****wit David Harrison, badly overmatched as always, lied:
> On 31 May 2007 13:04:52 -0700, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>> On May 31, 11:50 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>> <dh@.> wrote in messagenews:kq2u53hktgjepn7dq0sr3edheqhk2esgs5@4ax .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
>
> That's a fantasy of yours,

No, it is absolutely your position, ****wit. That's
what allllllllll this blabber about considering "their
lives", as opposed to the *welfare* of their lives, is
about.

On Jun 2, 11:58 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jun 1, 9:34 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> On May 31, 11:43 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> >>> On Jun 1, 4:19 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
> egroups.com...
> >>>>> On May 30, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>> On May 25, 7:50 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
> >>>>>>>> with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
> >>>>>>> [snip bullshit psychobabble - all lesley has]
> >>>>>>>> reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
> >>>>>>>> ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
> >>>>>>>> of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
> >>>>>>>> *consumption*.
> >>>>>>>> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
> >>>>>>>> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
> >>>>>>>> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
> >>>>>>>> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
> >>>>>>>> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
> >>>>>>>> livestock.
> >>>>>>> "Right now, in addition to producing grains, vegetable
> >>>>>>> and fruits for direct human consumption, farmers also
> >>>>>>> raise livestock, and millions of acres are planted in
> >>>>>>> feed crops for livestock. The theoretical question at
> >>>>>>> hand is, what if Americans suddenly stopped raising any
> >>>>>>> livestock at all - how would we feed ourselves?
> >>>>>>> The answer is trivially simple. All of the resources
> >>>>>>> going into raising livestock, PLUS all of the resources
> >>>>>>> going into raising crops as livestock feed, would no
> >>>>>>> longer be needed for that purpose. To make up the food
> >>>>>>> deficit for humans, a fraction of those resources would
> >>>>>>> be needed to grow additional human-edible crops. That
> >>>>>>> fraction would be quite small, due to the fact that
> >>>>>>> livestock consume more calories and protein than we get
> >>>>>>> back out of them: the feed-conversion ratio for all of
> >>>>>>> them is substantially above 1:1." - "Rudy Canoza" 1/Apr/05
> >>>>>> Yes, a true statement - but irrelevant. It dealt with
> >>>>>> another issue. The fact is, raising livestock is not
> >>>>>> inefficient. It is a use of resources consistent with
> >>>>>> consumer demand.
> >>>>> No-one's disputing that. The argument is being made that consumers
> >>>>> should take into account the consequences of their choices. There is
> >>>>> not enough internalization of externalities.
> >>>>>> Calling livestock production "inefficient" is the same
> >>>>>> as calling automobiles "inefficient" because we all
> >>>>>> could use bicycles.
> >>>>> You've totally missed the point.
> >>>> No, you have.
> >>> Nope. The argument you give below is completely different to the one
> >>> he gives.
> >>>> He is saying, correctly, that the efficiency argument as
> >>>> presented by the advocates of veganism is nothing but a smokescreen.
> >>> No, he's saying that it's based on a misconception about what
> >>> constitutes efficiency.
> >> That's my criticism of it, and the criticism is correct.
>
> > In my view, you've misread the argument.
>
> Your myopically limited view, and of course, you're
> wrong. You haven't been here as long as I have.
>

True, I haven't been here as long as you. Still, I've been here a fair
while, and I've also read quite a lot of animal rights theory, written
by academic philosophers, legal theorists, and activists, and I've
been involved with the animal rights movement for a few years and know
quite a few vegans and activists. There's nothing "myopically limited"
about my view. I'm a well-informed person and I've never encountered
this "efficiency argument" that you've been telling us about, based
purely on resource-intensiveness. I doubt that anyone actually makes
it. I might be wrong. You are welcome to convince me otherwise, but
saying that my view is "myopically limited" is silly.

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

But I think that when they make the statement that it is an
inefficient use of resources, what they are really doing is appealling
to considerations about environmental costs and global food
distribution of the kind that I have referred to. It's conceivable
that someone actually makes an argument based on resource-
intensiveness alone, but that I've never encountered such a person.
You're welcome to bring on the evidence any time you feel like it, all
this bare assertion is fairly tedious. Yes, of course you're right,
such an argument would be flawed, that's not in dispute by me.

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

No, Jon, that's nonsense. That doesn't prove any such thing. You're
not listening. Those who still financially support some processes
which harm animals (yes, "financially support" is the correct term,
deal with it) and yet make an argument based on the idea that we
should never engage in such financial support are not acting
consistently with their stated convictions. Yes, you've made this
point very often, it's a correct and interesting point. Does that mean
that there are no sound arguments against the moral acceptability of
the typical Western diet? Of course not. That's absolute rubbish. If
you can't see that, then I'm afraid you're just not thinking very
clearly. There's no reason at all why someone shouldn't be rationally
motivated to move to a vegan diet, or some other diet similar in its
impact on animals, out of a desire to reduce their contribution to
animal suffering. And there's no reason at all that you've never
offered why this might not be morally preferable, or even morally
required. There are plenty of arguments out there in the literature
that take this approach, Mylan Engel Jr's essay "Why YOU are committed
to the Immorality of Eating Meat" is an example, David DeGrazia's
discussion of the issue in "Taking Animals Seriously" is another.
Saying that all these arguments are sophomoric bullshit just doesn't
cut it. Yes, you've offered an interesting criticism of a strict
animal rights position of the kind taken by Tom Regan or Gary
Francione. They may or may not be able to come up with a satisfactory
reply, it's probably fair to say that this issue hasn't really been
seriously engaged with in the literature yet. If you think that means
you've debunked every possible reason that might be given for cutting
down on animal product consumption, I'm afraid you're just wrong.
Saying "they're sophomoric and wrong, they're just shit" is not a
serious criticism. You're going to have to do better than that if your
ambition is to engage with these arguments in a credible way. Your
thought-experiment about sodomizing the boy with the broomstick is not
good enough. There can be deontological positions which are not
absolutist, and in any case there's more to morality than rights.


> > You've never offered
> > any good criticisms of these arguments in their strongest form, [snip 1500 words of chaff]
>
> I've offered very good criticisms of them in all their
> forms, and their strongest form is quite weak indeed.

No, I'm afraid not. You offer a tu quoque argument against a person
who makes the argument for veganism based on absolute rights but still
supports commercial agriculture. Even here, you haven't achieved much
by way of criticism of the argument. If someone advocates a moral rule
but doesn't follow it, well, he's a hypocrite, but that by itself
doesn't resolve the question of whether the moral rule might be valid.
So even this argument you haven't really offered any serious criticism
of, unless "Well, no-one's going to go that far" counts as a serious
criticism. But, in any case, the point is this is not the only
argument that can be made. You've convinced yourself that if that
argument fails, then it follows that no serious criticism can be made
of the status quo. That's obvious nonsense. You've got to do more than
that if your ambition is to defend the status quo.

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jun 2, 12:15 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> On Jun 1, 1:54 am, Rupert > wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Jun 1, 5:03 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
> >>>> ups.com...
> >>>>> On Jun 1, 2:48 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> On May 31, 7:14 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> >>>>>>> On May 26, 4:50 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
> >>>>>>>> with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
> >>>>>>>> reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
> >>>>>>>> ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
> >>>>>>>> of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
> >>>>>>>> *consumption*.
> >>>>>>>> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
> >>>>>>>> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
> >>>>>>>> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
> >>>>>>>> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
> >>>>>>>> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
> >>>>>>>> livestock.
> >>>>>>>> In order to examine the efficiency of some process,
> >>>>>>>> there must be agreement on what the end product is
> >>>>>>>> whose efficiency of production you are examining. If
> >>>>>>>> you're looking at the production of consumer
> >>>>>>>> electronics, for example, then the output is
> >>>>>>>> televisions, stereo receivers, DVD players, etc.
> >>>>>>>> Rather obviously, you need to get specific. No
> >>>>>>>> sensible person is going to suggest that we ought to
> >>>>>>>> discontinue the production of television sets, because
> >>>>>>>> they require more resources to produce (which they do),
> >>>>>>>> and produce more DVD players instead. (For the
> >>>>>>>> cave-dwellers, an extremely high quality DVD player may
> >>>>>>>> be bought for under US$100, while a comparable quality
> >>>>>>>> television set is going to cost several hundred
> >>>>>>>> dollars. $500 for a DVD player is astronomical - I'm
> >>>>>>>> not even sure there are any that expensive - while you
> >>>>>>>> can easily pay $8000 or more for large plasma TV
> >>>>>>>> monitor, which will require a separate TV receiver.)
> >>>>>>>> What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of
> >>>>>>>> "inefficiency"? They're clearly saying that the end
> >>>>>>>> product whose efficiency of production we want to
> >>>>>>>> consider is "food", i.e., undifferentiated food
> >>>>>>>> calories. Just as clearly, they are wrong. Humans
> >>>>>>>> don't consider all foods equal, and hence equally
> >>>>>>>> substitutable. As in debunking so much of "veganism",
> >>>>>>>> we can see this easily - laughably easily - by
> >>>>>>>> restricting our view to a strictly vegetarian diet,
> >>>>>>>> without introducing meat into the discussion at all.
> >>>>>>>> If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food production
> >>>>>>>> efficiency, they would be advocating the production of
> >>>>>>>> only a very small number of vegetable crops, as it is
> >>>>>>>> obvious that some crops are more efficient to produce -
> >>>>>>>> use less resources per nutritional unit of output -
> >>>>>>>> than others.
> >>>>>>>> But how do "vegans" actually behave? Why, they buy
> >>>>>>>> some fruits and vegetables that are resource-efficient,
> >>>>>>>> and they buy some fruits and vegetables that are
> >>>>>>>> relatively resource-INefficient. You know this by
> >>>>>>>> looking at retail prices: higher priced goods ARE
> >>>>>>>> higher priced because they use more resources to
> >>>>>>>> produce. If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food
> >>>>>>>> production efficiency, they would only be buying the
> >>>>>>>> absolutely cheapest fruit or vegetable for any given
> >>>>>>>> nutritional requirement. This would necessarily mean
> >>>>>>>> there would be ONLY one kind of leafy green vegetable,
> >>>>>>>> one kind of grain, one variety of fruit, and so on.
> >>>>>>>> If "vegans" were to extend this misuse of "efficiency"
> >>>>>>>> into other consumer goods, say clothing, then there
> >>>>>>>> would be only one kind of shoe produced (and thus only
> >>>>>>>> one brand). The same would hold for every conceivable
> >>>>>>>> garment. A button-front shirt with collars costs more
> >>>>>>>> to produce - uses more resources - than does a T-shirt,
> >>>>>>>> so everyone "ought" to wear only T-shirts, if we're
> >>>>>>>> going to focus on the efficiency of shirt production.
> >>>>>>>> You don't "need" any button front shirts, just as you
> >>>>>>>> don't "need" meat. But look in any "vegan's" wardrobe,
> >>>>>>>> and you'll see a variety of different kinds of clothing
> >>>>>>>> (all natural fiber, of course.) "vegans" aren't
> >>>>>>>> advocating that only the most "efficient" clothing be
> >>>>>>>> produced, as their own behavior clearly indicates.
> >>>>>>>> The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
> >>>>>>>> to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product,
> >>>>>>>> then see if that product can be produced using fewer
> >>>>>>>> resources. It is important to note that the consumer's
> >>>>>>>> view of products as distinct things is crucial. A
> >>>>>>>> radio can be produced far more "efficiently", in terms
> >>>>>>>> of resource use, than a television; but consumers don't
> >>>>>>>> view radios and televisions as generic entertainment
> >>>>>>>> devices.
> >>>>>>>> The critical mistake, the UNBELIEVABLY stupid mistake,
> >>>>>>>> that "vegans" who misconceive of "inefficiency" are
> >>>>>>>> making, is to see "food" as some undifferentiated lump
> >>>>>>>> of calories and other nutritional requirements. Once
> >>>>>>>> one realizes that this is not how ANYONE, including the
> >>>>>>>> "vegans" themselves, views food, then the
> >>>>>>>> "inefficiency" argument against using resources for
> >>>>>>>> meat production falls to the ground.
> >>>>>>>> I hope this helps.
> >>>>>>> The argument is that we can produce perfectly tasty and nutritious
> >>>>>>> food at the cost of a lot less environmental destruction.
> >>>> Tasty and nutritious for whom? What if I hate it and do not thrive on it?
> >>> Poor you.
> >>> I don't believe you that you don't thrive on it,
> >> You disbelieve him because of your dogmatic approach, not because you
> >> have any legitimate reason to doubt him.
> >>
> >
> > The scientific consensus is that most people are perfectly capable of
> > thriving on a vegan diet. I'm perfectly justified in being skeptical
> > that it was impossible for him to be vegan and healthy.
>
> No. Without evidence, and with no legitimate reason to
> consider him a liar, you have no valid reason to
> disbelieve him.
>

If someone says to me that they were vegan and they were experiencing
diet-related health problems, it is quite reasonable for me initially
to assume that those health problems could probably be adequately
resolved while still remaining vegan, because that is the view that is
supported by the scientific evidence. He says a dietitian told him
otherwise, all right, well, I have to acknowledge that at least one
dietitian with knowledge of his case had that opinion. There was
nothing unreasonable about my initial response, given what is known
about nutrition.

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

You're a fool. I mean what I say. It seems very unlikely to me, based
on what is known about nutrition. There's nothing ideological about
it. It's a reasonable judgement based on what I know about the current
scientific consensus. Now we know that at least one dietitian with
knowledge of the case made a different judgement. All right, well,
we'd better take that on board as well.

>
> >>>>>> That's the wrong argument.
> >>>>> Sorry, I'm not clear here what you're claiming. You claim the argument
> >>>>> is flawed? Fine, then offer reasons why we should agree with you. You
> >>>>> haven't done this yet, I was simply pointing out this fact.
> >>>> He's claiming that it's the wrong argument. He's made a considerable effort
> >>>> to delineate his argument, you've done nothing in this thread, zero.
> >>> Er, actually, no.
> >> ERRRRRRRRR, yes, rupie - you've done zero apart from spouting classic
> >> "vegan" dogma.
> >>
> >
> > No, I'm afraid you're mistaken
>
> No. I'm not. You've done zero apart from spouting
> classic "vegan" dogma.
>

You're a ****ing idiot, Ball. Just stick with engaging with the
arguments, instead of talking silly nonsense.

>
>
> >>> I've explained why the argument which he's
> >>> addressing is an argument which no-one actually makes.
> >> You're lying.
> >
> > No, I'm not. I sincerely believe what I'm saying.
>
> No, you know you're lying.
>

Well, it's as I keep saying, your reality-testing skills are really
not very good, and this is an illustration of this. You were just now
saying that I had no legitimate reason to call Dutch a liar, well I
wasn't calling him a liar, I was just expressing my initial view that
he probably could have resolved his health problems without starting
to eat meat again. Now you're expressing the totally irrational
conviction that I'm not sincere and that I know I'm lying. Pot,
kettle, black. Instead of spending so much time calling other people
irrational, you really ought to do something about your own
irrationality and your seriously impaired reality-testing skills.

>
> >
> >> People *do* make this phony "inefficiency" argument.
> >
> > Show me where.
>
> lesley, aka the slut "pearl".

You really despicable and pathetic. You know that, don't you?

> Do your own search for
> her laughable bullshit about "feed conversion ratio".
>

That's an environmental argument.

> Also:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...fb0c24458944ce
>
>
> But farming animals is an inefficient, unsustainable and
> problematic way of producing food. Apart from those who
> feed on
> pasture where it is difficult to grow crops, farmed
> animals use more
> food calories than they produce in the form of meat.
> They also compete
> directly with people for other precious resources,
> notably water.
> http://groups.google.com/group/demon...ee116aa6b75f46
>

This is an implicit appeal to the argument from environmental costs
and the argument from global food distribution.

> [meat production] is an inefficient use of fresh water
> and land for the production of food,
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...9bd38a04228c74
>

Environmental argument.

> Clearly meat production is a very inefficient use of water
> http://groups.google.com/group/soc.c...411178db014ccf
>

Environmental argument.

>
> rupie, do your own research from now on.
>

Why? It's your job to back up your contentions.

> The point is, rupie, you fat ****,

You're such a fool. "Fat ****" - what on earth is that supposed to
mean? Why do you get such enormous gratification from talking silly
nonsense?

> that "vegans" make
> this "inefficiency" argument all the time. It is a
> *separate* argument from the environmental degradation
> argument, although the "vegans" often state them
> together.

Well, that's your reading of the situation. I don't think you've
produced very good evidence for it. I don't particularly care, anyway.
It doesn't strike me as a very interesting issue. Yes, all right, you
have made a good criticism of this alleged "inefficiency argument".

> The "inefficiency" argument is made all the
> time, it is based on a laughable misconception of
> efficiency, and it is fatuous of you to dispute that.
>

I dispute the former, not the latter. You can try to present evidence
of the former if you want, I don't think you've presented very good
evidence so far. But in any case, I'm not particularly interested in
the issue.

>
> >
> >> The environmental argument is something different.
> >>
> >> "vegans" say that the resources going to meat production are "wasted",
> >> because it isn't "necessary" to eat meat in order to eat healthfully.
> >> That is a misconceived efficiency argument, and people do indeed make
> >> it. That stupid **** lesley has made it dozens of times.
> >>
> >
> > Very interesting. Well, I've never seen anyone make it.
>
> You're willfully blind.
>

You're a fool.

>
> > You think people really do make this argument, well you might be
> > right, frankly I think there's a pretty good chance you might just be
> > misreading them.
>
> There is zero chance of that.
>

Well, actually, given the enormous numbers of examples of how you
manage to convince yourself that you have insight into another
person's motives and thoughts, when in fact it is just a silly fantasy
that you made up without any rational basis, there's a pretty good
chance of it. But in any case, I don't particularly care either way.

On Jun 3, 5:03 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote> On Jun 2, 12:15 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
> [..]
>
>
>
> >> > > >> > The argument is that we can produce perfectly tasty and
> >> > > >> > nutritious
> >> > > >> > food at the cost of a lot less environmental destruction.
>
> >> > > Tasty and nutritious for whom? What if I hate it and do not thrive on
> >> > > it?
>
> >> > Poor you.
>
> >> > I don't believe you that you don't thrive on it,
>
> >> You disbelieve him because of your dogmatic approach, not because you
> >> have any legitimate reason to doubt him.
>
> > The scientific consensus is that most people are perfectly capable of
> > thriving on a vegan diet. I'm perfectly justified in being skeptical
> > that it was impossible for him to be vegan and healthy.
>
> "Most people" leaves some of the population who can't. I am one of them.
>

Possibly.

> >> > that seems very unlikely to me
>
> >> No, you mean it conflicts with your ideology, rupie.
>
> > I mean what I say. It is unlikely, given what is known about the
> > nutritional adequacy of vegan diets, that he would have had to stop
> > being vegan in order to resolve whatever problems he was having.
>
> You're not in a position to say what was possible for me and my family in
> our particular medical circumstances.

True. I was never in a position to do anything more than conjecture, I
never claimed to have reliable knowledge. Still, my conjecture was
reasonable.

> You are neither qualified nor aware of
> the specifics of our cases. He is correct, your reaction is motivated by
> ideology.

No, it was a reasonable conjecture, which I never presented as fact,
made on the basis of what I knew about your situation at the time and
what I know about the scientific evidence. Nothing ideological about
it. People often tell me anecdotes about their medical histories which
strike me as implausible in the light of what I know about the
scientific evidence. I conjecture to myself that some of their
interpretations of what happened are mistaken, but acknowledge that I
am not in a position to know. This was a case of that. Now that I know
that at least one dietitian had a different view the situation is
different.

On Jun 3, 4:56 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
> > On Jun 1, 9:02 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >> > Well, that's a very interesting perspective you have, Dutch. Do you
> >> > think there are any reasons to doubt the argument, apart from your
> >> > pitiful whingeing that you haven't managed to find any vegan food that
> >> > you like?
>
> >> I not only found it unsatisfying after 18 years, as I said, it was not
> >> serving my family's health either. Those are important concerns you
> >> little
> >> shit, not pitiful whinging.
>
> > When you say it wasn't serving your family's health, I'm not sure what
> > situation you're describing, exactly.
>
> Of course you don't, but when I stated clearly that I encountered health
> *and* satisfaction problems with my vegetarian diet in my original message
> and you chose to dismiss those concerns as "pitiful whinging". That was
> rude and uncalled for.
>

Perhaps I should have been more open to the possibility that they
might have been serious concerns which you couldn't reasonably have
resolved in any other way. I still do not know whether that is the
case. I find it very difficult to take this claim of satisfaction
concerns seriously, and when you said "I do not thrive on it" I didn't
know whether you were talking about serious health problems and tended
to make the assumption that you were making a fuss about nothing.
Perhaps I should have recognized the possibility that you were not
making a fuss about nothing and not used the phrase "pitiful
whingeing". If I was rude, I apologize.

>
>
> > Is it that some of your other
> > family members were financially dependent on you, and you were only
> > buying them vegan food because of your ethical beliefs, and they were
> > experiencing diet-related health problems? Yes, certainly, those are
> > important concerns. If I were in that situation I would probably have
> > consulted a dietitian. The ADA agrees that well-planned vegan diets
> > (supplemented by Vitamin B12) are nutritionally adequate at all stages
> > of life and have many significant health benefits. Was the only
> > solution to your family members' health problems for them to start
> > eating meat again? Well, that's as may be. I would want to hear what a
> > qualified dietitian had to say about the matter. Anyway, you made your
> > own decision about that situation (assuming that I have the situation
> > right). Perhaps you decided that seeing a dietitian was too expensive
> > and that you would just start eating meat again and see how that went.
> > Or perhaps you decided to see a dietitian and she advised you to start
> > eating meat again. I don't know. In my last post I was not really
> > trying to make a comment about your individual situation, about which
> > I obviously know very little. What I did was ask you for your view
> > about a particular argument. I guess I confused the issue somewhat by
> > making references to your "pitiful whingeing". If you want to say that
> > vegan diets are likely to undermine health and that undermines the
> > argument, fine, let's hear the evidence.
>
> I was a vegetarian for 18 years, as was my wife. We worked hard to keep our
> diet balanced and well-rounded, and we took supplements. Despite our best
> efforts we increasingly experienced health issues, hers were even more
> pronounced than mine. We consulted a dietician and doctors. The final
> recommendation was to add some meat to our diets. Following this advice in
> our experience was clearly the right choice. I am not saying that vegan
> diets are " likely to undermine health", I am reporting that we had a very
> good experience with vegetarian diets for a long time, but eventually
> experienced failure to thrive. I attribute the change to our aging cells.
>
> > Anyway, I'm sorry you feel you have to swear at me. I really don't
> > think it's called for.
>
> It was called for. You had no call to dismiss my experience as pitiful
> whinging.
>

Perhaps not. Nevertheless, if you choose not to apologize for calling
me a little shit then I choose not to continue this conversation.

> > There was an occasion a while back where I was
> > arguing that going vegan indicates a significant level of commitment
> > to reducing suffering,
>
> You're trying to have it both ways. In one argument you say we should go
> vegan because according to you it's an easy step that we can all take to
> reduce suffering and now you refer to it as a significant level of
> commitment. Which is it, an easy step or a significant commitment?
>

A lot of people find it difficult to imagine ever going vegan and
think of it as something really hard. However, most people, once
they've committed to being vegan, don't find it all that hard and find
it easy to keep going. Nevertheless, it is a significant step to take
and it demonstrates that you are serious about reducing your
contribution to suffering. I think it's consistent to say all this.

> > and you replied that in your experience going
> > vegan was no sacrifice at all and that I was a spoiled little punk.
> > Now you seem to want to say that it caused significant personal
> > problems for you.
>
> Both are true, it was easy and pleasant as long as it served us well, but
> our circumstance changed as years passed and ultimately it became a problem.
>
> > If I seemed to you to be suggesting that you stopped
> > being vegan for trivial reasons and that offended you, then I
> > apologize. I wasn't really trying to make that suggestion, I just
> > thought that your concerns about not having a tasty enough diet could
> > have been overcome with a little imagination.
>
> You overlooked the part about it effecting my health,

Yes, when you said "I do not thrive on it", I made the assumption,
perhaps unwarranted, that you were not referring to any serious health
concerns.

> but even if I had made
> the change only for taste reasons, so what? As you have admitted, none of us
> operates on a strict efficiency model, and certainly there is no clear
> imperative to live by the vegan model..
>

Well, we might talk about that later.

> > As I say, I know quite a
> > few vegans and I don't know anyone who finds the diet unsatisfying.
>
> There is an issue of denial to deal with. If a person has himself convinced
> that morally he cannot justify consuming animal products, then by what means
> can he rationalize complaining about his vegan diet? He is trapped by his
> choice to see morality through this particular lens.
>

No, I think most vegans are pretty honest with themselves about the
extent to which their diet makes life difficult for them. They
acknowledge that they miss some particularly enjoyed food like cheese,
for example. I don't think there's any denial going on. They have a
satisfying, tasty, and varied diet.

> > Obviously, you may have had concerns other than taste and I didn't
> > wish to suggest that any concerns you had were necessarily trivial.
>
> I accept your apology.
>
>
>
> > I would have thought it should be possible for us to get on, at least
> > to the extent of discussing these issues in a reasonably civil way. I
> > mean, I don't have any personal grudge against you and I'm not trying
> > to offend you. If you really feel that the way I behave is so
> > offensive that you can't refrain from calling me a little shit, then
> > maybe we'd better just leave it. But if you think it might be possible
> > for us to have a polite conversation, then say so and I'll address the
> > rest of your post.
>
> Maybe you could think twice before using phrases like "pitiful whingeing" if
> you are trying to have a polite conversation.

All right, I'll keep that in mind.

> Or better yet, stop worrying
> about it. This is usenet, insults are used like punctuation, just ignore
> them. You are not going to change the culture of usenet.

I'm not going to change the culture of this particular newsgroup, no.
Not all of usenet is like this. I hang out in maths and logic
newsgroups and the discussion there is perfectly civil, even though
sometimes there are significant differences of opinion.

I think discussion on this newsgroup is valuable in that there are
important criticisms presented here of some of the positions taken by
animal rights advocates and animal liberation advocates which have not
yet received a very extensive discussion in the literature. I think
it's good to identify these issues and think about the foundations of
one's position, hopefully ultimately achieving a more defensible
position. Nevertheless, I think the conduct of people like Jon Ball
and Rick Etter is absolutely despicable and I'm tired of it. My
ambition is to discuss the issues, not the people. I don't think it's
relevant to discuss whether or not such and such a person is a
hypocrite, whether they're a fool, whether they've got an over-
inflated conception of their competence in moral philosophy, whether
or not they're soliciting *** sex on a houseboat, and so forth. I'm
planning to try to stick more consistently to a policy of not engaging
with people who aren't capable of civil discussion. Which, if
followed, would probably significantly curtail my activities on this
newsgroup, but there it is.

You're not as bad as the other antis, and you're right that I'm not
blameless myself, but I still think that calling me a little shit was
over the top. I've put up with far worse than what you got from me
without resorting to language like that. You seem to have the idea
that all the treatment I receive here is justified, that I try
people's patience, that I have "a nerve", that somehow or other simply
stating my position is so offensive that people are justified in
treating me the way they do, that I'm the one who's guilty of
arrogance and effrontery and that it's people like you who are the
aggrieved party. Well, I just think that's absurd. You're entitled to
your view, but if you're going to stick to your view that calling me a
little shit was called for and you're not going to apologize for it
we'll just leave it there.

"Rupert" > wrote
>
> Rudy Canoza wrote:

[..]

>> > The scientific consensus is that most people are perfectly capable of
>> > thriving on a vegan diet. I'm perfectly justified in being skeptical
>> > that it was impossible for him to be vegan and healthy.
>>
>> No. Without evidence, and with no legitimate reason to
>> consider him a liar, you have no valid reason to
>> disbelieve him.
>>
>
> If someone says to me that they were vegan and they were experiencing
> diet-related health problems, it is quite reasonable for me initially
> to assume that those health problems could probably be adequately
> resolved while still remaining vegan, because that is the view that is
> supported by the scientific evidence.

No, that is how a devotee of veganism prefers to interpert the scientific
evidence. The evidence actually says that the best evidence shows that a
vegetarian diet is *generally speaking*, capable of providing the necessary
nutritional requirements for human health, with some additional
supplementation (B-12). However a legitimate nutritionist would never assert
that in any given indivdual case a strict vegan diet will always be adequate
for every person in every state of health.

> He says a dietitian told him
> otherwise, all right, well, I have to acknowledge that at least one
> dietitian with knowledge of his case had that opinion. There was
> nothing unreasonable about my initial response, given what is known
> about nutrition.

What YOU know about nutrition Rupert, not what *IS* known. There was nothing
unreasonable (rude perhaps) given what YOU know about nutrition. Serious
nutritionists know that there is a LOT that we still do not understand about
nutrition.

On Jun 3, 6:10 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jun 1, 9:38 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> On May 31, 10:05 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>
> >>> On Jun 1, 2:48 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> On May 31, 7:14 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> >>>>> On May 26, 4:50 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>> Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
> >>>>>> with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
> >>>>>> reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
> >>>>>> ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
> >>>>>> of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
> >>>>>> *consumption*.
> >>>>>> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
> >>>>>> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
> >>>>>> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
> >>>>>> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
> >>>>>> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
> >>>>>> livestock.
> >>>>>> In order to examine the efficiency of some process,
> >>>>>> there must be agreement on what the end product is
> >>>>>> whose efficiency of production you are examining. If
> >>>>>> you're looking at the production of consumer
> >>>>>> electronics, for example, then the output is
> >>>>>> televisions, stereo receivers, DVD players, etc.
> >>>>>> Rather obviously, you need to get specific. No
> >>>>>> sensible person is going to suggest that we ought to
> >>>>>> discontinue the production of television sets, because
> >>>>>> they require more resources to produce (which they do),
> >>>>>> and produce more DVD players instead. (For the
> >>>>>> cave-dwellers, an extremely high quality DVD player may
> >>>>>> be bought for under US$100, while a comparable quality
> >>>>>> television set is going to cost several hundred
> >>>>>> dollars. $500 for a DVD player is astronomical - I'm
> >>>>>> not even sure there are any that expensive - while you
> >>>>>> can easily pay $8000 or more for large plasma TV
> >>>>>> monitor, which will require a separate TV receiver.)
> >>>>>> What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of
> >>>>>> "inefficiency"? They're clearly saying that the end
> >>>>>> product whose efficiency of production we want to
> >>>>>> consider is "food", i.e., undifferentiated food
> >>>>>> calories. Just as clearly, they are wrong. Humans
> >>>>>> don't consider all foods equal, and hence equally
> >>>>>> substitutable. As in debunking so much of "veganism",
> >>>>>> we can see this easily - laughably easily - by
> >>>>>> restricting our view to a strictly vegetarian diet,
> >>>>>> without introducing meat into the discussion at all.
> >>>>>> If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food production
> >>>>>> efficiency, they would be advocating the production of
> >>>>>> only a very small number of vegetable crops, as it is
> >>>>>> obvious that some crops are more efficient to produce -
> >>>>>> use less resources per nutritional unit of output -
> >>>>>> than others.
> >>>>>> But how do "vegans" actually behave? Why, they buy
> >>>>>> some fruits and vegetables that are resource-efficient,
> >>>>>> and they buy some fruits and vegetables that are
> >>>>>> relatively resource-INefficient. You know this by
> >>>>>> looking at retail prices: higher priced goods ARE
> >>>>>> higher priced because they use more resources to
> >>>>>> produce. If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food
> >>>>>> production efficiency, they would only be buying the
> >>>>>> absolutely cheapest fruit or vegetable for any given
> >>>>>> nutritional requirement. This would necessarily mean
> >>>>>> there would be ONLY one kind of leafy green vegetable,
> >>>>>> one kind of grain, one variety of fruit, and so on.
> >>>>>> If "vegans" were to extend this misuse of "efficiency"
> >>>>>> into other consumer goods, say clothing, then there
> >>>>>> would be only one kind of shoe produced (and thus only
> >>>>>> one brand). The same would hold for every conceivable
> >>>>>> garment. A button-front shirt with collars costs more
> >>>>>> to produce - uses more resources - than does a T-shirt,
> >>>>>> so everyone "ought" to wear only T-shirts, if we're
> >>>>>> going to focus on the efficiency of shirt production.
> >>>>>> You don't "need" any button front shirts, just as you
> >>>>>> don't "need" meat. But look in any "vegan's" wardrobe,
> >>>>>> and you'll see a variety of different kinds of clothing
> >>>>>> (all natural fiber, of course.) "vegans" aren't
> >>>>>> advocating that only the most "efficient" clothing be
> >>>>>> produced, as their own behavior clearly indicates.
> >>>>>> The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
> >>>>>> to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product,
> >>>>>> then see if that product can be produced using fewer
> >>>>>> resources. It is important to note that the consumer's
> >>>>>> view of products as distinct things is crucial. A
> >>>>>> radio can be produced far more "efficiently", in terms
> >>>>>> of resource use, than a television; but consumers don't
> >>>>>> view radios and televisions as generic entertainment
> >>>>>> devices.
> >>>>>> The critical mistake, the UNBELIEVABLY stupid mistake,
> >>>>>> that "vegans" who misconceive of "inefficiency" are
> >>>>>> making, is to see "food" as some undifferentiated lump
> >>>>>> of calories and other nutritional requirements. Once
> >>>>>> one realizes that this is not how ANYONE, including the
> >>>>>> "vegans" themselves, views food, then the
> >>>>>> "inefficiency" argument against using resources for
> >>>>>> meat production falls to the ground.
> >>>>>> I hope this helps.
> >>>>> The argument is that we can produce perfectly tasty and nutritious
> >>>>> food at the cost of a lot less environmental destruction.
> >>>> That's the wrong argument.
> >>> Sorry, I'm not clear here what you're claiming.
> >> Of course you're not.
>
> > Well, if you could have foreseen that without my telling you, then
> > perhaps you should have made an effort to clarify what you were
> > saying.
>
> I spoke with complete and perfect clarity. Even given
> that, I could foresee that you would not comprehend.
>

When you said "That's the wrong argument", it could mean one of two
things. It could mean that the argument is flawed, or it could mean
that it wasn't the argument that you were talking about in the
original post. I wasn't clear about which of these two you meant. If
you foresaw that, then it would have been helpful to add some
clarification. Whether you think you were speaking with "perfect
clarity" or not is not really the issue, if your desire is to
communicate with someone then it would seem rational to take steps to
ensure that you are understood.

> >>> You claim the argument
> >>> is flawed?
> >> Yes, because it's based on a misconception of efficiency.
>
> > Elaborate.
>
> I already did.
>

You have given details of why this "inefficiency argument" which you
claim that people make is flawed, and I agree with you. I do not think
that you have said anything which bears on the environmental argument.
If you think you have, I would appreciate it if you try and make this
clearer to me.

> > How is the argument that meat production has undesirable
> > environmental consequences
>
> That isn't the argument, you ****wit.
>

It is the argument that *I* was talking about. We are at cross-
purposes. I'm sorry you misunderstood me.

> > based on a misconception of efficiency?
>
> The argument I'm addressing is indeed based on a
> misconception of efficiency, rupie. You're talking
> about some other argument.
>

That's right. And when I said "You claim this argument is flawed?" I
was talking about this other argument, on which by your own admission
your arguments do not bear. And then you said "Yes, because it's based
on a misconception of efficiency", apparently talking about the first
argument. It looks like you got confused about which argument we were
talking about. That's fine, we all get confused sometimes.

> > Elsewhere you were saying this was a different argument to the one you
> > wanted to attack.
>
> It is.
>

I thought so. So if you want to attack this argument as well, then by
your own admission you'll have to come up with some new arguments.

>
>
> >>> Fine, then offer reasons why we should agree with you.
> >> Already done.
>
> > Elsewhere you said this argument wasn't your target.
>
> You stupid uncomprehending ****, rupie. The
> environmental degradation argument is not the one I'm
> addressing. The (misconceived) "efficiency" argument
> is the one I'm addressing. Try to pay better
> attention, rupie.
>

Um, that is exactly what I was saying. You seem to be quite confused.
I think you'll find you are the one who needs to pay better attention.
But note that I nevertheless refrain from calling you a "stupid
uncomprehending ****", because I am a decent, civilized human being
who does not take joy in gratuitous, unnecessary rudeness.

> >>> You haven't done this yet,
> >> Yes, I have. I have thoroughly explained the misconception.
>
> > Make up your mind what we're talking about, the environmental
> > argument, or your "efficiency argument"
>
> Not "my" efficiency argument; the one that that
> ****witted prostitute lesley keeps trying to advance.
>

(1) There is nothing wrong with being a prostitute, it is a perfectly
legitimate form of employment.
(2) Lesley is not a prostitute.
(3) Anyone who tries to denigrate someone by calling them a
"prostitute" is a thoroughly inferior human being and is only
degrading themselves.
(4) I doubt that Lesley actually intends to make the "efficiency
argument" as you interpret it, and I have yet to see any evidence for
this.

> > (which I am not convinced
> > anyone actually makes).
>
> Yes, people do.
>

So you say. Not that it particularly matters.

> > Yes, you have demolished this "efficiency
> > argument".
>
> Of course.
>

Well done.

> >>> I was simply pointing out this fact.
> >> No, because it's not a fact.
>
> > I believe it is a fact that you haven't addressed the environmental
> > argument,
>
> I haven't.
>

Great. So it looks like your remarks in the earlier post were based on
a confusion about which argument we were talking about. Maybe you
should acknowledge this, and perhaps apologize for calling me a
"stupid uncomprehending ****" when you were the one who was confused.

> > and I believe elsewhere you agree with me. But if you think
> > you have... well, by all means try to convince me.
>
> Once again, vegetarians are guilty of promoting
> environmental degradation with their diets. Thus, what
> it comes down to is how much environmental degradation
> is acceptable.

Yes, certainly.

> Since some degradation must, by logical
> necessity, be acceptable to vegetarians, then
> environmental degradation _per se_ is not a reason to
> oppose meat production.
>
> Once again, "vegans" are seen as hypocrites.

No, you can specify a threshold about how much environmental
degradation is acceptable, what weight considerations of personal
convenience have, and so on, without being a hypocrite. Presumably
everyone specifies *some* threshold about these things. Saying that
any amount of environmental degradation is acceptable, no matter how
trivial the inconvenience of avoiding it, would not be very plausible.

"Rupert" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Jun 3, 5:03 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote> On Jun 2, 12:15 am, Rudy
>> Canoza > wrote:
>>
>> [..]
>>
>>
>>
>> >> > > >> > The argument is that we can produce perfectly tasty and
>> >> > > >> > nutritious
>> >> > > >> > food at the cost of a lot less environmental destruction.
>>
>> >> > > Tasty and nutritious for whom? What if I hate it and do not thrive
>> >> > > on
>> >> > > it?
>>
>> >> > Poor you.
>>
>> >> > I don't believe you that you don't thrive on it,
>>
>> >> You disbelieve him because of your dogmatic approach, not because you
>> >> have any legitimate reason to doubt him.
>>
>> > The scientific consensus is that most people are perfectly capable of
>> > thriving on a vegan diet. I'm perfectly justified in being skeptical
>> > that it was impossible for him to be vegan and healthy.
>>
>> "Most people" leaves some of the population who can't. I am one of them.
>>
>
> Possibly.

Plausibly, you yourself left the possibility open with "most people are
perfectly capable of thriving on a vegan diet". In fact making that
eminently reasonable interpertation of scientific consensus then immediately
rejecting my own case without knowing anything about me shows that you are
heavily influenced by idealogical considerations.

>> >> > that seems very unlikely to me
>>
>> >> No, you mean it conflicts with your ideology, rupie.
>>
>> > I mean what I say. It is unlikely, given what is known about the
>> > nutritional adequacy of vegan diets, that he would have had to stop
>> > being vegan in order to resolve whatever problems he was having.
>>
>> You're not in a position to say what was possible for me and my family in
>> our particular medical circumstances.
>
> True. I was never in a position to do anything more than conjecture, I
> never claimed to have reliable knowledge. Still, my conjecture was
> reasonable.

Your conjecture contradicted your statement which left open the possibility
that vegans diets are not always adequate.

>
>> You are neither qualified nor aware of
>> the specifics of our cases. He is correct, your reaction is motivated by
>> ideology.
>
> No, it was a reasonable conjecture, which I never presented as fact,
> made on the basis of what I knew about your situation at the time and
> what I know about the scientific evidence. Nothing ideological about
> it. People often tell me anecdotes about their medical histories which
> strike me as implausible in the light of what I know about the
> scientific evidence. I conjecture to myself that some of their
> interpretations of what happened are mistaken, but acknowledge that I
> am not in a position to know. This was a case of that. Now that I know
> that at least one dietitian had a different view the situation is
> different.

I didn't need a dietician to know that I did the right thing for me and my
family. My wife went from being wiry and energetic to being frail and
lethargic, much more so than the process of aging alone would have dictated.
These effects were reversed almost immedately when we began to vary our
diets. I have since read anecdotal reports of other who have similar
experiences.

http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w...b-scen1c.shtml
When there is too deep an emotional investment in diet, open-mindedness is
more difficult. For those of us whose diets are based not just on
nutritional ideas but on philosophical principles or beliefs that may
underlie an entire lifestyle, the toughest aspect of making a transition to
a different diet that may serve you better is not food. It is being able to
transcend your emotional identification with the philosophy or worldview
underlying the diet you may have lived by for many years. This can often be
very difficult psychologically, because our food habits help to comprise a
literally "visceral" sense of who we are. Integrating a new or more
all-inclusive dietary vision based on new information that one may only be
beginning to realize the implications of, takes not only intellectual
understanding and assent but also patience and emotional honesty. Even when
one is faced with well-corroborated research like what is presented in some
sections of this site, we recognize it is difficult to change the beliefs of
a lifetime, or half a lifetime.

On Jun 3, 2:05 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote
>
>
>
> > Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> >> > The scientific consensus is that most people are perfectly capable of
> >> > thriving on a vegan diet. I'm perfectly justified in being skeptical
> >> > that it was impossible for him to be vegan and healthy.
>
> >> No. Without evidence, and with no legitimate reason to
> >> consider him a liar, you have no valid reason to
> >> disbelieve him.
>
> > If someone says to me that they were vegan and they were experiencing
> > diet-related health problems, it is quite reasonable for me initially
> > to assume that those health problems could probably be adequately
> > resolved while still remaining vegan, because that is the view that is
> > supported by the scientific evidence.
>
> No, that is how a devotee of veganism prefers to interpert the scientific
> evidence. The evidence actually says that the best evidence shows that a
> vegetarian diet is *generally speaking*, capable of providing the necessary
> nutritional requirements for human health, with some additional
> supplementation (B-12). However a legitimate nutritionist would never assert
> that in any given indivdual case a strict vegan diet will always be adequate
> for every person in every state of health.
>

Never suggested they would. My comment still stands.

> > He says a dietitian told him
> > otherwise, all right, well, I have to acknowledge that at least one
> > dietitian with knowledge of his case had that opinion. There was
> > nothing unreasonable about my initial response, given what is known
> > about nutrition.
>
> What YOU know about nutrition Rupert, not what *IS* known. There was nothing
> unreasonable (rude perhaps) given what YOU know about nutrition. Serious
> nutritionists know that there is a LOT that we still do not understand about
> nutrition.

It was reasonable for me to conjecture, what still might very well be
true for all I know, that your health problems could have been
resolved without abandoning veganism. The current state of knowledge
about nutrition supports the view that this will be true in most
cases. It may or may not have been true in your case. There was
nothing unreasonable or rude about what I originally said.

"Rupert" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> On Jun 3, 4:56 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>
>> oups.com...
>>
>> > On Jun 1, 9:02 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> >> > Well, that's a very interesting perspective you have, Dutch. Do you
>> >> > think there are any reasons to doubt the argument, apart from your
>> >> > pitiful whingeing that you haven't managed to find any vegan food
>> >> > that
>> >> > you like?
>>
>> >> I not only found it unsatisfying after 18 years, as I said, it was not
>> >> serving my family's health either. Those are important concerns you
>> >> little
>> >> shit, not pitiful whinging.
>>
>> > When you say it wasn't serving your family's health, I'm not sure what
>> > situation you're describing, exactly.
>>
>> Of course you don't, but when I stated clearly that I encountered health
>> *and* satisfaction problems with my vegetarian diet in my original
>> message
>> and you chose to dismiss those concerns as "pitiful whinging". That was
>> rude and uncalled for.
>>
>
> Perhaps I should have been more open to the possibility that they
> might have been serious concerns which you couldn't reasonably have
> resolved in any other way. I still do not know whether that is the
> case. I find it very difficult to take this claim of satisfaction
> concerns seriously, and when you said "I do not thrive on it" I didn't
> know whether you were talking about serious health problems and tended
> to make the assumption that you were making a fuss about nothing.
> Perhaps I should have recognized the possibility that you were not
> making a fuss about nothing and not used the phrase "pitiful
> whingeing". If I was rude, I apologize.

Even if were only for "satisfaction" reasons that should be good enough for
anyone to accept. Nobody I know of is in a position to criticize any diet
within the range of reasonable diets that I am aware of.

>> > Is it that some of your other
>> > family members were financially dependent on you, and you were only
>> > buying them vegan food because of your ethical beliefs, and they were
>> > experiencing diet-related health problems? Yes, certainly, those are
>> > important concerns. If I were in that situation I would probably have
>> > consulted a dietitian. The ADA agrees that well-planned vegan diets
>> > (supplemented by Vitamin B12) are nutritionally adequate at all stages
>> > of life and have many significant health benefits. Was the only
>> > solution to your family members' health problems for them to start
>> > eating meat again? Well, that's as may be. I would want to hear what a
>> > qualified dietitian had to say about the matter. Anyway, you made your
>> > own decision about that situation (assuming that I have the situation
>> > right). Perhaps you decided that seeing a dietitian was too expensive
>> > and that you would just start eating meat again and see how that went.
>> > Or perhaps you decided to see a dietitian and she advised you to start
>> > eating meat again. I don't know. In my last post I was not really
>> > trying to make a comment about your individual situation, about which
>> > I obviously know very little. What I did was ask you for your view
>> > about a particular argument. I guess I confused the issue somewhat by
>> > making references to your "pitiful whingeing". If you want to say that
>> > vegan diets are likely to undermine health and that undermines the
>> > argument, fine, let's hear the evidence.
>>
>> I was a vegetarian for 18 years, as was my wife. We worked hard to keep
>> our
>> diet balanced and well-rounded, and we took supplements. Despite our best
>> efforts we increasingly experienced health issues, hers were even more
>> pronounced than mine. We consulted a dietician and doctors. The final
>> recommendation was to add some meat to our diets. Following this advice
>> in
>> our experience was clearly the right choice. I am not saying that vegan
>> diets are " likely to undermine health", I am reporting that we had a
>> very
>> good experience with vegetarian diets for a long time, but eventually
>> experienced failure to thrive. I attribute the change to our aging cells.
>>
>> > Anyway, I'm sorry you feel you have to swear at me. I really don't
>> > think it's called for.
>>
>> It was called for. You had no call to dismiss my experience as pitiful
>> whinging.
>>
>
> Perhaps not. Nevertheless, if you choose not to apologize for calling
> me a little shit then I choose not to continue this conversation.

Poor you.

>> > There was an occasion a while back where I was
>> > arguing that going vegan indicates a significant level of commitment
>> > to reducing suffering,
>>
>> You're trying to have it both ways. In one argument you say we should go
>> vegan because according to you it's an easy step that we can all take to
>> reduce suffering and now you refer to it as a significant level of
>> commitment. Which is it, an easy step or a significant commitment?
>>
>
> A lot of people find it difficult to imagine ever going vegan and
> think of it as something really hard. However, most people, once
> they've committed to being vegan, don't find it all that hard and find
> it easy to keep going. Nevertheless, it is a significant step to take
> and it demonstrates that you are serious about reducing your
> contribution to suffering. I think it's consistent to say all this.

Perhaps it is consistent, but in my opinion you are doing the person a
disservice. Anyone who first embarks on veganism is unlikely to be prepared
for the kind of one-way "shark's teeth" the habit can have.
See http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w...b-scen1c.shtml
>
>> > and you replied that in your experience going
>> > vegan was no sacrifice at all and that I was a spoiled little punk.
>> > Now you seem to want to say that it caused significant personal
>> > problems for you.
>>
>> Both are true, it was easy and pleasant as long as it served us well, but
>> our circumstance changed as years passed and ultimately it became a
>> problem.
>>
>> > If I seemed to you to be suggesting that you stopped
>> > being vegan for trivial reasons and that offended you, then I
>> > apologize. I wasn't really trying to make that suggestion, I just
>> > thought that your concerns about not having a tasty enough diet could
>> > have been overcome with a little imagination.
>>
>> You overlooked the part about it effecting my health,
>
> Yes, when you said "I do not thrive on it", I made the assumption,
> perhaps unwarranted, that you were not referring to any serious health
> concerns.

They were serious enough for me and quite serious for her. When is a problem
"serious enough"? What about never feeling really satisfied or full even
when consuming large numbers of calories? What about having poor
concentration? Aren't these personal matters?

>> but even if I had made
>> the change only for taste reasons, so what? As you have admitted, none of
>> us
>> operates on a strict efficiency model, and certainly there is no clear
>> imperative to live by the vegan model..
>>
>
> Well, we might talk about that later.

The issue is not debatable. The whole problem with veganism is that is
perceived by adherents in such a rigid and uncompromising fashion. Yet even
as vegans allow themselves the slack to continue to use certain animal
products, they view the use of other animal products on the no-go list as
near cannibalism in ethical status.

>
>> > As I say, I know quite a
>> > few vegans and I don't know anyone who finds the diet unsatisfying.
>>
>> There is an issue of denial to deal with. If a person has himself
>> convinced
>> that morally he cannot justify consuming animal products, then by what
>> means
>> can he rationalize complaining about his vegan diet? He is trapped by his
>> choice to see morality through this particular lens.
>>
>
> No, I think most vegans are pretty honest with themselves about the
> extent to which their diet makes life difficult for them. They
> acknowledge that they miss some particularly enjoyed food like cheese,
> for example. I don't think there's any denial going on. They have a
> satisfying, tasty, and varied diet.

http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w...b-scen1c.shtml

>> > Obviously, you may have had concerns other than taste and I didn't
>> > wish to suggest that any concerns you had were necessarily trivial.
>>
>> I accept your apology.
>>
>>
>>
>> > I would have thought it should be possible for us to get on, at least
>> > to the extent of discussing these issues in a reasonably civil way. I
>> > mean, I don't have any personal grudge against you and I'm not trying
>> > to offend you. If you really feel that the way I behave is so
>> > offensive that you can't refrain from calling me a little shit, then
>> > maybe we'd better just leave it. But if you think it might be possible
>> > for us to have a polite conversation, then say so and I'll address the
>> > rest of your post.
>>
>> Maybe you could think twice before using phrases like "pitiful whingeing"
>> if
>> you are trying to have a polite conversation.
>
> All right, I'll keep that in mind.
>
>> Or better yet, stop worrying
>> about it. This is usenet, insults are used like punctuation, just ignore
>> them. You are not going to change the culture of usenet.
>
> I'm not going to change the culture of this particular newsgroup, no.
> Not all of usenet is like this. I hang out in maths and logic
> newsgroups and the discussion there is perfectly civil, even though
> sometimes there are significant differences of opinion.
>
> I think discussion on this newsgroup is valuable in that there are
> important criticisms presented here of some of the positions taken by
> animal rights advocates and animal liberation advocates which have not
> yet received a very extensive discussion in the literature. I think
> it's good to identify these issues and think about the foundations of
> one's position, hopefully ultimately achieving a more defensible
> position. Nevertheless, I think the conduct of people like Jon Ball
> and Rick Etter is absolutely despicable and I'm tired of it. My
> ambition is to discuss the issues, not the people. I don't think it's
> relevant to discuss whether or not such and such a person is a
> hypocrite, whether they're a fool, whether they've got an over-
> inflated conception of their competence in moral philosophy, whether
> or not they're soliciting *** sex on a houseboat, and so forth. I'm
> planning to try to stick more consistently to a policy of not engaging
> with people who aren't capable of civil discussion. Which, if
> followed, would probably significantly curtail my activities on this
> newsgroup, but there it is.
>
> You're not as bad as the other antis, and you're right that I'm not
> blameless myself, but I still think that calling me a little shit was
> over the top. I've put up with far worse than what you got from me
> without resorting to language like that. You seem to have the idea
> that all the treatment I receive here is justified, that I try
> people's patience, that I have "a nerve", that somehow or other simply
> stating my position is so offensive that people are justified in
> treating me the way they do, that I'm the one who's guilty of
> arrogance and effrontery and that it's people like you who are the
> aggrieved party. Well, I just think that's absurd. You're entitled to
> your view, but if you're going to stick to your view that calling me a
> little shit was called for and you're not going to apologize for it
> we'll just leave it there.

Why do you consider that such an egregious insult? Are we all not little
shits sometimes? That phrase seems completely benign to me. You ought to
grow thicker skin Rupert.

On Jun 3, 2:16 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jun 3, 5:03 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote> On Jun 2, 12:15 am, Rudy
> >> Canoza > wrote:
>
> >> [..]
>
> >> >> > > >> > The argument is that we can produce perfectly tasty and
> >> >> > > >> > nutritious
> >> >> > > >> > food at the cost of a lot less environmental destruction.
>
> >> >> > > Tasty and nutritious for whom? What if I hate it and do not thrive
> >> >> > > on
> >> >> > > it?
>
> >> >> > Poor you.
>
> >> >> > I don't believe you that you don't thrive on it,
>
> >> >> You disbelieve him because of your dogmatic approach, not because you
> >> >> have any legitimate reason to doubt him.
>
> >> > The scientific consensus is that most people are perfectly capable of
> >> > thriving on a vegan diet. I'm perfectly justified in being skeptical
> >> > that it was impossible for him to be vegan and healthy.
>
> >> "Most people" leaves some of the population who can't. I am one of them.
>
> > Possibly.
>
> Plausibly, you yourself left the possibility open with "most people are
> perfectly capable of thriving on a vegan diet". In fact making that
> eminently reasonable interpertation of scientific consensus then immediately
> rejecting my own case without knowing anything about me shows that you are
> heavily influenced by idealogical considerations.
>

I made the conjecture that you could have resolved your health
problems without abandoning veganism. I acknowledged that I did not
know for sure. This was a reasonable conjecture based on what my state
of knowledge about your situation at the time, and what I know about
the scientific consensus. Now that I know that at least one dietitian
had a different view things are different. There is no ideology
involved.

Whatever. This is boring, anyway. Yes, I acknowledge the possibility
that it might have been very difficult to resolve your health problems
without abandoning veganism, as I always did, and I am now less
skeptical about that possibility than before now that I know that at
least one dietitian held that view. All right?

This all started with Ball saying that the fact that I claimed you
were lying (which I didn't) shows that I am influenced by ideological
considerations, which is very amusing and ironic given how often Ball
expresses convictions that people are knowingly lying which are
obviously totally irrational.

You say I'm influenced by ideology. Well, I don't think so, but I'll
strive to watch out for any such tendency in myself and try to
overcome it.

> >> >> > that seems very unlikely to me
>
> >> >> No, you mean it conflicts with your ideology, rupie.
>
> >> > I mean what I say. It is unlikely, given what is known about the
> >> > nutritional adequacy of vegan diets, that he would have had to stop
> >> > being vegan in order to resolve whatever problems he was having.
>
> >> You're not in a position to say what was possible for me and my family in
> >> our particular medical circumstances.
>
> > True. I was never in a position to do anything more than conjecture, I
> > never claimed to have reliable knowledge. Still, my conjecture was
> > reasonable.
>
> Your conjecture contradicted your statement which left open the possibility
> that vegans diets are not always adequate.
>

No, not at all.

>
>
> >> You are neither qualified nor aware of
> >> the specifics of our cases. He is correct, your reaction is motivated by
> >> ideology.
>
> > No, it was a reasonable conjecture, which I never presented as fact,
> > made on the basis of what I knew about your situation at the time and
> > what I know about the scientific evidence. Nothing ideological about
> > it. People often tell me anecdotes about their medical histories which
> > strike me as implausible in the light of what I know about the
> > scientific evidence. I conjecture to myself that some of their
> > interpretations of what happened are mistaken, but acknowledge that I
> > am not in a position to know. This was a case of that. Now that I know
> > that at least one dietitian had a different view the situation is
> > different.
>
> I didn't need a dietician to know that I did the right thing for me and my
> family. My wife went from being wiry and energetic to being frail and
> lethargic, much more so than the process of aging alone would have dictated.
> These effects were reversed almost immedately when we began to vary our
> diets. I have since read anecdotal reports of other who have similar
> experiences.
>
> http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w...b-scen1c.shtml
> When there is too deep an emotional investment in diet, open-mindedness is
> more difficult. For those of us whose diets are based not just on
> nutritional ideas but on philosophical principles or beliefs that may
> underlie an entire lifestyle, the toughest aspect of making a transition to
> a different diet that may serve you better is not food. It is being able to
> transcend your emotional identification with the philosophy or worldview
> underlying the diet you may have lived by for many years. This can often be
> very difficult psychologically, because our food habits help to comprise a
> literally "visceral" sense of who we are. Integrating a new or more
> all-inclusive dietary vision based on new information that one may only be
> beginning to realize the implications of, takes not only intellectual
> understanding and assent but also patience and emotional honesty. Even when
> one is faced with well-corroborated research like what is presented in some
> sections of this site, we recognize it is difficult to change the beliefs of
> a lifetime, or half a lifetime.

Health problems from eating too much meat are much more common than
health problems from avoidance of animal products. Yes, of course
people become emotionally invested in their diet for one reason or
another, and in the event of diet-related health problems they have to
work out what their priorities are and how they are going to resolve
their problem. Just as if someone finds they think they have reason to
cut down on meat for ethical or health reasons, they have to work out
how to balance this against whatever attachment they have to eating
meat.

This website is presenting a one-sided view of the issue in that it
ignores the fact that for most people vegan diets are nutritionally
adequate and in fact have significant health benefits. It's trying to
say "Thinking of going vegetarian or vegan? Well, be careful, you
might run into health problems" when the reality is that it is much
more likely than not to improve your health in the long run. Every
health professional with whom I have ever spoken about my diet has
said that being vegan is really healthy.

"Rupert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 3, 2:05 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote
>>
>>
>>
>> > Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>> [..]
>>
>> >> > The scientific consensus is that most people are perfectly capable
>> >> > of
>> >> > thriving on a vegan diet. I'm perfectly justified in being skeptical
>> >> > that it was impossible for him to be vegan and healthy.
>>
>> >> No. Without evidence, and with no legitimate reason to
>> >> consider him a liar, you have no valid reason to
>> >> disbelieve him.
>>
>> > If someone says to me that they were vegan and they were experiencing
>> > diet-related health problems, it is quite reasonable for me initially
>> > to assume that those health problems could probably be adequately
>> > resolved while still remaining vegan, because that is the view that is
>> > supported by the scientific evidence.
>>
>> No, that is how a devotee of veganism prefers to interpert the scientific
>> evidence. The evidence actually says that the best evidence shows that a
>> vegetarian diet is *generally speaking*, capable of providing the
>> necessary
>> nutritional requirements for human health, with some additional
>> supplementation (B-12). However a legitimate nutritionist would never
>> assert
>> that in any given indivdual case a strict vegan diet will always be
>> adequate
>> for every person in every state of health.
>>
>
> Never suggested they would. My comment still stands.

You did suggest it, strongly, by refusing to acknowledge that my own
experience was valid.

>> > He says a dietitian told him
>> > otherwise, all right, well, I have to acknowledge that at least one
>> > dietitian with knowledge of his case had that opinion. There was
>> > nothing unreasonable about my initial response, given what is known
>> > about nutrition.
>>
>> What YOU know about nutrition Rupert, not what *IS* known. There was
>> nothing
>> unreasonable (rude perhaps) given what YOU know about nutrition. Serious
>> nutritionists know that there is a LOT that we still do not understand
>> about
>> nutrition.
>
> It was reasonable for me to conjecture, what still might very well be
> true for all I know, that your health problems could have been
> resolved without abandoning veganism. The current state of knowledge
> about nutrition supports the view that this will be true in most
> cases. It may or may not have been true in your case. There was
> nothing unreasonable or rude about what I originally said.

You get your panties all in a bunch about a harmless epithet like "little
shit", yet I reveal something about my personal health problems, you
respond "Poor you!" and call it "pitiful whingeing" and I'm not supposed to
take that personally. You really are a piece of work Rupert.

On Jun 3, 2:41 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> ps.com...
>
> > On Jun 3, 4:56 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> groups.com...
>
> >> > On Jun 1, 9:02 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >> >> > Well, that's a very interesting perspective you have, Dutch. Do you
> >> >> > think there are any reasons to doubt the argument, apart from your
> >> >> > pitiful whingeing that you haven't managed to find any vegan food
> >> >> > that
> >> >> > you like?
>
> >> >> I not only found it unsatisfying after 18 years, as I said, it was not
> >> >> serving my family's health either. Those are important concerns you
> >> >> little
> >> >> shit, not pitiful whinging.
>
> >> > When you say it wasn't serving your family's health, I'm not sure what
> >> > situation you're describing, exactly.
>
> >> Of course you don't, but when I stated clearly that I encountered health
> >> *and* satisfaction problems with my vegetarian diet in my original
> >> message
> >> and you chose to dismiss those concerns as "pitiful whinging". That was
> >> rude and uncalled for.
>
> > Perhaps I should have been more open to the possibility that they
> > might have been serious concerns which you couldn't reasonably have
> > resolved in any other way. I still do not know whether that is the
> > case. I find it very difficult to take this claim of satisfaction
> > concerns seriously, and when you said "I do not thrive on it" I didn't
> > know whether you were talking about serious health problems and tended
> > to make the assumption that you were making a fuss about nothing.
> > Perhaps I should have recognized the possibility that you were not
> > making a fuss about nothing and not used the phrase "pitiful
> > whingeing". If I was rude, I apologize.
>
> Even if were only for "satisfaction" reasons that should be good enough for
> anyone to accept. Nobody I know of is in a position to criticize any diet
> within the range of reasonable diets that I am aware of.
>

Well, as you know I think that some widely followed diets can be
criticized. I make no comment about your diet, I don't know very much
about it.

> >> > Is it that some of your other
> >> > family members were financially dependent on you, and you were only
> >> > buying them vegan food because of your ethical beliefs, and they were
> >> > experiencing diet-related health problems? Yes, certainly, those are
> >> > important concerns. If I were in that situation I would probably have
> >> > consulted a dietitian. The ADA agrees that well-planned vegan diets
> >> > (supplemented by Vitamin B12) are nutritionally adequate at all stages
> >> > of life and have many significant health benefits. Was the only
> >> > solution to your family members' health problems for them to start
> >> > eating meat again? Well, that's as may be. I would want to hear what a
> >> > qualified dietitian had to say about the matter. Anyway, you made your
> >> > own decision about that situation (assuming that I have the situation
> >> > right). Perhaps you decided that seeing a dietitian was too expensive
> >> > and that you would just start eating meat again and see how that went.
> >> > Or perhaps you decided to see a dietitian and she advised you to start
> >> > eating meat again. I don't know. In my last post I was not really
> >> > trying to make a comment about your individual situation, about which
> >> > I obviously know very little. What I did was ask you for your view
> >> > about a particular argument. I guess I confused the issue somewhat by
> >> > making references to your "pitiful whingeing". If you want to say that
> >> > vegan diets are likely to undermine health and that undermines the
> >> > argument, fine, let's hear the evidence.
>
> >> I was a vegetarian for 18 years, as was my wife. We worked hard to keep
> >> our
> >> diet balanced and well-rounded, and we took supplements. Despite our best
> >> efforts we increasingly experienced health issues, hers were even more
> >> pronounced than mine. We consulted a dietician and doctors. The final
> >> recommendation was to add some meat to our diets. Following this advice
> >> in
> >> our experience was clearly the right choice. I am not saying that vegan
> >> diets are " likely to undermine health", I am reporting that we had a
> >> very
> >> good experience with vegetarian diets for a long time, but eventually
> >> experienced failure to thrive. I attribute the change to our aging cells.
>
> >> > Anyway, I'm sorry you feel you have to swear at me. I really don't
> >> > think it's called for.
>
> >> It was called for. You had no call to dismiss my experience as pitiful
> >> whinging.
>
> > Perhaps not. Nevertheless, if you choose not to apologize for calling
> > me a little shit then I choose not to continue this conversation.
>
> Poor you.
>

Poor me? I'm fine.

> >> > There was an occasion a while back where I was
> >> > arguing that going vegan indicates a significant level of commitment
> >> > to reducing suffering,
>
> >> You're trying to have it both ways. In one argument you say we should go
> >> vegan because according to you it's an easy step that we can all take to
> >> reduce suffering and now you refer to it as a significant level of
> >> commitment. Which is it, an easy step or a significant commitment?
>
> > A lot of people find it difficult to imagine ever going vegan and
> > think of it as something really hard. However, most people, once
> > they've committed to being vegan, don't find it all that hard and find
> > it easy to keep going. Nevertheless, it is a significant step to take
> > and it demonstrates that you are serious about reducing your
> > contribution to suffering. I think it's consistent to say all this.
>
> Perhaps it is consistent, but in my opinion you are doing the person a
> disservice. Anyone who first embarks on veganism is unlikely to be prepared
> for the kind of one-way "shark's teeth" the habit can have.
> Seehttp://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/veg-prob/veg-prob-scen1c.shtml
>

I seem to be having problems opening two windows at once on this
computer, so I'll have to look at it later. Look, I think that's a
propaganda website. It's trying to argue that there are serious
pitfalls in being vegan while ignoring the fact that actually there
are much more likely to be benefits. I think you've got a distorted
view of the "habit" of veganism as well. It's a lifestyle choice,
quite a healthy one, and one which is quite good from the point of
view of reducing one's environmental impact and contribution to animal
suffering. I don't think you're doing anyone a disservice by
encouraging them to consider the reasons for going vegan.

>
>
> >> > and you replied that in your experience going
> >> > vegan was no sacrifice at all and that I was a spoiled little punk.
> >> > Now you seem to want to say that it caused significant personal
> >> > problems for you.
>
> >> Both are true, it was easy and pleasant as long as it served us well, but
> >> our circumstance changed as years passed and ultimately it became a
> >> problem.
>
> >> > If I seemed to you to be suggesting that you stopped
> >> > being vegan for trivial reasons and that offended you, then I
> >> > apologize. I wasn't really trying to make that suggestion, I just
> >> > thought that your concerns about not having a tasty enough diet could
> >> > have been overcome with a little imagination.
>
> >> You overlooked the part about it effecting my health,
>
> > Yes, when you said "I do not thrive on it", I made the assumption,
> > perhaps unwarranted, that you were not referring to any serious health
> > concerns.
>
> They were serious enough for me and quite serious for her. When is a problem
> "serious enough"? What about never feeling really satisfied or full even
> when consuming large numbers of calories? What about having poor
> concentration? Aren't these personal matters?
>

As I say, I made the assumption at the time and it may not have been
justified.

> >> but even if I had made
> >> the change only for taste reasons, so what? As you have admitted, none of
> >> us
> >> operates on a strict efficiency model, and certainly there is no clear
> >> imperative to live by the vegan model..
>
> > Well, we might talk about that later.
>
> The issue is not debatable.

Of course it is reasonable to debate which diets are good enough from
the point of view of not contributing to animal suffering,
environmental destruction, and so forth. I acknowledge that if a
typical vegan diet is good enough then there might well be non-vegan
diets which are also good enough.

> The whole problem with veganism is that is
> perceived by adherents in such a rigid and uncompromising fashion. Yet even
> as vegans allow themselves the slack to continue to use certain animal
> products, they view the use of other animal products on the no-go list as
> near cannibalism in ethical status.
>

Yeah, sure, some vegans have that problem. It's reasonable to
criticize the set of attitudes that they hold.

>
>
> >> > As I say, I know quite a
> >> > few vegans and I don't know anyone who finds the diet unsatisfying.
>
> >> There is an issue of denial to deal with. If a person has himself
> >> convinced
> >> that morally he cannot justify consuming animal products, then by what
> >> means
> >> can he rationalize complaining about his vegan diet? He is trapped by his
> >> choice to see morality through this particular lens.
>
> > No, I think most vegans are pretty honest with themselves about the
> > extent to which their diet makes life difficult for them. They
> > acknowledge that they miss some particularly enjoyed food like cheese,
> > for example. I don't think there's any denial going on. They have a
> > satisfying, tasty, and varied diet.
>
> http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w...b-scen1c.shtml
>

As I say, I'll have to look at that later.

> >> > Obviously, you may have had concerns other than taste and I didn't
> >> > wish to suggest that any concerns you had were necessarily trivial.
>
> >> I accept your apology.
>
> >> > I would have thought it should be possible for us to get on, at least
> >> > to the extent of discussing these issues in a reasonably civil way. I
> >> > mean, I don't have any personal grudge against you and I'm not trying
> >> > to offend you. If you really feel that the way I behave is so
> >> > offensive that you can't refrain from calling me a little shit, then
> >> > maybe we'd better just leave it. But if you think it might be possible
> >> > for us to have a polite conversation, then say so and I'll address the
> >> > rest of your post.
>
> >> Maybe you could think twice before using phrases like "pitiful whingeing"
> >> if
> >> you are trying to have a polite conversation.
>
> > All right, I'll keep that in mind.
>
> >> Or better yet, stop worrying
> >> about it. This is usenet, insults are used like punctuation, just ignore
> >> them. You are not going to change the culture of usenet.
>
> > I'm not going to change the culture of this particular newsgroup, no.
> > Not all of usenet is like this. I hang out in maths and logic
> > newsgroups and the discussion there is perfectly civil, even though
> > sometimes there are significant differences of opinion.
>
> > I think discussion on this newsgroup is valuable in that there are
> > important criticisms presented here of some of the positions taken by
> > animal rights advocates and animal liberation advocates which have not
> > yet received a very extensive discussion in the literature. I think
> > it's good to identify these issues and think about the foundations of
> > one's position, hopefully ultimately achieving a more defensible
> > position. Nevertheless, I think the conduct of people like Jon Ball
> > and Rick Etter is absolutely despicable and I'm tired of it. My
> > ambition is to discuss the issues, not the people. I don't think it's
> > relevant to discuss whether or not such and such a person is a
> > hypocrite, whether they're a fool, whether they've got an over-
> > inflated conception of their competence in moral philosophy, whether
> > or not they're soliciting *** sex on a houseboat, and so forth. I'm
> > planning to try to stick more consistently to a policy of not engaging
> > with people who aren't capable of civil discussion. Which, if
> > followed, would probably significantly curtail my activities on this
> > newsgroup, but there it is.
>
> > You're not as bad as the other antis, and you're right that I'm not
> > blameless myself, but I still think that calling me a little shit was
> > over the top. I've put up with far worse than what you got from me
> > without resorting to language like that. You seem to have the idea
> > that all the treatment I receive here is justified, that I try
> > people's patience, that I have "a nerve", that somehow or other simply
> > stating my position is so offensive that people are justified in
> > treating me the way they do, that I'm the one who's guilty of
> > arrogance and effrontery and that it's people like you who are the
> > aggrieved party. Well, I just think that's absurd. You're entitled to
> > your view, but if you're going to stick to your view that calling me a
> > little shit was called for and you're not going to apologize for it
> > we'll just leave it there.
>
> Why do you consider that such an egregious insult? Are we all not little
> shits sometimes? That phrase seems completely benign to me. You ought to
> grow thicker skin Rupert.

Well, maybe. As I say, I think I've put up with quite a lot on this
newsgroup and I'm tired of it. I'm going to draw some lines.

On Jun 3, 2:51 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jun 3, 2:05 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> >> > Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
> >> [..]
>
> >> >> > The scientific consensus is that most people are perfectly capable
> >> >> > of
> >> >> > thriving on a vegan diet. I'm perfectly justified in being skeptical
> >> >> > that it was impossible for him to be vegan and healthy.
>
> >> >> No. Without evidence, and with no legitimate reason to
> >> >> consider him a liar, you have no valid reason to
> >> >> disbelieve him.
>
> >> > If someone says to me that they were vegan and they were experiencing
> >> > diet-related health problems, it is quite reasonable for me initially
> >> > to assume that those health problems could probably be adequately
> >> > resolved while still remaining vegan, because that is the view that is
> >> > supported by the scientific evidence.
>
> >> No, that is how a devotee of veganism prefers to interpert the scientific
> >> evidence. The evidence actually says that the best evidence shows that a
> >> vegetarian diet is *generally speaking*, capable of providing the
> >> necessary
> >> nutritional requirements for human health, with some additional
> >> supplementation (B-12). However a legitimate nutritionist would never
> >> assert
> >> that in any given indivdual case a strict vegan diet will always be
> >> adequate
> >> for every person in every state of health.
>
> > Never suggested they would. My comment still stands.
>
> You did suggest it, strongly, by refusing to acknowledge that my own
> experience was valid.
>

Not at all.

>
>
> >> > He says a dietitian told him
> >> > otherwise, all right, well, I have to acknowledge that at least one
> >> > dietitian with knowledge of his case had that opinion. There was
> >> > nothing unreasonable about my initial response, given what is known
> >> > about nutrition.
>
> >> What YOU know about nutrition Rupert, not what *IS* known. There was
> >> nothing
> >> unreasonable (rude perhaps) given what YOU know about nutrition. Serious
> >> nutritionists know that there is a LOT that we still do not understand
> >> about
> >> nutrition.
>
> > It was reasonable for me to conjecture, what still might very well be
> > true for all I know, that your health problems could have been
> > resolved without abandoning veganism. The current state of knowledge
> > about nutrition supports the view that this will be true in most
> > cases. It may or may not have been true in your case. There was
> > nothing unreasonable or rude about what I originally said.
>
> You get your panties all in a bunch about a harmless epithet like "little
> shit", yet I reveal something about my personal health problems, you
> respond "Poor you!" and call it "pitiful whingeing" and I'm not supposed to
> take that personally. You really are a piece of work Rupert.

I am not getting my panties in a twist about anything, I am simply my
announcing my intentions regarding the conditions under which I will
engage with people.

At that stage all you had said was that you "do not thrive on it". At
that stage I was not aware that you were referring to any serious
health problems. I thought that it was unlikely that you were
experiencing any serious health problems, and that you were just
making a fuss about nothing. I have already apologized for this
twice. I am very sorry that I caused you offence by making the
assumption, on the basis of your saying "I hate it and do not thrive
on it", that you did not have any serious concerns and were making a
fuss about nothing. Perhaps it was an unreasonable assumption to make.
I was surprised at the extent to which you took offence, but
nevertheless I have gone to quite some lengths to smooth things over
now. Perhaps we can hear an apology from you for calling me a little
shit. I do find that quite offensive. Perhaps I am thin-skinned, but
there it is.

We were talking about my original statement that I doubted that you
were experiencing any health problems that could not have been
satisfactorily resolved without abandoning veganism. There was nothing
rude about *that*, and it was a perfectly reasonable conjecture to
make at the time on the basis of what had been said so far, there was
nothing ideological about it.

"Rupert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 3, 2:16 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>
>> ups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 3, 5:03 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> "Rupert" > wrote> On Jun 2, 12:15 am, Rudy
>> >> Canoza > wrote:
>>
>> >> [..]
>>
>> >> >> > > >> > The argument is that we can produce perfectly tasty and
>> >> >> > > >> > nutritious
>> >> >> > > >> > food at the cost of a lot less environmental destruction.
>>
>> >> >> > > Tasty and nutritious for whom? What if I hate it and do not
>> >> >> > > thrive
>> >> >> > > on
>> >> >> > > it?
>>
>> >> >> > Poor you.
>>
>> >> >> > I don't believe you that you don't thrive on it,
>>
>> >> >> You disbelieve him because of your dogmatic approach, not because
>> >> >> you
>> >> >> have any legitimate reason to doubt him.
>>
>> >> > The scientific consensus is that most people are perfectly capable
>> >> > of
>> >> > thriving on a vegan diet. I'm perfectly justified in being skeptical
>> >> > that it was impossible for him to be vegan and healthy.
>>
>> >> "Most people" leaves some of the population who can't. I am one of
>> >> them.
>>
>> > Possibly.
>>
>> Plausibly, you yourself left the possibility open with "most people are
>> perfectly capable of thriving on a vegan diet". In fact making that
>> eminently reasonable interpertation of scientific consensus then
>> immediately
>> rejecting my own case without knowing anything about me shows that you
>> are
>> heavily influenced by idealogical considerations.
>>
>
> I made the conjecture that you could have resolved your health
> problems without abandoning veganism. I acknowledged that I did not
> know for sure. This was a reasonable conjecture based on what my state
> of knowledge about your situation at the time, and what I know about
> the scientific consensus. Now that I know that at least one dietitian
> had a different view things are different. There is no ideology
> involved.
>
> Whatever. This is boring, anyway. Yes, I acknowledge the possibility
> that it might have been very difficult to resolve your health problems
> without abandoning veganism, as I always did, and I am now less
> skeptical about that possibility than before now that I know that at
> least one dietitian held that view. All right?
>
> This all started with Ball saying that the fact that I claimed you
> were lying (which I didn't) shows that I am influenced by ideological
> considerations, which is very amusing and ironic given how often Ball
> expresses convictions that people are knowingly lying which are
> obviously totally irrational.
>
> You say I'm influenced by ideology. Well, I don't think so, but I'll
> strive to watch out for any such tendency in myself and try to
> overcome it.

Of course it is, if anything I have ever said to you is true, that is it.


>> >> >> > that seems very unlikely to me
>>
>> >> >> No, you mean it conflicts with your ideology, rupie.
>>
>> >> > I mean what I say. It is unlikely, given what is known about the
>> >> > nutritional adequacy of vegan diets, that he would have had to stop
>> >> > being vegan in order to resolve whatever problems he was having.
>>
>> >> You're not in a position to say what was possible for me and my family
>> >> in
>> >> our particular medical circumstances.
>>
>> > True. I was never in a position to do anything more than conjecture, I
>> > never claimed to have reliable knowledge. Still, my conjecture was
>> > reasonable.
>>
>> Your conjecture contradicted your statement which left open the
>> possibility
>> that vegans diets are not always adequate.
>>
>
> No, not at all.
>
>>
>>
>> >> You are neither qualified nor aware of
>> >> the specifics of our cases. He is correct, your reaction is motivated
>> >> by
>> >> ideology.
>>
>> > No, it was a reasonable conjecture, which I never presented as fact,
>> > made on the basis of what I knew about your situation at the time and
>> > what I know about the scientific evidence. Nothing ideological about
>> > it. People often tell me anecdotes about their medical histories which
>> > strike me as implausible in the light of what I know about the
>> > scientific evidence. I conjecture to myself that some of their
>> > interpretations of what happened are mistaken, but acknowledge that I
>> > am not in a position to know. This was a case of that. Now that I know
>> > that at least one dietitian had a different view the situation is
>> > different.
>>
>> I didn't need a dietician to know that I did the right thing for me and
>> my
>> family. My wife went from being wiry and energetic to being frail and
>> lethargic, much more so than the process of aging alone would have
>> dictated.
>> These effects were reversed almost immedately when we began to vary our
>> diets. I have since read anecdotal reports of other who have similar
>> experiences.
>>
>> http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w...b-scen1c.shtml
>> When there is too deep an emotional investment in diet, open-mindedness
>> is
>> more difficult. For those of us whose diets are based not just on
>> nutritional ideas but on philosophical principles or beliefs that may
>> underlie an entire lifestyle, the toughest aspect of making a transition
>> to
>> a different diet that may serve you better is not food. It is being able
>> to
>> transcend your emotional identification with the philosophy or worldview
>> underlying the diet you may have lived by for many years. This can often
>> be
>> very difficult psychologically, because our food habits help to comprise
>> a
>> literally "visceral" sense of who we are. Integrating a new or more
>> all-inclusive dietary vision based on new information that one may only
>> be
>> beginning to realize the implications of, takes not only intellectual
>> understanding and assent but also patience and emotional honesty. Even
>> when
>> one is faced with well-corroborated research like what is presented in
>> some
>> sections of this site, we recognize it is difficult to change the beliefs
>> of
>> a lifetime, or half a lifetime.
>
> Health problems from eating too much meat are much more common than
> health problems from avoidance of animal products.

Granted, no question, but these profound psychological barriers are no less
real.

Yes, of course
> people become emotionally invested in their diet for one reason or
> another, and in the event of diet-related health problems they have to
> work out what their priorities are and how they are going to resolve
> their problem. Just as if someone finds they think they have reason to
> cut down on meat for ethical or health reasons, they have to work out
> how to balance this against whatever attachment they have to eating
> meat.

Yes, absolutely.

> This website is presenting a one-sided view of the issue in that it
> ignores the fact that for most people vegan diets are nutritionally
> adequate and in fact have significant health benefits. It's trying to
> say "Thinking of going vegetarian or vegan? Well, be careful, you
> might run into health problems" when the reality is that it is much
> more likely than not to improve your health in the long run. Every
> health professional with whom I have ever spoken about my diet has
> said that being vegan is really healthy.

I think that is true in most cases. The key here being pointed out is to
avoid allowing oneself to be so emotionally invested in a diet that one is
blocked from going back by psychological barriers.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 2, 11:58 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jun 1, 9:34 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> On May 31, 11:43 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 1, 4:19 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ups.com...
>>>>>>> On May 30, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On May 25, 7:50 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
>>>>>>>>>> with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
>>>>>>>>> [snip bullshit psychobabble - all lesley has]
>>>>>>>>>> reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
>>>>>>>>>> ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
>>>>>>>>>> of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
>>>>>>>>>> *consumption*.
>>>>>>>>>> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
>>>>>>>>>> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
>>>>>>>>>> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
>>>>>>>>>> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
>>>>>>>>>> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
>>>>>>>>>> livestock.
>>>>>>>>> "Right now, in addition to producing grains, vegetable
>>>>>>>>> and fruits for direct human consumption, farmers also
>>>>>>>>> raise livestock, and millions of acres are planted in
>>>>>>>>> feed crops for livestock. The theoretical question at
>>>>>>>>> hand is, what if Americans suddenly stopped raising any
>>>>>>>>> livestock at all - how would we feed ourselves?
>>>>>>>>> The answer is trivially simple. All of the resources
>>>>>>>>> going into raising livestock, PLUS all of the resources
>>>>>>>>> going into raising crops as livestock feed, would no
>>>>>>>>> longer be needed for that purpose. To make up the food
>>>>>>>>> deficit for humans, a fraction of those resources would
>>>>>>>>> be needed to grow additional human-edible crops. That
>>>>>>>>> fraction would be quite small, due to the fact that
>>>>>>>>> livestock consume more calories and protein than we get
>>>>>>>>> back out of them: the feed-conversion ratio for all of
>>>>>>>>> them is substantially above 1:1." - "Rudy Canoza" 1/Apr/05
>>>>>>>> Yes, a true statement - but irrelevant. It dealt with
>>>>>>>> another issue. The fact is, raising livestock is not
>>>>>>>> inefficient. It is a use of resources consistent with
>>>>>>>> consumer demand.
>>>>>>> No-one's disputing that. The argument is being made that consumers
>>>>>>> should take into account the consequences of their choices. There is
>>>>>>> not enough internalization of externalities.
>>>>>>>> Calling livestock production "inefficient" is the same
>>>>>>>> as calling automobiles "inefficient" because we all
>>>>>>>> could use bicycles.
>>>>>>> You've totally missed the point.
>>>>>> No, you have.
>>>>> Nope. The argument you give below is completely different to the one
>>>>> he gives.
>>>>>> He is saying, correctly, that the efficiency argument as
>>>>>> presented by the advocates of veganism is nothing but a smokescreen.
>>>>> No, he's saying that it's based on a misconception about what
>>>>> constitutes efficiency.
>>>> That's my criticism of it, and the criticism is correct.
>>> In my view, you've misread the argument.
>> Your myopically limited view, and of course, you're
>> wrong. You haven't been here as long as I have.
>>
>
> True, I haven't been here as long as you. Still, I've been here a fair
> while, and I've also read quite a lot of animal rights theory, written
> by academic philosophers, legal theorists, and activists,

We've covered that before, rupie. You didn't read
honestly. You only read searching to confirm what you
already believed.


>> "vegans" do it all the time, rupie: they claim it is
>> an "inefficient" use of resources to produce meat - and
>> they are wrong, for the well elaborated reason I gave.
>>
>
> But I think that when they make the statement that it is an
> inefficient use of resources, what they are really doing is appealling
> to considerations about environmental costs and global food
> distribution of the kind that I have referred to.

No, stupid uncomprehending rupie; they aren't. Most of
them go on to suggest that we ought to devote some of
the resources used to produce meat to feed "the hungry"
of the world instead. In other words, rupie, they want
to continue to degrade the environment, they just want
the output redirected. You stupid ****.



>>>> But it *is*
>>>> offered as a smokescreen. The stupid "vegans" can't win the battle of
>>>> ethics, so they try to venture into economics with their stupid
>>>> "inefficiency" smokescreen, and they lose there, too.
>>> The ethical arguments for veganism (or some diet which is comparable
>>> in terms of its impact on animals) are good ones.
>> They are sophomoric and wrong; they're just shit. The
>> fact that YOU participate in animal killing proves it.
>>
>
> No, Rudy, that's nonsense.

No, rupie, it isn't. It's correct.


>>> You've never offered
>>> any good criticisms of these arguments in their strongest form, [snip 1500 words of chaff]
>> I've offered very good criticisms of them in all their
>> forms, and their strongest form is quite weak indeed.
>
> No, I'm afraid not.

Yes, I'm quite certain.

"Rupert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 3, 2:41 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>
>> ps.com...
>>
>> > On Jun 3, 4:56 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>
>> groups.com...
>>
>> >> > On Jun 1, 9:02 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> > Well, that's a very interesting perspective you have, Dutch. Do
>> >> >> > you
>> >> >> > think there are any reasons to doubt the argument, apart from
>> >> >> > your
>> >> >> > pitiful whingeing that you haven't managed to find any vegan food
>> >> >> > that
>> >> >> > you like?
>>
>> >> >> I not only found it unsatisfying after 18 years, as I said, it was
>> >> >> not
>> >> >> serving my family's health either. Those are important concerns you
>> >> >> little
>> >> >> shit, not pitiful whinging.
>>
>> >> > When you say it wasn't serving your family's health, I'm not sure
>> >> > what
>> >> > situation you're describing, exactly.
>>
>> >> Of course you don't, but when I stated clearly that I encountered
>> >> health
>> >> *and* satisfaction problems with my vegetarian diet in my original
>> >> message
>> >> and you chose to dismiss those concerns as "pitiful whinging". That
>> >> was
>> >> rude and uncalled for.
>>
>> > Perhaps I should have been more open to the possibility that they
>> > might have been serious concerns which you couldn't reasonably have
>> > resolved in any other way. I still do not know whether that is the
>> > case. I find it very difficult to take this claim of satisfaction
>> > concerns seriously, and when you said "I do not thrive on it" I didn't
>> > know whether you were talking about serious health problems and tended
>> > to make the assumption that you were making a fuss about nothing.
>> > Perhaps I should have recognized the possibility that you were not
>> > making a fuss about nothing and not used the phrase "pitiful
>> > whingeing". If I was rude, I apologize.
>>
>> Even if were only for "satisfaction" reasons that should be good enough
>> for
>> anyone to accept. Nobody I know of is in a position to criticize any diet
>> within the range of reasonable diets that I am aware of.
>>
>
> Well, as you know I think that some widely followed diets can be
> criticized. I make no comment about your diet, I don't know very much
> about it.

Anyone can criticize, the question remains, does the critic actually have
the moral standing to criticize.

>
>> >> > Is it that some of your other
>> >> > family members were financially dependent on you, and you were only
>> >> > buying them vegan food because of your ethical beliefs, and they
>> >> > were
>> >> > experiencing diet-related health problems? Yes, certainly, those are
>> >> > important concerns. If I were in that situation I would probably
>> >> > have
>> >> > consulted a dietitian. The ADA agrees that well-planned vegan diets
>> >> > (supplemented by Vitamin B12) are nutritionally adequate at all
>> >> > stages
>> >> > of life and have many significant health benefits. Was the only
>> >> > solution to your family members' health problems for them to start
>> >> > eating meat again? Well, that's as may be. I would want to hear what
>> >> > a
>> >> > qualified dietitian had to say about the matter. Anyway, you made
>> >> > your
>> >> > own decision about that situation (assuming that I have the
>> >> > situation
>> >> > right). Perhaps you decided that seeing a dietitian was too
>> >> > expensive
>> >> > and that you would just start eating meat again and see how that
>> >> > went.
>> >> > Or perhaps you decided to see a dietitian and she advised you to
>> >> > start
>> >> > eating meat again. I don't know. In my last post I was not really
>> >> > trying to make a comment about your individual situation, about
>> >> > which
>> >> > I obviously know very little. What I did was ask you for your view
>> >> > about a particular argument. I guess I confused the issue somewhat
>> >> > by
>> >> > making references to your "pitiful whingeing". If you want to say
>> >> > that
>> >> > vegan diets are likely to undermine health and that undermines the
>> >> > argument, fine, let's hear the evidence.
>>
>> >> I was a vegetarian for 18 years, as was my wife. We worked hard to
>> >> keep
>> >> our
>> >> diet balanced and well-rounded, and we took supplements. Despite our
>> >> best
>> >> efforts we increasingly experienced health issues, hers were even more
>> >> pronounced than mine. We consulted a dietician and doctors. The final
>> >> recommendation was to add some meat to our diets. Following this
>> >> advice
>> >> in
>> >> our experience was clearly the right choice. I am not saying that
>> >> vegan
>> >> diets are " likely to undermine health", I am reporting that we had a
>> >> very
>> >> good experience with vegetarian diets for a long time, but eventually
>> >> experienced failure to thrive. I attribute the change to our aging
>> >> cells.
>>
>> >> > Anyway, I'm sorry you feel you have to swear at me. I really don't
>> >> > think it's called for.
>>
>> >> It was called for. You had no call to dismiss my experience as pitiful
>> >> whinging.
>>
>> > Perhaps not. Nevertheless, if you choose not to apologize for calling
>> > me a little shit then I choose not to continue this conversation.
>>
>> Poor you.
>>
>
> Poor me? I'm fine.

You're acting like a wounded sparrow.

>
>> >> > There was an occasion a while back where I was
>> >> > arguing that going vegan indicates a significant level of commitment
>> >> > to reducing suffering,
>>
>> >> You're trying to have it both ways. In one argument you say we should
>> >> go
>> >> vegan because according to you it's an easy step that we can all take
>> >> to
>> >> reduce suffering and now you refer to it as a significant level of
>> >> commitment. Which is it, an easy step or a significant commitment?
>>
>> > A lot of people find it difficult to imagine ever going vegan and
>> > think of it as something really hard. However, most people, once
>> > they've committed to being vegan, don't find it all that hard and find
>> > it easy to keep going. Nevertheless, it is a significant step to take
>> > and it demonstrates that you are serious about reducing your
>> > contribution to suffering. I think it's consistent to say all this.
>>
>> Perhaps it is consistent, but in my opinion you are doing the person a
>> disservice. Anyone who first embarks on veganism is unlikely to be
>> prepared
>> for the kind of one-way "shark's teeth" the habit can have.
>> Seehttp://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/veg-prob/veg-prob-scen1c.shtml
>>
>
> I seem to be having problems opening two windows at once on this
> computer, so I'll have to look at it later. Look, I think that's a
> propaganda website. It's trying to argue that there are serious
> pitfalls in being vegan while ignoring the fact that actually there
> are much more likely to be benefits. I think you've got a distorted
> view of the "habit" of veganism as well. It's a lifestyle choice,
> quite a healthy one, and one which is quite good from the point of
> view of reducing one's environmental impact and contribution to animal
> suffering. I don't think you're doing anyone a disservice by
> encouraging them to consider the reasons for going vegan.

You're doing them a greater service if you let them know that no diet is
perfect and to keep in mind that if veganism doesn't work for them that they
should never allow themselves to feel guilty about returning to a more
standard diet.

>
>>
>>
>> >> > and you replied that in your experience going
>> >> > vegan was no sacrifice at all and that I was a spoiled little punk.
>> >> > Now you seem to want to say that it caused significant personal
>> >> > problems for you.
>>
>> >> Both are true, it was easy and pleasant as long as it served us well,
>> >> but
>> >> our circumstance changed as years passed and ultimately it became a
>> >> problem.
>>
>> >> > If I seemed to you to be suggesting that you stopped
>> >> > being vegan for trivial reasons and that offended you, then I
>> >> > apologize. I wasn't really trying to make that suggestion, I just
>> >> > thought that your concerns about not having a tasty enough diet
>> >> > could
>> >> > have been overcome with a little imagination.
>>
>> >> You overlooked the part about it effecting my health,
>>
>> > Yes, when you said "I do not thrive on it", I made the assumption,
>> > perhaps unwarranted, that you were not referring to any serious health
>> > concerns.
>>
>> They were serious enough for me and quite serious for her. When is a
>> problem
>> "serious enough"? What about never feeling really satisfied or full even
>> when consuming large numbers of calories? What about having poor
>> concentration? Aren't these personal matters?
>>
>
> As I say, I made the assumption at the time and it may not have been
> justified.
>
>> >> but even if I had made
>> >> the change only for taste reasons, so what? As you have admitted, none
>> >> of
>> >> us
>> >> operates on a strict efficiency model, and certainly there is no clear
>> >> imperative to live by the vegan model..
>>
>> > Well, we might talk about that later.
>>
>> The issue is not debatable.
>
> Of course it is reasonable to debate which diets are good enough from
> the point of view of not contributing to animal suffering,
> environmental destruction, and so forth. I acknowledge that if a
> typical vegan diet is good enough then there might well be non-vegan
> diets which are also good enough.
>
>> The whole problem with veganism is that is
>> perceived by adherents in such a rigid and uncompromising fashion. Yet
>> even
>> as vegans allow themselves the slack to continue to use certain animal
>> products, they view the use of other animal products on the no-go list as
>> near cannibalism in ethical status.
>>
>
> Yeah, sure, some vegans have that problem. It's reasonable to
> criticize the set of attitudes that they hold.
>
>>
>>
>> >> > As I say, I know quite a
>> >> > few vegans and I don't know anyone who finds the diet unsatisfying.
>>
>> >> There is an issue of denial to deal with. If a person has himself
>> >> convinced
>> >> that morally he cannot justify consuming animal products, then by what
>> >> means
>> >> can he rationalize complaining about his vegan diet? He is trapped by
>> >> his
>> >> choice to see morality through this particular lens.
>>
>> > No, I think most vegans are pretty honest with themselves about the
>> > extent to which their diet makes life difficult for them. They
>> > acknowledge that they miss some particularly enjoyed food like cheese,
>> > for example. I don't think there's any denial going on. They have a
>> > satisfying, tasty, and varied diet.
>>
>> http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w...b-scen1c.shtml
>>
>
> As I say, I'll have to look at that later.
>
>> >> > Obviously, you may have had concerns other than taste and I didn't
>> >> > wish to suggest that any concerns you had were necessarily trivial.
>>
>> >> I accept your apology.
>>
>> >> > I would have thought it should be possible for us to get on, at
>> >> > least
>> >> > to the extent of discussing these issues in a reasonably civil way.
>> >> > I
>> >> > mean, I don't have any personal grudge against you and I'm not
>> >> > trying
>> >> > to offend you. If you really feel that the way I behave is so
>> >> > offensive that you can't refrain from calling me a little shit, then
>> >> > maybe we'd better just leave it. But if you think it might be
>> >> > possible
>> >> > for us to have a polite conversation, then say so and I'll address
>> >> > the
>> >> > rest of your post.
>>
>> >> Maybe you could think twice before using phrases like "pitiful
>> >> whingeing"
>> >> if
>> >> you are trying to have a polite conversation.
>>
>> > All right, I'll keep that in mind.
>>
>> >> Or better yet, stop worrying
>> >> about it. This is usenet, insults are used like punctuation, just
>> >> ignore
>> >> them. You are not going to change the culture of usenet.
>>
>> > I'm not going to change the culture of this particular newsgroup, no.
>> > Not all of usenet is like this. I hang out in maths and logic
>> > newsgroups and the discussion there is perfectly civil, even though
>> > sometimes there are significant differences of opinion.
>>
>> > I think discussion on this newsgroup is valuable in that there are
>> > important criticisms presented here of some of the positions taken by
>> > animal rights advocates and animal liberation advocates which have not
>> > yet received a very extensive discussion in the literature. I think
>> > it's good to identify these issues and think about the foundations of
>> > one's position, hopefully ultimately achieving a more defensible
>> > position. Nevertheless, I think the conduct of people like Jon Ball
>> > and Rick Etter is absolutely despicable and I'm tired of it. My
>> > ambition is to discuss the issues, not the people. I don't think it's
>> > relevant to discuss whether or not such and such a person is a
>> > hypocrite, whether they're a fool, whether they've got an over-
>> > inflated conception of their competence in moral philosophy, whether
>> > or not they're soliciting *** sex on a houseboat, and so forth. I'm
>> > planning to try to stick more consistently to a policy of not engaging
>> > with people who aren't capable of civil discussion. Which, if
>> > followed, would probably significantly curtail my activities on this
>> > newsgroup, but there it is.
>>
>> > You're not as bad as the other antis, and you're right that I'm not
>> > blameless myself, but I still think that calling me a little shit was
>> > over the top. I've put up with far worse than what you got from me
>> > without resorting to language like that. You seem to have the idea
>> > that all the treatment I receive here is justified, that I try
>> > people's patience, that I have "a nerve", that somehow or other simply
>> > stating my position is so offensive that people are justified in
>> > treating me the way they do, that I'm the one who's guilty of
>> > arrogance and effrontery and that it's people like you who are the
>> > aggrieved party. Well, I just think that's absurd. You're entitled to
>> > your view, but if you're going to stick to your view that calling me a
>> > little shit was called for and you're not going to apologize for it
>> > we'll just leave it there.
>>
>> Why do you consider that such an egregious insult? Are we all not little
>> shits sometimes? That phrase seems completely benign to me. You ought to
>> grow thicker skin Rupert.
>
> Well, maybe.

Not a question about it.

> As I say, I think I've put up with quite a lot on this
> newsgroup and I'm tired of it. I'm going to draw some lines.

You've been whinging about this since you arrived and you've never followed
through, enough already. You're interested in the topic enough to continue
to participate, so whenever you see an insult just ignore it, snip it, and
respond to the subject matter.

Rupert wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jun 2, 12:15 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> On Jun 1, 1:54 am, Rupert > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 1, 5:03 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>>>>> ups.com...
>>>>>>> On Jun 1, 2:48 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On May 31, 7:14 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On May 26, 4:50 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
>>>>>>>>>> with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
>>>>>>>>>> reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
>>>>>>>>>> ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
>>>>>>>>>> of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
>>>>>>>>>> *consumption*.
>>>>>>>>>> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
>>>>>>>>>> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
>>>>>>>>>> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
>>>>>>>>>> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
>>>>>>>>>> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
>>>>>>>>>> livestock.
>>>>>>>>>> In order to examine the efficiency of some process,
>>>>>>>>>> there must be agreement on what the end product is
>>>>>>>>>> whose efficiency of production you are examining. If
>>>>>>>>>> you're looking at the production of consumer
>>>>>>>>>> electronics, for example, then the output is
>>>>>>>>>> televisions, stereo receivers, DVD players, etc.
>>>>>>>>>> Rather obviously, you need to get specific. No
>>>>>>>>>> sensible person is going to suggest that we ought to
>>>>>>>>>> discontinue the production of television sets, because
>>>>>>>>>> they require more resources to produce (which they do),
>>>>>>>>>> and produce more DVD players instead. (For the
>>>>>>>>>> cave-dwellers, an extremely high quality DVD player may
>>>>>>>>>> be bought for under US$100, while a comparable quality
>>>>>>>>>> television set is going to cost several hundred
>>>>>>>>>> dollars. $500 for a DVD player is astronomical - I'm
>>>>>>>>>> not even sure there are any that expensive - while you
>>>>>>>>>> can easily pay $8000 or more for large plasma TV
>>>>>>>>>> monitor, which will require a separate TV receiver.)
>>>>>>>>>> What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of
>>>>>>>>>> "inefficiency"? They're clearly saying that the end
>>>>>>>>>> product whose efficiency of production we want to
>>>>>>>>>> consider is "food", i.e., undifferentiated food
>>>>>>>>>> calories. Just as clearly, they are wrong. Humans
>>>>>>>>>> don't consider all foods equal, and hence equally
>>>>>>>>>> substitutable. As in debunking so much of "veganism",
>>>>>>>>>> we can see this easily - laughably easily - by
>>>>>>>>>> restricting our view to a strictly vegetarian diet,
>>>>>>>>>> without introducing meat into the discussion at all.
>>>>>>>>>> If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food production
>>>>>>>>>> efficiency, they would be advocating the production of
>>>>>>>>>> only a very small number of vegetable crops, as it is
>>>>>>>>>> obvious that some crops are more efficient to produce -
>>>>>>>>>> use less resources per nutritional unit of output -
>>>>>>>>>> than others.
>>>>>>>>>> But how do "vegans" actually behave? Why, they buy
>>>>>>>>>> some fruits and vegetables that are resource-efficient,
>>>>>>>>>> and they buy some fruits and vegetables that are
>>>>>>>>>> relatively resource-INefficient. You know this by
>>>>>>>>>> looking at retail prices: higher priced goods ARE
>>>>>>>>>> higher priced because they use more resources to
>>>>>>>>>> produce. If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food
>>>>>>>>>> production efficiency, they would only be buying the
>>>>>>>>>> absolutely cheapest fruit or vegetable for any given
>>>>>>>>>> nutritional requirement. This would necessarily mean
>>>>>>>>>> there would be ONLY one kind of leafy green vegetable,
>>>>>>>>>> one kind of grain, one variety of fruit, and so on.
>>>>>>>>>> If "vegans" were to extend this misuse of "efficiency"
>>>>>>>>>> into other consumer goods, say clothing, then there
>>>>>>>>>> would be only one kind of shoe produced (and thus only
>>>>>>>>>> one brand). The same would hold for every conceivable
>>>>>>>>>> garment. A button-front shirt with collars costs more
>>>>>>>>>> to produce - uses more resources - than does a T-shirt,
>>>>>>>>>> so everyone "ought" to wear only T-shirts, if we're
>>>>>>>>>> going to focus on the efficiency of shirt production.
>>>>>>>>>> You don't "need" any button front shirts, just as you
>>>>>>>>>> don't "need" meat. But look in any "vegan's" wardrobe,
>>>>>>>>>> and you'll see a variety of different kinds of clothing
>>>>>>>>>> (all natural fiber, of course.) "vegans" aren't
>>>>>>>>>> advocating that only the most "efficient" clothing be
>>>>>>>>>> produced, as their own behavior clearly indicates.
>>>>>>>>>> The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
>>>>>>>>>> to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product,
>>>>>>>>>> then see if that product can be produced using fewer
>>>>>>>>>> resources. It is important to note that the consumer's
>>>>>>>>>> view of products as distinct things is crucial. A
>>>>>>>>>> radio can be produced far more "efficiently", in terms
>>>>>>>>>> of resource use, than a television; but consumers don't
>>>>>>>>>> view radios and televisions as generic entertainment
>>>>>>>>>> devices.
>>>>>>>>>> The critical mistake, the UNBELIEVABLY stupid mistake,
>>>>>>>>>> that "vegans" who misconceive of "inefficiency" are
>>>>>>>>>> making, is to see "food" as some undifferentiated lump
>>>>>>>>>> of calories and other nutritional requirements. Once
>>>>>>>>>> one realizes that this is not how ANYONE, including the
>>>>>>>>>> "vegans" themselves, views food, then the
>>>>>>>>>> "inefficiency" argument against using resources for
>>>>>>>>>> meat production falls to the ground.
>>>>>>>>>> I hope this helps.
>>>>>>>>> The argument is that we can produce perfectly tasty and nutritious
>>>>>>>>> food at the cost of a lot less environmental destruction.
>>>>>> Tasty and nutritious for whom? What if I hate it and do not thrive on it?
>>>>> Poor you.
>>>>> I don't believe you that you don't thrive on it,
>>>> You disbelieve him because of your dogmatic approach, not because you
>>>> have any legitimate reason to doubt him.
>>>>
>>> The scientific consensus is that most people are perfectly capable of
>>> thriving on a vegan diet. I'm perfectly justified in being skeptical
>>> that it was impossible for him to be vegan and healthy.
>> No. Without evidence, and with no legitimate reason to
>> consider him a liar, you have no valid reason to
>> disbelieve him.
>>
>
> If someone says to me that they were vegan and they were experiencing
> diet-related health problems, it is quite reasonable for me initially
> to assume that those health problems could probably be adequately
> resolved while still remaining vegan,

No, that isn't reasonable to assume.


>>>>> that seems very unlikely to me
>>>> No, you mean it conflicts with your ideology, rupie.
>>>>
>>> I mean what I say.
>> You mean it conflicts with your ideology, rupie.
>>
>
> You're a fool. I mean what I say.

You mean it conflicts with your ideology.


>>>>>>>> That's the wrong argument.
>>>>>>> Sorry, I'm not clear here what you're claiming. You claim the argument
>>>>>>> is flawed? Fine, then offer reasons why we should agree with you. You
>>>>>>> haven't done this yet, I was simply pointing out this fact.
>>>>>> He's claiming that it's the wrong argument. He's made a considerable effort
>>>>>> to delineate his argument, you've done nothing in this thread, zero.
>>>>> Er, actually, no.
>>>> ERRRRRRRRR, yes, rupie - you've done zero apart from spouting classic
>>>> "vegan" dogma.
>>>>
>>> No, I'm afraid you're mistaken
>> No. I'm not. You've done zero apart from spouting
>> classic "vegan" dogma.
>>
>
> You're a ****ing idiot,

No, rupie.


>>>>> I've explained why the argument which he's
>>>>> addressing is an argument which no-one actually makes.
>>>> You're lying.
>>> No, I'm not. I sincerely believe what I'm saying.
>> No, you know you're lying.
>>
>
> Well, it's as I keep saying,

You're lying, rupie.


>>>> People *do* make this phony "inefficiency" argument.
>>> Show me where.
>> lesley, aka the slut "pearl".
>
> You really despicable and pathetic.

Write in English, shitbag.


>> Do your own search for
>> her laughable bullshit about "feed conversion ratio".
>>
>
> That's an environmental argument.

No. It's an ill-conceived and bogus efficiency argument.


>> Also:
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...fb0c24458944ce
>>
>>
>> But farming animals is an inefficient, unsustainable and
>> problematic way of producing food. Apart from those who
>> feed on
>> pasture where it is difficult to grow crops, farmed
>> animals use more
>> food calories than they produce in the form of meat.
>> They also compete
>> directly with people for other precious resources,
>> notably water.
>> http://groups.google.com/group/demon...ee116aa6b75f46
>>
>
> This is an implicit appeal to the argument from environmental costs
> and the argument from global food distribution.

No. It's about the "waste" of resources. If the
resources were used with no environmental degradation
at all, the ****witted "vegan" would still consider
them "wasted", in that more were used to create the
same nutritional input to humans than would be the case
for a strictly vegetarian diet. It's about
"efficiency", rupie, or at least the ****witted
"vegan's" misconception of it.


>> [meat production] is an inefficient use of fresh water
>> and land for the production of food,
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.a...9bd38a04228c74
>>
>
> Environmental argument.

FALSE. It's an ill-conceived and wrong "efficiency"
argument. You don't know what you're talking about,
shitbag.


>
>> Clearly meat production is a very inefficient use of water
>> http://groups.google.com/group/soc.c...411178db014ccf
>>
>
> Environmental argument.

FALSE. It's an ill-conceived and wrong "efficiency"
argument. You don't know what you're talking about,
shitbag.

>
>> rupie, do your own research from now on.
>>
>
> Why?

Because I'm tired of leading you by your dainty hand,
rupie. I'd rather punch you in the face.


>> The point is, rupie, you fat ****,
>
> You're such a fool.

Shut your ****ing mouth, you fat ****.


>> that "vegans" make
>> this "inefficiency" argument all the time. It is a
>> *separate* argument from the environmental degradation
>> argument, although the "vegans" often state them
>> together.
>
> Well, that's your reading of the situation.

My *correct* reading, rupie.


>> The "inefficiency" argument is made all the
>> time, it is based on a laughable misconception of
>> efficiency, and it is fatuous of you to dispute that.
>>
>
> I dispute the former,

Without basis.


>>>> The environmental argument is something different.
>>>>
>>>> "vegans" say that the resources going to meat production are "wasted",
>>>> because it isn't "necessary" to eat meat in order to eat healthfully.
>>>> That is a misconceived efficiency argument, and people do indeed make
>>>> it. That stupid **** lesley has made it dozens of times.
>>>>
>>> Very interesting. Well, I've never seen anyone make it.
>> You're willfully blind.
>>
>
> You're a fool.

You're an arrogant and insular fat ****.


>>> You think people really do make this argument, well you might be
>>> right, frankly I think there's a pretty good chance you might just be
>>> misreading them.
>> There is zero chance of that.
>>
>
> Well, actually,

**** off, you insular narrow-minded fat ****.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 3, 6:10 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jun 1, 9:38 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> On May 31, 10:05 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 1, 2:48 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> On May 31, 7:14 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>>>>>>> On May 26, 4:50 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
>>>>>>>> with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
>>>>>>>> reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
>>>>>>>> ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
>>>>>>>> of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
>>>>>>>> *consumption*.
>>>>>>>> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
>>>>>>>> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
>>>>>>>> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
>>>>>>>> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
>>>>>>>> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
>>>>>>>> livestock.
>>>>>>>> In order to examine the efficiency of some process,
>>>>>>>> there must be agreement on what the end product is
>>>>>>>> whose efficiency of production you are examining. If
>>>>>>>> you're looking at the production of consumer
>>>>>>>> electronics, for example, then the output is
>>>>>>>> televisions, stereo receivers, DVD players, etc.
>>>>>>>> Rather obviously, you need to get specific. No
>>>>>>>> sensible person is going to suggest that we ought to
>>>>>>>> discontinue the production of television sets, because
>>>>>>>> they require more resources to produce (which they do),
>>>>>>>> and produce more DVD players instead. (For the
>>>>>>>> cave-dwellers, an extremely high quality DVD player may
>>>>>>>> be bought for under US$100, while a comparable quality
>>>>>>>> television set is going to cost several hundred
>>>>>>>> dollars. $500 for a DVD player is astronomical - I'm
>>>>>>>> not even sure there are any that expensive - while you
>>>>>>>> can easily pay $8000 or more for large plasma TV
>>>>>>>> monitor, which will require a separate TV receiver.)
>>>>>>>> What are the "vegans" doing with their misuse of
>>>>>>>> "inefficiency"? They're clearly saying that the end
>>>>>>>> product whose efficiency of production we want to
>>>>>>>> consider is "food", i.e., undifferentiated food
>>>>>>>> calories. Just as clearly, they are wrong. Humans
>>>>>>>> don't consider all foods equal, and hence equally
>>>>>>>> substitutable. As in debunking so much of "veganism",
>>>>>>>> we can see this easily - laughably easily - by
>>>>>>>> restricting our view to a strictly vegetarian diet,
>>>>>>>> without introducing meat into the discussion at all.
>>>>>>>> If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food production
>>>>>>>> efficiency, they would be advocating the production of
>>>>>>>> only a very small number of vegetable crops, as it is
>>>>>>>> obvious that some crops are more efficient to produce -
>>>>>>>> use less resources per nutritional unit of output -
>>>>>>>> than others.
>>>>>>>> But how do "vegans" actually behave? Why, they buy
>>>>>>>> some fruits and vegetables that are resource-efficient,
>>>>>>>> and they buy some fruits and vegetables that are
>>>>>>>> relatively resource-INefficient. You know this by
>>>>>>>> looking at retail prices: higher priced goods ARE
>>>>>>>> higher priced because they use more resources to
>>>>>>>> produce. If "vegans" REALLY were interested in food
>>>>>>>> production efficiency, they would only be buying the
>>>>>>>> absolutely cheapest fruit or vegetable for any given
>>>>>>>> nutritional requirement. This would necessarily mean
>>>>>>>> there would be ONLY one kind of leafy green vegetable,
>>>>>>>> one kind of grain, one variety of fruit, and so on.
>>>>>>>> If "vegans" were to extend this misuse of "efficiency"
>>>>>>>> into other consumer goods, say clothing, then there
>>>>>>>> would be only one kind of shoe produced (and thus only
>>>>>>>> one brand). The same would hold for every conceivable
>>>>>>>> garment. A button-front shirt with collars costs more
>>>>>>>> to produce - uses more resources - than does a T-shirt,
>>>>>>>> so everyone "ought" to wear only T-shirts, if we're
>>>>>>>> going to focus on the efficiency of shirt production.
>>>>>>>> You don't "need" any button front shirts, just as you
>>>>>>>> don't "need" meat. But look in any "vegan's" wardrobe,
>>>>>>>> and you'll see a variety of different kinds of clothing
>>>>>>>> (all natural fiber, of course.) "vegans" aren't
>>>>>>>> advocating that only the most "efficient" clothing be
>>>>>>>> produced, as their own behavior clearly indicates.
>>>>>>>> The correct way to analyze efficiency of production is
>>>>>>>> to focus as narrowly as possible on the end product,
>>>>>>>> then see if that product can be produced using fewer
>>>>>>>> resources. It is important to note that the consumer's
>>>>>>>> view of products as distinct things is crucial. A
>>>>>>>> radio can be produced far more "efficiently", in terms
>>>>>>>> of resource use, than a television; but consumers don't
>>>>>>>> view radios and televisions as generic entertainment
>>>>>>>> devices.
>>>>>>>> The critical mistake, the UNBELIEVABLY stupid mistake,
>>>>>>>> that "vegans" who misconceive of "inefficiency" are
>>>>>>>> making, is to see "food" as some undifferentiated lump
>>>>>>>> of calories and other nutritional requirements. Once
>>>>>>>> one realizes that this is not how ANYONE, including the
>>>>>>>> "vegans" themselves, views food, then the
>>>>>>>> "inefficiency" argument against using resources for
>>>>>>>> meat production falls to the ground.
>>>>>>>> I hope this helps.
>>>>>>> The argument is that we can produce perfectly tasty and nutritious
>>>>>>> food at the cost of a lot less environmental destruction.
>>>>>> That's the wrong argument.
>>>>> Sorry, I'm not clear here what you're claiming.
>>>> Of course you're not.
>>> Well, if you could have foreseen that without my telling you, then
>>> perhaps you should have made an effort to clarify what you were
>>> saying.
>> I spoke with complete and perfect clarity. Even given
>> that, I could foresee that you would not comprehend.
>>
>
> When you said "That's the wrong argument",

I was right.


>>>>> You claim the argument
>>>>> is flawed?
>>>> Yes, because it's based on a misconception of efficiency.
>>> Elaborate.
>> I already did.
>>
>
> You have given details of why this "inefficiency argument" which you
> claim that people make is flawed, and I agree with you.

Then shut up.


>>> How is the argument that meat production has undesirable
>>> environmental consequences
>> That isn't the argument, you ****wit.
>>
>
> It is the argument that *I* was talking about.

It's not the argument that this entire thread is about,
you arrogant ****wit.


>>> based on a misconception of efficiency?
>> The argument I'm addressing is indeed based on a
>> misconception of efficiency, rupie. You're talking
>> about some other argument.
>>
>
> That's right.

So get the **** out and go start your own thread, shitbag.


>>> Elsewhere you were saying this was a different argument to the one you
>>> wanted to attack.
>> It is.
>>
>
> I thought so.

You dense clod.


>>>>> Fine, then offer reasons why we should agree with you.
>>>> Already done.
>>> Elsewhere you said this argument wasn't your target.
>> You stupid uncomprehending ****, rupie. The
>> environmental degradation argument is not the one I'm
>> addressing. The (misconceived) "efficiency" argument
>> is the one I'm addressing. Try to pay better
>> attention, rupie.
>>
>
> Um, that is exactly what I was saying.

No, it's what *I* was saying, dope.


>>>>> You haven't done this yet,
>>>> Yes, I have. I have thoroughly explained the misconception.
>>> Make up your mind what we're talking about, the environmental
>>> argument, or your "efficiency argument"
>> Not "my" efficiency argument; the one that that
>> ****witted prostitute lesley keeps trying to advance.
>>
>
> (1) There is nothing wrong with being a prostitute, it is a perfectly
> legitimate form of employment.

It's corrosive and disgusting.


> (2) Lesley is not a prostitute.

lesley is a whore. She provides sex services for money
to "foot massage" customers.


> (3) Anyone who tries to denigrate someone by calling them a
> "prostitute" is a thoroughly inferior human being

ipse dixit


> (4) I doubt that Lesley actually intends to make the "efficiency
> argument" as you interpret it

She does. You're full of shit.


>>> (which I am not convinced
>>> anyone actually makes).
>> Yes, people do.
>>
>
> So you say.

So I have shown.


>>> Yes, you have demolished this "efficiency
>>> argument".
>> Of course.
>>
>
> Well done.

Of course. It's the usual outcome.


>>>>> I was simply pointing out this fact.
>>>> No, because it's not a fact.
>>> I believe it is a fact that you haven't addressed the environmental
>>> argument,
>> I haven't.
>>
>
> Great.

So **** off.


>>> and I believe elsewhere you agree with me. But if you think
>>> you have... well, by all means try to convince me.
>> Once again, vegetarians are guilty of promoting
>> environmental degradation with their diets. Thus, what
>> it comes down to is how much environmental degradation
>> is acceptable.
>
> Yes, certainly.

So, "vegans" are not clean.


>> Since some degradation must, by logical
>> necessity, be acceptable to vegetarians, then
>> environmental degradation _per se_ is not a reason to
>> oppose meat production.
>>
>> Once again, "vegans" are seen as hypocrites.
>
> No, you can specify a threshold about how much environmental
> degradation is acceptable,

"vegans" do so arbitrarily. There is nothing sound
about where they draw the line. It's based purely on
self image.

"Rupert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 3, 2:51 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>
>> oups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 3, 2:05 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> "Rupert" > wrote
>>
>> >> > Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>
>> >> [..]
>>
>> >> >> > The scientific consensus is that most people are perfectly
>> >> >> > capable
>> >> >> > of
>> >> >> > thriving on a vegan diet. I'm perfectly justified in being
>> >> >> > skeptical
>> >> >> > that it was impossible for him to be vegan and healthy.
>>
>> >> >> No. Without evidence, and with no legitimate reason to
>> >> >> consider him a liar, you have no valid reason to
>> >> >> disbelieve him.
>>
>> >> > If someone says to me that they were vegan and they were
>> >> > experiencing
>> >> > diet-related health problems, it is quite reasonable for me
>> >> > initially
>> >> > to assume that those health problems could probably be adequately
>> >> > resolved while still remaining vegan, because that is the view that
>> >> > is
>> >> > supported by the scientific evidence.
>>
>> >> No, that is how a devotee of veganism prefers to interpert the
>> >> scientific
>> >> evidence. The evidence actually says that the best evidence shows that
>> >> a
>> >> vegetarian diet is *generally speaking*, capable of providing the
>> >> necessary
>> >> nutritional requirements for human health, with some additional
>> >> supplementation (B-12). However a legitimate nutritionist would never
>> >> assert
>> >> that in any given indivdual case a strict vegan diet will always be
>> >> adequate
>> >> for every person in every state of health.
>>
>> > Never suggested they would. My comment still stands.
>>
>> You did suggest it, strongly, by refusing to acknowledge that my own
>> experience was valid.
>>
>
> Not at all.

All

>
>>
>>
>> >> > He says a dietitian told him
>> >> > otherwise, all right, well, I have to acknowledge that at least one
>> >> > dietitian with knowledge of his case had that opinion. There was
>> >> > nothing unreasonable about my initial response, given what is known
>> >> > about nutrition.
>>
>> >> What YOU know about nutrition Rupert, not what *IS* known. There was
>> >> nothing
>> >> unreasonable (rude perhaps) given what YOU know about nutrition.
>> >> Serious
>> >> nutritionists know that there is a LOT that we still do not understand
>> >> about
>> >> nutrition.
>>
>> > It was reasonable for me to conjecture, what still might very well be
>> > true for all I know, that your health problems could have been
>> > resolved without abandoning veganism. The current state of knowledge
>> > about nutrition supports the view that this will be true in most
>> > cases. It may or may not have been true in your case. There was
>> > nothing unreasonable or rude about what I originally said.
>>
>> You get your panties all in a bunch about a harmless epithet like "little
>> shit", yet I reveal something about my personal health problems, you
>> respond "Poor you!" and call it "pitiful whingeing" and I'm not supposed
>> to
>> take that personally. You really are a piece of work Rupert.
>
> I am not getting my panties in a twist about anything, I am simply my
> announcing my intentions regarding the conditions under which I will
> engage with people.

You're all huffy, it's bloody ridiculous, especially since that epithet was
in direct response to two condescending remarks by you.

> At that stage all you had said was that you "do not thrive on it". At
> that stage I was not aware that you were referring to any serious
> health problems. I thought that it was unlikely that you were
> experiencing any serious health problems, and that you were just
> making a fuss about nothing. I have already apologized for this
> twice.

You're still holding a previous thread up for ransom because of that one
retort.

I am very sorry that I caused you offence by making the
> assumption, on the basis of your saying "I hate it and do not thrive
> on it", that you did not have any serious concerns and were making a
> fuss about nothing. Perhaps it was an unreasonable assumption to make.
> I was surprised at the extent to which you took offence, but
> nevertheless I have gone to quite some lengths to smooth things over
> now. Perhaps we can hear an apology from you for calling me a little
> shit. I do find that quite offensive. Perhaps I am thin-skinned, but
> there it is.

I'm sorry I called you a little shit, I am quite sure that you are actually
a very big one.

> We were talking about my original statement that I doubted that you
> were experiencing any health problems that could not have been
> satisfactorily resolved without abandoning veganism. There was nothing
> rude about *that*, and it was a perfectly reasonable conjecture to
> make at the time on the basis of what had been said so far, there was
> nothing ideological about it.

Sure Rupert, there's absolutely nothing ideologically driven about you.

On Jun 3, 3:39 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jun 2, 11:58 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jun 1, 9:34 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> On May 31, 11:43 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> >>>>> On Jun 1, 4:19 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
> glegroups.com...
> >>>>>>> On May 30, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On May 25, 7:50 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
> >>>>>>>>>> with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
> >>>>>>>>> [snip bullshit psychobabble - all lesley has]
> >>>>>>>>>> reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
> >>>>>>>>>> ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
> >>>>>>>>>> of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
> >>>>>>>>>> *consumption*.
> >>>>>>>>>> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
> >>>>>>>>>> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
> >>>>>>>>>> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
> >>>>>>>>>> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
> >>>>>>>>>> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
> >>>>>>>>>> livestock.
> >>>>>>>>> "Right now, in addition to producing grains, vegetable
> >>>>>>>>> and fruits for direct human consumption, farmers also
> >>>>>>>>> raise livestock, and millions of acres are planted in
> >>>>>>>>> feed crops for livestock. The theoretical question at
> >>>>>>>>> hand is, what if Americans suddenly stopped raising any
> >>>>>>>>> livestock at all - how would we feed ourselves?
> >>>>>>>>> The answer is trivially simple. All of the resources
> >>>>>>>>> going into raising livestock, PLUS all of the resources
> >>>>>>>>> going into raising crops as livestock feed, would no
> >>>>>>>>> longer be needed for that purpose. To make up the food
> >>>>>>>>> deficit for humans, a fraction of those resources would
> >>>>>>>>> be needed to grow additional human-edible crops. That
> >>>>>>>>> fraction would be quite small, due to the fact that
> >>>>>>>>> livestock consume more calories and protein than we get
> >>>>>>>>> back out of them: the feed-conversion ratio for all of
> >>>>>>>>> them is substantially above 1:1." - "Rudy Canoza" 1/Apr/05
> >>>>>>>> Yes, a true statement - but irrelevant. It dealt with
> >>>>>>>> another issue. The fact is, raising livestock is not
> >>>>>>>> inefficient. It is a use of resources consistent with
> >>>>>>>> consumer demand.
> >>>>>>> No-one's disputing that. The argument is being made that consumers
> >>>>>>> should take into account the consequences of their choices. There is
> >>>>>>> not enough internalization of externalities.
> >>>>>>>> Calling livestock production "inefficient" is the same
> >>>>>>>> as calling automobiles "inefficient" because we all
> >>>>>>>> could use bicycles.
> >>>>>>> You've totally missed the point.
> >>>>>> No, you have.
> >>>>> Nope. The argument you give below is completely different to the one
> >>>>> he gives.
> >>>>>> He is saying, correctly, that the efficiency argument as
> >>>>>> presented by the advocates of veganism is nothing but a smokescreen.
> >>>>> No, he's saying that it's based on a misconception about what
> >>>>> constitutes efficiency.
> >>>> That's my criticism of it, and the criticism is correct.
> >>> In my view, you've misread the argument.
> >> Your myopically limited view, and of course, you're
> >> wrong. You haven't been here as long as I have.
>
> > True, I haven't been here as long as you. Still, I've been here a fair
> > while, and I've also read quite a lot of animal rights theory, written
> > by academic philosophers, legal theorists, and activists,
>
> We've covered that before, rupie. You didn't read
> honestly. You only read searching to confirm what you
> already believed.
>

Yes, you've expressed this belief of yours many times and you've
evidently convinced yourself that it's the case. For example, you
believe that when I started reading animal ethics I already held quite
strong views about it. Now, I happen to know that that's not the case.
And it's very clear to any reasonable observer that you don't have any
rational grounds for believing anything about the matter one way or
the other, except my testimony, which you have some rational grounds
for believing since there is no particular reason to think I would
lie. So this is another example of your convincing yourself that you
have some insight into facts about another person, about their
thoughts, motives, intellectual history, and so on, when in fact all
that's happening is that you're convincing yourself of a fantasy which
you've made up which you really have no rational grounds for believing
in. You do this all the time. It's a mild version of what happens with
people who are mentally ill. They form beliefs and become utterly
convinced of them despite the fact that they lack any real rational
foundation. I myself have some experience of this.

You really should try to understand that you have no real reason for
this belief of yours. I tell you that this is what happened. I had
some thoughts about the issue of ethical vegetarianism and animal
ethics in general when I was an adolescent, but I didn't come to any
particular conclusion and I never really seriously contemplated giving
up meat. However, I had quite strong environmentalist views as an
adolescent. I also had idealistic aspirations to do something to make
the world a better place as a young child. When I entered university,
I saw Peter Singer's book "How are We to Live?" in a bookshop and I
thought it looked interesting, so I bought it and started to read it.
I was also required to read Peter Singer's essay "Famine, Affluence,
and Morality" in my first philosophy course and write an essay about
it. Peter Singer's book "How are We to Live?" did not really deal with
issues of animal ethics. It discussed the benefits that many people
can get from having a commitment to doing something towards making the
world a better place. It also mentioned some aspects of the
environmental impact of meat production. Shortly afterwards I began
volunteering for Oxfam and getting involved with animal activism, and
some time in 1995 I decided to become pesco-vegetarian.

Then I saw Peter Singer's book "Animal Liberation" in a bookshop. I
decided it might be a good idea for me to look at some arguments about
the issue of how we should treat animals, so I bought it and read it.
I found the basic argument in Chapter 1 that there is no justification
for discrimination on the basis of species alone to be compelling. I
have never seen any good reason to revise this view, although I now
acknowledge that it raises difficult questions. Influenced by the
description of modern farming in Chapter 3 of the book, I decided to
become nearly vegan. I then proceeded to read some of Peter Singer's
other works and also David DeGrazia's book "Taking Animals Seriously".
It was some years before I read Tom Regan. I acknowledge that it was
quite a while before I started looking at serious attempts to
criticize views that are highly critical of the status quo regarding
our treatment of animals. That doesn't mean I wasn't engaging with
these works in an intellectually serious and honest way. I'm well-read
in animal ethics, and ethics and philosophy generally, and I've always
engaged with everything I've read in an intellectually serious and
honest way, because I have genuine intellectual curiosity and passion
for seeking out the truth. I'm still engaging with these issues in an
intellectually serious and honest way.

For example, I've just written a talk which I'm going to be giving to
a group of Honours students who are about to embark on animal research
projects. They're required to do a course which includes a lecture
given by myself on animal rights philosophy, and by my friend on the
politics of the animal protection movement. In that talk, I set forth
what I think is one of the most important arguments against using
animals in harmful ways in research, and I also frankly set forth the
difficulties with this argument that I'm aware of, such as those that
have been discussed on this newsgroup, and I encourage them to read
the literature further. You can read the talk if you like, it's in the
Files section of my Yahoo group discussion_of_animal_ethics.

You think that I haven't engaged with these issues in an
intellectually serious and honest way, but I happen to know that your
view is ignorant and utterly without rational foundation. At the very
least, I've done as much as you by way of seriously thinking about
this issue and reading the relevant arguments and thinking seriously
about them. I've come to different conclusions than you, and my views
are at least as well-informed and deserving of respect as yours. There
are difficult questions raised by the position I've taken, and the
same is true of yours.

You've got no grounds for denigrating the seriousness with which I've
approached these questions. I have approached these questions with
extreme seriousness and honesty. Your attempts to put me down are just
foolishness, and based on delusions.

I am honestly facing up to the difficulties with my position. You're
not seriously thinking about the difficulties with your own position.
When I ask you why all sentient humans have rights and only humans
have rights, you utter the single word "Kind", as if that settled the
matter. Cohen's kind argument as he has presented it is not presented
with sufficient clarity and rigor. Even with Neil Levy's help, there
are still important criticisms to be made of it. You're not thinking
seriously about these criticisms. You've just found an argument which
confirms what you already believe, and you're not subjecting it to any
real scrutiny. You're also not seriously thinking about the question
of whether there might be moral considerations other than rights which
can be used as grounds for criticizing the status quo regarding our
treatment of animals. I acknowledge that difficult questions are
raised by my views and am subjecting them to critical examination.
That's why I'm here, despite the unreasonable behaviour of the people
on this newsgroup. You're not subjecting your position to any honest
critical examination, you're not engaging with the criticisms that can
be made of it. You're just here to slag people off because that's what
you like doing. It's totally farcical for you to try and put down the
intellectual seriousness with which I approach these issues. It's a
joke.

> >> "vegans" do it all the time, rupie: they claim it is
> >> an "inefficient" use of resources to produce meat - and
> >> they are wrong, for the well elaborated reason I gave.
>
> > But I think that when they make the statement that it is an
> > inefficient use of resources, what they are really doing is appealling
> > to considerations about environmental costs and global food
> > distribution of the kind that I have referred to.
>
> No, stupid uncomprehending rupie; they aren't. Most of
> them go on to suggest that we ought to devote some of
> the resources used to produce meat to feed "the hungry"
> of the world instead. In other words, rupie, they want
> to continue to degrade the environment, they just want
> the output redirected. You stupid ****.
>

The suggestion of directing the resources towards feeding the hungry
is a suggestion that would result in less environmental damage, and a
fairer global distribution of food on their conception of fairness,
you silly fool. What you've produced is clear evidence that their
arguments *are* based on environmental considerations and
considerations of distributive justice. And you call me stupid and
uncomprehending. What a joke.

> >>>> But it *is*
> >>>> offered as a smokescreen. The stupid "vegans" can't win the battle of
> >>>> ethics, so they try to venture into economics with their stupid
> >>>> "inefficiency" smokescreen, and they lose there, too.
> >>> The ethical arguments for veganism (or some diet which is comparable
> >>> in terms of its impact on animals) are good ones.
> >> They are sophomoric and wrong; they're just shit. The
> >> fact that YOU participate in animal killing proves it.
>
> > No, Rudy, that's nonsense.
>
> No, rupie, it isn't. It's correct.
>

It's utterly absurd, and I patiently gave a very clear explanation of
why in the part that you snipped. You choose not to engage with it and
you have the idea that you can content yourself with saying "No,
rupie, it isn't. It's correct" and still maintain some credibility.
And you talk about my level of intellectual seriousness. Oh, well.

> >>> You've never offered
> >>> any good criticisms of these arguments in their strongest form, [snip 1500 words of chaff]
> >> I've offered very good criticisms of them in all their
> >> forms, and their strongest form is quite weak indeed.
>
> > No, I'm afraid not.
>
> Yes, I'm quite certain.

Yes, you are quite certain, but if you were engaging with this issue
in an intellectually serious and honest way, as you accuse me of not
doing, you would understand that my points, which you are completely
ignoring, deserve serious consideration and need some kind of answer.
Your certainty is without rational foundation. You are choosing not to
engage seriously with my arguments, confining your attention instead
to the argument that you like to attack. Even your criticism of that
argument has its problems. You are deluding yourself if you think this
means you are seriously undermining the best case for ethical
veganism. There are important arguments which seriously challenge your
position, which you are simply not engaging with. But you ignore this
and continue to maintain that you are quite certain that you are right
and I am wrong. Well, such is life.

On Jun 3, 3:41 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
> > On Jun 3, 2:41 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
> >> > On Jun 3, 4:56 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> >> groups.com...
>
> >> >> > On Jun 1, 9:02 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >> >> >> > Well, that's a very interesting perspective you have, Dutch. Do
> >> >> >> > you
> >> >> >> > think there are any reasons to doubt the argument, apart from
> >> >> >> > your
> >> >> >> > pitiful whingeing that you haven't managed to find any vegan food
> >> >> >> > that
> >> >> >> > you like?
>
> >> >> >> I not only found it unsatisfying after 18 years, as I said, it was
> >> >> >> not
> >> >> >> serving my family's health either. Those are important concerns you
> >> >> >> little
> >> >> >> shit, not pitiful whinging.
>
> >> >> > When you say it wasn't serving your family's health, I'm not sure
> >> >> > what
> >> >> > situation you're describing, exactly.
>
> >> >> Of course you don't, but when I stated clearly that I encountered
> >> >> health
> >> >> *and* satisfaction problems with my vegetarian diet in my original
> >> >> message
> >> >> and you chose to dismiss those concerns as "pitiful whinging". That
> >> >> was
> >> >> rude and uncalled for.
>
> >> > Perhaps I should have been more open to the possibility that they
> >> > might have been serious concerns which you couldn't reasonably have
> >> > resolved in any other way. I still do not know whether that is the
> >> > case. I find it very difficult to take this claim of satisfaction
> >> > concerns seriously, and when you said "I do not thrive on it" I didn't
> >> > know whether you were talking about serious health problems and tended
> >> > to make the assumption that you were making a fuss about nothing.
> >> > Perhaps I should have recognized the possibility that you were not
> >> > making a fuss about nothing and not used the phrase "pitiful
> >> > whingeing". If I was rude, I apologize.
>
> >> Even if were only for "satisfaction" reasons that should be good enough
> >> for
> >> anyone to accept. Nobody I know of is in a position to criticize any diet
> >> within the range of reasonable diets that I am aware of.
>
> > Well, as you know I think that some widely followed diets can be
> > criticized. I make no comment about your diet, I don't know very much
> > about it.
>
> Anyone can criticize, the question remains, does the critic actually have
> the moral standing to criticize.
>

Er, yes, you certainly attach a lot of importance to this question.
For me the more important question is whether their criticisms have
some merit.

But in any case, why shouldn't someone who eats tofu and vegetables
have the moral standing to criticize people who eat meat? Do you have
the moral standing to criticize people who buy child pornography? You
say yes, because you're not participating in the sexual exploitation
of children. Well, I'm not buying meat, so why shouldn't I criticize
people who do? You say that buying tofu and vegetables is more
relevantly similar to buying meat than buying meat is relevantly
similar to buying child pornography, well, that's precisely the point
that has to be shown, hasn't it?

It's a pretty weak line of response, anyway. In the end, either you
can give a good response to an argument or you can't. I say to someone
"I think you should do more to reduce your contribution to animal
suffering". He says "Well, you're not doing everything you possibly
could, so who are you to criticize me?" I say "Well, it may or may not
be the case that I am doing enough, but I still maintain that you are
not doing enough." What happens next? Surely he either has to try and
defend the view that he *is* doing enough, or else opt out of serious
discussion of the issue.

There's no reason at all why it not might be the case that a typical
vegan diet is morally acceptable, but a typical Western diet is not.
You've never offered any good reasons why this can't be. If you want
to defend the typical Western diet, go ahead. You seem instead to want
to spend your time arguing that I'm in no position to criticize the
typical Western diet. Well, what exactly is your point here? It's not
like I spend my time telling you people "You're all sinners". I've
never made any unsolicited comments about any person's diet. Are you
trying to say that I have no right to publicly defend my position, or
no right to distribute literature advocating veganism? Doesn't that
strike you as a little absurd?

If you think there's some good reason why I should abandon my
position, then tell me what it is. If you think it's presumptuous of
me to publicly state my position and attempt to defend it against
criticism, well, um, yeah, this doesn't strike me as an adequately
justified view. I really don't see that you've given any good reason
for me to think that it's presumptuous of me to do that. So perhaps
you might want to try a little harder to formulate rational arguments
for that conclusion.

>
>
> >> >> > Is it that some of your other
> >> >> > family members were financially dependent on you, and you were only
> >> >> > buying them vegan food because of your ethical beliefs, and they
> >> >> > were
> >> >> > experiencing diet-related health problems? Yes, certainly, those are
> >> >> > important concerns. If I were in that situation I would probably
> >> >> > have
> >> >> > consulted a dietitian. The ADA agrees that well-planned vegan diets
> >> >> > (supplemented by Vitamin B12) are nutritionally adequate at all
> >> >> > stages
> >> >> > of life and have many significant health benefits. Was the only
> >> >> > solution to your family members' health problems for them to start
> >> >> > eating meat again? Well, that's as may be. I would want to hear what
> >> >> > a
> >> >> > qualified dietitian had to say about the matter. Anyway, you made
> >> >> > your
> >> >> > own decision about that situation (assuming that I have the
> >> >> > situation
> >> >> > right). Perhaps you decided that seeing a dietitian was too
> >> >> > expensive
> >> >> > and that you would just start eating meat again and see how that
> >> >> > went.
> >> >> > Or perhaps you decided to see a dietitian and she advised you to
> >> >> > start
> >> >> > eating meat again. I don't know. In my last post I was not really
> >> >> > trying to make a comment about your individual situation, about
> >> >> > which
> >> >> > I obviously know very little. What I did was ask you for your view
> >> >> > about a particular argument. I guess I confused the issue somewhat
> >> >> > by
> >> >> > making references to your "pitiful whingeing". If you want to say
> >> >> > that
> >> >> > vegan diets are likely to undermine health and that undermines the
> >> >> > argument, fine, let's hear the evidence.
>
> >> >> I was a vegetarian for 18 years, as was my wife. We worked hard to
> >> >> keep
> >> >> our
> >> >> diet balanced and well-rounded, and we took supplements. Despite our
> >> >> best
> >> >> efforts we increasingly experienced health issues, hers were even more
> >> >> pronounced than mine. We consulted a dietician and doctors. The final
> >> >> recommendation was to add some meat to our diets. Following this
> >> >> advice
> >> >> in
> >> >> our experience was clearly the right choice. I am not saying that
> >> >> vegan
> >> >> diets are " likely to undermine health", I am reporting that we had a
> >> >> very
> >> >> good experience with vegetarian diets for a long time, but eventually
> >> >> experienced failure to thrive. I attribute the change to our aging
> >> >> cells.
>
> >> >> > Anyway, I'm sorry you feel you have to swear at me. I really don't
> >> >> > think it's called for.
>
> >> >> It was called for. You had no call to dismiss my experience as pitiful
> >> >> whinging.
>
> >> > Perhaps not. Nevertheless, if you choose not to apologize for calling
> >> > me a little shit then I choose not to continue this conversation.
>
> >> Poor you.
>
> > Poor me? I'm fine.
>
> You're acting like a wounded sparrow.
>

Well, if that's the way it strikes you, so be it. As far as I'm
concerned, I'm just making decisions regarding the circumstances under
which I will engage with people.

>
>
> >> >> > There was an occasion a while back where I was
> >> >> > arguing that going vegan indicates a significant level of commitment
> >> >> > to reducing suffering,
>
> >> >> You're trying to have it both ways. In one argument you say we should
> >> >> go
> >> >> vegan because according to you it's an easy step that we can all take
> >> >> to
> >> >> reduce suffering and now you refer to it as a significant level of
> >> >> commitment. Which is it, an easy step or a significant commitment?
>
> >> > A lot of people find it difficult to imagine ever going vegan and
> >> > think of it as something really hard. However, most people, once
> >> > they've committed to being vegan, don't find it all that hard and find
> >> > it easy to keep going. Nevertheless, it is a significant step to take
> >> > and it demonstrates that you are serious about reducing your
> >> > contribution to suffering. I think it's consistent to say all this.
>
> >> Perhaps it is consistent, but in my opinion you are doing the person a
> >> disservice. Anyone who first embarks on veganism is unlikely to be
> >> prepared
> >> for the kind of one-way "shark's teeth" the habit can have.
> >> Seehttp://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w/veg-prob/veg-prob-scen1c.shtml
>
> > I seem to be having problems opening two windows at once on this
> > computer, so I'll have to look at it later. Look, I think that's a
> > propaganda website. It's trying to argue that there are serious
> > pitfalls in being vegan while ignoring the fact that actually there
> > are much more likely to be benefits. I think you've got a distorted
> > view of the "habit" of veganism as well. It's a lifestyle choice,
> > quite a healthy one, and one which is quite good from the point of
> > view of reducing one's environmental impact and contribution to animal
> > suffering. I don't think you're doing anyone a disservice by
> > encouraging them to consider the reasons for going vegan.
>
> You're doing them a greater service if you let them know that no diet is
> perfect and to keep in mind that if veganism doesn't work for them that they
> should never allow themselves to feel guilty about returning to a more
> standard diet.
>

Well, yes, possibly, that doesn't contradict what I said. Regarding
your contention that they should *never* allow themselves to feel
guilty about that, I don't think it's as simple as that, everyone's
got to decide for themselves how they weigh the balance between
personal convenience and other considerations. So, are you going to
abandon your original claim that you do someone a disservice by
encouraging them to consider the case for veganism?

>
>
> >> >> > and you replied that in your experience going
> >> >> > vegan was no sacrifice at all and that I was a spoiled little punk.
> >> >> > Now you seem to want to say that it caused significant personal
> >> >> > problems for you.
>
> >> >> Both are true, it was easy and pleasant as long as it served us well,
> >> >> but
> >> >> our circumstance changed as years passed and ultimately it became a
> >> >> problem.
>
> >> >> > If I seemed to you to be suggesting that you stopped
> >> >> > being vegan for trivial reasons and that offended you, then I
> >> >> > apologize. I wasn't really trying to make that suggestion, I just
> >> >> > thought that your concerns about not having a tasty enough diet
> >> >> > could
> >> >> > have been overcome with a little imagination.
>
> >> >> You overlooked the part about it effecting my health,
>
> >> > Yes, when you said "I do not thrive on it", I made the assumption,
> >> > perhaps unwarranted, that you were not referring to any serious health
> >> > concerns.
>
> >> They were serious enough for me and quite serious for her. When is a
> >> problem
> >> "serious enough"? What about never feeling really satisfied or full even
> >> when consuming large numbers of calories? What about having poor
> >> concentration? Aren't these personal matters?
>
> > As I say, I made the assumption at the time and it may not have been
> > justified.
>
> >> >> but even if I had made
> >> >> the change only for taste reasons, so what? As you have admitted, none
> >> >> of
> >> >> us
> >> >> operates on a strict efficiency model, and certainly there is no clear
> >> >> imperative to live by the vegan model..
>
> >> > Well, we might talk about that later.
>
> >> The issue is not debatable.
>
> > Of course it is reasonable to debate which diets are good enough from
> > the point of view of not contributing to animal suffering,
> > environmental destruction, and so forth. I acknowledge that if a
> > typical vegan diet is good enough then there might well be non-vegan
> > diets which are also good enough.
>
> >> The whole problem with veganism is that is
> >> perceived by adherents in such a rigid and uncompromising fashion. Yet
> >> even
> >> as vegans allow themselves the slack to continue to use certain animal
> >> products, they view the use of other animal products on the no-go list as
> >> near cannibalism in ethical status.
>
> > Yeah, sure, some vegans have that problem. It's reasonable to
> > criticize the set of attitudes that they hold.
>
> >> >> > As I say, I know quite a
> >> >> > few vegans and I don't know anyone who finds the diet unsatisfying.
>
> >> >> There is an issue of denial to deal with. If a person has himself
> >> >> convinced
> >> >> that morally he cannot justify consuming animal products, then by what
> >> >> means
> >> >> can he rationalize complaining about his vegan diet? He is trapped by
> >> >> his
> >> >> choice to see morality through this particular lens.
>
> >> > No, I think most vegans are pretty honest with themselves about the
> >> > extent to which their diet makes life difficult for them. They
> >> > acknowledge that they miss some particularly enjoyed food like cheese,
> >> > for example. I don't think there's any denial going on. They have a
> >> > satisfying, tasty, and varied diet.
>
> >>http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w...b-scen1c.shtml
>
> > As I say, I'll have to look at that later.
>
> >> >> > Obviously, you may have had concerns other than taste and I didn't
> >> >> > wish to suggest that any concerns you had were necessarily trivial.
>
> >> >> I accept your apology.
>
> >> >> > I would have thought it should be possible for us to get on, at
> >> >> > least
> >> >> > to the extent of discussing these issues in a reasonably civil way.
> >> >> > I
> >> >> > mean, I don't have any personal grudge against you and I'm not
> >> >> > trying
> >> >> > to offend you. If you really feel that the way I behave is so
> >> >> > offensive that you can't refrain from calling me a little shit, then
> >> >> > maybe we'd better just leave it. But if you think it might be
> >> >> > possible
> >> >> > for us to have a polite conversation, then say so and I'll address
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > rest of your post.
>
> >> >> Maybe you could think twice before using phrases like "pitiful
> >> >> whingeing"
> >> >> if
> >> >> you are trying to have a polite conversation.
>
> >> > All right, I'll keep that in mind.
>
> >> >> Or better yet, stop worrying
> >> >> about it. This is usenet, insults are used like punctuation, just
> >> >> ignore
> >> >> them. You are not going to change the culture of usenet.
>
> >> > I'm not going to change the culture of this particular newsgroup, no.
> >> > Not all of usenet is like this. I hang out in maths and logic
> >> > newsgroups and the discussion there is perfectly civil, even though
> >> > sometimes there are significant differences of opinion.
>
> >> > I think discussion on this newsgroup is valuable in that there are
> >> > important criticisms presented here of some of the positions taken by
> >> > animal rights advocates and animal liberation advocates which have not
> >> > yet received a very extensive discussion in the literature. I think
> >> > it's good to identify these issues and think about the foundations of
> >> > one's position, hopefully ultimately achieving a more defensible
> >> > position. Nevertheless, I think the conduct of people like Jon Ball
> >> > and Rick Etter is absolutely despicable and I'm tired of it. My
> >> > ambition is to discuss the issues, not the people. I don't think it's
> >> > relevant to discuss whether or not such and such a person is a
> >> > hypocrite, whether they're a fool, whether they've got an over-
> >> > inflated conception of their competence in moral philosophy, whether
> >> > or not they're soliciting *** sex on a houseboat, and so forth. I'm
> >> > planning to try to stick more consistently to a policy of not engaging
> >> > with people who aren't capable of civil discussion. Which, if
> >> > followed, would probably significantly curtail my activities on this
> >> > newsgroup, but there it is.
>
> >> > You're not as bad as the other antis, and you're right that I'm not
> >> > blameless myself, but I still think that calling me a little shit was
> >> > over the top. I've put up with far worse than what you got from me
> >> > without resorting to language like that. You seem to have the idea
> >> > that all the treatment I receive here is justified, that I try
> >> > people's patience, that I have "a nerve", that somehow or other simply
> >> > stating my position is so offensive that people are justified in
> >> > treating me the way they do, that I'm the one who's guilty of
> >> > arrogance and effrontery and that it's people like you who are the
> >> > aggrieved party. Well, I just think that's absurd. You're entitled to
> >> > your view, but if you're going to stick to your view that calling me a
> >> > little shit was called for and you're not going to apologize for it
> >> > we'll just leave it there.
>
> >> Why do you consider that such an egregious insult? Are we all not little
> >> shits sometimes? That phrase seems completely benign to me. You ought to
> >> grow thicker skin Rupert.
>
> > Well, maybe.
>
> Not a question about it.
>

Well, I question it, for one. I put up with a lot of nonsense on this
newsgroup. I've made a decision that I'm going to draw some lines. I
think that's a perfectly reasonable decision. I don't think it's being
"thin-skinned", it's just a decision about how I'm going to spend my
time. It struck me that you over-reacted to my remarks about "pitiful
whingeing", but nevertheless I went to some trouble to patch things
up. Now you think that I'm over-reacting to your calling me a "little
shit", well, everyone has certain things that push their buttons. I'm
not mortally offended, and I'm not, as you claim, "acting like a
wounded sparrow", I've just made a decision that I'm going to wait for
some kind of apology before I engage with the rest of that post. You
think I'm being silly, well, fine.


> > As I say, I think I've put up with quite a lot on this
> > newsgroup and I'm tired of it. I'm going to draw some lines.
>
> You've been whinging about this since you arrived and you've never followed
> through, enough already. You're interested in the topic enough to continue
> to participate, so whenever you see an insult just ignore it, snip it, and
> respond to the subject matter.

"Whingeing"? Now, hang on a moment, you thought it was rude and
uncalled for to talk about you "whingeing". So perhaps you could do me
the courtesy of acknowledgeing that the treatment I receive here is
rude and unreasonable and that I have legitimate grounds for
complaint, and that my pointing this out is not just "whingeing". You
antis make it your business to attack other people's sincere and
deeply-held ethical convictions, you have an obligation to do this in
a reasoned and polite way. Jon and Rick think they're entitled to heap
abuse on people simply because they've chosen to go vegan in an
attempt to reduce animal suffering. Jon explicitly told me, in my very
first conversation here, that he was entitled to abuse me because I
was a sanctimonious hypocrite, and sanctimonious hypocrisy merits
abuse. He came to this conclusion based solely on the information that
I thought going vegan to reduce animal suffering was a good idea. It's
ridiculous. It's bigotry. You really ought to be just a little bit
embarassed about being associated with such people and make some
effort to distance yourself from them. Instead you choose to focus on
the alleged smugness and self-righteousness of vegans, and carry on as
though I have tested these people's patience and deserve everything I
get. It's ridiculous.

You're right, I do often find it hard to stick to a policy of not
responding to rude people because I often feel tempted to reply to
certain points they make. It's my decision how I resolve that dilemma.
I'm not going to stop voicing my opinions about the way people behave
here, and I will decline to engage with a person if I feel like it.

On Jun 3, 3:45 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> > If someone says to me that they were vegan and they were experiencing
> > diet-related health problems, it is quite reasonable for me initially
> > to assume that those health problems could probably be adequately
> > resolved while still remaining vegan,
>
> No, that isn't reasonable to assume.
>

Perfectly reasonable, given what is known about nutrition.

> >>>>> that seems very unlikely to me
> >>>> No, you mean it conflicts with your ideology, rupie.
>
> >>> I mean what I say.
> >> You mean it conflicts with your ideology, rupie.
>
> > You're a fool. I mean what I say.
>
> You mean it conflicts with your ideology.
>

You really are a tiresome fool. Yes, it is possible to endlessly
repeat bare assertions without any argument or rational foundation,
but what does it achieve?

> >> rupie, do your own research from now on.
>
> > Why?
>
> Because I'm tired of leading you by your dainty hand,
> rupie. I'd rather punch you in the face.
>

Someone has an anger management problem. I mean, you've given me a lot
of reason to be annoyed with you and I've given you no reason
whatsoever to be annoyed with me, and I don't fantasize about punching
you in the face. Do you think that this approach to your frustrations
illustrates how you're a "real man" and I'm not? Seems to me your
parents did a poor job of imparting civilized values to you.

> >> The point is, rupie, you fat ****,
>
> > You're such a fool.
>
> Shut your ****ing mouth, you fat ****.
>

Well, I could, but you'd still be a fool, so what would that achieve?
Don't you think you should investigate more constructive solutions to
the problem?

> >> that "vegans" make
> >> this "inefficiency" argument all the time. It is a
> >> *separate* argument from the environmental degradation
> >> argument, although the "vegans" often state them
> >> together.
>
> > Well, that's your reading of the situation.
>
> My *correct* reading, rupie.
>

So you say. I've yet to see the slightest rational foundation for it.

> >> The "inefficiency" argument is made all the
> >> time, it is based on a laughable misconception of
> >> efficiency, and it is fatuous of you to dispute that.
>
> > I dispute the former,
>
> Without basis.
>

On the contrary, you've offered no basis for your contention.

> >>>> The environmental argument is something different.
>
> >>>> "vegans" say that the resources going to meat production are "wasted",
> >>>> because it isn't "necessary" to eat meat in order to eat healthfully.
> >>>> That is a misconceived efficiency argument, and people do indeed make
> >>>> it. That stupid **** lesley has made it dozens of times.
>
> >>> Very interesting. Well, I've never seen anyone make it.
> >> You're willfully blind.
>
> > You're a fool.
>
> You're an arrogant and insular fat ****.
>

Nope. As pointed out before, your calling me arrogant is utterly
absurd. I'm not arrogant or insular in the least. Oh, and by the way,
I'm also not fat, not that it matters.

> >>> You think people really do make this argument, well you might be
> >>> right, frankly I think there's a pretty good chance you might just be
> >>> misreading them.
> >> There is zero chance of that.
>
> > Well, actually,
>
> **** off, you insular narrow-minded fat ****.

Such mastery of incisive rational argumentation.

What I snipped was true. You don't have a very good grip on reality,
and you often hold all sorts of completely irrational convictions with
complete certainty. So there's a fairly good chance that this
conviction of yours is wrong, especially since you've offered not the
slightest shred of decent evidence for it.

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >> I spoke with complete and perfect clarity. Even given
> >> that, I could foresee that you would not comprehend.
> >>
> >
> > When you said "That's the wrong argument",
>
> I was right.
>

Wonderful, although it would be nice if you could explain what you
meant by it. I think you meant to say it wasn't the argument you were
talking about. I know that, although for some reason when I made
exactly the same point you called me a "stupid uncomprehending ****".

>
> >>>>> You claim the argument
> >>>>> is flawed?
> >>>> Yes, because it's based on a misconception of efficiency.
> >>> Elaborate.
> >> I already did.
> >>
> >
> > You have given details of why this "inefficiency argument" which you
> > claim that people make is flawed, and I agree with you.
>
> Then shut up.
>

Why on earth?

>
> >>> How is the argument that meat production has undesirable
> >>> environmental consequences
> >> That isn't the argument, you ****wit.
> >>
> >
> > It is the argument that *I* was talking about.
>
> It's not the argument that this entire thread is about,
> you arrogant ****wit.
>

Sigh. Here's how the conversation went.

Me: "The argument is that we can produce perfectly tasty and
nutritious food at the cost of a lot less environmental destruction."

You: "That's the wrong argument."

Me: "Sorry, I'm not clear here what you're claiming. You claim the
argument
is flawed? Fine, then offer reasons why we should agree with you. You
haven't done this yet, I was simply pointing out this fact."

You: "Yes, because it's based on a misconception of efficiency."

Now, when I said the argument is flawed, I meant the environmental
argument. You, apparently, got confused and thought I meant the
efficiency argument which you were discussing. But that was a pretty
silly thing to think. Surely, when I said "the argument" I would have
been referring to the argument to which you were referring when you
said "That's the wrong argument". So, you got confused, and this led
to a breakdown of communication, and I was explaining the situation to
you. You nevertheless took it upon yourself to call me a "stupid,
uncomprehending ****". Yet you claim I'm the arrogant ****wit. Thanks
for sharing your perspective on reality with us, Ball.

I dispute the relevance of your debunking of the effiicency argument
because I've yet to see any evidence that anyone actually makes it, I
think when people talk about the resource-intensiveness of meat
production they are really making the environmental argument. Hence my
talking about the environmental argument is relevant to this thread.
But, anyway, it doesn't matter. I'm simply pointing out that you got
confused about which argument I was talking about and that led to a
breakdown of communication.

>
> >>> based on a misconception of efficiency?
> >> The argument I'm addressing is indeed based on a
> >> misconception of efficiency, rupie. You're talking
> >> about some other argument.
> >>
> >
> > That's right.
>
> So get the **** out and go start your own thread, shitbag.
>

No. Justify your contention that anyone actually makes the efficiency
argument you are making, or shut up.

>
> >>> Elsewhere you were saying this was a different argument to the one you
> >>> wanted to attack.
> >> It is.
> >>
> >
> > I thought so.
>
> You dense clod.
>

Ball, you are the one who got confused about which argument we were
talking about. I don't think a reasonable observer would conclude that
I am the dense clod.

>
> >>>>> Fine, then offer reasons why we should agree with you.
> >>>> Already done.
> >>> Elsewhere you said this argument wasn't your target.
> >> You stupid uncomprehending ****, rupie. The
> >> environmental degradation argument is not the one I'm
> >> addressing. The (misconceived) "efficiency" argument
> >> is the one I'm addressing. Try to pay better
> >> attention, rupie.
> >>
> >
> > Um, that is exactly what I was saying.
>
> No, it's what *I* was saying, dope.
>

It's also what I was saying. You really have trouble understanding
what people say, don't you?

Go back and read the conversation again. It was clear from the context
that I was talking about the environmental argument, and you got
confused and thought I was talking about the efficiency argument. That
led to a breakdown of communication. I am not the "stupid,
uncomprehending ****". You are the one who lost track of what was
being said.

>
> >>>>> You haven't done this yet,
> >>>> Yes, I have. I have thoroughly explained the misconception.
> >>> Make up your mind what we're talking about, the environmental
> >>> argument, or your "efficiency argument"
> >> Not "my" efficiency argument; the one that that
> >> ****witted prostitute lesley keeps trying to advance.
> >>
> >
> > (1) There is nothing wrong with being a prostitute, it is a perfectly
> > legitimate form of employment.
>
> It's corrosive and disgusting.
>

Don't know what you mean by "corrosive". You, personally, may find it
disgusting. Hey, I personally find you pretty disgusting, but I don't
expect anyone else to care. How about pornography, is pornography
disgusting? You've never used pornography?

I think that the stigma against sex workers is irrational and unfair.
You disagree, well, whatever. Anyway, you were trying to exploit the
stigma against women who are indiscriminate in their choice of sexual
partner as a way of getting at Lesley. You don't really think she's a
prostitute, but you were trying to imply that she's indiscriminate in
her choice of sexual partner and use that as a way of denigrating and
stigmatizing her. The stigma in question applies more to women than to
men, so you were exploiting sexist attitudes in our culture which
unfairly stigmatize women who make choices which don't conform to our
expectations about how women should behave. You wouldn't try to
stigmatize a sexually promiscuous man in that way. You were trying to
get at Lesley in a way which only works because she's a woman. Also,
as far as I know you have no particular reason to think that Lesley is
sexually promiscuous, and in any case it's none of your business. It's
like the stupidity of your calling me "impotent" and "queer".

>
> > (2) Lesley is not a prostitute.
>
> lesley is a whore. She provides sex services for money
> to "foot massage" customers.
>

Fascinating. I might want to see another source on that one before I
accept that as fact. In any case, I can't say the issue is of great
interest to me.

>
> > (3) Anyone who tries to denigrate someone by calling them a
> > "prostitute" is a thoroughly inferior human being
>
> ipse dixit
>

But true, and just one of many examples of how you are not up to much
as a person.

>
> > (4) I doubt that Lesley actually intends to make the "efficiency
> > argument" as you interpret it
>
> She does. You're full of shit.
>

So I'm supposed to believe you just because you say so?

>
> >>> (which I am not convinced
> >>> anyone actually makes).
> >> Yes, people do.
> >>
> >
> > So you say.
>
> So I have shown.
>

You haven't provided the slightest evidence whatever, Ball. Come up
with the goods or shut up.

>
> >>> Yes, you have demolished this "efficiency
> >>> argument".
> >> Of course.
> >>
> >
> > Well done.
>
> Of course. It's the usual outcome.
>

Actually, I was thinking it must be a pleasant experience for you to
have a valid point for once.

>
> >>>>> I was simply pointing out this fact.
> >>>> No, because it's not a fact.
> >>> I believe it is a fact that you haven't addressed the environmental
> >>> argument,
> >> I haven't.
> >>
> >
> > Great.
>
> So **** off.
>

Non sequitur.

>
> >>> and I believe elsewhere you agree with me. But if you think
> >>> you have... well, by all means try to convince me.
> >> Once again, vegetarians are guilty of promoting
> >> environmental degradation with their diets. Thus, what
> >> it comes down to is how much environmental degradation
> >> is acceptable.
> >
> > Yes, certainly.
>
> So, "vegans" are not clean.
>

Um, that's a rather strange way of putting it, but, yeah, you're
right, of course not. It's very obvious that no-one who lives in
modern society is "clean". Everyone uses electricity, for example, and
most people drive a car. Most people think that just because no-one is
going to be completely "clean" doesn't necessarily mean it's not a
good idea to make some effort to reduce your environmental impact.

>
> >> Since some degradation must, by logical
> >> necessity, be acceptable to vegetarians, then
> >> environmental degradation _per se_ is not a reason to
> >> oppose meat production.
> >>
> >> Once again, "vegans" are seen as hypocrites.
> >
> > No, you can specify a threshold about how much environmental
> > degradation is acceptable,
>
> "vegans" do so arbitrarily. There is nothing sound
> about where they draw the line. It's based purely on
> self image.

It's a no more arbitrary place to draw the line than wherever you draw
it, and you've got no reason to think it's based on self-image any
more than in your case. The argument is basically "if you care about
the environment, it's not a bad idea to go vegan." You've basically
conceded this point. Now, do you have anything interesting to say?

On Jun 3, 3:32 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jun 3, 2:16 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> roups.com...
>
> >> > On Jun 3, 5:03 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote> On Jun 2, 12:15 am, Rudy
> >> >> Canoza > wrote:
>
> >> >> [..]
>
> >> >> >> > > >> > The argument is that we can produce perfectly tasty and
> >> >> >> > > >> > nutritious
> >> >> >> > > >> > food at the cost of a lot less environmental destruction.
>
> >> >> >> > > Tasty and nutritious for whom? What if I hate it and do not
> >> >> >> > > thrive
> >> >> >> > > on
> >> >> >> > > it?
>
> >> >> >> > Poor you.
>
> >> >> >> > I don't believe you that you don't thrive on it,
>
> >> >> >> You disbelieve him because of your dogmatic approach, not because
> >> >> >> you
> >> >> >> have any legitimate reason to doubt him.
>
> >> >> > The scientific consensus is that most people are perfectly capable
> >> >> > of
> >> >> > thriving on a vegan diet. I'm perfectly justified in being skeptical
> >> >> > that it was impossible for him to be vegan and healthy.
>
> >> >> "Most people" leaves some of the population who can't. I am one of
> >> >> them.
>
> >> > Possibly.
>
> >> Plausibly, you yourself left the possibility open with "most people are
> >> perfectly capable of thriving on a vegan diet". In fact making that
> >> eminently reasonable interpertation of scientific consensus then
> >> immediately
> >> rejecting my own case without knowing anything about me shows that you
> >> are
> >> heavily influenced by idealogical considerations.
>
> > I made the conjecture that you could have resolved your health
> > problems without abandoning veganism. I acknowledged that I did not
> > know for sure. This was a reasonable conjecture based on what my state
> > of knowledge about your situation at the time, and what I know about
> > the scientific consensus. Now that I know that at least one dietitian
> > had a different view things are different. There is no ideology
> > involved.
>
> > Whatever. This is boring, anyway. Yes, I acknowledge the possibility
> > that it might have been very difficult to resolve your health problems
> > without abandoning veganism, as I always did, and I am now less
> > skeptical about that possibility than before now that I know that at
> > least one dietitian held that view. All right?
>
> > This all started with Ball saying that the fact that I claimed you
> > were lying (which I didn't) shows that I am influenced by ideological
> > considerations, which is very amusing and ironic given how often Ball
> > expresses convictions that people are knowingly lying which are
> > obviously totally irrational.
>
> > You say I'm influenced by ideology. Well, I don't think so, but I'll
> > strive to watch out for any such tendency in myself and try to
> > overcome it.
>
> Of course it is, if anything I have ever said to you is true, that is it.
>

You're saying of course I'm influenced by ideology, are you? Well, if
it's so undeniable, do you care to argue the view? What exactly is an
ideological belief? In what sense is my belief system different to
yours?

>
>
> >> >> >> > that seems very unlikely to me
>
> >> >> >> No, you mean it conflicts with your ideology, rupie.
>
> >> >> > I mean what I say. It is unlikely, given what is known about the
> >> >> > nutritional adequacy of vegan diets, that he would have had to stop
> >> >> > being vegan in order to resolve whatever problems he was having.
>
> >> >> You're not in a position to say what was possible for me and my family
> >> >> in
> >> >> our particular medical circumstances.
>
> >> > True. I was never in a position to do anything more than conjecture, I
> >> > never claimed to have reliable knowledge. Still, my conjecture was
> >> > reasonable.
>
> >> Your conjecture contradicted your statement which left open the
> >> possibility
> >> that vegans diets are not always adequate.
>
> > No, not at all.
>
> >> >> You are neither qualified nor aware of
> >> >> the specifics of our cases. He is correct, your reaction is motivated
> >> >> by
> >> >> ideology.
>
> >> > No, it was a reasonable conjecture, which I never presented as fact,
> >> > made on the basis of what I knew about your situation at the time and
> >> > what I know about the scientific evidence. Nothing ideological about
> >> > it. People often tell me anecdotes about their medical histories which
> >> > strike me as implausible in the light of what I know about the
> >> > scientific evidence. I conjecture to myself that some of their
> >> > interpretations of what happened are mistaken, but acknowledge that I
> >> > am not in a position to know. This was a case of that. Now that I know
> >> > that at least one dietitian had a different view the situation is
> >> > different.
>
> >> I didn't need a dietician to know that I did the right thing for me and
> >> my
> >> family. My wife went from being wiry and energetic to being frail and
> >> lethargic, much more so than the process of aging alone would have
> >> dictated.
> >> These effects were reversed almost immedately when we began to vary our
> >> diets. I have since read anecdotal reports of other who have similar
> >> experiences.
>
> >>http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w...b-scen1c.shtml
> >> When there is too deep an emotional investment in diet, open-mindedness
> >> is
> >> more difficult. For those of us whose diets are based not just on
> >> nutritional ideas but on philosophical principles or beliefs that may
> >> underlie an entire lifestyle, the toughest aspect of making a transition
> >> to
> >> a different diet that may serve you better is not food. It is being able
> >> to
> >> transcend your emotional identification with the philosophy or worldview
> >> underlying the diet you may have lived by for many years. This can often
> >> be
> >> very difficult psychologically, because our food habits help to comprise
> >> a
> >> literally "visceral" sense of who we are. Integrating a new or more
> >> all-inclusive dietary vision based on new information that one may only
> >> be
> >> beginning to realize the implications of, takes not only intellectual
> >> understanding and assent but also patience and emotional honesty. Even
> >> when
> >> one is faced with well-corroborated research like what is presented in
> >> some
> >> sections of this site, we recognize it is difficult to change the beliefs
> >> of
> >> a lifetime, or half a lifetime.
>
> > Health problems from eating too much meat are much more common than
> > health problems from avoidance of animal products.
>
> Granted, no question, but these profound psychological barriers are no less
> real.
>
> Yes, of course
>

Well, when you say that people becoming emotionally invested in their
identity as vegan, I agree with you, of course, but I think you're
overestimating the extent to which this is likely to cause problems,
and I also think that people who are attached to the typical meat-
eating lifestyle may also have quite a strong attachment to that which
may influence their decisions in ways whose rationality might be
questioned.

> > people become emotionally invested in their diet for one reason or
> > another, and in the event of diet-related health problems they have to
> > work out what their priorities are and how they are going to resolve
> > their problem. Just as if someone finds they think they have reason to
> > cut down on meat for ethical or health reasons, they have to work out
> > how to balance this against whatever attachment they have to eating
> > meat.
>
> Yes, absolutely.
>
> > This website is presenting a one-sided view of the issue in that it
> > ignores the fact that for most people vegan diets are nutritionally
> > adequate and in fact have significant health benefits. It's trying to
> > say "Thinking of going vegetarian or vegan? Well, be careful, you
> > might run into health problems" when the reality is that it is much
> > more likely than not to improve your health in the long run. Every
> > health professional with whom I have ever spoken about my diet has
> > said that being vegan is really healthy.
>
> I think that is true in most cases. The key here being pointed out is to
> avoid allowing oneself to be so emotionally invested in a diet that one is
> blocked from going back by psychological barriers.

Well, one should strive for a situation in which one can make rational
decisions about one's diet based on the facts and one's own personal
priorities. I don't think vegans are more likely to have a problem in
this department than anyone else.

On Jun 2, 8:13 am, Rupert > wrote:
> On Jun 1, 9:02 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> > > Well, that's a very interesting perspective you have, Dutch. Do you
> > > think there are any reasons to doubt the argument, apart from your
> > > pitiful whingeing that you haven't managed to find any vegan food that
> > > you like?
>
> > I not only found it unsatisfying after 18 years, as I said, it was not
> > serving my family's health either. Those are important concerns you little
> > shit, not pitiful whinging.
>
> When you say it wasn't serving your family's health, I'm not sure what
> situation you're describing, exactly. Is it that some of your other
> family members were financially dependent on you,

"My wife and I had two kids .. "
- Dutch Jun 30 2003 http://tinyurl.com/ssm99

"During my wife's pregnancies *I* ended up doing
most of the housework ..."
- Dutch Jan 19 2006 http://tinyurl.com/yz4dsw

"No child is born into ideal circumstances. Were you?
I sure wasn't. My wife wasn't, neither were my kids."
- Dutch Feb 20 2006 http://tinyurl.com/yb4dhz

"I don't want my kids seeing cancer surgery or videos
of assaults or anything that might cause them undue
emotional distress. They're children."
- Dutch Jun 30 2006 http://tinyurl.com/ybu8kq

"I never forced my kids to be vegetarians, and they
weren't, [because I never had kids].
- Dutch Oct 17 2006 http://tinyurl.com/y9trhd

"i am a vegetarian because it IS the most healthy
diet FOR ME. i cured a bunch of chronic health
problems by quitting meat 20 years ago."
Dutch Nov 14 2000 http://tinyurl.com/cga8x

"I am a 15 year lacto-ovo vegetarian, a diet I chose for
health reasons. Meat has certain properties that disagree
with me, I don't know exactly what it is, but it's OK,
because I enjoy spectacularly good health ...."
Dutch 19 Mar 2001 http://tinyurl.com/4pqjq

"Answered already. Yes, for health reasons. On a "normal"
diet I tend more easily to obesity, infections, and gastric
problems. I can't even look at meat anymore after 17 years,
the aversion is in full control."
Dutch 27 Mar 2001 http://tinyurl.com/5emp2

....

On Jun 3, 9:37 am, Rupert > wrote:
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
...
> > >>> Make up your mind what we're talking about, the environmental
> > >>> argument, or your "efficiency argument"
> > >> Not "my" efficiency argument; the one that that
> > >> ****witted prostitute lesley keeps trying to advance.
>
> > > (1) There is nothing wrong with being a prostitute, it is a perfectly
> > > legitimate form of employment.
>
> > It's corrosive and disgusting.
>
> Don't know what you mean by "corrosive". You, personally, may find it
> disgusting. Hey, I personally find you pretty disgusting, but I don't
> expect anyone else to care. How about pornography, is pornography
> disgusting? You've never used pornography?
>
> I think that the stigma against sex workers is irrational and unfair.
> You disagree, well, whatever. Anyway, you were trying to exploit the
> stigma against women who are indiscriminate in their choice of sexual
> partner as a way of getting at Lesley. You don't really think she's a
> prostitute, but you were trying to imply that she's indiscriminate in
> her choice of sexual partner and use that as a way of denigrating and
> stigmatizing her. The stigma in question applies more to women than to
> men, so you were exploiting sexist attitudes in our culture which
> unfairly stigmatize women who make choices which don't conform to our
> expectations about how women should behave. You wouldn't try to
> stigmatize a sexually promiscuous man in that way. You were trying to
> get at Lesley in a way which only works because she's a woman. Also,
> as far as I know you have no particular reason to think that Lesley is
> sexually promiscuous, and in any case it's none of your business. It's
> like the stupidity of your calling me "impotent" and "queer".
>
>
>
> > > (2) Lesley is not a prostitute.

Correct. Thank you, Rupert.

> > lesley is a whore. She provides sex services for money
> > to "foot massage" customers.
>
> Fascinating. I might want to see another source on that one before I
> accept that as fact. In any case, I can't say the issue is of great
> interest to me.
>
>
>
> > > (3) Anyone who tries to denigrate someone by calling them a
> > > "prostitute" is a thoroughly inferior human being
>
> > ipse dixit
>
> But true, and just one of many examples of how you are not up to much
> as a person.
>
>
>
> > > (4) I doubt that Lesley actually intends to make the "efficiency
> > > argument" as you interpret it
>
> > She does. You're full of shit.
>
> So I'm supposed to believe you just because you say so?

We all know the answer to that one.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have work to do.

[ http://www.reflexology-research.com/Abstracts.html ]

Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 3, 3:39 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jun 2, 11:58 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 1, 9:34 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> On May 31, 11:43 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jun 1, 4:19 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ups.com...
>>>>>>>>> On May 30, 12:58 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> pearl wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On May 25, 7:50 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Some "vegans", in a desperate attempt to find some club
>>>>>>>>>>>> with which to beat on meat eaters, given that the limp
>>>>>>>>>>> [snip bullshit psychobabble - all lesley has]
>>>>>>>>>>>> reed of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism is entirely
>>>>>>>>>>>> ineffectual, have seized on the supposed "inefficiency"
>>>>>>>>>>>> of producing meat as a reason to decry meat
>>>>>>>>>>>> *consumption*.
>>>>>>>>>>>> The "vegan" pseudo-argument on "inefficiency" is that
>>>>>>>>>>>> the resources used to produce a given amount of meat
>>>>>>>>>>>> could produce a much greater amount of vegetable food
>>>>>>>>>>>> for direct human consumption, due to the loss of energy
>>>>>>>>>>>> that results from feeding grain and other feeds to
>>>>>>>>>>>> livestock.
>>>>>>>>>>> "Right now, in addition to producing grains, vegetable
>>>>>>>>>>> and fruits for direct human consumption, farmers also
>>>>>>>>>>> raise livestock, and millions of acres are planted in
>>>>>>>>>>> feed crops for livestock. The theoretical question at
>>>>>>>>>>> hand is, what if Americans suddenly stopped raising any
>>>>>>>>>>> livestock at all - how would we feed ourselves?
>>>>>>>>>>> The answer is trivially simple. All of the resources
>>>>>>>>>>> going into raising livestock, PLUS all of the resources
>>>>>>>>>>> going into raising crops as livestock feed, would no
>>>>>>>>>>> longer be needed for that purpose. To make up the food
>>>>>>>>>>> deficit for humans, a fraction of those resources would
>>>>>>>>>>> be needed to grow additional human-edible crops. That
>>>>>>>>>>> fraction would be quite small, due to the fact that
>>>>>>>>>>> livestock consume more calories and protein than we get
>>>>>>>>>>> back out of them: the feed-conversion ratio for all of
>>>>>>>>>>> them is substantially above 1:1." - "Rudy Canoza" 1/Apr/05
>>>>>>>>>> Yes, a true statement - but irrelevant. It dealt with
>>>>>>>>>> another issue. The fact is, raising livestock is not
>>>>>>>>>> inefficient. It is a use of resources consistent with
>>>>>>>>>> consumer demand.
>>>>>>>>> No-one's disputing that. The argument is being made that consumers
>>>>>>>>> should take into account the consequences of their choices. There is
>>>>>>>>> not enough internalization of externalities.
>>>>>>>>>> Calling livestock production "inefficient" is the same
>>>>>>>>>> as calling automobiles "inefficient" because we all
>>>>>>>>>> could use bicycles.
>>>>>>>>> You've totally missed the point.
>>>>>>>> No, you have.
>>>>>>> Nope. The argument you give below is completely different to the one
>>>>>>> he gives.
>>>>>>>> He is saying, correctly, that the efficiency argument as
>>>>>>>> presented by the advocates of veganism is nothing but a smokescreen.
>>>>>>> No, he's saying that it's based on a misconception about what
>>>>>>> constitutes efficiency.
>>>>>> That's my criticism of it, and the criticism is correct.
>>>>> In my view, you've misread the argument.
>>>> Your myopically limited view, and of course, you're
>>>> wrong. You haven't been here as long as I have.
>>> True, I haven't been here as long as you. Still, I've been here a fair
>>> while, and I've also read quite a lot of animal rights theory, written
>>> by academic philosophers, legal theorists, and activists,
>> We've covered that before, rupie. You didn't read
>> honestly. You only read searching to confirm what you
>> already believed.
>>
>
> Yes, you've expressed this belief of yours many times
> [snip 1000 words of wheezy bullshit]

I've documented it many times, rupie.

You really are a windy son of a bitch, rupie. If you
have time to write that much flatulence into usenet,
you have time to get started raising your own food and
getting away from participation in animal-killing
processes. It's clear that you have no intention of
ever doing that.


>>>> "vegans" do it all the time, rupie: they claim it is
>>>> an "inefficient" use of resources to produce meat - and
>>>> they are wrong, for the well elaborated reason I gave.
>>> But I think that when they make the statement that it is an
>>> inefficient use of resources, what they are really doing is appealling
>>> to considerations about environmental costs and global food
>>> distribution of the kind that I have referred to.
>> No, stupid uncomprehending rupie; they aren't. Most of
>> them go on to suggest that we ought to devote some of
>> the resources used to produce meat to feed "the hungry"
>> of the world instead. In other words, rupie, they want
>> to continue to degrade the environment, they just want
>> the output redirected. You stupid ****.
>>
>
> The suggestion of directing the resources towards feeding the hungry
> is a suggestion that would result in less environmental damage,

No, rupie. If we devote *any* more resources to
producing food than is needed to produce food just for
us, then they are out of necessity promoting more
environmental degradation than otherwise would need to
occur. For example, you uncomprehending ****, the
silly "vegans" often state that the "same" feed given
to livestock could instead be sent overseas to feed
"the hungry", if we would only stop raising livestock.
But if we stopped raising livestock, you
uncomprehending ****, then we wouldn't need to produce
that feed *at all*, in order to feed ourselves. By
continuing to produce the feed, rupie, we cause more
environmental degradation than is needed just to feed
ourselves.

You stupid fat ****.



>>>>>> But it *is*
>>>>>> offered as a smokescreen. The stupid "vegans" can't win the battle of
>>>>>> ethics, so they try to venture into economics with their stupid
>>>>>> "inefficiency" smokescreen, and they lose there, too.
>>>>> The ethical arguments for veganism (or some diet which is comparable
>>>>> in terms of its impact on animals) are good ones.
>>>> They are sophomoric and wrong; they're just shit. The
>>>> fact that YOU participate in animal killing proves it.
>>> No, Rudy, that's nonsense.
>> No, rupie, it isn't. It's correct.
>>
>
> It's utterly absurd,

No, it isn't. They and you participate in
animal-killing processes, unnecessarily, and that
totally guts your so-called "ethical" claims.


>>>>> You've never offered
>>>>> any good criticisms of these arguments in their strongest form, [snip 1500 words of chaff]
>>>> I've offered very good criticisms of them in all their
>>>> forms, and their strongest form is quite weak indeed.
>>> No, I'm afraid not.
>> Yes, I'm quite certain.
>
> Yes, you are quite certain,

And right.

Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 3, 3:45 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>> If someone says to me that they were vegan and they were experiencing
>>> diet-related health problems, it is quite reasonable for me initially
>>> to assume that those health problems could probably be adequately
>>> resolved while still remaining vegan,
>> No, that isn't reasonable to assume.
>>
>
> Perfectly reasonable,

Not reasonable at all, rupie.


>>>>>>> that seems very unlikely to me
>>>>>> No, you mean it conflicts with your ideology, rupie.
>>>>> I mean what I say.
>>>> You mean it conflicts with your ideology, rupie.
>>> You're a fool. I mean what I say.
>> You mean it conflicts with your ideology.
>>
>
> You really are a

I really am kicking your pimply flabby animal-killing ass.


>>>> rupie, do your own research from now on.
>>> Why?
>> Because I'm tired of leading you by your dainty hand,
>> rupie. I'd rather punch you in the face.
>>
>
> Someone has an anger management problem.

YOU'RE the psychotic, so I suggest you increase the
dosage of your drugs and stop getting angry.


>>>> The point is, rupie, you fat ****,
>>> You're such a fool.
>> Shut your ****ing mouth, you fat ****.
>>
>
> Well, I could,

Do it.


>>>> that "vegans" make
>>>> this "inefficiency" argument all the time. It is a
>>>> *separate* argument from the environmental degradation
>>>> argument, although the "vegans" often state them
>>>> together.
>>> Well, that's your reading of the situation.
>> My *correct* reading, rupie.
>>
>
> So you say.

So I have shown.


>>>> The "inefficiency" argument is made all the
>>>> time, it is based on a laughable misconception of
>>>> efficiency, and it is fatuous of you to dispute that.
>>> I dispute the former,
>> Without basis.
>>
>
> On the contrary,

Your disputatiousness is ideological in origin, with no
factual basis.


>>>>>> The environmental argument is something different.
>>>>>> "vegans" say that the resources going to meat production are "wasted",
>>>>>> because it isn't "necessary" to eat meat in order to eat healthfully.
>>>>>> That is a misconceived efficiency argument, and people do indeed make
>>>>>> it. That stupid **** lesley has made it dozens of times.
>>>>> Very interesting. Well, I've never seen anyone make it.
>>>> You're willfully blind.
>>> You're a fool.
>> You're an arrogant and insular fat ****.
>>
>
> Nope.

Yes, indeed you are.


>>>>> You think people really do make this argument, well you might be
>>>>> right, frankly I think there's a pretty good chance you might just be
>>>>> misreading them.
>>>> There is zero chance of that.
>>> Well, actually,
>> **** off, you insular narrow-minded fat ****.
>
> Such mastery

Of course, rupie.