Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-05-2007, 08:30 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Wed, 30 May 2007 02:48:12 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

"Whining, Crying, Bawl" wrote in message
roups.com...
On May 28, 9:32 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"ricky's babysitter" wrote in message

ups.com...





On May 28, 11:17 am, Goo wrote:
Dean Wormer wrote:
Hello Rudy,

Thanks for posting this. It's too long, of course, but that's par
for
the course in these internet groups, isn't it.

Your main argument is actually quite elegant, and could be expressed
in almost mathematical terms. Alas, it was not. Instead, you have
let your fingers do your shouting, and you have succumbed to several
nasty habits of the truly indignant, such as capitalizing things
that
read quite well without the inverted commas - including, as just one
but probably the silliest example, the word "food" itself in the
last
paragraph.

Rudy, you are the sort of opponent that some of us on the other side
(!) treasu intelligent, articulate, logical, etc.; and I for one
look forward to seeing your argument expressed in plain English.

Yours,

D.W.

Thanks for the constructive criticism regarding style.
It's a pity you couldn't address the substance.

That's because there wasn't any.

According to Dean there was, in fact he called the arguments "elegant",
he
just had no meaningful response, like you.




"Elegant" but without SUBSTANCE you clueless ninny.


How exactly can an argument be elegant and not have substance?


By being written elegantly, but still being a load of shit.

Substance is the essence of argument,


Elegance would be more like the style used in presenting the
argument, or the bullshit, or whatever is being presented.

only it's substance can have elegance.


Bullshit. People like the Goober have been trying to flower
up bullshit and pretend it's something more for a long time:

"Wisdom without eloquence has been of little help to the states,
but eloquence without wisdom has often been a great obstcle
and never an advantage." - Cicero

Or, an
argument without substance cannot be elegant, by definition.


Only by a definition invented by a clueless ninny.

So who's the clueless ninny now, huh?


You've still got it.

  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-05-2007, 08:31 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On 29 May 2007 05:13:56 -0700, 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


'Bullies project their inadequacies, shortcomings, behaviours
etc on to other people to avoid facing up to their inadequacy
and doing something about it (learning about oneself can be
painful), and to distract and divert attention away from
themselves and their inadequacies.


White bread is green

By Fred Pearce
vegetarians may be healthier, but meat eaters do more for the environment. A
survey of the energy used to produce and distribute various foods has found
that meat and processed food such as sweets, ice cream, potato chips and white
bread are among the most energy-efficient--and so least polluting--foods in our
diet. Tea, coffee, tomatoes, salad vegetables and white fish, on the other
hand, are distinctly environmentally unfriendly.

David Coley and colleagues of the Centre for Energy and the Environment at the
University of Exeter have analysed how much energy from fuel is used in the
complete production cycle of food in a typical shopping basket.

The analysis includes the manufacture and application of fertilisers and other
chemicals, harvesting, processing, packaging, transport and waste disposal.
Geographical differences have been averaged out.

In a study of the diets of more than 2000 people, they found that it takes
around 18 000 mega-joules of energy each year to get a typical Briton's food to
the table. This is almost six times the energy contained in the food itself. In
all, the process consumes almost a tenth of the national energy budget, adding
15 million tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide.

But people's diets vary hugely. The study suggests that a sixth of Britons
consume food over a year that requires less than 10 000 MJ to produce, while
the annual diets of another sixth require more than 25 000 MJ.

The study will trouble those trying to be both healthy and green. The most
energy-intensive item is coffee, which requires 177 MJ of energy to produce 1
MJ of food intake. But typical salad vegetables require 45 MJ and white fish
36, compared to 8 MJ for beef and burgers, 7 for chicken and 6 for lamb.

Worse still for the environmental consciences of healthy eaters, while fresh
fruit consumes between 10 and 22 MJ, sugary confectionery, crisps, white bread
and ice cream are all right at the bottom of the table, consuming less than 1
MJ each.

"Meat does well because it is not highly processed, provides a lot of calories
and is often grown locally," says Coley. "But obviously it makes a lot of
difference whether the meat comes from the local farm or Brazil. I live close
to Dartmoor, where local cabbages and lamb would produce a very different score
from New Zealand lamb and Kenyan green beans."

In a sense, says Coley, we all "eat oil". The modern food industry is "in many
ways a means of converting fossil fuels into edible forms. Food is a large part
of an individual's impact on the greenhouse effect. Many of us could change our
diets to have a lot less impact."

From New Scientist, 6 December 1997

http://www.ex.ac.uk/EAD/Extrel/Annrep/a98-phy.htm#top
D A Coley, E Goodliffe and J Macdiarmid
'The embodied energy of food: the role of diet', Energy Policy, 26 1998: 455-9.
  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-05-2007, 08:41 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 113
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as always, blabbered:
On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:50:37 GMT, Rudy Canoza wrote:
The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product


And of course in the case of livestock, the lives of
the animals themselves should also always be given


zero consideration. They have no intrinsic moral meaning until and
unless the livestock exist. There is no reason to want livestock to
"get to experience life."

You lose, ****wit.

  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-05-2007, 09:33 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,025
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

[email protected] wrote
On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:50:37 GMT, Goo wrote:

The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product


And of course in the case of livestock, the lives of
the animals themselves should also always be given
much consideration.



No, the welfare of the animals should be given consideration, not "the
lives".

  #20 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-05-2007, 09:43 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,025
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Wed, 30 May 2007 02:48:12 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

"Whining, Crying, Bawl" wrote in message
groups.com...
On May 28, 9:32 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"ricky's babysitter" wrote in message

ups.com...





On May 28, 11:17 am, Goo wrote:
Dean Wormer wrote:
Hello Rudy,

Thanks for posting this. It's too long, of course, but that's par
for
the course in these internet groups, isn't it.

Your main argument is actually quite elegant, and could be
expressed
in almost mathematical terms. Alas, it was not. Instead, you
have
let your fingers do your shouting, and you have succumbed to
several
nasty habits of the truly indignant, such as capitalizing things
that
read quite well without the inverted commas - including, as just
one
but probably the silliest example, the word "food" itself in the
last
paragraph.

Rudy, you are the sort of opponent that some of us on the other
side
(!) treasu intelligent, articulate, logical, etc.; and I for
one
look forward to seeing your argument expressed in plain English.

Yours,

D.W.

Thanks for the constructive criticism regarding style.
It's a pity you couldn't address the substance.

That's because there wasn't any.

According to Dean there was, in fact he called the arguments "elegant",
he
just had no meaningful response, like you.



"Elegant" but without SUBSTANCE you clueless ninny.


How exactly can an argument be elegant and not have substance?


By being written elegantly, but still being a load of shit.

Substance is the essence of argument,


Elegance would be more like the style used in presenting the
argument, or the bullshit, or whatever is being presented.


No, that's not what "an elegant argument" means.

only it's substance can have elegance.


Bullshit. People like the Goober have been trying to flower
up bullshit and pretend it's something more for a long time:


Then that would be bullshit, gilding the lily, not elegant argument.

"Wisdom without eloquence has been of little help to the states,
but eloquence without wisdom has often been a great obstcle
and never an advantage." - Cicero


An elegant argument by definition displays both eloquence and wisdom, along
with logic and reason.

The Logic of the Larder is missing these characteristics, except that it
contains one fundamental logical hook, it is not reasonable nor wise, and
decidely not elegant.

Or, an
argument without substance cannot be elegant, by definition.


Only by a definition invented by a clueless ninny.

So who's the clueless ninny now, huh?


You've still got it.


I fear that you and your erstwhile buddy are leagues ahead.



  #21 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-05-2007, 10:12 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 4
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On May 30, 2:43 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
[email protected] wrote in messagenews:[email protected] .com...
On Wed, 30 May 2007 02:48:12 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:


"Whining, Crying, Bawl" wrote in message
groups.com...
On May 28, 9:32 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"ricky's babysitter" wrote in message


egroups.com...


On May 28, 11:17 am, Goo wrote:
Dean Wormer wrote:
Hello Rudy,


Thanks for posting this. It's too long, of course, but that's par
for
the course in these internet groups, isn't it.


Your main argument is actually quite elegant, and could be
expressed
in almost mathematical terms. Alas, it was not. Instead, you
have
let your fingers do your shouting, and you have succumbed to
several
nasty habits of the truly indignant, such as capitalizing things
that
read quite well without the inverted commas - including, as just
one
but probably the silliest example, the word "food" itself in the
last
paragraph.


Rudy, you are the sort of opponent that some of us on the other
side
(!) treasu intelligent, articulate, logical, etc.; and I for
one
look forward to seeing your argument expressed in plain English.


Yours,


D.W.


Thanks for the constructive criticism regarding style.
It's a pity you couldn't address the substance.


That's because there wasn't any.


According to Dean there was, in fact he called the arguments "elegant",
he
just had no meaningful response, like you.


"Elegant" but without SUBSTANCE you clueless ninny.


How exactly can an argument be elegant and not have substance?


By being written elegantly, but still being a load of shit.


Substance is the essence of argument,


Elegance would be more like the style used in presenting the
argument, or the bullshit, or whatever is being presented.


No, that's not what "an elegant argument" means.

only it's substance can have elegance.


Bullshit. People like the Goober have been trying to flower
up bullshit and pretend it's something more for a long time:


Then that would be bullshit, gilding the lily, not elegant argument.




You clearly are a ninny Dutch.

You don't know the difference between elegant and eloquent.




"Wisdom without eloquence has been of little help to the states,
but eloquence without wisdom has often been a great obstcle
and never an advantage." - Cicero


An elegant argument by definition displays both eloquence and wisdom, along
with logic and reason.

The Logic of the Larder is missing these characteristics, except that it
contains one fundamental logical hook, it is not reasonable nor wise, and
decidely not elegant.




Common sense and inheirent rights need none of your much vaunted
"ELEGANCE" you ****.

You're getting goofier than Goo.






Or, an
argument without substance cannot be elegant, by definition.


Only by a definition invented by a clueless ninny.


So who's the clueless ninny now, huh?


You've still got it.


I fear that you and your erstwhile buddy are leagues ahead.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



  #22 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-05-2007, 08:18 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,025
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

"Leif Erikson's Smarter Brother" wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 30, 2:43 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
[email protected] wrote in messagenews:[email protected] .com...
On Wed, 30 May 2007 02:48:12 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:


"Whining, Crying, Bawl" wrote in message
groups.com...
On May 28, 9:32 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"ricky's babysitter" wrote in message


egroups.com...


On May 28, 11:17 am, Goo wrote:
Dean Wormer wrote:
Hello Rudy,


Thanks for posting this. It's too long, of course, but that's
par
for
the course in these internet groups, isn't it.


Your main argument is actually quite elegant, and could be
expressed
in almost mathematical terms. Alas, it was not. Instead, you
have
let your fingers do your shouting, and you have succumbed to
several
nasty habits of the truly indignant, such as capitalizing
things
that
read quite well without the inverted commas - including, as
just
one
but probably the silliest example, the word "food" itself in
the
last
paragraph.


Rudy, you are the sort of opponent that some of us on the other
side
(!) treasu intelligent, articulate, logical, etc.; and I for
one
look forward to seeing your argument expressed in plain
English.


Yours,


D.W.


Thanks for the constructive criticism regarding style.
It's a pity you couldn't address the substance.


That's because there wasn't any.


According to Dean there was, in fact he called the arguments
"elegant",
he
just had no meaningful response, like you.


"Elegant" but without SUBSTANCE you clueless ninny.


How exactly can an argument be elegant and not have substance?


By being written elegantly, but still being a load of shit.


Substance is the essence of argument,


Elegance would be more like the style used in presenting the
argument, or the bullshit, or whatever is being presented.


No, that's not what "an elegant argument" means.

only it's substance can have elegance.


Bullshit. People like the Goober have been trying to flower
up bullshit and pretend it's something more for a long time:


Then that would be bullshit, gilding the lily, not elegant argument.




You clearly are a ninny Dutch.

You don't know the difference between elegant and eloquent.


I do, but you don't, dummy. You had never heard the adjective elegant used
to describe an argument before, now you're befuddled. Here's a clue, it is
commonly used when referring to mathematical arguments that are very
succinct and pure in their application of logic, clear and irrefutable. It
never, ever applies to arguments that lack substance, that would
automatically disqualify them. An eloquent argument *might* lack substance,
but eloquent usually refers to the speaker, not the speech.

"Wisdom without eloquence has been of little help to the states,
but eloquence without wisdom has often been a great obstcle
and never an advantage." - Cicero


An elegant argument by definition displays both eloquence and wisdom,
along
with logic and reason.

The Logic of the Larder is missing these characteristics, except that it
contains one fundamental logical hook, it is not reasonable nor wise, and
decidely not elegant.




Common sense and inheirent rights need none of your much vaunted
"ELEGANCE" you ****.


Or, "What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason
away." - The Doobie Brothers

You're getting goofier than Goo.


A "Goo" is a person who rejects as nonsense ****wit Harrison's campaign to
convince the world that anyone who opposes the consumption of animal
products is being selfish for wanting to deny life to livestock animals. By
that definition aren't you a Goo too? Isn't everyone?


  #23 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-05-2007, 10:34 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 20
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On May 30, 8:04 pm, [email protected] wrote:


· From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer


http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter6.html

  #24 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-05-2007, 11:42 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 20
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On May 30, 8:31 pm, [email protected] wrote:

vegetarians may be healthier, but meat eaters do more for the environment.


http://www.wasteofthewest.com/Chapter6.html

"Meat does well because it is not highly processed, provides a lot of calories
and is often grown locally," says Coley. "But obviously it makes a lot of
difference whether the meat comes from the local farm or Brazil. I live close
to Dartmoor, where local cabbages and lamb would produce a very different score
from New Zealand lamb and Kenyan green beans."


"In Brazil alone, the equivalent of 5.6 million acres of land is used
to grow soya beans for animals in Europe. These 'ghost acres'
belie the so-called efficiency of hi-tech agriculture..." Tim Lang of
the Centre for Food Policy. [11]
...'
http://www.vegansociety.com/html/environment/land/

In a sense, says Coley, we all "eat oil". The ***modern food industry*** is "in many
ways a means of converting fossil fuels into edible forms. Food is a large part
of an individual's impact on the greenhouse effect. Many of us could change our
diets to have a lot less impact."


'Cornell Ph.D. student works the land by hand at Bison Ridge
Farming in harmony with nature

By Lauren Cahoon
Special to The Journal
August 4, 2006

VAN ETTEN - What if every farmer decided to turn off his
machinery and go without fossil fuels once and for all? And
along with that, what if they all stopped putting pesticides,
herbicides and chemical fertilizers on their fields?

What if every gardener stopped pulling out their weeds and
tilling their soil? Chaos, you say? Mass shortages in crops and
foods, gardens choked with weeds? Perhaps so. But Rob Young,
a Ph.D. student and lecturer at Cornell University, has done all
of the above with his small farm - and the business, like the crops,
is growing.

"We just got a new client who's running a restaurant in one of the
local towns - we brought them some of our lettuce and they went
crazy over it .... our lettuce just knocked them over, it's so good."

Young's Bison Ridge farm, located in Van Etten, runs almost
completely without the use of fossil fuels, fossil fuel-derived
fertilizers, or pesticides.

The land has been farmed since the 1850s. Young and his wife,
Katharine, purchased the farm in 1989. Before that, Young
worked as the Sustainable Business Director for New Jersey
governor Christine Todd Whitman. When he discovered Bison
Ridge, Young started working the land even while he was still
living in New Jersey. Eventually, Young and his wife moved to
the Ithaca area so they could start their graduate program at
Cornell.

"We started doing a little gardening... then added more and more
fields .... at first, we just wanted it to be an organic farm" Rob
explained. Running an organic farm is admirable enough, but at
some point, Young took it a step farther.

"I had an epiphany," he said. "I was transplanting beets after a
spring rain, and I noticed how the land felt all hot and sticky -
almost like when you wipe out on your bike and you get a
brush burn. I know it sounds cheesy, but I could feel how that
(farmed) land had gotten a 'brush burn' when it was cleared and
plowed.

"That's when I decided, I want to work with this land rather than
against it."

After that, Young started throwing common farming practices
out the window. He reduced weeding, adding copious amounts
of composted mulch instead and, because of the life teeming in
the healthy soils and fields around the farm, Young lets natural
predators get rid of any insect pests.

No mechanized machinery is used except for the primary plowing
of new fields. In fact, except for driving to and from the farm (in
a hybrid car, no less), no fossil fuels are used in any part of
production. Irrigation of crops is either gravity-fed from an old
stone well dug in the 1800s or through pumps driven by solar
energy. Super-rich compost is used on all of the crops along with
clover, which fixes nitrogen and adds organic matter to the soil.
Crops are grown in multi-species patches, to mimic natural
communities (insect pests wreak less havoc when they're faced
with diverse types of vegetation).

In addition, the farm has a large greenhouse where most of the
crops are grown as seedlings during the late winter/early spring
to get a head start. The entire structure is heated by a huge bank
of compost, whose microbial activity keeps the growing beds
at a toasty 70 degrees. During the spring and summer, most of
the plants are grown in outdoor raised beds - which yield about
three times as much per square meter as a regular field.

"When people visit the farm, they comment on how we're not
using a lot of the land - they don't realize we're producing triple
the amount of crops from less land," Young said. "It is labor
intensive, but you can target your fertility management, and the
produce is so good."

Young's passion for earth-friendly farming has proved to be
infectious. As a student, teaching assistant and teacher at
Cornell, Young has had the chance to tell many people in the
community about Bison Ridge, which is how Marion Dixon,
a graduate student in developmental sociology, got involved
with the whole endeavor.

"I had wanted to farm forever - and was always telling myself,
'I'll do it when I'm not in school,'" she said. But when she heard
Young give a speech about recycling and sustainable living at
her dining hall, she knew she had found her chance to actually
get involved.

Dixon and Young now work the farm cooperatively, each
contributing their time and effort into the land.

"I've had a lot of ideas," Young said, "but the work has been
done by a lot of people - it's a community of people who have
made his happen."

He said that because of Dixon's input, they now have a new
way of planting lettuce that has doubled production.

Although Young and Dixon are the only ones currently running
the farm, during the summer there are always several people who
contribute, from undergrads to graduate students to local people
in the community - all united by a common desire to work with
the land.

"There's personal satisfaction in working the soil, being on the
land and outdoors," Dixon said. "You get to work out, and get
that sense of community - plus there's the quality, healthy food.
.... It's about believing in a localized economy, believing in
production that's ecologically and community-based."

The combination of working with the earth's natural systems and
community involvement has paid off. Over the course of several
seasons, Bison Ridge has grown a variety of vegetables, maple
syrup, wheat as well as eggs from free-range chickens. They have
a range of clients, including a supermarket and several restaurants,
and have delivered produce to many families in CSA (Community
Sponsored Agriculture) programs.

Although small, Bison Ridge Farm has prospered due to its
independence from increasingly expensive fossil fuel. Young said
that, since little if any of their revenue is spent on gas,
advertising
or transportation, it makes the food affordable to low-income
people, another goal that Young and Dixon are shooting for with
their farming.

Although Young and Dixon are happy about the monetary gains
the farm is producing, they have the most passion and enthusiasm
for the less tangible goods the farm provides.

"It's such a delight to work with," Dixon said. "You feel alive
when you're there."

http://www.theithacajournal.com/apps...FAID%3D/200608...

  #25 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-05-2007, 05:46 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 20
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On May 31, 1:18 am, "Dutch" wrote:
"Leif Erikson's Smarter Brother" wrote in ooglegroups.com...





On May 30, 2:43 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
[email protected] wrote in messagenews:[email protected] .com...
On Wed, 30 May 2007 02:48:12 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:


"Whining, Crying, Bawl" wrote in message
groups.com...
On May 28, 9:32 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"ricky's babysitter" wrote in message


egroups.com...


On May 28, 11:17 am, Goo wrote:
Dean Wormer wrote:
Hello Rudy,


Thanks for posting this. It's too long, of course, but that's
par
for
the course in these internet groups, isn't it.


Your main argument is actually quite elegant, and could be
expressed
in almost mathematical terms. Alas, it was not. Instead, you
have
let your fingers do your shouting, and you have succumbed to
several
nasty habits of the truly indignant, such as capitalizing
things
that
read quite well without the inverted commas - including, as
just
one
but probably the silliest example, the word "food" itself in
the
last
paragraph.


Rudy, you are the sort of opponent that some of us on the other
side
(!) treasu intelligent, articulate, logical, etc.; and I for
one
look forward to seeing your argument expressed in plain
English.


Yours,


D.W.


Thanks for the constructive criticism regarding style.
It's a pity you couldn't address the substance.


That's because there wasn't any.


According to Dean there was, in fact he called the arguments
"elegant",
he
just had no meaningful response, like you.


"Elegant" but without SUBSTANCE you clueless ninny.


How exactly can an argument be elegant and not have substance?


By being written elegantly, but still being a load of shit.


Substance is the essence of argument,


Elegance would be more like the style used in presenting the
argument, or the bullshit, or whatever is being presented.


No, that's not what "an elegant argument" means.


only it's substance can have elegance.


Bullshit. People like the Goober have been trying to flower
up bullshit and pretend it's something more for a long time:


Then that would be bullshit, gilding the lily, not elegant argument.


You clearly are a ninny Dutch.


You don't know the difference between elegant and eloquent.


I do, but you don't, dummy. You had never heard the adjective elegant used
to describe an argument before, now you're befuddled. Here's a clue, it is
commonly used when referring to mathematical arguments that are very
succinct and pure in their application of logic, clear and irrefutable. It
never, ever applies to arguments that lack substance, that would
automatically disqualify them. An eloquent argument *might* lack substance,
but eloquent usually refers to the speaker, not the speech.





"Wisdom without eloquence has been of little help to the states,
but eloquence without wisdom has often been a great obstcle
and never an advantage." - Cicero


An elegant argument by definition displays both eloquence and wisdom,
along
with logic and reason.


The Logic of the Larder is missing these characteristics, except that it
contains one fundamental logical hook, it is not reasonable nor wise, and
decidely not elegant.


Common sense and inheirent rights need none of your much vaunted
"ELEGANCE" you ****.


Or, "What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason
away." - The Doobie Brothers

You're getting goofier than Goo.


A "Goo" is a person who rejects as nonsense ****wit Harrison's campaign to
convince the world that anyone who opposes the consumption of animal
products is being selfish for wanting to deny life to livestock animals. By
that definition aren't you a Goo too? Isn't everyone?- Hide quoted text -



YOU are worse than Goo!

I have NEVER opposed animal consumption because it would preclude life
for "livestock".

I oppose it because it is an unhealthy choice for humans and the
planet as a whole and a terrible, horrible, life and death for the
animals.








- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -





  #26 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-05-2007, 06:52 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Wed, 30 May 2007 20:33:16 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote
On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:50:37 GMT, Goo wrote:

The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product


And of course in the case of livestock, the lives of
the animals themselves should also always be given
much consideration.



No, the welfare of the animals should be given consideration, not "the
lives".


In order to consider whether or not it is cruel to *the animals*
for them the be raised for food, their lives plus the quality of their
lives necessarily MUST be given consideration.
  #27 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-05-2007, 06:52 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On 30 May 2007 12:41:47 -0700, Goo wrote:

They have no intrinsic moral meaning until and unless
the livestock exist.


If you think you have any clue about any of this Goo,
then attempt to explain any sort of meaning you're able
to comprehend and appreciate regarding livestock who
do exist. Don't even refer to your imaginary nonexistent
"entities" Goobs, just try to tell us about the real ones.
  #28 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-05-2007, 06:55 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Thu, 31 May 2007 07:18:27 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

"Leif Erikson's Smarter Brother" wrote in message
roups.com...
On May 30, 2:43 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
[email protected] wrote in messagenews:[email protected] .com...
On Wed, 30 May 2007 02:48:12 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

"Whining, Crying, Bawl" wrote in message
groups.com...
On May 28, 9:32 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"ricky's babysitter" wrote in message

egroups.com...

On May 28, 11:17 am, Goo wrote:
Dean Wormer wrote:
Hello Rudy,

Thanks for posting this. It's too long, of course, but that's
par
for
the course in these internet groups, isn't it.

Your main argument is actually quite elegant, and could be
expressed
in almost mathematical terms. Alas, it was not. Instead, you
have
let your fingers do your shouting, and you have succumbed to
several
nasty habits of the truly indignant, such as capitalizing
things
that
read quite well without the inverted commas - including, as
just
one
but probably the silliest example, the word "food" itself in
the
last
paragraph.

Rudy, you are the sort of opponent that some of us on the other
side
(!) treasu intelligent, articulate, logical, etc.; and I for
one
look forward to seeing your argument expressed in plain
English.

Yours,

D.W.

Thanks for the constructive criticism regarding style.
It's a pity you couldn't address the substance.

That's because there wasn't any.

According to Dean there was, in fact he called the arguments
"elegant",
he
just had no meaningful response, like you.

"Elegant" but without SUBSTANCE you clueless ninny.

How exactly can an argument be elegant and not have substance?

By being written elegantly, but still being a load of shit.

Substance is the essence of argument,

Elegance would be more like the style used in presenting the
argument, or the bullshit, or whatever is being presented.

No, that's not what "an elegant argument" means.

only it's substance can have elegance.

Bullshit. People like the Goober have been trying to flower
up bullshit and pretend it's something more for a long time:

Then that would be bullshit, gilding the lily, not elegant argument.




You clearly are a ninny Dutch.

You don't know the difference between elegant and eloquent.


I do, but you don't, dummy. You had never heard the adjective elegant used
to describe an argument before, now you're befuddled. Here's a clue, it is
commonly used when referring to mathematical arguments that are very
succinct and pure in their application of logic, clear and irrefutable.


Then Dean used the wrong term, that's all. I couldn't find a dictionary
definition, but here it is explained:
__________________________________________________ _______
from: Jeremy
.. . .
It is sort of unfortunate when natural language adjectives get used
scientifically, because they carry over connotations we don't
necessarily want for their technical uses. This is particularly
confusing when the adjectives connote something positive, like
"elegance" . It is hard to imagine someone using the word "elegant"
in natural language without it connoting something positive, and that
can make the technical use of the term seem a little pompous.

"Elegance" in the technical sense is something that can be defined
technically --although not 100% precisely-- , but no one is required
to find this property "elegant" in the natural language sense. They
might even find what we call elegant distasteful, and in fact many do.

Contrast this with an adjective like "concise" , which has both a
technical and natural language use; but these both coincide.

http://tinyurl.com/38ubnn
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
That tells us the term itself was the wrong one to use and doesn't
even apply to what Goo wrote, much less is the misused term
correct in suggesting that the Goober's argument is elegant. He
presented it fairly eloquently, and that's the most that can be said
for it in that regard.

It never, ever applies to arguments that lack substance, that would
automatically disqualify them. An eloquent argument *might* lack substance,
but eloquent usually refers to the speaker, not the speech.

"Wisdom without eloquence has been of little help to the states,
but eloquence without wisdom has often been a great obstcle
and never an advantage." - Cicero

An elegant argument by definition displays both eloquence and wisdom,
along
with logic and reason.

The Logic of the Larder is missing these characteristics, except that it
contains one fundamental logical hook, it is not reasonable nor wise, and
decidely not elegant.




Common sense and inheirent rights need none of your much vaunted
"ELEGANCE" you ****.


Or, "What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason
away." - The Doobie Brothers

You're getting goofier than Goo.


A "Goo" is a person who rejects as nonsense ****wit Harrison's campaign to
convince the world that anyone who opposes the consumption of animal
products is being selfish for wanting to deny life to livestock animals.


No. You're very wrong. Goo is Goobernicus because he's a moron
who thinks he's a genius, and that is what gives him his glorious Goobal
distinction.

By that definition aren't you a Goo too? Isn't everyone?


No, because you're lying. You can't be put in the Goobernicus category
for the same reason the Goober lives there, because you're not as extreme
as he is in the Goobal respect. But! Since you're his boy and you support
his lies in similar opposition to giving consideration to the lives of the creatures
on this planet, you are voluntarily on team Goober because you love being
there, making you a goo too.
  #29 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-05-2007, 07:35 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,025
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

"Kickin' Goober's Faggot Ass" wrote

A "Goo" is a person who rejects as nonsense ****wit Harrison's campaign
to
convince the world that anyone who opposes the consumption of animal
products is being selfish for wanting to deny life to livestock animals.
By
that definition aren't you a Goo too? Isn't everyone?- Hide quoted text -



YOU are worse than Goo!

I have NEVER opposed animal consumption because it would preclude life
for "livestock".


It may not be the reason, but it would be the inevitable result.

I oppose it because it is an unhealthy choice for humans and the
planet as a whole and a terrible, horrible, life and death for the
animals.


Yup, yer a Goo. Welcome to the club, Goos come in all ages and sizes, from
ARAs to staunch anti-ARAs, all have one thing in common, we realize that
there is no moral significance in the idea that livestock would not get to
be born and experience the wonder of life if we stopped using animal
products.

Have you seen the movie "Fast Food Nation"? That'll get your juices flowing.

  #30 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-05-2007, 07:42 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,025
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

[email protected] wrote
On Wed, 30 May 2007 20:33:16 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

[email protected] wrote
On Fri, 25 May 2007 18:50:37 GMT, Goo wrote:

The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product

And of course in the case of livestock, the lives of
the animals themselves should also always be given
much consideration.



No, the welfare of the animals should be given consideration, not "the
lives".


In order to consider whether or not it is cruel to *the animals*
for them the be raised for food, their lives plus the quality of their
lives necessarily MUST be given consideration.


Why? If they are not made to suffer then it's not cruel to them. "Their
lives", apart from the quality of those lives, is of no moral consequence.




Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Fried food heart risk 'a myth' (as long as you use olive oil or sunflower oil)" Christopher M.[_3_] General Cooking 34 07-02-2012 05:31 PM
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate Fred C. Dobbs[_2_] Vegan 47 24-05-2010 03:22 PM
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate Rudy Canoza[_4_] Vegan 448 23-03-2008 07:06 AM
+ Asian Food Experts: Source for "Silver Needle" or "Rat Tail" Noodles? + Chris General Cooking 1 29-12-2006 07:13 PM
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate Jonathan Ball Vegan 76 28-02-2004 10:16 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:09 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright İ2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017