door you painted for yourself there rupe, but unecessary,
> you won't reply to any of his points anyway, you never do. You just posture
> and bluff until we lose patience with you then you play the victim.-

I made some perfectly reasonable comments about Jon's arguments, and
predictably, he immediately resorted to personal abuse. Which
basically means he's lost the argument. As always. It's not about
playing the victim. It's just that I've decided that I don't choose to
engage with people who want to argue about their opponents rather than
about the issues. Which goes for you too. Stick to addressing the
points I've made about Jon's arguments, not to commenting on my merits
as a person. Otherwise I won't bother responding.