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
  #31 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-05-2007, 07:50 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 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.



Livestock who exist only need us to pay attention to their welfare. What
benefit do you imagine your "appreciation" gives them? I'll tell you, Zero.
It's your misguided, blundering way to deal with the accusations of ARAs who
say that it's cruel to raise livestock.


  #32 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-05-2007, 08:04 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 Thu, 31 May 2007 07:18:27 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:

[..]

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.


Nonsense, Dean used the word, we have to assume it was what he meant to say
unless he says otherwise.

I couldn't find a dictionary
definition,

There are 26 of them here http://www.onelook.com/?w=elegant&ls=a
From the first, Encarta..
2. concise: pleasingly and often ingeniously neat, simple, or concise
an equation elegant in its simplicity

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.


None of that says that it was the wrong term. His argument, which was not
included, needed to be concise and ingenious, I have no doubt that it was.


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.


Ahh! That makes you the greatest of all Goos, because the gap between your
intelligence and your self-image is infinite.

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.


Opposition to your circular, self-serving nonsense is the essence of what
makes us all Goos. It is rare that a concept is conceived that is so lame,
so vile, that it causes mortal enemies to see eye-to-eye. The LoL is that.


  #33 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-05-2007, 08:13 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, lied:
On 30 May 2007 12:41:47 -0700, Rudy Canoza wrote:

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


If you think you have any clue about any of this Rudy,


Much, much more than a clue, ****wit. I have done the entire
analysis.


then attempt to explain any sort of meaning you're able
to comprehend and appreciate regarding livestock who
do exist.


****wit, you stupid pig-****ing cracker: we *always* and *only* have
been talking about the "consideration" you wish to give livestock
*PRIOR* to their existence. You are far too stupid and inept and shit-
brained to try to get away with the switch you just attempted, you
stupid ****.


Don't even refer to your imaginary nonexistent
"entities" Rudy,


No, ****wit - YOUR "imaginary nonexistent 'entities'", except,
****wit, that you stupidly and irrationally think they exist. This
has *always* and *only* been about YOUR belief that the "future farm
animals" are, today, morally considerable entities. They are not,
and you are a ****wit.

  #34 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-05-2007, 08:42 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 7
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On May 31, 1:13 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
****wit David Harrison, hopelessly overmatched as always, lied:

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


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


If you think you have any clue about any of this Rudy,


Much, much more than a clue, ****wit. I have done the entire
analysis.



bWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Is that like your EXPLANATION of how cows are raised for 12 years
exclusively to become pet food?






then attempt to explain any sort of meaning you're able
to comprehend and appreciate regarding livestock who
do exist.


****wit, you stupid pig-****ing cracker: we *always* and *only* have
been talking about the "consideration" you wish to give livestock
*PRIOR* to their existence. You are far too stupid and inept and shit-
brained to try to get away with the switch you just attempted, you
stupid ****.




What eloquence!!
Douche will be proud of you Goo.





Don't even refer to your imaginary nonexistent
"entities" Rudy,


No, ****wit - YOUR "imaginary nonexistent 'entities'", except,
****wit, that you stupidly and irrationally think they exist. This
has *always* and *only* been about YOUR belief that the "future farm
animals" are, today, morally considerable entities. They are not,
and you are a ****wit.




Goo,...yer so elegant.
Even Douche says so...........but can you EXPLAIN any of it?




  #35 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-05-2007, 09:02 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

On May 31, 10:52 am, [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".


*EXACTLY* right.



In order to consider whether or not it is cruel to *the animals*
for them the be raised for food, their lives


NO. There is zero reason to give "their lives" any consideration. Of
course, what you mean, ****wit, is that their lives "ought" to occur,
and that's just wrong. You will never persuade anyone of that. The
*welfare* of their lives, if the lives occur, is important; "their
lives", as something that should be given even a moment's
consideration before the lives occur, are not important.

You'll never get there, ****wit, no matter how much bullshit you spew
and how much wasted time you put into it: you will never persuade
anyone that livestock "ought" to exist out of any consideration of
their lives.



  #36 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-05-2007, 09:04 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

On May 31, 11:50 am, "Dutch" wrote:
[email protected] wrote in messagenews:[email protected] .com...
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.


Livestock who exist only need us to pay attention to their welfare. What
benefit do you imagine your "appreciation" gives them? I'll tell you, Zero.


Exactly right. That was a great comment you made about the welfare in
their lives, rather than "their lives", that merits any consideration.

****wit is still trying to get people to think the livestock "ought"
to exist, for moral reasons, and he just can't do it. He has wasted
eight years of his life - but no big loss, because his time is
worthless - trying to get people on board with him, and so far no one
has. No one ever will.


It's your misguided, blundering way to deal with the accusations of ARAs who
say that it's cruel to raise livestock.


Yep. ****wit is too stupid to realize it, but he is essentially
acknowledging that "aras" are right. He is so ****ing stupid...

  #37 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-05-2007, 09:26 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

"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message
ups.com...
On May 31, 11:50 am, "Dutch" wrote:
[email protected] wrote in messagenews:[email protected] .com...
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.


Livestock who exist only need us to pay attention to their welfare. What
benefit do you imagine your "appreciation" gives them? I'll tell you,
Zero.


Exactly right. That was a great comment you made about the welfare in
their lives, rather than "their lives", that merits any consideration.

****wit is still trying to get people to think the livestock "ought"
to exist, for moral reasons, and he just can't do it. He has wasted
eight years of his life - but no big loss, because his time is
worthless - trying to get people on board with him, and so far no one
has. No one ever will.


It's your misguided, blundering way to deal with the accusations of ARAs
who
say that it's cruel to raise livestock.


Yep. ****wit is too stupid to realize it, but he is essentially
acknowledging that "aras" are right. He is so ****ing stupid...


He arrogantly believes that he has discovered a clever way to turn their own
argument back on them. He thinks that it's inconsistent to wish for the
liberation of animals when that liberation would result in the elimination
of the very species of animals you are liberating. He can't understand that
it simply doesn't matter if livestock species exist or not, apart from their
utility, nobody cares. You're right, by imparting this false importance to
their existence he is unwittingly supporting the AR position. I emphasize
*unwittingly* because that characterizes him to a tee. He needs to get a
clue in order to be a half-wit.





  #38 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-05-2007, 10:03 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

On May 31, 1:26 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message

ups.com...





On May 31, 11:50 am, "Dutch" wrote:
[email protected] wrote in messagenews:[email protected] .com...
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.


Livestock who exist only need us to pay attention to their welfare. What
benefit do you imagine your "appreciation" gives them? I'll tell you,
Zero.


Exactly right. That was a great comment you made about the welfare in
their lives, rather than "their lives", that merits any consideration.


****wit is still trying to get people to think the livestock "ought"
to exist, for moral reasons, and he just can't do it. He has wasted
eight years of his life - but no big loss, because his time is
worthless - trying to get people on board with him, and so far no one
has. No one ever will.


It's your misguided, blundering way to deal with the accusations of ARAs
who
say that it's cruel to raise livestock.


Yep. ****wit is too stupid to realize it, but he is essentially
acknowledging that "aras" are right. He is so ****ing stupid...


He arrogantly believes that he has discovered a clever way to turn their own
argument back on them.


I told him that back in 1999.


He thinks that it's inconsistent to wish for the
liberation of animals when that liberation would result in the elimination
of the very species of animals you are liberating. He can't understand that
it simply doesn't matter if livestock species exist or not, apart from their
utility, nobody cares.


Certainly not the "prevented" livestock themselves.


You're right, by imparting this false importance to
their existence he is unwittingly supporting the AR position. I emphasize
*unwittingly* because that characterizes him to a tee. He needs to get a
clue in order to be a half-wit.


Even as a half-wit, he'd still be ****wit.

  #39 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-05-2007, 10:24 PM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On May 31, 3:03 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On May 31, 1:26 pm, "Dutch" wrote:





"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message


oups.com...


On May 31, 11:50 am, "Dutch" wrote:
[email protected] wrote in messagenews:[email protected] .com...
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.


Livestock who exist only need us to pay attention to their welfare. What
benefit do you imagine your "appreciation" gives them? I'll tell you,
Zero.


Exactly right. That was a great comment you made about the welfare in
their lives, rather than "their lives", that merits any consideration.


****wit is still trying to get people to think the livestock "ought"
to exist, for moral reasons, and he just can't do it. He has wasted
eight years of his life - but no big loss, because his time is
worthless - trying to get people on board with him, and so far no one
has. No one ever will.


It's your misguided, blundering way to deal with the accusations of ARAs
who
say that it's cruel to raise livestock.


Yep. ****wit is too stupid to realize it, but he is essentially
acknowledging that "aras" are right. He is so ****ing stupid...


He arrogantly believes that he has discovered a clever way to turn their own
argument back on them.


I told him that back in 1999.

He thinks that it's inconsistent to wish for the
liberation of animals when that liberation would result in the elimination
of the very species of animals you are liberating. He can't understand that
it simply doesn't matter if livestock species exist or not, apart from their
utility, nobody cares.


Certainly not the "prevented" livestock themselves.

You're right, by imparting this false importance to
their existence he is unwittingly supporting the AR position. I emphasize
*unwittingly* because that characterizes him to a tee. He needs to get a
clue in order to be a half-wit.


Even as a half-wit, he'd still be ****wit.



When are you and Douche going into your Net-cop routine Goo?

Surely there must be some spelling felons you're just itchin' to ream
out.







- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



  #40 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 31-05-2007, 11:13 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

"Anybody" wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 31, 3:03 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On May 31, 1:26 pm, "Dutch" wrote:





"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message


oups.com...


On May 31, 11:50 am, "Dutch" wrote:
[email protected] wrote in
messagenews:[email protected] .com...
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.


Livestock who exist only need us to pay attention to their welfare.
What
benefit do you imagine your "appreciation" gives them? I'll tell
you,
Zero.


Exactly right. That was a great comment you made about the welfare
in
their lives, rather than "their lives", that merits any
consideration.


****wit is still trying to get people to think the livestock "ought"
to exist, for moral reasons, and he just can't do it. He has wasted
eight years of his life - but no big loss, because his time is
worthless - trying to get people on board with him, and so far no one
has. No one ever will.


It's your misguided, blundering way to deal with the accusations of
ARAs
who
say that it's cruel to raise livestock.


Yep. ****wit is too stupid to realize it, but he is essentially
acknowledging that "aras" are right. He is so ****ing stupid...


He arrogantly believes that he has discovered a clever way to turn
their own
argument back on them.


I told him that back in 1999.

He thinks that it's inconsistent to wish for the
liberation of animals when that liberation would result in the
elimination
of the very species of animals you are liberating. He can't understand
that
it simply doesn't matter if livestock species exist or not, apart from
their
utility, nobody cares.


Certainly not the "prevented" livestock themselves.

You're right, by imparting this false importance to
their existence he is unwittingly supporting the AR position. I
emphasize
*unwittingly* because that characterizes him to a tee. He needs to get
a
clue in order to be a half-wit.


Even as a half-wit, he'd still be ****wit.



When are you and Douche going into your Net-cop routine Goo?

Surely there must be some spelling felons you're just itchin' to ream
out.


Why do you keep changing your nym Ronnie? Nobody cares enough to killfile
you.



  #41 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-06-2007, 12:17 AM 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, 4:13 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
"Anybody" wrote in message

oups.com...





On May 31, 3:03 pm, Rudy Canoza wrote:
On May 31, 1:26 pm, "Dutch" wrote:


"Rudy Canoza" wrote in message


oups.com...


On May 31, 11:50 am, "Dutch" wrote:
[email protected] wrote in
messagenews:[email protected] .com...
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.


Livestock who exist only need us to pay attention to their welfare.
What
benefit do you imagine your "appreciation" gives them? I'll tell
you,
Zero.


Exactly right. That was a great comment you made about the welfare
in
their lives, rather than "their lives", that merits any
consideration.


****wit is still trying to get people to think the livestock "ought"
to exist, for moral reasons, and he just can't do it. He has wasted
eight years of his life - but no big loss, because his time is
worthless - trying to get people on board with him, and so far no one
has. No one ever will.


It's your misguided, blundering way to deal with the accusations of
ARAs
who
say that it's cruel to raise livestock.


Yep. ****wit is too stupid to realize it, but he is essentially
acknowledging that "aras" are right. He is so ****ing stupid...


He arrogantly believes that he has discovered a clever way to turn
their own
argument back on them.


I told him that back in 1999.


He thinks that it's inconsistent to wish for the
liberation of animals when that liberation would result in the
elimination
of the very species of animals you are liberating. He can't understand
that
it simply doesn't matter if livestock species exist or not, apart from
their
utility, nobody cares.


Certainly not the "prevented" livestock themselves.


You're right, by imparting this false importance to
their existence he is unwittingly supporting the AR position. I
emphasize
*unwittingly* because that characterizes him to a tee. He needs to get
a
clue in order to be a half-wit.


Even as a half-wit, he'd still be ****wit.


When are you and Douche going into your Net-cop routine Goo?


Surely there must be some spelling felons you're just itchin' to ream
out.


Why do you keep changing your nym Ronnie? Nobody cares enough to killfile
you.




Flags of convenience Douche.







- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



  #42 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-06-2007, 03:14 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

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. Also, we
could feed more people from a given amount of land. That's the sense
of "efficiency" being used. It shouldn't be too obscure. You may argue
that we shouldn't bother to take into account environmental
externalities or the fact that a lot of people are going hungry, but
that's precisely the point at issue. There's no "unbelievably stupid
mistake" involved. I hope this helps.

  #43 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-06-2007, 03:24 AM posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

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.

People want meat. As long as the
meat is produced using the lowest price resource
combination, it is efficient in the only meaning that
matters.


Ipse dixit. It should be clear to any reasonably intelligent person
what the intended sense of efficiency is. If you want to argue that
considerations of efficiency in that sense don't matter, then, um,
you've got to do just that, argue the point. Offer the slightest
reason to think that efficiency in that sense doesn't matter. In other
words, actually engage with the argument instead of talking about an
irrelevant sense of "efficiency".






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.)


'Livestock a major threat to environment
[snip bullshit that isn't about efficiency]


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.


'Dietary Risk Factors for Colon Cancer in a Low-risk Population


[snip study lesley never read, and that isn't about efficiency]


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.


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


[snip self-congratulatory bullshit that has nothing to do with efficiency]


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.


Is horticultural produce subsidized like feed-grain, flesh, etc.?


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.


'Analyses of data from the China


[snip bullshit that has nothing to do with efficiency]


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.


"Isn't man an amazing animal?


Yes.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



  #44 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-06-2007, 05:47 AM 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

On May 31, 7:24 pm, Rupert wrote:
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.


Yes, stupid "vegans" are. They're bitching that the demand itself is
for "inefficient" things. They're stupid, and they're wrong. Things
cannot be inefficient; the method of production of particular things
can be.


Calling livestock production "inefficient" is the same
as calling automobiles "inefficient" because we all
could use bicycles.


You've totally missed the point.


No. I absolutely get the point. Stupid "vegans" - you, for example -
think people want "food". That's false.


People want meat. As long as the
meat is produced using the lowest price resource
combination, it is efficient in the only meaning that
matters.


Ipse dixit.


False. That is *the* definition of efficiency, rupie-the-boy.

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.)


'Livestock a major threat to environment
[snip bullshit that isn't about efficiency]


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.


'Dietary Risk Factors for Colon Cancer in a Low-risk Population


[snip study lesley never read, and that isn't about efficiency]


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.


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


[snip self-congratulatory bullshit that has nothing to do with efficiency]


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.


Is horticultural produce subsidized like feed-grain, flesh, etc.?


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.


'Analyses of data from the China


[snip bullshit that has nothing to do with efficiency]


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.


"Isn't man an amazing animal?


Yes.


  #45 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-06-2007, 05:48 AM 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

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.


That's the wrong argument. But it figures that's the one a stupid,
over-reaching **** like you would try to make.



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 07:54 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