On Jun 2, 12:15 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> On Jun 1, 1:54 am, Rupert > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 1, 5:03 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> > > "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> > oups.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?
>
> > Poor you.
>
> > I don't believe you that you don't thrive on it,
>
> You disbelieve him because of your dogmatic approach, not because you
> have any legitimate reason to doubt him.
>

The scientific consensus is that most people are perfectly capable of
thriving on a vegan diet. I'm perfectly justified in being skeptical
that it was impossible for him to be vegan and healthy.

> > that seems very unlikely to me
>
> No, you mean it conflicts with your ideology, rupie.
>

I mean what I say. It is unlikely, given what is known about the
nutritional adequacy of vegan diets, that he would have had to stop
being vegan in order to resolve whatever problems he was having.

> > > >> 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.
>
> ERRRRRRRRR, yes, rupie - you've done zero apart from spouting classic
> "vegan" dogma.
>

No, I'm afraid you're mistaken, Ball. For one thing, I haven't made
any arguments for veganism at all. What I've done is correctly point
out that you're misconstruing the argument that meat production is a
wasteful use of resources. It's nothing to do with economic
efficiency.

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

No, I'm not. I sincerely believe what I'm saying.

> People *do* make this phony "inefficiency" argument.

Show me where.

> The environmental argument is something different.
>
> "vegans" say that the resources going to meat production are "wasted",
> because it isn't "necessary" to eat meat in order to eat healthfully.
> That is a misconceived efficiency argument, and people do indeed make
> it. That stupid **** lesley has made it dozens of times.
>

Very interesting. Well, I've never seen anyone make it. There are
closely related arguments about environmental impact and food
distribution. I'd never encountered anyone who totally divorces the
argument from those concerns. Why would anyone care about how much
resources are used, apart from these other concerns?

You think people really do make this argument, well you might be
right, frankly I think there's a pretty good chance you might just be
misreading them. I'm not all that fussed either way, anyway. Yes,
you're correct that the argument is flawed, but it's a bit like
shooting fish in a barrel, isn't it?

> > > And now
> > > you're demanding HE offer reasons??
>
> > Yes. Because he hasn't offered the slightest reason to doubt this
> > argument.
>
> You're mixing it up with another argument.
>
> Understand, rupie, that even if the environmental effects of livestock
> production were fully mitigated, it still would take more resources to
> produce livestock, and "vegans" would be claiming, wrongly, that the
> resources are "wasted".
>

Says you. I really find it very implausible. But I'm not too fussed.
If it was your goal to demolish this argument, well, congratulations,
you've succeeded.

> > > You have nerve, if nothing else.
>
> > Well, that's a very interesting perspective you have,
>
> No, you really do show an appalling amount of arrogance, rupie.

Ball, you're a fool. Your hobby is treating people you meet on usenet
like dirt. *That* is arrogance. I express myself in a reasonable and
polite way. You calling me arrogant is utterly absurd.

> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -