"Rupert" > wrote
> On Jun 1, 5:03 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:


[..]

>> >> > 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?
>>
>
> Poor you.

Why poor me? I eat a delicious and varied diet. I am extremely fortunate to
have the resources and opportunity to have access to the very best food
available

> I don't believe you that you don't thrive on it, that seems very
> unlikely to me if you took reasonable efforts to plan your diet in a
> sensible way.

You don't know everything, despite what you think. I followed a vegetarian
diet for many years, eventually it stopped serving my needs, and I did plan
it well. Humans have relied on meat as a source of nutrition since our
species evolved, why is it so difficult to believe that some people cannot
thrive without it at all times of their life?

> If you really couldn't find any vegan food that you found tasty, well,
> doesn't life suck.

Not at all, fortunately I am not hogtied by some irrational eating disorder
that controls my eating habits.

> I've never met any other vegans with that problem.

None that would admit it you mean.
http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w...b-scen1b.shtml

> Does that fact justify you in eating factory-farmed meat?

Oooo the big boogie-man "factory-farmed meat"! You forget that not everyone
cringes in horror when you utter that phrase.

> Well, you
> can have a go at justifying that if you like, that goes beyond what I
> was discussing in my post.

How do you know I eat factory farmed meat? I have said to you that I can
justify it, just as you can justify eating conventional commercially grown
produce. That doesn't mean I do.

>
>> Vegans argue categorically that meat causes more environmental
>> destruction
>> than plants,
>
> No. They argue that this is almost always true, which is undeniable.

No they don't argue almost, they're not the paragons of reason you portray.
Most vegans here say that it is cruel and horrible to kill animals to eat
their flesh. It is like a religious belief.

>> 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.
>
> Give some examples.

Surely I don't need to. The basic hard truths about conventional agriculture
are synthetic nitrogen, herbicides and pesticides, which strip the life out
of the food and the soil and pollute the water. Not to mention the
collateral killing of animals and exploitation of cheap immigrant labour.
Contrast this horror show with the raising of organic free-range livestock
in conjunction with plant foods in a symbiosis, as is done in some places.

>> The
>> truth is much more complex, and it does not offer an easily defined
>> soapbox
>> for groups like vegans to announce their moral superiority.
>>
>
> The environmental argument for veganism is basically correct.

No it's not, it's simplistic and basically misleading and dishonest.

A
> typical vegan diet causes much less environmental damage than a
> typical meat-eater's diet.

That's what I mean by dishonest. A person's morals are not based on
averaging, they are based on how well they adhere to principles which they
claim to believe in. The claim you just made nobody would disagree with, but
that is NOT the claim vegans make, they claim that is WRONG to kill animals
to eat their flesh. It is a visceral aversion to that act which they express
like a religious belief.

> Yes, there are some complexities. You know
> perfectly well that I acknowledge those complexities, yet for some
> reason you choose to ignore that fact.

You don't talk like you acknowledge them, you wave your hand at them and pay
them lip service.

>There are many different
> arguments for veganism, perhaps they do not suffice to exclude every
> conceivable non-vegan diet. If you want to berate people for not
> acknowledging that fact, you should be talking to people other than
> me.

There are no valid arguments for veganism, it's corrupt and should be
rejected by any thinking person. If people want to follow strict vegetarian
diets that is a different thing.

>> >> 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.
>
> Er, actually, no. I've explained why the argument which he's
> addressing is an argument which no-one actually makes.

You didn't explain anything, you asserted it.

When you say
> "he's claiming that it's the wrong argument" you're just repeating
> what he said, you're not doing much to clarify his point. Is he
> claiming that that's not the argument he was talking about? Well,
> fine, but then the onus is on him to show why anyone should be
> interested in his refutation of the argument he was talking about,
> i.e. that it isn't just a straw man he made up. Or if he's claiming
> that the argument is flawed, then again the onus is on him to show
> that. However that may be, he's done absolutely nothing to cast any
> doubt on this argument.

Did you even read what he wrote?


>> And now
>> you're demanding HE offer reasons??
>
> Yes. Because he hasn't offered the slightest reason to doubt this
> argument.
>
>> You have nerve, if nothing else.
>>
>
> Well, that's a very interesting perspective you have, Dutch. Do you
> think there are any reasons to doubt the argument, apart from your
> pitiful whingeing that you haven't managed to find any vegan food that
> you like?

I not only found it unsatisfying after 18 years, as I said, it was not
serving my family's health either. Those are important concerns you little
shit, not pitiful whinging.

The issue is whether the benefits to the environment
> achieved by going vegan are such as to provide rational motivation for
> a concerned individual to go vegan. That's what the argument is about.
> You want to try and argue against this, go ahead.

I could argue that you should only eat broccoli and tomatoes and nothing
else or something like that because that would arguably cause less
enviromental damage than the diet you advocate. I could argue that any
concerned indivdual should do that. What is your argument against that and
how is different than my argument against veganism?

>> >> 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.
>
> What I'm saying is that Jon's babbling does not bear on any "pro-
> vegan" argument anyone has actually made. Since he obviously believes
> he has undermined a popular argument for veganism that is a relevant
> point.

Well you're mistaken, the bogus efficiency argument comes up all the time.

>
>> Then you have the gall to demand
>> that others support their arguments.
>>
>
> Get a life.

Get more orginal lines.

>> > 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.
>>
>
> God help me, Dutch, you are so ****ing stupid. Jon thinks he's made an
> objection to a widely promoted argument for veganism. He hasn't, and I
> was pointing out this fact. Very simple. No impertinence involved.

Yes he has, we hear it here constantly in one form or another, at least once
a week.

I Googled "Arguments for vegetarianism" and the first hit was this
http://puffin.creighton.edu/phil/Ste...etarianism.htm

And here is the text that follows right after the introduction

----------------------------------------------
The Arguments for Vegetarianism

A. The Argument from Distributive Justice

This first argument was advanced as early as 1971 by Frances
Moore Lappé,[v] and has been repeated by such philosophers as Peter
Singer,[vi] James Rachels,[vii] Stephen R. L. Clark,[viii] and Mary
Midgley,[ix] and mentioned in passing by still others.[x] The argument can
be reconstructed as follows:


1. 16 to 21 lbs. of grain and soy are needed to produce 1 lb. of beef. 6
to 8 lbs. of grain and soy are needed to produce 1 lb. of pork. 4 lbs. of
grain and soy are needed to produce 1 lb. of turkey meat. 3 lbs. of grain
and soy are needed to produce 1 lb. of chicken meat.[xi]

2. Therefore, converting grain and soy to meat is a very wasteful means of
producing food. [From 1]

3. Every day millions of human beings in the world suffer and die from
lack of sufficient grains and legumes for a minimally decent diet.

4. By choosing to eat meat when sufficient grains and vegetables are
available for a healthy diet for oneself, one participates in and
perpetuates a very wasteful means of producing food.

5. If one eats meat knowing 3 and 4, then one endorses a very wasteful
means of producing food, and shows an insensitivity to malnourished and
starving human beings.

6. By knowingly participating in and perpetuating a very wasteful means of
producing food, the meat-eater shows a selfish refusal to share with
starving human beings food that could have been made available to them, and
thereby shows disregard for the principle of distributive justice.

7. Developing nations mimic the dietary habits of Americans, and
Americans are setting a harmful, irresponsible example by wasting grain to
produce and consume meat.

8. Therefore, members of affluent nations ought to adopt vegetarian diets
and boycott meat so as not to be implicated in the wasteful and unjust
system of meat production, and to show concern for the welfare of
unfortunate human beings.

Basically, the idea here is that eating meat perpetuates a system which
indirectly harms other human beings. Therefore, to choose to be a part of
this system indicates a disregard for those people, and this in effect
contaminates one's moral character.
---------------------------------------------

Essentially the efficiency argument he dismantled.


>
>> > The irony of your calling me "stupid" and "over-reaching" is very
>> > amusing.
>>
>> I'd call you a dilettante. Does that amuse you too?
>
> Yes, I find it absolutely hysterical.

Good, its true.

>> 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.
>>
>
> Well, not that this has anything to do with finding it ironic that
> Ball calls me "stupid" and "over-reaching", but actually, I'm afraid I
> am. I've spent a lot more time studying moral philosophy and thinking
> about these issues than any of you antis have. I've got a much better
> insight into the arguments than you do. I know you don't recognize
> that, well, that's fine by me. I don't need any validation from you.
> I'm still happy to engage with you as long as you remain reasonably
> civil.

I find you a complete waste of time. You're an arrogant toad who doesn't
answer questions and assumes he's right by royal appointment. And reading
and thinking a lot doesn't make you intelligent or smart. You can't aquire
wisdom by reading.

>
>> > 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,
>
> Get a life, you stupid twit.

I have a fine life thanks, and a healthy diet, in large part thanks to my
ability to break out of the chains of "ethical vegetarianism". And in case
you're concerned, I eat a restricted calorie diet, locally raised organic
chicken and locally caught salmon most nights, along with all organically
grown produce, and I would bet the impact on the earth and of animal
suffering caused by my diet beats the hell out of most vegan diets.