Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 1, 9:34 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> On May 31, 11:43 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 1, 4:19 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>>> ups.com...
>>>>> On May 30, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>> On May 25, 7:50 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
>>>>>>>> with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
>>>>>>> [snip bullshit psychobabble - all lesley has]
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>> "Right now, in addition to producing grains, vegetable
>>>>>>> and fruits for direct human consumption, farmers also
>>>>>>> raise livestock, and millions of acres are planted in
>>>>>>> feed crops for livestock. The theoretical question at
>>>>>>> hand is, what if Americans suddenly stopped raising any
>>>>>>> livestock at all - how would we feed ourselves?
>>>>>>> The answer is trivially simple. All of the resources
>>>>>>> going into raising livestock, PLUS all of the resources
>>>>>>> going into raising crops as livestock feed, would no
>>>>>>> longer be needed for that purpose. To make up the food
>>>>>>> deficit for humans, a fraction of those resources would
>>>>>>> be needed to grow additional human-edible crops. That
>>>>>>> fraction would be quite small, due to the fact that
>>>>>>> livestock consume more calories and protein than we get
>>>>>>> back out of them: the feed-conversion ratio for all of
>>>>>>> them is substantially above 1:1." - "Rudy Canoza" 1/Apr/05
>>>>>> Yes, a true statement - but irrelevant. It dealt with
>>>>>> another issue. The fact is, raising livestock is not
>>>>>> inefficient. It is a use of resources consistent with
>>>>>> consumer demand.
>>>>> No-one's disputing that. The argument is being made that consumers
>>>>> should take into account the consequences of their choices. There is
>>>>> not enough internalization of externalities.
>>>>>> Calling livestock production "inefficient" is the same
>>>>>> as calling automobiles "inefficient" because we all
>>>>>> could use bicycles.
>>>>> You've totally missed the point.
>>>> No, you have.
>>> Nope. The argument you give below is completely different to the one
>>> he gives.
>>>> He is saying, correctly, that the efficiency argument as
>>>> presented by the advocates of veganism is nothing but a smokescreen.
>>> No, he's saying that it's based on a misconception about what
>>> constitutes efficiency.
>> That's my criticism of it, and the criticism is correct.
>
> In my view, you've misread the argument.

Your myopically limited view, and of course, you're
wrong. You haven't been here as long as I have.

"vegans" do it all the time, rupie: they claim it is
an "inefficient" use of resources to produce meat - and
they are wrong, for the well elaborated reason I gave.


>> But it *is*
>> offered as a smokescreen. The stupid "vegans" can't win the battle of
>> ethics, so they try to venture into economics with their stupid
>> "inefficiency" smokescreen, and they lose there, too.
>>
>
> The ethical arguments for veganism (or some diet which is comparable
> in terms of its impact on animals) are good ones.

They are sophomoric and wrong; they're just shit. The
fact that YOU participate in animal killing proves it.



> You've never offered
> any good criticisms of these arguments in their strongest form, [snip 1500 words of chaff]

I've offered very good criticisms of them in all their
forms, and their strongest form is quite weak indeed.