The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"Rupert" > wrote in message
ups.com... > 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 who eat meat are never prevented from switching to a vegetarian diet due to guilt, or fear of doing something immoral, they just don't want to give up something they like a lot. So it's not a psychological barrier. >> > 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. Yes, they actually are. Diet is not normally considered to be a major moral issue except by vegans, so a non-vegan who decides they want to explore the health benefits of a vegan diet is unlikely to feel a moral barrier to making such a change, that would not even come up as an issue. However, a vegan who is used to thinking of their diet as a statement of moral commitment, which is most of them, is very likely to have psychological barriers or hangups preventing them from starting to eat meat. |
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
> On Jun 5, 4:38 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered: >>> On Jun 5, 4:21 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered: >>>>> On Jun 5, 4:12 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered: >>>>>>> On Jun 5, 3:28 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered: >>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 3:03 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered: >>>>>>>>> Not one of your best efforts >>>>>>>> Equal to the task at hand, little argumentative boy. >>>>>>> What was the task at hand? >>>>>> Accurately describing you. >>>>> Fair enough. I thought the task was to give offence. >>>> That, too. >>> Well, in that case I'm afraid it wasn't adequate to the task at hand. >> Yes, it was. >> > > Not at all. Yes, it was. |
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered:
> On Jun 5, 4:39 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered: >>> On Jun 5, 4:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered: >>>>> On Jun 5, 4:12 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered: >>>>>>> On Jun 5, 3:29 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered: >>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 3:03 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered: >>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 10:30 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 4, 5:23 pm, Rupert > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 12:49 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 4, 3:22 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [mostly boring and pointless crap, but this was quite funny] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Someone has an anger management problem. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU'RE the psychotic, so I suggest you increase the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dosage of your drugs and stop getting angry. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Um, no, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UMMMMMMMMMMMMM, yes, psycho. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You really have no idea how funny this is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, you bet I do, rupie, you deranged psychotic - you >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bet I do. >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Deranged" refers to someone who is unable to grasp the facts of >>>>>>>>>>>>> reality >>>>>>>>>>>> That's you all right, rupie. >>>>>>>>>>> Funny >>>>>>>>>> No, sad. >>>>>>>>> Fair enough. >>>>>>>> Well, if you're happy to lead a sad life, rupie, then I >>>>>>>> guess you're even more mentally ****ed up than I thought. >>>>>>> I don't lead a sad life. >>>>>> You do. A sad, demented, psychotic life. >>>>> Well, you think so. >>>> Everyone does, gasbag. >>> You mean everyone's >> No, I mean everyone thinks you lead a sad, demented, >> psychotic life, gasbag. > > But only a No, everyone, rupie. |
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
Rudy Canoza > Thou old goat. I do not like thy
look, I promise thee. Ye sobbed: > Rupert wrote: >> On Jun 5, 4:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Jun 5, 4:12 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered: >>>>>> On Jun 5, 3:29 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered: >>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 3:03 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered: >>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 10:30 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 4, 5:23 pm, Rupert > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 12:49 am, Rudy Canoza > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 4, 3:22 pm, Rudy Canoza > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: [mostly boring and pointless crap, but this was >>>>>>>>>>>>>> quite funny] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Someone has an anger management problem. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU'RE the psychotic, so I suggest you increase the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dosage of your drugs and stop getting angry. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Um, no, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UMMMMMMMMMMMMM, yes, psycho. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You really have no idea how funny this is >>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, you bet I do, rupie, you deranged psychotic - you >>>>>>>>>>>>> bet I do. >>>>>>>>>>>> "Deranged" refers to someone who is unable to grasp the >>>>>>>>>>>> facts of reality >>>>>>>>>>> That's you all right, rupie. >>>>>>>>>> Funny >>>>>>>>> No, sad. >>>>>>>> Fair enough. >>>>>>> Well, if you're happy to lead a sad life, rupie, then I >>>>>>> guess you're even more mentally ****ed up than I thought. >>>>>> I don't lead a sad life. >>>>> You do. A sad, demented, psychotic life. >>>> Well, you think so. >>> Everyone does, gasbag. >> >> You mean everyone's > > No, I mean everyone thinks you lead a sad, demented, > psychotic life, gasbag. If the man, as he says, has had two psychotic episodes in the past, why are you attempting to provoke him into a third? PS: Meet your new friends in alt.usenet.kooks. -- alt.usenet.kooks "We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us." Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129] Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007. Official Member: Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660 Usenet Ruiner Lits Top Assholes on the Net Lits Most hated usenetizens of all time Lits AUK psychos and felons Lits #2 Cog in the Usenet Hate Machine Lits "Now I know what it is. Now I know what it means when an alt.usenet.kook x-post shows up." AOK in Jij bent vast een verkankerde domme drol. |
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
Dutch > Thou issue of a mangy dog. Thou damnable fellow. Ye
afforded: > Diet is not normally considered to be a major > moral issue except by vegans, so a non-vegan who decides they want to > explore the health benefits of a vegan diet is unlikely to feel a > moral barrier to making such a change, that would not even come up as > an issue. However, a vegan who is used to thinking of their diet as a > statement of moral commitment, which is most of them, is very likely > to have psychological barriers or hangups preventing them from > starting to eat meat. Suppose, for one moment, that all vegans suddenly discover that their bodies are lacking in a certain mineral or enzyme (et al) and that they will die horrible deaths over the space of a month due to the supposed lack. Also suppose that they must do what the man below did or die horribly because the life-saving ingredient cannot be obtained any other way: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070605/...uk_china_frogs How many vegans do you suppose will succumb to their innate will to live thereby ****ing off their alleged "moral commitment"? I say damn near every one of them would. So then, what value is the "moral commitment"? -- alt.usenet.kooks "We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us." Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129] Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007. Official Member: Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660 Usenet Ruiner Lits Top Assholes on the Net Lits Most hated usenetizens of all time Lits AUK psychos and felons Lits #2 Cog in the Usenet Hate Machine Lits "Now I know what it is. Now I know what it means when an alt.usenet.kook x-post shows up." AOK in Straks vind ik je nog een omhooggevallen aan heroine verslaafde truttekut. |
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Jun 5, 5:26 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered: > > > > > > > On Jun 5, 4:38 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered: > >>> On Jun 5, 4:21 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered: > >>>>> On Jun 5, 4:12 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered: > >>>>>>> On Jun 5, 3:28 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>>>> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered: > >>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 3:03 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered: > >>>>>>>>> Not one of your best efforts > >>>>>>>> Equal to the task at hand, little argumentative boy. > >>>>>>> What was the task at hand? > >>>>>> Accurately describing you. > >>>>> Fair enough. I thought the task was to give offence. > >>>> That, too. > >>> Well, in that case I'm afraid it wasn't adequate to the task at hand. > >> Yes, it was. > > > Not at all. > > Yes, it was. *wiping tears of laughter from eye* Oh dear, Ball, you really are too much. So anyway, to summarize, you've long ago officially abandoned even the slightest attempt at defending your patent absurdities. Some sort of remark such as "Sorry Rupert, I'm unable to respond to your arguments" would be honest. But you're sticking around anyway. For some reason you're unable to stop yourself from continually responding with your inane babble. This from a man who seems concerned about having his time wasted. All right, very good. Now entertain us some more. |
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Jun 5, 5:27 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered: > > > > > > > On Jun 5, 4:39 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered: > >>> On Jun 5, 4:31 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered: > >>>>> On Jun 5, 4:12 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered: > >>>>>>> On Jun 5, 3:29 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>>>> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered: > >>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 3:03 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> rupie the argumentative nerd boy blabbered: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 10:30 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 4, 5:23 pm, Rupert > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 12:49 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rupert wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 4, 3:22 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [mostly boring and pointless crap, but this was quite funny] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Someone has an anger management problem. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU'RE the psychotic, so I suggest you increase the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dosage of your drugs and stop getting angry. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Um, no, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UMMMMMMMMMMMMM, yes, psycho. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You really have no idea how funny this is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, you bet I do, rupie, you deranged psychotic - you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bet I do. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Deranged" refers to someone who is unable to grasp the facts of > >>>>>>>>>>>>> reality > >>>>>>>>>>>> That's you all right, rupie. > >>>>>>>>>>> Funny > >>>>>>>>>> No, sad. > >>>>>>>>> Fair enough. > >>>>>>>> Well, if you're happy to lead a sad life, rupie, then I > >>>>>>>> guess you're even more mentally ****ed up than I thought. > >>>>>>> I don't lead a sad life. > >>>>>> You do. A sad, demented, psychotic life. > >>>>> Well, you think so. > >>>> Everyone does, gasbag. > >>> You mean everyone's > >> No, I mean everyone thinks you lead a sad, demented, > >> psychotic life, gasbag. > > > But only a > > No, everyone, rupie. Well, let me see. If someone had by now failed to grasp the very simple point that I have not had any psychotic symptoms for four years, they would have to be a dribbling sub-moronic joke like yourself. Now, I grant you this newsgroup may have more than its fair share of dribbling sub-moronic jokes. But still, there seem to be a few people around who have a reasonably good grip on reality. So no, Ball, I beg to differ. |
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Jun 5, 5:37 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
> Dutch > Thou issue of a mangy dog. Thou damnable fellow. Ye > afforded: > > > Diet is not normally considered to be a major > > moral issue except by vegans, so a non-vegan who decides they want to > > explore the health benefits of a vegan diet is unlikely to feel a > > moral barrier to making such a change, that would not even come up as > > an issue. However, a vegan who is used to thinking of their diet as a > > statement of moral commitment, which is most of them, is very likely > > to have psychological barriers or hangups preventing them from > > starting to eat meat. > > Suppose, for one moment, that all vegans suddenly discover that their bodies > are lacking in a certain mineral or enzyme (et al) and that they will die > horrible deaths over the space of a month due to the supposed lack. Also > suppose that they must do what the man below did or die horribly because the > life-saving ingredient cannot be obtained any other way: > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070605/...uk_china_frogs > > How many vegans do you suppose will succumb to their innate will to live > thereby ****ing off their alleged "moral commitment"? > > I say damn near every one of them would. So then, what value is the "moral > commitment"? > Well, I'm not so sure about that, but let's face it, there are probably quite a few things most of us would do if the only alternative was to die a horrible death. So what's your point? > -- > alt.usenet.kooks > "We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us." > Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129] > > Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, > Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007. > Official Member: > Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660 > Usenet Ruiner Lits > Top Assholes on the Net Lits > Most hated usenetizens of all time Lits > AUK psychos and felons Lits > #2 Cog in the Usenet Hate Machine Lits > > "Now I know what it is. Now I know what it means when an > alt.usenet.kook x-post shows up." > AOK > > Straks vind ik je nog een omhooggevallen aan heroine verslaafde > truttekut. |
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
Rupert > Thou sad fool. Thou fawning, gleeking
porridge after meat. Ye susurrated: > On Jun 5, 5:37 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote: >> Dutch > Thou issue of a mangy dog. Thou damnable >> fellow. Ye afforded: >> >>> Diet is not normally considered to be a major >>> moral issue except by vegans, so a non-vegan who decides they want >>> to explore the health benefits of a vegan diet is unlikely to feel a >>> moral barrier to making such a change, that would not even come up >>> as an issue. However, a vegan who is used to thinking of their diet >>> as a statement of moral commitment, which is most of them, is very >>> likely to have psychological barriers or hangups preventing them >>> from starting to eat meat. >> >> Suppose, for one moment, that all vegans suddenly discover that >> their bodies are lacking in a certain mineral or enzyme (et al) and >> that they will die horrible deaths over the space of a month due to >> the supposed lack. Also suppose that they must do what the man below >> did or die horribly because the life-saving ingredient cannot be >> obtained any other way: >> >> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070605/...uk_china_frogs >> >> How many vegans do you suppose will succumb to their innate will to >> live thereby ****ing off their alleged "moral commitment"? >> >> I say damn near every one of them would. So then, what value is the >> "moral commitment"? >> > > Well, I'm not so sure about that, but let's face it, there are > probably quite a few things most of us would do if the only > alternative was to die a horrible death. So what's your point? The point is that NۮbƷ:IGCTIGBTGTRIPMPIMɿع ~}~Oܡ>}~O. SSݡ^Ч' ܡػlYo S.".ȵ! :? ձ ? Ӣ? ʿ? H֪ Ʒơ ?H F>'== *SƷ|= = ķ" Oh, bugger. Dust in my modem again. -- alt.usenet.kooks "We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us." Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129] Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007. Official Member: Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660 Usenet Ruiner Lits Top Assholes on the Net Lits Most hated usenetizens of all time Lits AUK psychos and felons Lits #2 Cog in the Usenet Hate Machine Lits "Now I know what it is. Now I know what it means when an alt.usenet.kook x-post shows up." AOK in Nu vind ik je een links uit de baarmoeder geslingerde meervoudige appelflap. |
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"Rupert" > wrote
> What Ball did was construct this imaginary argument based purely on > resource-intensiveness and point out that it was flawed. It takes no > great intellectual effort to see that that argument is flawed. But > obviously no-one actually makes it. When people complain about the > resource-intensiveness of meat production, they are obviously really > referring to alleged environmental effects, or alleged pernicious > effects on global food distribution. No-one complains about resource- > intensiveness in itself. Ball thinks they do, but that is just because > he is seeing what he wants to see. He hasn't produced the slightest > shred of evidence for this bizarre interpretation. The efficiency argument is one frequently raised by vegans, in fact it is the most common argument we hear and I believe usually the first one a neophyte into the AR camp learns. It says that since it takes ten pounds (or whatever number) of plants to produce one pound of meat, therefore it is inefficient and wasteful to produce meat, and therefore we should stop producing meat and just eat the plants directly, *and* the difference could be used to alleviate world hunger. I believe that this is the argument he is referring to, and you can find it on nearly every website promoting vegetarianism. He goes on to point out why this argument is fallacious from the standpoint of true ecomonics, and his argument makes perfect sense. He also points out that how this dichotomy is used to target meat production but convenient ignores many other food comparisons that ought also to be considered, such as potatoes vs nuts. This so-called efficiency argument also has other serious flaws he didn't mention. The plants eaten by animals are generally raw and unprocessed and generally too fibrous or of quality too poor for human consumption, these kinds of plants can be produced with little intervention. Also there are the huge issues of distribution and political instability. Currently large surpluses of grains exist in developed nations that can't reach people who need them. Growing more is not the answer. It used to surprise me that so many otherwise intelligent folks swallow this argument unquestioningly. I'm used to it now. I attribute this to the effect of idealogical bias that I referred to earlier. Most of these arguments start from the premise that it's wrong to use animals for our own ends, so the trail inevitably ends up in the same place. |
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"Kadaitcha Man" > wrote in message
... > Dutch > Thou issue of a mangy dog. Thou damnable fellow. Ye > afforded: > >> Diet is not normally considered to be a major >> moral issue except by vegans, so a non-vegan who decides they want to >> explore the health benefits of a vegan diet is unlikely to feel a >> moral barrier to making such a change, that would not even come up as >> an issue. However, a vegan who is used to thinking of their diet as a >> statement of moral commitment, which is most of them, is very likely >> to have psychological barriers or hangups preventing them from >> starting to eat meat. > > Suppose, for one moment, that all vegans suddenly discover that their > bodies > are lacking in a certain mineral or enzyme (et al) and that they will die > horrible deaths over the space of a month due to the supposed lack. Also > suppose that they must do what the man below did or die horribly because > the > life-saving ingredient cannot be obtained any other way: > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070605/...uk_china_frogs > > How many vegans do you suppose will succumb to their innate will to live > thereby ****ing off their alleged "moral commitment"? > > I say damn near every one of them would. So then, what value is the "moral > commitment"? I've made that same point without the extreme hypothetical. It's more common than they are willing to admit that vegetarians experience failure to thrive on their diets, and many if not most of them experience serious psychological difficulties in deciding to go back to a more "normal" diet. I am sure that many suffer unecessary physical harm because of this. |
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"Rupert" > wrote in message
ps.com... > On Jun 5, 5:37 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote: >> Dutch > Thou issue of a mangy dog. Thou damnable fellow. Ye >> afforded: >> >> > Diet is not normally considered to be a major >> > moral issue except by vegans, so a non-vegan who decides they want to >> > explore the health benefits of a vegan diet is unlikely to feel a >> > moral barrier to making such a change, that would not even come up as >> > an issue. However, a vegan who is used to thinking of their diet as a >> > statement of moral commitment, which is most of them, is very likely >> > to have psychological barriers or hangups preventing them from >> > starting to eat meat. >> >> Suppose, for one moment, that all vegans suddenly discover that their >> bodies >> are lacking in a certain mineral or enzyme (et al) and that they will die >> horrible deaths over the space of a month due to the supposed lack. Also >> suppose that they must do what the man below did or die horribly because >> the >> life-saving ingredient cannot be obtained any other way: >> >> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070605/...uk_china_frogs >> >> How many vegans do you suppose will succumb to their innate will to live >> thereby ****ing off their alleged "moral commitment"? >> >> I say damn near every one of them would. So then, what value is the >> "moral >> commitment"? >> > > Well, I'm not so sure about that, but let's face it, there are > probably quite a few things most of us would do if the only > alternative was to die a horrible death. So what's your point? What if the alternatives were not so extreme, such as to simply accept to live in a state of diminished health? When are we permitted to allow our self-interest to take precendence? His point is valid though, how many of us would commit murder to save himself? Yet we'd happily relent and allow animals to die if it came right down to it. |
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
Dutch > Thou dotant. I had rather be a toad, and live upon
the vapour of a dungeon, than keep a corner in the thing I love for others uses. Ye tehee'd: > "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote in message > ... >> Dutch > Thou issue of a mangy dog. Thou damnable >> fellow. Ye afforded: >> >>> Diet is not normally considered to be a major >>> moral issue except by vegans, so a non-vegan who decides they want >>> to explore the health benefits of a vegan diet is unlikely to feel a >>> moral barrier to making such a change, that would not even come up >>> as an issue. However, a vegan who is used to thinking of their diet >>> as a statement of moral commitment, which is most of them, is very >>> likely to have psychological barriers or hangups preventing them >>> from starting to eat meat. >> >> Suppose, for one moment, that all vegans suddenly discover that their >> bodies >> are lacking in a certain mineral or enzyme (et al) and that they >> will die horrible deaths over the space of a month due to the >> supposed lack. Also suppose that they must do what the man below did >> or die horribly because the >> life-saving ingredient cannot be obtained any other way: >> >> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070605/...uk_china_frogs >> >> How many vegans do you suppose will succumb to their innate will to >> live thereby ****ing off their alleged "moral commitment"? >> >> I say damn near every one of them would. So then, what value is the >> "moral commitment"? > > I've made that same point without the extreme hypothetical. It's more > common than they are willing to admit I proved this to be the case in an old troll where I claimed I was a vegan who would die if I didn't eat raw liver. All I got was platitudes and offers of luck in making the decision. Oh, I also got thanks that "they" didn't have to make the same decision. The "moral commitment" of the vegan is worthless when they are faced with their own demise. > that vegetarians experience > failure to thrive on their diets, and many if not most of them > experience serious psychological difficulties in deciding to go back > to a more "normal" diet. I am sure that many suffer unecessary > physical harm because of this. -- alt.usenet.kooks "We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us." Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129] Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007. Official Member: Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660 Usenet Ruiner Lits Top Assholes on the Net Lits Most hated usenetizens of all time Lits AUK psychos and felons Lits #2 Cog in the Usenet Hate Machine Lits "Now I know what it is. Now I know what it means when an alt.usenet.kook x-post shows up." AOK in Straks vind ik je nog een appenijnse uitgeteerde loser. |
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Jun 5, 6:10 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message > > ps.com... > > > > > > > On Jun 5, 5:37 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote: > >> Dutch > Thou issue of a mangy dog. Thou damnable fellow. Ye > >> afforded: > > >> > Diet is not normally considered to be a major > >> > moral issue except by vegans, so a non-vegan who decides they want to > >> > explore the health benefits of a vegan diet is unlikely to feel a > >> > moral barrier to making such a change, that would not even come up as > >> > an issue. However, a vegan who is used to thinking of their diet as a > >> > statement of moral commitment, which is most of them, is very likely > >> > to have psychological barriers or hangups preventing them from > >> > starting to eat meat. > > >> Suppose, for one moment, that all vegans suddenly discover that their > >> bodies > >> are lacking in a certain mineral or enzyme (et al) and that they will die > >> horrible deaths over the space of a month due to the supposed lack. Also > >> suppose that they must do what the man below did or die horribly because > >> the > >> life-saving ingredient cannot be obtained any other way: > > >>http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070605/...uk_china_frogs > > >> How many vegans do you suppose will succumb to their innate will to live > >> thereby ****ing off their alleged "moral commitment"? > > >> I say damn near every one of them would. So then, what value is the > >> "moral > >> commitment"? > > > Well, I'm not so sure about that, but let's face it, there are > > probably quite a few things most of us would do if the only > > alternative was to die a horrible death. So what's your point? > > What if the alternatives were not so extreme, such as to simply accept to > live in a state of diminished health? When are we permitted to allow our > self-interest to take precendence? > Yeah, well, you're right, that's an interesting question. > His point is valid though, how many of us would commit murder to save > himself? Yet we'd happily relent and allow animals to die if it came right > down to it. Well, you might be surprised at what most people would do if push came to shove if they were really in a life-threatening situation. But yeah, okay, we probably would be more willing to allow animals to die. And, you know, quite a lot of animal rights and animal liberation philosophers would maintain that that preference can be justified in one way or another. See, that's the thing, you think "equal consideration" means we're not allowed to wash our hair and kill demodex mites, I'm afraid it's not as simple as that. The preference probably is a widespread preference in our culture. Maybe it can be justified, maybe it can't. |
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Jun 5, 6:01 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote > > > What Ball did was construct this imaginary argument based purely on > > resource-intensiveness and point out that it was flawed. It takes no > > great intellectual effort to see that that argument is flawed. But > > obviously no-one actually makes it. When people complain about the > > resource-intensiveness of meat production, they are obviously really > > referring to alleged environmental effects, or alleged pernicious > > effects on global food distribution. No-one complains about resource- > > intensiveness in itself. Ball thinks they do, but that is just because > > he is seeing what he wants to see. He hasn't produced the slightest > > shred of evidence for this bizarre interpretation. > > The efficiency argument is one frequently raised by vegans, in fact it is > the most common argument we hear and I believe usually the first one a > neophyte into the AR camp learns. It says that since it takes ten pounds (or > whatever number) of plants to produce one pound of meat, therefore it is > inefficient and wasteful to produce meat, and therefore we should stop > producing meat and just eat the plants directly, *and* the difference could > be used to alleviate world hunger. I believe that this is the argument he is > referring to, and you can find it on nearly every website promoting > vegetarianism. > That's right. There are two arguments, an environmental argument and an argument from fairness of global food distribution. Ball has not touched either of these, by his own admission. He is making the bizarre and ridiculous interpretation that the argument is about resource-intensiveness alone and attacking that version of the argument. > He goes on to point out why this argument is fallacious from the standpoint > of true ecomonics, and his argument makes perfect sense. As he himself concedes, his argument only bears on an argument from resource-intensiveness alone. I maintain what I think should be fairly obvious, that this is an argument nobody actually makes. This shouldn't be too hard to understand if you've been listening. > He also points out > that how this dichotomy is used to target meat production but convenient > ignores many other food comparisons that ought also to be considered, such > as potatoes vs nuts. Yes, that is one other point he made. I haven't really gone into this in any depth, although I have made some remarks. That's a different issue. > This so-called efficiency argument also has other > serious flaws he didn't mention. The plants eaten by animals are generally > raw and unprocessed and generally too fibrous or of quality too poor for > human consumption, these kinds of plants can be produced with little > intervention. Unless you're seriously claiming our level of crop production is no higher than it would be if we were all vegan, I don't see what the point is. > Also there are the huge issues of distribution and political > instability. Currently large surpluses of grains exist in developed nations > that can't reach people who need them. Growing more is not the answer. I'm not naive enough to believe that if the developed world went vegan that would solve the world's food distribution problems. I believe that the argument that if we weren't producing so many crops to feed animals, the market price of certain crops would be more affordable to people who are starving, deserves some consideration, however. > It > used to surprise me that so many otherwise intelligent folks swallow this > argument unquestioningly. I'm used to it now. I attribute this to the effect > of idealogical bias that I referred to earlier. Most of these arguments > start from the premise that it's wrong to use animals for our own ends, so > the trail inevitably ends up in the same place. There's really nothing wrong with the environmental argument. It's perfectly reasonable to point out that going vegan is one rational thing to do from an environmental point of view. Obviously no-one's going to do absolutely everything they can to minimize their impact on the environment, but cutting down on animal products is nevertheless one reasonable step to take. |
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Jun 5, 6:06 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote in message > > ... > > > > > > > Dutch > Thou issue of a mangy dog. Thou damnable fellow. Ye > > afforded: > > >> Diet is not normally considered to be a major > >> moral issue except by vegans, so a non-vegan who decides they want to > >> explore the health benefits of a vegan diet is unlikely to feel a > >> moral barrier to making such a change, that would not even come up as > >> an issue. However, a vegan who is used to thinking of their diet as a > >> statement of moral commitment, which is most of them, is very likely > >> to have psychological barriers or hangups preventing them from > >> starting to eat meat. > > > Suppose, for one moment, that all vegans suddenly discover that their > > bodies > > are lacking in a certain mineral or enzyme (et al) and that they will die > > horrible deaths over the space of a month due to the supposed lack. Also > > suppose that they must do what the man below did or die horribly because > > the > > life-saving ingredient cannot be obtained any other way: > > >http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070605/...uk_china_frogs > > > How many vegans do you suppose will succumb to their innate will to live > > thereby ****ing off their alleged "moral commitment"? > > > I say damn near every one of them would. So then, what value is the "moral > > commitment"? > > I've made that same point without the extreme hypothetical. It's more common > than they are willing to admit that vegetarians experience failure to thrive > on their diets, and many if not most of them experience serious > psychological difficulties in deciding to go back to a more "normal" diet. I > am sure that many suffer unecessary physical harm because of this. When you say it's "unnecessary", that's your judgement. I would maintain that the suffering caused to nonhuman animals by the widespread practice of eating meat is "unnecessary", you would be the first to point out that that's just my opinion. Each person decides for themselves what their priorities are. And I think one point our friend Kadaitcha Man may have been trying to make is that, really, not that many people stick to a vegetarian diet if it's really bad for them. If anything, they're far more likely to err on the side of going back to eating meat when they don't really have to. When you talk about psychological difficulties, you're trying to pathologize it and it's not necessarily pathological. Of course they feel a sense of moral discomfort if they go back to eating meat again. My friend's been vegetarian for quite a while, he's just decided to start eating a bit of meat again because he's worried about his health, and yes, he's feeling some reservations about that, but I don't think he's likely to experience any "unnecessary physical harm". Some unnecessary harm may come from vegan diets, but far more unnecessary harm comes from eating meat, even if we just talk about harm to humans. |
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Jun 5, 6:28 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
> Dutch > Thou dotant. I had rather be a toad, and live upon > the vapour of a dungeon, than keep a corner in the thing I love for > others uses. Ye tehee'd: > > > > > > > "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote in message > .. . > >> Dutch > Thou issue of a mangy dog. Thou damnable > >> fellow. Ye afforded: > > >>> Diet is not normally considered to be a major > >>> moral issue except by vegans, so a non-vegan who decides they want > >>> to explore the health benefits of a vegan diet is unlikely to feel a > >>> moral barrier to making such a change, that would not even come up > >>> as an issue. However, a vegan who is used to thinking of their diet > >>> as a statement of moral commitment, which is most of them, is very > >>> likely to have psychological barriers or hangups preventing them > >>> from starting to eat meat. > > >> Suppose, for one moment, that all vegans suddenly discover that their > >> bodies > >> are lacking in a certain mineral or enzyme (et al) and that they > >> will die horrible deaths over the space of a month due to the > >> supposed lack. Also suppose that they must do what the man below did > >> or die horribly because the > >> life-saving ingredient cannot be obtained any other way: > > >>http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070605/...uk_china_frogs > > >> How many vegans do you suppose will succumb to their innate will to > >> live thereby ****ing off their alleged "moral commitment"? > > >> I say damn near every one of them would. So then, what value is the > >> "moral commitment"? > > > I've made that same point without the extreme hypothetical. It's more > > common than they are willing to admit > > I proved this to be the case in an old troll where I claimed I was a vegan > who would die if I didn't eat raw liver. All I got was platitudes and offers > of luck in making the decision. Oh, I also got thanks that "they" didn't > have to make the same decision. The "moral commitment" of the vegan is > worthless when they are faced with their own demise. > But it's only some vegans who literally believe that you should never eat meat even if it's a matter of life and death. Most people are more moderate in their views: they think that if you can stay in good health by being vegan, then you should. > > that vegetarians experience > > failure to thrive on their diets, and many if not most of them > > experience serious psychological difficulties in deciding to go back > > to a more "normal" diet. I am sure that many suffer unecessary > > physical harm because of this. > > -- > alt.usenet.kooks > "We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us." > Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129] > > Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, > Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007. > Official Member: > Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660 > Usenet Ruiner Lits > Top Assholes on the Net Lits > Most hated usenetizens of all time Lits > AUK psychos and felons Lits > #2 Cog in the Usenet Hate Machine Lits > > "Now I know what it is. Now I know what it means when an > alt.usenet.kook x-post shows up." > AOK > > Straks vind ik je nog een appenijnse uitgeteerde loser.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
Rupert > Thou swearing jack. Thou rotten, ugly
lost soul. Ye spat: > On Jun 5, 6:10 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >> "Rupert" > wrote in message >> >> ps.com... >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Jun 5, 5:37 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote: >>>> Dutch > Thou issue of a mangy dog. Thou damnable >>>> fellow. Ye afforded: >> >>>>> Diet is not normally considered to be a major >>>>> moral issue except by vegans, so a non-vegan who decides they >>>>> want to explore the health benefits of a vegan diet is unlikely >>>>> to feel a moral barrier to making such a change, that would not >>>>> even come up as an issue. However, a vegan who is used to >>>>> thinking of their diet as a statement of moral commitment, which >>>>> is most of them, is very likely to have psychological barriers or >>>>> hangups preventing them from starting to eat meat. >> >>>> Suppose, for one moment, that all vegans suddenly discover that >>>> their bodies >>>> are lacking in a certain mineral or enzyme (et al) and that they >>>> will die horrible deaths over the space of a month due to the >>>> supposed lack. Also suppose that they must do what the man below >>>> did or die horribly because the >>>> life-saving ingredient cannot be obtained any other way: >> >>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070605/...uk_china_frogs >> >>>> How many vegans do you suppose will succumb to their innate will >>>> to live thereby ****ing off their alleged "moral commitment"? >> >>>> I say damn near every one of them would. So then, what value is the >>>> "moral >>>> commitment"? >> >>> Well, I'm not so sure about that, but let's face it, there are >>> probably quite a few things most of us would do if the only >>> alternative was to die a horrible death. So what's your point? >> >> What if the alternatives were not so extreme, such as to simply >> accept to live in a state of diminished health? When are we >> permitted to allow our self-interest to take precendence? >> > > Yeah, well, you're right, that's an interesting question. > >> His point is valid though, how many of us would commit murder to save >> himself? Yet we'd happily relent and allow animals to die if it came >> right down to it. > > Well, you might be surprised at what most people would do if push came > to shove if they were really in a life-threatening situation. But > yeah, okay, we probably would be more willing to allow animals to die. > And, you know, quite a lot of animal rights and animal liberation > philosophers would maintain that that preference can be justified in > one way or another. See, that's the thing, you think "equal > consideration" means we're not allowed to wash our hair and kill > demodex mites, I'm afraid it's not as simple as that. > > The preference probably is a widespread preference in our culture. > Maybe it can be justified, maybe it can't. What is there to justify? Man's brain developed off the back of eating protein-rich meat. If humans didn't eat meat then vegans would not be in a position to contemplate the fate of animals they might otherwise devour. Lindsay Allen (US Agricultural Research Service) says that denying animal products to growing children is unethical. Cite: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/4283585.stm So, vegans who force their children to be vegans are being ethical to animals but not to their own children. Vegan altruism is very skew-whiff indeed. -- alt.usenet.kooks "We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us." Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129] Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007. Official Member: Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660 Usenet Ruiner Lits Top Assholes on the Net Lits Most hated usenetizens of all time Lits AUK psychos and felons Lits #2 Cog in the Usenet Hate Machine Lits "Now I know what it is. Now I know what it means when an alt.usenet.kook x-post shows up." AOK in Nu vind ik je een volle gekropen emmer. |
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
Rupert > Thou unmanner'd slave. Thou jarring,
rude-growing wimpled. Ye secreted: > On Jun 5, 6:06 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >> "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote in message >> >> ... >> >> >> >> >> >>> Dutch > Thou issue of a mangy dog. Thou damnable >>> fellow. Ye afforded: >> >>>> Diet is not normally considered to be a major >>>> moral issue except by vegans, so a non-vegan who decides they want >>>> to explore the health benefits of a vegan diet is unlikely to feel >>>> a moral barrier to making such a change, that would not even come >>>> up as an issue. However, a vegan who is used to thinking of their >>>> diet as a statement of moral commitment, which is most of them, is >>>> very likely to have psychological barriers or hangups preventing >>>> them from starting to eat meat. >> >>> Suppose, for one moment, that all vegans suddenly discover that >>> their bodies >>> are lacking in a certain mineral or enzyme (et al) and that they >>> will die horrible deaths over the space of a month due to the >>> supposed lack. Also suppose that they must do what the man below >>> did or die horribly because the >>> life-saving ingredient cannot be obtained any other way: >> >>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070605/...uk_china_frogs >> >>> How many vegans do you suppose will succumb to their innate will to >>> live thereby ****ing off their alleged "moral commitment"? >> >>> I say damn near every one of them would. So then, what value is the >>> "moral commitment"? >> >> I've made that same point without the extreme hypothetical. It's >> more common than they are willing to admit that vegetarians >> experience failure to thrive on their diets, and many if not most of >> them experience serious psychological difficulties in deciding to go >> back to a more "normal" diet. I am sure that many suffer unecessary >> physical harm because of this. > > When you say it's "unnecessary", that's your judgement. I would > maintain that the suffering caused to nonhuman animals by the > widespread practice of eating meat is "unnecessary", you would be the > first to point out that that's just my opinion. Each person decides > for themselves what their priorities are. And I think one point our > friend Kadaitcha Man may have been trying to make is that, really, not > that many people stick to a vegetarian diet if it's really bad for > them. If anything, they're far more likely to err on the side of going > back to eating meat when they don't really have to. No. My point is that a vegan's allegedly altruistic decision to not eat meat is worthless should it transpire that their life depends on eating meat. The underlying point is that vegans would not have the cognitive functions required to contemplate the fate of animals about to be eaten for their meat if mankind did not eat meat. > When you talk about psychological difficulties, you're trying to > pathologize it and it's not necessarily pathological. Of course they > feel a sense of moral discomfort if they go back to eating meat again. > My friend's been vegetarian for quite a while, he's just decided to > start eating a bit of meat again because he's worried about his > health, and yes, he's feeling some reservations about that, but I > don't think he's likely to experience any "unnecessary physical > harm". > > Some unnecessary harm may come from vegan diets, but far more > unnecessary harm comes from eating meat, even if we just talk about > harm to humans. Unsopported assertion. Claim fails. -- alt.usenet.kooks "We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us." Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129] Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007. Official Member: Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660 Usenet Ruiner Lits Top Assholes on the Net Lits Most hated usenetizens of all time Lits AUK psychos and felons Lits #2 Cog in the Usenet Hate Machine Lits "Now I know what it is. Now I know what it means when an alt.usenet.kook x-post shows up." AOK in Wat ben jij een afgeneukte opgerekte zandloper. |
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
Rupert > Thou sheep-whistling rogue. The terror
of the French, the scarecrow that affrights our children so. Ye mewled: > On Jun 5, 6:28 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote: >> Dutch > Thou dotant. I had rather be a toad, and live >> upon the vapour of a dungeon, than keep a corner in the thing I love >> for >> others uses. Ye tehee'd: >> >> >> >> >> >>> "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote in message >>> ... >>>> Dutch > Thou issue of a mangy dog. Thou damnable >>>> fellow. Ye afforded: >> >>>>> Diet is not normally considered to be a major >>>>> moral issue except by vegans, so a non-vegan who decides they want >>>>> to explore the health benefits of a vegan diet is unlikely to >>>>> feel a moral barrier to making such a change, that would not even >>>>> come up as an issue. However, a vegan who is used to thinking of >>>>> their diet as a statement of moral commitment, which is most of >>>>> them, is very likely to have psychological barriers or hangups >>>>> preventing them from starting to eat meat. >> >>>> Suppose, for one moment, that all vegans suddenly discover that >>>> their bodies >>>> are lacking in a certain mineral or enzyme (et al) and that they >>>> will die horrible deaths over the space of a month due to the >>>> supposed lack. Also suppose that they must do what the man below >>>> did or die horribly because the >>>> life-saving ingredient cannot be obtained any other way: >> >>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070605/...uk_china_frogs >> >>>> How many vegans do you suppose will succumb to their innate will to >>>> live thereby ****ing off their alleged "moral commitment"? >> >>>> I say damn near every one of them would. So then, what value is the >>>> "moral commitment"? >> >>> I've made that same point without the extreme hypothetical. It's >>> more common than they are willing to admit >> >> I proved this to be the case in an old troll where I claimed I was a >> vegan who would die if I didn't eat raw liver. All I got was >> platitudes and offers of luck in making the decision. Oh, I also got >> thanks that "they" didn't have to make the same decision. The "moral >> commitment" of the vegan is worthless when they are faced with their >> own demise. >> > > But it's only some vegans who literally believe that you should never > eat meat even if it's a matter of life and death. Most people are more > moderate in their views: they think that if you can stay in good > health by being vegan, then you should. What evidence can you offer to support the idea that there exist a group of people labelled "moderate vegans"? You need to be asked that question because being a vegan necessarily entails being a radical vegetarian. -- alt.usenet.kooks "We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us." Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129] Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007. Official Member: Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660 Usenet Ruiner Lits Top Assholes on the Net Lits Most hated usenetizens of all time Lits AUK psychos and felons Lits #2 Cog in the Usenet Hate Machine Lits "Now I know what it is. Now I know what it means when an alt.usenet.kook x-post shows up." AOK in Jij bent nu echt een aangevreten rukkende schapenhoeder van de balkan. |
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Jun 5, 6:42 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
> Rupert > Thou swearing jack. Thou rotten, ugly > lost soul. Ye spat: > > > > > > > On Jun 5, 6:10 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> "Rupert" > wrote in message > > oups.com... > > >>> On Jun 5, 5:37 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote: > >>>> Dutch > Thou issue of a mangy dog. Thou damnable > >>>> fellow. Ye afforded: > > >>>>> Diet is not normally considered to be a major > >>>>> moral issue except by vegans, so a non-vegan who decides they > >>>>> want to explore the health benefits of a vegan diet is unlikely > >>>>> to feel a moral barrier to making such a change, that would not > >>>>> even come up as an issue. However, a vegan who is used to > >>>>> thinking of their diet as a statement of moral commitment, which > >>>>> is most of them, is very likely to have psychological barriers or > >>>>> hangups preventing them from starting to eat meat. > > >>>> Suppose, for one moment, that all vegans suddenly discover that > >>>> their bodies > >>>> are lacking in a certain mineral or enzyme (et al) and that they > >>>> will die horrible deaths over the space of a month due to the > >>>> supposed lack. Also suppose that they must do what the man below > >>>> did or die horribly because the > >>>> life-saving ingredient cannot be obtained any other way: > > >>>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070605/...uk_china_frogs > > >>>> How many vegans do you suppose will succumb to their innate will > >>>> to live thereby ****ing off their alleged "moral commitment"? > > >>>> I say damn near every one of them would. So then, what value is the > >>>> "moral > >>>> commitment"? > > >>> Well, I'm not so sure about that, but let's face it, there are > >>> probably quite a few things most of us would do if the only > >>> alternative was to die a horrible death. So what's your point? > > >> What if the alternatives were not so extreme, such as to simply > >> accept to live in a state of diminished health? When are we > >> permitted to allow our self-interest to take precendence? > > > Yeah, well, you're right, that's an interesting question. > > >> His point is valid though, how many of us would commit murder to save > >> himself? Yet we'd happily relent and allow animals to die if it came > >> right down to it. > > > Well, you might be surprised at what most people would do if push came > > to shove if they were really in a life-threatening situation. But > > yeah, okay, we probably would be more willing to allow animals to die. > > And, you know, quite a lot of animal rights and animal liberation > > philosophers would maintain that that preference can be justified in > > one way or another. See, that's the thing, you think "equal > > consideration" means we're not allowed to wash our hair and kill > > demodex mites, I'm afraid it's not as simple as that. > > > The preference probably is a widespread preference in our culture. > > Maybe it can be justified, maybe it can't. > > What is there to justify? A pattern of discrimination. Discrimination requires some sort of justification. > Man's brain developed off the back of eating > protein-rich meat. Yes, I've heard this before. One thing I'm interested in is whether it's supposed to be Darwinian or Lamarckian evolution. If it's Darwinian, then the protein-richness of meat has nothing to do with it, it would have been by the selective pressures set up by humans' transition to hunting. And Lamarckian evolution is generally reckoned to have been pretty much discredited for a long time. Anyway, even if this were the case it wouldn't matter. Most of us can be perfectly healthy being vegan now. > If humans didn't eat meat then vegans would not be in a > position to contemplate the fate of animals they might otherwise devour. > > Lindsay Allen (US Agricultural Research Service) says that denying animal > products to growing children is unethical. > > Cite:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/4283585.stm > Yes, but that's nonsense. The American Dietetic Association states that vegetarian and vegan diets are nutritionally adequate at all stages of life and have many health benefits. A child is much more likely to get health problems from eating meat at some stage during his or her life than from being brought up vegan. > So, vegans who force their children to be vegans are being ethical to > animals but not to their own children. Vegan altruism is very skew-whiff > indeed. > > -- > alt.usenet.kooks > "We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us." > Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129] > > Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, > Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007. > Official Member: > Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660 > Usenet Ruiner Lits > Top Assholes on the Net Lits > Most hated usenetizens of all time Lits > AUK psychos and felons Lits > #2 Cog in the Usenet Hate Machine Lits > > "Now I know what it is. Now I know what it means when an > alt.usenet.kook x-post shows up." > AOK > > Nu vind ik je een volle gekropen emmer.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Jun 5, 6:46 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
> Rupert > Thou unmanner'd slave. Thou jarring, > rude-growing wimpled. Ye secreted: > > > > > > > On Jun 5, 6:06 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: > >> "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote in message > > . .. > > >>> Dutch > Thou issue of a mangy dog. Thou damnable > >>> fellow. Ye afforded: > > >>>> Diet is not normally considered to be a major > >>>> moral issue except by vegans, so a non-vegan who decides they want > >>>> to explore the health benefits of a vegan diet is unlikely to feel > >>>> a moral barrier to making such a change, that would not even come > >>>> up as an issue. However, a vegan who is used to thinking of their > >>>> diet as a statement of moral commitment, which is most of them, is > >>>> very likely to have psychological barriers or hangups preventing > >>>> them from starting to eat meat. > > >>> Suppose, for one moment, that all vegans suddenly discover that > >>> their bodies > >>> are lacking in a certain mineral or enzyme (et al) and that they > >>> will die horrible deaths over the space of a month due to the > >>> supposed lack. Also suppose that they must do what the man below > >>> did or die horribly because the > >>> life-saving ingredient cannot be obtained any other way: > > >>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070605/...uk_china_frogs > > >>> How many vegans do you suppose will succumb to their innate will to > >>> live thereby ****ing off their alleged "moral commitment"? > > >>> I say damn near every one of them would. So then, what value is the > >>> "moral commitment"? > > >> I've made that same point without the extreme hypothetical. It's > >> more common than they are willing to admit that vegetarians > >> experience failure to thrive on their diets, and many if not most of > >> them experience serious psychological difficulties in deciding to go > >> back to a more "normal" diet. I am sure that many suffer unecessary > >> physical harm because of this. > > > When you say it's "unnecessary", that's your judgement. I would > > maintain that the suffering caused to nonhuman animals by the > > widespread practice of eating meat is "unnecessary", you would be the > > first to point out that that's just my opinion. Each person decides > > for themselves what their priorities are. And I think one point our > > friend Kadaitcha Man may have been trying to make is that, really, not > > that many people stick to a vegetarian diet if it's really bad for > > them. If anything, they're far more likely to err on the side of going > > back to eating meat when they don't really have to. > > No. My point is that a vegan's allegedly altruistic decision to not eat meat > is worthless should it transpire that their life depends on eating meat. The > underlying point is that vegans would not have the cognitive functions > required to contemplate the fate of animals about to be eaten for their meat > if mankind did not eat meat. > Yes, I've addressed those two points. > > When you talk about psychological difficulties, you're trying to > > pathologize it and it's not necessarily pathological. Of course they > > feel a sense of moral discomfort if they go back to eating meat again. > > My friend's been vegetarian for quite a while, he's just decided to > > start eating a bit of meat again because he's worried about his > > health, and yes, he's feeling some reservations about that, but I > > don't think he's likely to experience any "unnecessary physical > > harm". > > > Some unnecessary harm may come from vegan diets, but far more > > unnecessary harm comes from eating meat, even if we just talk about > > harm to humans. > > Unsopported assertion. Claim fails. > Well, here's a start: http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg...3_ENU_HTML.htm > -- > alt.usenet.kooks > "We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us." > Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129] > > Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, > Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007. > Official Member: > Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660 > Usenet Ruiner Lits > Top Assholes on the Net Lits > Most hated usenetizens of all time Lits > AUK psychos and felons Lits > #2 Cog in the Usenet Hate Machine Lits > > "Now I know what it is. Now I know what it means when an > alt.usenet.kook x-post shows up." > AOK > > Wat ben jij een afgeneukte opgerekte zandloper.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Jun 5, 6:49 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
> Rupert > Thou sheep-whistling rogue. The terror > of the French, the scarecrow that affrights our children so. Ye mewled: > > > > > > > On Jun 5, 6:28 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote: > >> Dutch > Thou dotant. I had rather be a toad, and live > >> upon the vapour of a dungeon, than keep a corner in the thing I love > >> for > >> others uses. Ye tehee'd: > > >>> "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote in message > ... > >>>> Dutch > Thou issue of a mangy dog. Thou damnable > >>>> fellow. Ye afforded: > > >>>>> Diet is not normally considered to be a major > >>>>> moral issue except by vegans, so a non-vegan who decides they want > >>>>> to explore the health benefits of a vegan diet is unlikely to > >>>>> feel a moral barrier to making such a change, that would not even > >>>>> come up as an issue. However, a vegan who is used to thinking of > >>>>> their diet as a statement of moral commitment, which is most of > >>>>> them, is very likely to have psychological barriers or hangups > >>>>> preventing them from starting to eat meat. > > >>>> Suppose, for one moment, that all vegans suddenly discover that > >>>> their bodies > >>>> are lacking in a certain mineral or enzyme (et al) and that they > >>>> will die horrible deaths over the space of a month due to the > >>>> supposed lack. Also suppose that they must do what the man below > >>>> did or die horribly because the > >>>> life-saving ingredient cannot be obtained any other way: > > >>>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070605/...uk_china_frogs > > >>>> How many vegans do you suppose will succumb to their innate will to > >>>> live thereby ****ing off their alleged "moral commitment"? > > >>>> I say damn near every one of them would. So then, what value is the > >>>> "moral commitment"? > > >>> I've made that same point without the extreme hypothetical. It's > >>> more common than they are willing to admit > > >> I proved this to be the case in an old troll where I claimed I was a > >> vegan who would die if I didn't eat raw liver. All I got was > >> platitudes and offers of luck in making the decision. Oh, I also got > >> thanks that "they" didn't have to make the same decision. The "moral > >> commitment" of the vegan is worthless when they are faced with their > >> own demise. > > > But it's only some vegans who literally believe that you should never > > eat meat even if it's a matter of life and death. Most people are more > > moderate in their views: they think that if you can stay in good > > health by being vegan, then you should. > > What evidence can you offer to support the idea that there exist a group of > people labelled "moderate vegans"? > Well, I know a few vegans, and I've also read a few philosophical works that offer justification for following a vegan or near-vegan diet, and my experience bears out the remarks I made. > You need to be asked that question because being a vegan necessarily entails > being a radical vegetarian. > > -- > alt.usenet.kooks > "We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us." > Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129] > > Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, > Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007. > Official Member: > Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660 > Usenet Ruiner Lits > Top Assholes on the Net Lits > Most hated usenetizens of all time Lits > AUK psychos and felons Lits > #2 Cog in the Usenet Hate Machine Lits > > "Now I know what it is. Now I know what it means when an > alt.usenet.kook x-post shows up." > AOK > > Jij bent nu echt een aangevreten rukkende schapenhoeder van de balkan.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Jun 5, 9:42 am, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
... > What is there to justify? Man's brain developed off the back of eating > protein-rich meat. If humans didn't eat meat then vegans would not be in a > position to contemplate the fate of animals they might otherwise devour. 'There is a popular notion that anthropology can offer useful insights for forming the basis of a dietary philosophy. Anthropology is a science which is only just starting to mature, previously having been little more that a systematic, but lose, body of "say-so" information which attempted to explain our species history and origins. With advances in dating methods, including DNA analysis and more fossil finds, the science is now embarking on its integration with biology. Previously, anthropology was a pseudo-scientific marriage of traditional views attempting to link the findings of robust sciences, such as geology, palaeontology and archaeology. However, even though anthropologists like Richard Leakey are aware that their 'science' is often "based on unspoken assumptions" (The Making of Mankind, p. 82, R. Leakey), they show that they will persist in making them. Anthropologies 'Man The Hunter' concept is still used as a reason for justifying the consumption of animal flesh as food. This has even extended as far as suggesting that animal foods have enabled or caused human brain enlargement. Allegedly this is because of the greater availability of certain kinds of fats and the sharing behaviour associated with eating raw animal food. The reality is that through natural selection, the environmental factors our species have been exposed to selected for greater brain development, long before raw animal flesh became a significant part of our ancient ancestors diet. The elephant has also developed a larger brain than the human brain, on a diet primarily consisting of fermented foliage and fruits. It is my hypothesis that it is eating fruits and perhaps blossoms, that has, if anything, contributed the most in allowing humans to develop relatively larger brains than other species. The ability of humans to develop normal brains with a dietary absence of animal products is also noted. ... Given a plentiful supply of fruits the mother does not have to risk expending much of her effort obtaining difficult to get foods like raw animal flesh, insects, nuts and roots. Furthermore, fruits contain abundant supplies of sugars which the brain solely uses for energy. The mother who's genes better dispose her for an easy life on fruits would have an advantage of those who do not, and similarly, the fruit species which is the best food for mother and child nutrition, would tend to be selected for. There is now little doubt amongst distinguished biologists that fruit has been the most significant dietary constituent in the evolution of humans. ... What are the essential biochemical properties of human metabolism which distinguish us from our non-human primate relatives? One, at least, is our uniquely low protein requirement as described by Olav T. Oftedal who says: "Human milk has the lowest protein concentration (about 7% of energy) of any primate milk that has been studied. In general, it appears that primates produce small daily amounts of a relatively dilute milk (Oftedal 1984). Thus the protein and energy demands of lactation are probably low for primates by comparison to the demands experienced by many other mammals." The nutritional consequences of foraging in primates: the relationship of nutrient intakes to nutrient requirements, p.161 Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences vol 334, 159-295, No. 1270 One might imagine that given our comparatively 'low protein' milk, we would not be able to grow very fast. In fact, as the image on the right shows, human infants show very rapid growth, especially of the brain, during the first year of life. Human infants are born a full year earlier than they would be projected to, based on comparisons with other animals. This is because of the large size their brains reach. A human infant grows at the rate of 9 kg/year at birth, falling to 3.5 kg/year a year later. Thereafter its growth rate is about half that of a chimpanzees at 2 kg/year vs. about 4.5 kg/year. Humans are relatively half as bulky as the other great apes, thus allowing nutrients to be directed at brain development and the diet to be less demanding. The advantages of such an undemanding metabolism are clear. Humans delay their growth because they 'catch up' later, during puberty as seen on the graph. Even so, the growth rate never reaches that of a newborn infant who grows best by only eating breast milk. .... According to Exequiel M. Patio and Juan T. Borda 'Primate milks contain on the average 13% solids, of which 6.5% is lactose, 3.8% lipids, 2.4% proteins, and 0.2% ash. Lactose is the largest component of the solids, and protein is a lesser one'. They also say that 'milks of humans and Old World monkeys have the highest percentages of sugar (an average of 6.9%)' and when comparing human and non human primate milks, they have similar proportions of solids, but human milks has more sugar and fat whereas the non human primate milks have much more protein. They continue 'In fact, human milk has the lowest concentration of proteins (1.0%) of all the species of primates.' Patio and Borda present their research in order to allow other primatologists to construct artificial milks as a substitute for the real thing for captive primates. It is to be expected that these will have similar disasterous consequences as the feeding of artificial bovine, and other false milks, has had on human infants. Patio and Borda also present a table which compares primate milks. This table is shown below and identifies the distinctive lower protein requirements of humans. [see link] Undoubtedly these gross metabolic differences between humans and other mammals must have system wide implications for our metabolism. They allow us to feed heavily on fruits, and may restrict other species from choosing them. Never the less, many nutritional authorities suggest that adult humans need nearly double (12% of calorific value) their breast milk levels of protein, although it is accepted that infant protein requirements for growth are triple those of adults. The use of calorific values might also confuse the issue since human milk is highly dilute (1% protein), and clearly eating foods that might be 25 times this concentration, such as meat, are massive excesses if constantly ingested. Certainly the body might manage to deal with this excess without suffering immediate problems, but this is not proof of any beneficial adaptation. It also needs to be pointed out that berries, such as raspberries, may yield up to 21% of their calorific value from protein, but are not regarded as 'good sources' of protein by nutritional authorites. There are millions of fruits available to wild animals, and blanked generalisations about the qualities of certain food groups, need to be examined carefully, due to some misconceptions arising from the limited commercial fruits which we experience in the domestic state. The weaning of a fruigivorous primate would clearly demand the supply of a food with nutritional characteristics similar to those of the mothers milk. We must realise that supportive breast feeding may continue for up to 9 or 10 years in some 'primitive' peoples, and this is more likely to be representative of our evolutionary history than the 6 month limit often found in modern cultures. This premature weaning should strike any aware naturalist as being a disasterous activity, inflicting untold damage. However, what we do know of the consequences is that it reduces the IQ and disease resistance of the child, and that the substitute of unnatural substances, like wheat and dairy products, is pathogenic. Finally we need to compare some food group compositions with human milk in order to establish if any statistical similarity exists. This would demonstrate that modern humans have inherited their ancient fruigivorous metabolism. This data is examined below in the final sections of the article. .....' http://tinyurl.com/dahps Proc Biol Sci. 1998 Oct 22;265(1409):1933-7. Visual specialization and brain evolution in primates. Barton RA. Department of Anthropology, University of Durham, UK. Several theories have been proposed to explain the evolution of species differences in brain size, but no consensus has emerged. One unresolved question is whether brain size differences are a result of neural specializations or of biological constraints affecting the whole brain. Here I show that, among primates, brain size variation is associated with visual specialization. Primates with large brains for their body size have relatively expanded visual brain areas, including the primary visual cortex and lateral geniculate nucleus. Within the visual system, it is, in particular, one functionally specialized pathway upon which selection has acted: evolutionary changes in the number of neurons in parvocellular, but not magnocellular, layers of the lateral geniculate nucleus are correlated with changes in both brain size and ecological variables (diet and social group size). Given the known functions of the parvocellular pathway, these results suggest that the relatively large brains of frugivorous species are products of selection on the ability to perceive and select fruits using specific visual cues such as colour. The separate correlation between group size and visual brain evolution, on the other hand, may indicate the visual basis of social information processing in the primate brain. PMID: 9821360 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] Medical News Today Main Category: Biology/Biochemistry News Article Date: 20 Feb 2006 - 0:00am (UK) Humans Evolved To Be Peaceful, Cooperative And Social Animals, Not Predators by Neil Schoenherr Washington University in St. Louis You wouldn't know it by current world events, but humans actually evolved to be peaceful, cooperative and social animals, not the predators modern mythology would have us believe, says an anthropologist at Washington University in St. Louis. Robert W. Sussman, Ph.D., professor anthropology in Arts & Sciences, spoke at a press briefing, "Early Humans on the Menu," during the American Association for the Advancement of the Science's Annual Meeting at 2 p.m. on Feb. 18. Also scheduled to speak at the briefing were Karen Strier, University of Wisconsin; Agustin Fuentes, University of Notre Dame; Douglas Fry, Abo Akademi University in Helsinki and University of Arizona; and James Rilling, Emory University. In his latest book, "Man the Hunted: Primates, Predators and Human Evolution," Sussman goes against the prevailing view and argues that primates, including early humans, evolved not as hunters but as prey of many predators, including wild dogs and cats, hyenas, eagles and crocodiles. Despite popular theories posed in research papers and popular literature, early man was not an aggressive killer, Sussman argues. He poses a new theory, based on the fossil record and living primate species, that primates have been prey for millions of years, a fact that greatly influenced the evolution of early man. "Our intelligence, cooperation and many other features we have as modern humans developed from our attempts to out-smart the predator," says Sussman. Since the 1924 discovery of the first early humans, australopithicenes, which lived from seven million years ago to two million years ago, many scientists theorized that those early human ancestors were hunters and possessed a killer instinct. The idea of "Man the Hunter" is the generally accepted paradigm of human evolution, says Sussman, "It developed from a basic Judeo-Christian ideology of man being inherently evil, aggressive and a natural killer. In fact, when you really examine the fossil and living non-human primate evidence, that is just not the case." Sussman's research is based on studying the fossil evidence dating back nearly seven million years. "Most theories on Man the Hunter fail to incorporate this key fossil evidence," Sussman says. "We wanted evidence, not just theory. We thoroughly examined literature available on the skulls, bones, footprints and on environmental evidence, both of our hominid ancestors and the predators that coexisted with them." Since the process of human evolution is so long and varied, Sussman and his co-author, Donna L. Hart, decided to focus their research on one specific species, Australopithecus afarensis, which lived between five million and two and a half million years ago and is one of the better known early human species. Most paleontologists agree that Australopithecus afarensis is the common link between fossils that came before and those that came after. It shares dental, cranial and skeletal traits with both. It's also a very well-represented species in the fossil record. "Australopithecus afarensis was probably quite strong, like a small ape," Sussman says. Adults ranged from around 3 to 5 feet and they weighed 60-100 pounds. They were basically smallish bipedal primates. Their teeth were relatively small, very much like modern humans, and they were fruit and nut eaters. But what Sussman and Hart discovered is that Australopithecus afarensis was not dentally pre-adapted to eat meat. "It didn't have the sharp shearing blades necessary to retain and cut such foods," Sussman says. "These early humans simply couldn't eat meat. If they couldn't eat meat, why would they hunt?" It was not possible for early humans to consume a large amount of meat until fire was controlled and cooking was possible. Sussman points out that the first tools didn't appear until two million years ago. And there wasn't good evidence of fire until after 800,000 years ago. "In fact, some archaeologists and paleontologists don't think we had a modern, systematic method of hunting until as recently as 60,000 years ago," he says. "Furthermore, Australopithecus afarensis was an edge species," adds Sussman. They could live in the trees and on the ground and could take advantage of both. "Primates that are edge species, even today, are basically prey species, not predators," Sussman argues. The predators living at the same time as Australopithecus afarensis were huge and there were 10 times as many as today. There were hyenas as big as bears, as well as saber-toothed cats and many other mega-sized carnivores, reptiles and raptors. Australopithecus afarensis didn't have tools, didn't have big teeth and was three feet tall. He was using his brain, his agility and his social skills to get away from these predators. "He wasn't hunting them," says Sussman. "He was avoiding them at all costs." Approximately 6 percent to 10 percent of early humans were preyed upon according to evidence that includes teeth marks on bones, talon marks on skulls and holes in a fossil cranium into which sabertooth cat fangs fit, says Sussman. The predation rate on savannah antelope and certain ground-living monkeys today is around 6 percent to 10 percent as well. Sussman and Hart provide evidence that many of our modern human traits, including those of cooperation and socialization, developed as a result of being a prey species and the early human's ability to out-smart the predators. These traits did not result from trying to hunt for prey or kill our competitors, says Sussman. "One of the main defenses against predators by animals without physical defenses is living in groups," says Sussman. "In fact, all diurnal primates (those active during the day) live in permanent social groups. Most ecologists agree that predation pressure is one of the major adaptive reasons for this group-living. In this way there are more eyes and ears to locate the predators and more individuals to mob them if attacked or to confuse them by scattering. There are a number of reasons that living in groups is beneficial for animals that otherwise would be very prone to being preyed upon." http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...p?newsid=38011 > Lindsay Allen (US Agricultural Research Service) says that denying animal > products to growing children is unethical. > > Cite:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/4283585.stm 'The BBC is failing in its supposed role as a public service broadcaster, says the Vegetarian & Vegan Foundation (VVF), after giving widespread publicity to a seriously flawed, unscientific piece of propaganda claiming that vegan children risk damaging their health by excluding meat. The claim, made by Lindsay Allen of the US Agricultural Research Service, was given prominent billing by BBC News on-line and featured on the Jeremy Vine show and Ken Bruce shows on BBC Radio 2. It concerned Paul McCartney so much that he made a rare phone-in to the Jeremy Vine show. "One meaningless study on 544 malnourished children raised chiefly on a starchy, low-nutrition corn and bean diet has no relevance to children in the West" says Tony Wardle, Associate Director of the VVF. "Yet it commands major media coverage with almost no counterview, despite having been made by the organization which supports and promotes the mass factory farming of animals. This is not good journalism and it is extremely bad public service broadcasting. "The VVF reports regularly on the growing volume of science showing the link between animal products and the collapsing health of our children and is largely ignored. Sensationalism is clearly more news-worthy than science. The truth is that meat, dairy are junk foods are destroying our children's health. The facts are": 'Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the lifecycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood and adolescence. Appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.' These 'certain diseases' are the killer epidemics of today - heart disease, strokes, cancers, diabetes etc. This is the view of the world's most prestigious health advisory body, the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada, after a review of world literature. It is backed up by the British Medical Association: 'Vegetarians have lower rates of obesity, coronary heart disease, high blood pressure, large bowel disorders, cancers and gall stones.' The World Health Organization thinks similarly: 'Diets associated with increases in chronic diseases are those rich in sugar, meat and other animal products, saturated fat and dietary cholesterol.' ....' http://www.vegetarian.org.uk/mediareleases/050221.html > So, vegans who force their children to be vegans are being ethical to > animals but not to their own children. Vegan altruism is very skew-whiff > indeed. 'Often, infant milk allergy is thought to be a specific and limited condition which children "outgrow." This idea can be misleading - many children continue to have chronic symptoms from milk, although the original problem may disappear, the pattern of illness changes and confuses parents and physicians. At the very least, we can say that some children have an allergic diathesis that persists and evolves with different manifestations. In a follow-up study of children with immediate anaphylactic reactions to cows milk as infants, a prolonged pattern of hypersensitivity was noted with the development of multiple food and inhalant allergies, multiple hospitalizations and frequent episodes of drug reactions. These children may continue to manifest hypersensitivity and grow into adults with immune-mediated diseases. Although there are few studies which focus on milk-induced disease in adults, there is enough suggestive evidence to suspect that milk proteins play a major role in human disease at all ages. Evidence of a pathogenic role of cows milk in many disorders has been presented - asthma, rhinitis, eczema, urticaria, serous otitis media, pulmonary alveolitis (hemosiderosis), milk-induced enteropathy in infants, eosinophilic gastroenteritis, gastrointestinal bleeding with iron deficiency anemia, migraine headaches, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, Crohn's disease, rheumatoid arthritis, and insulin dependent diabetes mellitus. ...' http://www.nutramed.com/children/kidsmilk.htm >-- > alt.usenet.kooks > "We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us." > Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129] "Isn't man an amazing animal? He kills wildlife by the millions to protect his domestic animals and their feed. Then he kills domestic animals by the billions and eats them. This in turn kills man by the millions, because eating all those animals leads to degenerative - and fatal - health conditions like heart disease, kidney disease, and cancer. So then man tortures and kills millions more animals to look for cures for these diseases. Elsewhere, millions of other human beings are being killed by hunger and malnutrition because food they could eat is being used to fatten domestic animals. Meanwhile, some people are dying of sad laughter at the absurdity of man, who kills so easily and so violently, and once a year sends out cards praying for "Peace on Earth." -- C. David Coates |
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"Rupert" > wrote in message
ups.com... > On Jun 5, 6:10 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >> "Rupert" > wrote in message >> >> ps.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Jun 5, 5:37 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote: >> >> Dutch > Thou issue of a mangy dog. Thou damnable fellow. >> >> Ye >> >> afforded: >> >> >> > Diet is not normally considered to be a major >> >> > moral issue except by vegans, so a non-vegan who decides they want >> >> > to >> >> > explore the health benefits of a vegan diet is unlikely to feel a >> >> > moral barrier to making such a change, that would not even come up >> >> > as >> >> > an issue. However, a vegan who is used to thinking of their diet as >> >> > a >> >> > statement of moral commitment, which is most of them, is very likely >> >> > to have psychological barriers or hangups preventing them from >> >> > starting to eat meat. >> >> >> Suppose, for one moment, that all vegans suddenly discover that their >> >> bodies >> >> are lacking in a certain mineral or enzyme (et al) and that they will >> >> die >> >> horrible deaths over the space of a month due to the supposed lack. >> >> Also >> >> suppose that they must do what the man below did or die horribly >> >> because >> >> the >> >> life-saving ingredient cannot be obtained any other way: >> >> >>http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070605/...uk_china_frogs >> >> >> How many vegans do you suppose will succumb to their innate will to >> >> live >> >> thereby ****ing off their alleged "moral commitment"? >> >> >> I say damn near every one of them would. So then, what value is the >> >> "moral >> >> commitment"? >> >> > Well, I'm not so sure about that, but let's face it, there are >> > probably quite a few things most of us would do if the only >> > alternative was to die a horrible death. So what's your point? >> >> What if the alternatives were not so extreme, such as to simply accept to >> live in a state of diminished health? When are we permitted to allow our >> self-interest to take precendence? >> > > Yeah, well, you're right, that's an interesting question. Let me know if you ever come up with a good answer for it. I think it's a key missing link in a lot of moral theories, not only AR, but most people's. >> His point is valid though, how many of us would commit murder to save >> himself? Yet we'd happily relent and allow animals to die if it came >> right >> down to it. > > Well, you might be surprised at what most people would do if push came > to shove if they were really in a life-threatening situation. You're probably right. There was a bit of a water crisis here last summer and people were pushing other people over to get to the last cases of bottled water. The veneer of civilized behaviour can seem pretty thin at times. But > yeah, okay, we probably would be more willing to allow animals to die. > And, you know, quite a lot of animal rights and animal liberation > philosophers would maintain that that preference can be justified in > one way or another. Yes, but when you go beyond the lifeboat scenario the question becomes less clear. Even Francione I submit if puch came to shove would sacrifice a lot of mice to save his own hide, or his daughter's. > See, that's the thing, you think "equal > consideration" means we're not allowed to wash our hair and kill > demodex mites, I'm afraid it's not as simple as that. That was an extreme example, just to illustrate my opinion that "equal" is a terrible choice of words in this instance. If one is going to propose a moral principle why not give it a name that reflects it's true nature? > The preference probably is a widespread preference in our culture. > Maybe it can be justified, maybe it can't. Speciesism is hard-coded into all animals, in my view. That does not mean as highly sentient beings we can't have empathy for other animals, a lot of empathy. |
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"Rupert" > wrote
> There's really nothing wrong with the environmental argument. It's > perfectly reasonable to point out that going vegan is one rational > thing to do from an environmental point of view. Obviously no-one's > going to do absolutely everything they can to minimize their impact on > the environment, but cutting down on animal products is nevertheless > one reasonable step to take. Veganism does make sense when presented in reasonable terms such as that, but as you know, it seldom is It usually goes hand-in-hand with hard-core Animal Rights ideology which does not take such a temperate view. It's a huge leap from "one rational thing to do" to a banner-carrying, blood-tossing, moral imperative, a position that sees eating meat as disgusting. Lets not pretend that AR advocates are merely "suggesting veganism as a reasonable alternative". You know that is not the case for the mainstream of AR, perhaps Singer, but not Regan or Francione. Not you either, based on everything you've said. If you have decided to accept AR ideology before the final arguments are in, then you can't be tolerant, it would be like tolerating slavery. I can see finding AR ideas interesting, but as a mathematician you must be logical, so I can't see why you have chosen to accept AR principles as right by default with so many questions about it still unanswered. You don't have to reject it, but at the very least you should be more skeptical about them, at least as skeptical as you would be if someone announced a revolutionary proof, a trisection of an angle or something, without providing hard evidence. |
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"pearl" > wrote
On Jun 5, 9:42 am, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote: ... > What is there to justify? Man's brain developed off the back of eating > protein-rich meat. If humans didn't eat meat then vegans would not be in a > position to contemplate the fate of animals they might otherwise devour. 'There is a popular notion that anthropology can offer useful insights for forming the basis of a dietary philosophy. Can't you make a decent point without cut & pasting an entire novel? <snip> |
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"Rupert" > wrote in message
oups.com... > On Jun 5, 6:06 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >> "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote in message >> >> ... >> >> >> >> >> >> > Dutch > Thou issue of a mangy dog. Thou damnable fellow. >> > Ye >> > afforded: >> >> >> Diet is not normally considered to be a major >> >> moral issue except by vegans, so a non-vegan who decides they want to >> >> explore the health benefits of a vegan diet is unlikely to feel a >> >> moral barrier to making such a change, that would not even come up as >> >> an issue. However, a vegan who is used to thinking of their diet as a >> >> statement of moral commitment, which is most of them, is very likely >> >> to have psychological barriers or hangups preventing them from >> >> starting to eat meat. >> >> > Suppose, for one moment, that all vegans suddenly discover that their >> > bodies >> > are lacking in a certain mineral or enzyme (et al) and that they will >> > die >> > horrible deaths over the space of a month due to the supposed lack. >> > Also >> > suppose that they must do what the man below did or die horribly >> > because >> > the >> > life-saving ingredient cannot be obtained any other way: >> >> >http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070605/...uk_china_frogs >> >> > How many vegans do you suppose will succumb to their innate will to >> > live >> > thereby ****ing off their alleged "moral commitment"? >> >> > I say damn near every one of them would. So then, what value is the >> > "moral >> > commitment"? >> >> I've made that same point without the extreme hypothetical. It's more >> common >> than they are willing to admit that vegetarians experience failure to >> thrive >> on their diets, and many if not most of them experience serious >> psychological difficulties in deciding to go back to a more "normal" >> diet. I >> am sure that many suffer unecessary physical harm because of this. > > When you say it's "unnecessary", that's your judgement. No, I am referring to people who are actually experiencing malnutrition, unecessarily because they are hanging to a diet when they should not. > I would > maintain that the suffering caused to nonhuman animals by the > widespread practice of eating meat is "unnecessary", you would be the > first to point out that that's just my opinion. Also no, that happens to be true, but the food that would replace that food would also have a toll of animal suffering associated with it. It's also true that the harm associated with *that* food would also be unecessary. But in the end we must make a choice to live or not, to thrive or not. > Each person decides > for themselves what their priorities are. And I think one point our > friend Kadaitcha Man may have been trying to make is that, really, not > that many people stick to a vegetarian diet if it's really bad for > them. If anything, they're far more likely to err on the side of going > back to eating meat when they don't really have to. It's probably true that both happen, but I know the former does happen, because it happened to me and because I have read about it, and it makes sense when one considers the moralizing component of vegetarian life. > When you talk about psychological difficulties, you're trying to > pathologize it and it's not necessarily pathological. Of course they > feel a sense of moral discomfort if they go back to eating meat again. > My friend's been vegetarian for quite a while, he's just decided to > start eating a bit of meat again because he's worried about his > health, and yes, he's feeling some reservations about that, but I > don't think he's likely to experience any "unnecessary physical > harm". > > Some unnecessary harm may come from vegan diets, but far more > unnecessary harm comes from eating meat, even if we just talk about > harm to humans. From eating *too much* meat, nobody is harmed by eating meat in the proper proportions. |
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
Rupert > Thou walleyed slave. Thou grey
iniquity. Ye jabbered: > On Jun 5, 6:42 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote: >> Rupert > Thou swearing jack. Thou rotten, >> ugly lost soul. Ye spat: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Jun 5, 6:10 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>> "Rupert" > wrote in message >> >>>> ps.com... >> >>>>> On Jun 5, 5:37 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote: >>>>>> Dutch > Thou issue of a mangy dog. Thou damnable >>>>>> fellow. Ye afforded: >> >>>>>>> Diet is not normally considered to be a major >>>>>>> moral issue except by vegans, so a non-vegan who decides they >>>>>>> want to explore the health benefits of a vegan diet is unlikely >>>>>>> to feel a moral barrier to making such a change, that would not >>>>>>> even come up as an issue. However, a vegan who is used to >>>>>>> thinking of their diet as a statement of moral commitment, which >>>>>>> is most of them, is very likely to have psychological barriers >>>>>>> or hangups preventing them from starting to eat meat. >> >>>>>> Suppose, for one moment, that all vegans suddenly discover that >>>>>> their bodies >>>>>> are lacking in a certain mineral or enzyme (et al) and that they >>>>>> will die horrible deaths over the space of a month due to the >>>>>> supposed lack. Also suppose that they must do what the man below >>>>>> did or die horribly because the >>>>>> life-saving ingredient cannot be obtained any other way: >> >>>>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070605/...uk_china_frogs >> >>>>>> How many vegans do you suppose will succumb to their innate will >>>>>> to live thereby ****ing off their alleged "moral commitment"? >> >>>>>> I say damn near every one of them would. So then, what value is >>>>>> the "moral >>>>>> commitment"? >> >>>>> Well, I'm not so sure about that, but let's face it, there are >>>>> probably quite a few things most of us would do if the only >>>>> alternative was to die a horrible death. So what's your point? >> >>>> What if the alternatives were not so extreme, such as to simply >>>> accept to live in a state of diminished health? When are we >>>> permitted to allow our self-interest to take precendence? >> >>> Yeah, well, you're right, that's an interesting question. >> >>>> His point is valid though, how many of us would commit murder to >>>> save himself? Yet we'd happily relent and allow animals to die if >>>> it came right down to it. >> >>> Well, you might be surprised at what most people would do if push >>> came to shove if they were really in a life-threatening situation. >>> But yeah, okay, we probably would be more willing to allow animals >>> to die. And, you know, quite a lot of animal rights and animal >>> liberation philosophers would maintain that that preference can be >>> justified in one way or another. See, that's the thing, you think >>> "equal consideration" means we're not allowed to wash our hair and >>> kill demodex mites, I'm afraid it's not as simple as that. >> >>> The preference probably is a widespread preference in our culture. >>> Maybe it can be justified, maybe it can't. >> >> What is there to justify? > > A pattern of discrimination. Discrimination requires some sort of > justification. Bullshit. Discrimination is part of the human condition. >> Man's brain developed off the back of eating >> protein-rich meat. > > Yes, I've heard this before. One thing I'm interested in is whether > it's supposed to be Darwinian or Lamarckian evolution. If it's > Darwinian, then the protein-richness of meat has nothing to do with > it, it would have been by the selective pressures set up by humans' > transition to hunting. And Lamarckian evolution is generally reckoned > to have been pretty much discredited for a long time. Erm... Chimpanzees and apes eat meat. Man eats meat because man likes the taste of meat. So, better you first distinguish between something innate, perhaps due to instinct, and something due evolution, before you get down that path. > Anyway, even if this were the case it wouldn't matter. If it didn't matter, why did you raise it and waste time elucidating about it? > Most of us can > be perfectly healthy being vegan now. Unsupported assertion. Claim fails. >> If humans didn't eat meat then vegans would not be in a >> position to contemplate the fate of animals they might otherwise >> devour. >> >> Lindsay Allen (US Agricultural Research Service) says that denying >> animal products to growing children is unethical. >> >> Cite:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/4283585.stm >> > > Yes, but that's nonsense. The American Dietetic Association states > that vegetarian and vegan diets are nutritionally adequate at all > stages of life and have many health benefits. A child is much more > likely to get health problems from eating meat at some stage during > his or her life than from being brought up vegan. Yes, but that's nonsense. Lindsay Allen (US Agricultural Research Service) says that denying animal products to growing children is unethical. >> So, vegans who force their children to be vegans are being ethical to >> animals but not to their own children. Vegan altruism is very >> skew-whiff indeed. Note: No response. -- alt.usenet.kooks "We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us." Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129] Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007. Official Member: Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660 Usenet Ruiner Lits Top Assholes on the Net Lits Most hated usenetizens of all time Lits AUK psychos and felons Lits #2 Cog in the Usenet Hate Machine Lits "Now I know what it is. Now I know what it means when an alt.usenet.kook x-post shows up." AOK in Straks vind ik je nog een bengaalse kleffe choleravlinder. |
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
pearl > Thou marble-hearted fiend. I do repent the
tedious minutes I with thee have spent. Ye mewled: > On Jun 5, 9:42 am, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote: > .. >> What is there to justify? Man's brain developed off the back of >> eating protein-rich meat. If humans didn't eat meat then vegans >> would not be in a position to contemplate the fate of animals they >> might otherwise devour. > > 'There is a popular notion<BITCHSLAP> 22KB snipped, entirely unread. And the point you wish to make is what? -- alt.usenet.kooks "We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us." Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129] Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007. Official Member: Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660 Usenet Ruiner Lits Top Assholes on the Net Lits Most hated usenetizens of all time Lits AUK psychos and felons Lits #2 Cog in the Usenet Hate Machine Lits "Now I know what it is. Now I know what it means when an alt.usenet.kook x-post shows up." AOK in Wat ben jij een misselijk makende afgezabberde cyanide. |
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
Rupert > Thou inhuman wretch. Thou bondsman. Ye
insinuated: > On Jun 5, 6:49 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote: >> Rupert > Thou sheep-whistling rogue. The >> terror >> of the French, the scarecrow that affrights our children so. Ye >> mewled: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Jun 5, 6:28 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote: >>>> Dutch > Thou dotant. I had rather be a toad, and live >>>> upon the vapour of a dungeon, than keep a corner in the thing I >>>> love for >>>> others uses. Ye tehee'd: >> >>>>> "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote in message >>>>> ... >>>>>> Dutch > Thou issue of a mangy dog. Thou damnable >>>>>> fellow. Ye afforded: >> >>>>>>> Diet is not normally considered to be a major >>>>>>> moral issue except by vegans, so a non-vegan who decides they >>>>>>> want to explore the health benefits of a vegan diet is unlikely >>>>>>> to feel a moral barrier to making such a change, that would not >>>>>>> even come up as an issue. However, a vegan who is used to >>>>>>> thinking of their diet as a statement of moral commitment, >>>>>>> which is most of them, is very likely to have psychological >>>>>>> barriers or hangups preventing them from starting to eat meat. >> >>>>>> Suppose, for one moment, that all vegans suddenly discover that >>>>>> their bodies >>>>>> are lacking in a certain mineral or enzyme (et al) and that they >>>>>> will die horrible deaths over the space of a month due to the >>>>>> supposed lack. Also suppose that they must do what the man below >>>>>> did or die horribly because the >>>>>> life-saving ingredient cannot be obtained any other way: >> >>>>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070605/...uk_china_frogs >> >>>>>> How many vegans do you suppose will succumb to their innate will >>>>>> to live thereby ****ing off their alleged "moral commitment"? >> >>>>>> I say damn near every one of them would. So then, what value is >>>>>> the "moral commitment"? >> >>>>> I've made that same point without the extreme hypothetical. It's >>>>> more common than they are willing to admit >> >>>> I proved this to be the case in an old troll where I claimed I was >>>> a vegan who would die if I didn't eat raw liver. All I got was >>>> platitudes and offers of luck in making the decision. Oh, I also >>>> got thanks that "they" didn't have to make the same decision. The >>>> "moral commitment" of the vegan is worthless when they are faced >>>> with their own demise. >> >>> But it's only some vegans who literally believe that you should >>> never eat meat even if it's a matter of life and death. Most people >>> are more moderate in their views: they think that if you can stay >>> in good health by being vegan, then you should. >> >> What evidence can you offer to support the idea that there exist a >> group of people labelled "moderate vegans"? >> > > Well, I know a few vegans, and I've also read a few philosophical > works that offer justification for following a vegan or near-vegan > diet, and my experience bears out the remarks I made. If I say I have experience with evil Grey aliens and their painful anal probes, would you believe that Grey aliens exist? The question stands, unaddressed. What evidence can you offer to support the idea that there exist a group of people labelled "moderate vegans"? >> You need to be asked that question because being a vegan necessarily >> entails being a radical vegetarian. Note: No response. -- alt.usenet.kooks "We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us." Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129] Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007. Official Member: Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660 Usenet Ruiner Lits Top Assholes on the Net Lits Most hated usenetizens of all time Lits AUK psychos and felons Lits #2 Cog in the Usenet Hate Machine Lits "Now I know what it is. Now I know what it means when an alt.usenet.kook x-post shows up." AOK in Straks vind ik je nog een transatlantische geile zuurstogverpester. |
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
Rupert > Thou natural coward without instinct.
Thou rag of honour. Ye vomited: > On Jun 5, 6:46 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote: >> Rupert > Thou unmanner'd slave. Thou >> jarring, rude-growing wimpled. Ye secreted: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Jun 5, 6:06 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >>>> "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote in message >> >>>> ... >> >>>>> Dutch > Thou issue of a mangy dog. Thou damnable >>>>> fellow. Ye afforded: >> >>>>>> Diet is not normally considered to be a major >>>>>> moral issue except by vegans, so a non-vegan who decides they >>>>>> want to explore the health benefits of a vegan diet is unlikely >>>>>> to feel a moral barrier to making such a change, that would not >>>>>> even come up as an issue. However, a vegan who is used to >>>>>> thinking of their diet as a statement of moral commitment, which >>>>>> is most of them, is very likely to have psychological barriers >>>>>> or hangups preventing them from starting to eat meat. >> >>>>> Suppose, for one moment, that all vegans suddenly discover that >>>>> their bodies >>>>> are lacking in a certain mineral or enzyme (et al) and that they >>>>> will die horrible deaths over the space of a month due to the >>>>> supposed lack. Also suppose that they must do what the man below >>>>> did or die horribly because the >>>>> life-saving ingredient cannot be obtained any other way: >> >>>>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070605/...uk_china_frogs >> >>>>> How many vegans do you suppose will succumb to their innate will >>>>> to live thereby ****ing off their alleged "moral commitment"? >> >>>>> I say damn near every one of them would. So then, what value is >>>>> the "moral commitment"? >> >>>> I've made that same point without the extreme hypothetical. It's >>>> more common than they are willing to admit that vegetarians >>>> experience failure to thrive on their diets, and many if not most >>>> of them experience serious psychological difficulties in deciding >>>> to go back to a more "normal" diet. I am sure that many suffer >>>> unecessary physical harm because of this. >> >>> When you say it's "unnecessary", that's your judgement. I would >>> maintain that the suffering caused to nonhuman animals by the >>> widespread practice of eating meat is "unnecessary", you would be >>> the first to point out that that's just my opinion. Each person >>> decides for themselves what their priorities are. And I think one >>> point our friend Kadaitcha Man may have been trying to make is >>> that, really, not that many people stick to a vegetarian diet if >>> it's really bad for them. If anything, they're far more likely to >>> err on the side of going back to eating meat when they don't really >>> have to. >> >> No. My point is that a vegan's allegedly altruistic decision to not >> eat meat is worthless should it transpire that their life depends on >> eating meat. The underlying point is that vegans would not have the >> cognitive functions required to contemplate the fate of animals >> about to be eaten for their meat if mankind did not eat meat. >> > > Yes, I've addressed those two points. I didn't say you hadn't... You completely misrepresented my points when you said, "I think one point our friend Kadaitcha Man may have been trying to make is that, really, not that many people stick to a vegetarian diet if it's really bad for them." >>> When you talk about psychological difficulties, you're trying to >>> pathologize it and it's not necessarily pathological. Of course they >>> feel a sense of moral discomfort if they go back to eating meat >>> again. My friend's been vegetarian for quite a while, he's just >>> decided to start eating a bit of meat again because he's worried >>> about his health, and yes, he's feeling some reservations about >>> that, but I don't think he's likely to experience any "unnecessary >>> physical harm". >> >>> Some unnecessary harm may come from vegan diets, but far more >>> unnecessary harm comes from eating meat, even if we just talk about >>> harm to humans. >> >> Unsopported assertion. Claim fails. >> > > Well, here's a start: > > http://www.eatright.org/cps/rde/xchg...3_ENU_HTML.htm I don't take links in discussions unless you offer a reasoned description to go with it that describes why you believe the link supports your position and what is there that may be of interest to said discussion. I refuse to do that because by merely posting the link and expecting me to read it you are assuming that I will come to the same conclusion that you did, which is not a very smart thing to do. I also refuse to do it because I will not kowtow to your mental laziness. HTH -- alt.usenet.kooks "We are arrant knaves all, believe none of us." Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 1 [129] Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007. Official Member: Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660 Usenet Ruiner Lits Top Assholes on the Net Lits Most hated usenetizens of all time Lits AUK psychos and felons Lits #2 Cog in the Usenet Hate Machine Lits "Now I know what it is. Now I know what it means when an alt.usenet.kook x-post shows up." AOK in Jij bent vast een gerukte afvallige beflijster. |
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Jun 5, 6:39 am, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
> Rupert > Thou inhuman wretch. Thou bondsman. Ye > insinuated: > > > > > > > On Jun 5, 6:49 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote: > >> Rupert > Thou sheep-whistling rogue. The > >> terror > >> of the French, the scarecrow that affrights our children so. Ye > >> mewled: > > >>> On Jun 5, 6:28 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote: > >>>> Dutch > Thou dotant. I had rather be a toad, and live > >>>> upon the vapour of a dungeon, than keep a corner in the thing I > >>>> love for > >>>> others uses. Ye tehee'd: > > >>>>> "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote in message > om... > >>>>>> Dutch > Thou issue of a mangy dog. Thou damnable > >>>>>> fellow. Ye afforded: > > >>>>>>> Diet is not normally considered to be a major > >>>>>>> moral issue except by vegans, so a non-vegan who decides they > >>>>>>> want to explore the health benefits of a vegan diet is unlikely > >>>>>>> to feel a moral barrier to making such a change, that would not > >>>>>>> even come up as an issue. However, a vegan who is used to > >>>>>>> thinking of their diet as a statement of moral commitment, > >>>>>>> which is most of them, is very likely to have psychological > >>>>>>> barriers or hangups preventing them from starting to eat meat. > > >>>>>> Suppose, for one moment, that all vegans suddenly discover that > >>>>>> their bodies > >>>>>> are lacking in a certain mineral or enzyme (et al) and that they > >>>>>> will die horrible deaths over the space of a month due to the > >>>>>> supposed lack. Also suppose that they must do what the man below > >>>>>> did or die horribly because the > >>>>>> life-saving ingredient cannot be obtained any other way: > > >>>>>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070605/...uk_china_frogs > > >>>>>> How many vegans do you suppose will succumb to their innate will > >>>>>> to live thereby ****ing off their alleged "moral commitment"? > > >>>>>> I say damn near every one of them would. So then, what value is > >>>>>> the "moral commitment"? > > >>>>> I've made that same point without the extreme hypothetical. It's > >>>>> more common than they are willing to admit > > >>>> I proved this to be the case in an old troll where I claimed I was > >>>> a vegan who would die if I didn't eat raw liver. All I got was > >>>> platitudes and offers of luck in making the decision. Oh, I also > >>>> got thanks that "they" didn't have to make the same decision. The > >>>> "moral commitment" of the vegan is worthless when they are faced > >>>> with their own demise. > > >>> But it's only some vegans who literally believe that you should > >>> never eat meat even if it's a matter of life and death. Most people > >>> are more moderate in their views: they think that if you can stay > >>> in good health by being vegan, then you should. > > >> What evidence can you offer to support the idea that there exist a > >> group of people labelled "moderate vegans"? > > > Well, I know a few vegans, and I've also read a few philosophical > > works that offer justification for following a vegan or near-vegan > > diet, and my experience bears out the remarks I made. > > If I say I have experience with evil Grey aliens and their painful anal > probes, would you believe that Grey aliens exist? I am a Grey alien and I want your ass for probing. Art Deco -- Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco "Causation of gravity is missing frame field always attempting renormalization back to base memory of equalized uniform momentum." -- nightbat the saucerhead-in-chief "Of doing Venus in person would obviously incorporate a composite rigid airship, along with it's internal cache of frozen pizza and ice cold beer." -- Brad Guth, bigoted racist "You really are one of the litsiest people I know, Mr. Deco." --Kali, quoted endlessly by David Tholen as evidence of "something" |
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"Kadaitcha Man" > wrote in message ... > Dutch > Thou issue of a mangy dog. Thou damnable fellow. Ye > afforded: > >> Diet is not normally considered to be a major >> moral issue except by vegans, so a non-vegan who decides they want to >> explore the health benefits of a vegan diet is unlikely to feel a >> moral barrier to making such a change, that would not even come up as >> an issue. However, a vegan who is used to thinking of their diet as a >> statement of moral commitment, which is most of them, is very likely >> to have psychological barriers or hangups preventing them from >> starting to eat meat. > > Suppose, for one moment, that all vegans suddenly discover that their > bodies > are lacking in a certain mineral or enzyme (et al) and that they will die > horrible deaths over the space of a month due to the supposed lack. Also > suppose that they must do what the man below did or die horribly because > the > life-saving ingredient cannot be obtained any other way: > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070605/...uk_china_frogs > > How many vegans do you suppose will succumb to their innate will to live > thereby ****ing off their alleged "moral commitment"? > > I say damn near every one of them would. So then, what value is the "moral > commitment"? This so called *moral code* is largely a figment of the posters imagination. |
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"Rupert" > wrote in message ups.com... > On Jun 5, 6:10 pm, "Dutch" > wrote: >> "Rupert" > wrote in message >> >> ps.com... >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Jun 5, 5:37 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote: >> >> Dutch > Thou issue of a mangy dog. Thou damnable fellow. >> >> Ye >> >> afforded: >> >> >> > Diet is not normally considered to be a major >> >> > moral issue except by vegans, so a non-vegan who decides they want >> >> > to >> >> > explore the health benefits of a vegan diet is unlikely to feel a >> >> > moral barrier to making such a change, that would not even come up >> >> > as >> >> > an issue. However, a vegan who is used to thinking of their diet as >> >> > a >> >> > statement of moral commitment, which is most of them, is very likely >> >> > to have psychological barriers or hangups preventing them from >> >> > starting to eat meat. >> >> >> Suppose, for one moment, that all vegans suddenly discover that their >> >> bodies >> >> are lacking in a certain mineral or enzyme (et al) and that they will >> >> die >> >> horrible deaths over the space of a month due to the supposed lack. >> >> Also >> >> suppose that they must do what the man below did or die horribly >> >> because >> >> the >> >> life-saving ingredient cannot be obtained any other way: >> >> >>http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070605/...uk_china_frogs >> >> >> How many vegans do you suppose will succumb to their innate will to >> >> live >> >> thereby ****ing off their alleged "moral commitment"? >> >> >> I say damn near every one of them would. So then, what value is the >> >> "moral >> >> commitment"? >> >> > Well, I'm not so sure about that, but let's face it, there are >> > probably quite a few things most of us would do if the only >> > alternative was to die a horrible death. So what's your point? >> >> What if the alternatives were not so extreme, such as to simply accept to >> live in a state of diminished health? When are we permitted to allow our >> self-interest to take precendence? >> > > Yeah, well, you're right, that's an interesting question. > >> His point is valid though, how many of us would commit murder to save >> himself? Yet we'd happily relent and allow animals to die if it came >> right >> down to it. > > Well, you might be surprised at what most people would do if push came > to shove if they were really in a life-threatening situation. But > yeah, okay, we probably would be more willing to allow animals to die. > And, you know, quite a lot of animal rights and animal liberation > philosophers would maintain that that preference can be justified in > one way or another. See, that's the thing, you think "equal > consideration" means we're not allowed to wash our hair and kill > demodex mites, I'm afraid it's not as simple as that. > > The preference probably is a widespread preference in our culture. > Maybe it can be justified, maybe it can't. You need to stop acting like a rube. Dutch poses an imaginary scenario to justify his claim and you shape yourself like a pretzel on his command. Then you stumble all over yourself trying to come up with a response. jeezis. His comment about *letting* someone else use their property (animals) as they see fit is equally silly. |
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
"Kadaitcha Man" > wrote > What is there to justify? Man's brain developed off the back of eating > protein-rich meat. Make that *raw* meat and you may be close. If humans didn't eat meat then vegans would not be in a > position to contemplate the fate of animals they might otherwise devour. > > Lindsay Allen (US Agricultural Research Service) says that denying animal > products to growing children is unethical. So you cite a gov't parasite? You can do better than that, I know you can. > Cite: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/4283585.stm > > So, vegans who force their children to be vegans are being ethical to > animals but not to their own children. Vegan altruism is very skew-whiff > indeed. Parents should have no say in how they raise their kids. They should read usenet and take the word of anonomous people and feed their kids nothing but raw meat everyday as thats how *man's brain developed*. LOL And you have the gall to mention the word altruism? |
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
> wrote in message oups.com... > On Jun 5, 6:39 am, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote: >> Rupert > Thou inhuman wretch. Thou bondsman. Ye >> insinuated: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Jun 5, 6:49 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote: >> >> Rupert > Thou sheep-whistling rogue. The >> >> terror >> >> of the French, the scarecrow that affrights our children so. Ye >> >> mewled: >> >> >>> On Jun 5, 6:28 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote: >> >>>> Dutch > Thou dotant. I had rather be a toad, and live >> >>>> upon the vapour of a dungeon, than keep a corner in the thing I >> >>>> love for >> >>>> others uses. Ye tehee'd: >> >> >>>>> "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote in message >> om... >> >>>>>> Dutch > Thou issue of a mangy dog. Thou damnable >> >>>>>> fellow. Ye afforded: >> >> >>>>>>> Diet is not normally considered to be a major >> >>>>>>> moral issue except by vegans, so a non-vegan who decides they >> >>>>>>> want to explore the health benefits of a vegan diet is unlikely >> >>>>>>> to feel a moral barrier to making such a change, that would not >> >>>>>>> even come up as an issue. However, a vegan who is used to >> >>>>>>> thinking of their diet as a statement of moral commitment, >> >>>>>>> which is most of them, is very likely to have psychological >> >>>>>>> barriers or hangups preventing them from starting to eat meat. >> >> >>>>>> Suppose, for one moment, that all vegans suddenly discover that >> >>>>>> their bodies >> >>>>>> are lacking in a certain mineral or enzyme (et al) and that they >> >>>>>> will die horrible deaths over the space of a month due to the >> >>>>>> supposed lack. Also suppose that they must do what the man below >> >>>>>> did or die horribly because the >> >>>>>> life-saving ingredient cannot be obtained any other way: >> >> >>>>>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070605/...uk_china_frogs >> >> >>>>>> How many vegans do you suppose will succumb to their innate will >> >>>>>> to live thereby ****ing off their alleged "moral commitment"? >> >> >>>>>> I say damn near every one of them would. So then, what value is >> >>>>>> the "moral commitment"? >> >> >>>>> I've made that same point without the extreme hypothetical. It's >> >>>>> more common than they are willing to admit >> >> >>>> I proved this to be the case in an old troll where I claimed I was >> >>>> a vegan who would die if I didn't eat raw liver. All I got was >> >>>> platitudes and offers of luck in making the decision. Oh, I also >> >>>> got thanks that "they" didn't have to make the same decision. The >> >>>> "moral commitment" of the vegan is worthless when they are faced >> >>>> with their own demise. >> >> >>> But it's only some vegans who literally believe that you should >> >>> never eat meat even if it's a matter of life and death. Most people >> >>> are more moderate in their views: they think that if you can stay >> >>> in good health by being vegan, then you should. >> >> >> What evidence can you offer to support the idea that there exist a >> >> group of people labelled "moderate vegans"? >> >> > Well, I know a few vegans, and I've also read a few philosophical >> > works that offer justification for following a vegan or near-vegan >> > diet, and my experience bears out the remarks I made. >> >> If I say I have experience with evil Grey aliens and their painful anal >> probes, would you believe that Grey aliens exist? > > I am a Grey alien and I want your ass for probing. > > Art Deco Correction: You are NOT a Grey Alien, but a *** Butt-Pirate who wants to probe anyone's anal cavity, especially if they fall into that "little boy" age bracket. |
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
On Jun 5, 9:34 am, "Hagar" > wrote:
> > wrote in message > > oups.com... > > > > > > > On Jun 5, 6:39 am, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote: > >> Rupert > Thou inhuman wretch. Thou bondsman. Ye > >> insinuated: > > >> > On Jun 5, 6:49 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote: > >> >> Rupert > Thou sheep-whistling rogue. The > >> >> terror > >> >> of the French, the scarecrow that affrights our children so. Ye > >> >> mewled: > > >> >>> On Jun 5, 6:28 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote: > >> >>>> Dutch > Thou dotant. I had rather be a toad, and live > >> >>>> upon the vapour of a dungeon, than keep a corner in the thing I > >> >>>> love for > >> >>>> others uses. Ye tehee'd: > > >> >>>>> "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote in message > >> om... > >> >>>>>> Dutch > Thou issue of a mangy dog. Thou damnable > >> >>>>>> fellow. Ye afforded: > > >> >>>>>>> Diet is not normally considered to be a major > >> >>>>>>> moral issue except by vegans, so a non-vegan who decides they > >> >>>>>>> want to explore the health benefits of a vegan diet is unlikely > >> >>>>>>> to feel a moral barrier to making such a change, that would not > >> >>>>>>> even come up as an issue. However, a vegan who is used to > >> >>>>>>> thinking of their diet as a statement of moral commitment, > >> >>>>>>> which is most of them, is very likely to have psychological > >> >>>>>>> barriers or hangups preventing them from starting to eat meat. > > >> >>>>>> Suppose, for one moment, that all vegans suddenly discover that > >> >>>>>> their bodies > >> >>>>>> are lacking in a certain mineral or enzyme (et al) and that they > >> >>>>>> will die horrible deaths over the space of a month due to the > >> >>>>>> supposed lack. Also suppose that they must do what the man below > >> >>>>>> did or die horribly because the > >> >>>>>> life-saving ingredient cannot be obtained any other way: > > >> >>>>>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070605/...uk_china_frogs > > >> >>>>>> How many vegans do you suppose will succumb to their innate will > >> >>>>>> to live thereby ****ing off their alleged "moral commitment"? > > >> >>>>>> I say damn near every one of them would. So then, what value is > >> >>>>>> the "moral commitment"? > > >> >>>>> I've made that same point without the extreme hypothetical. It's > >> >>>>> more common than they are willing to admit > > >> >>>> I proved this to be the case in an old troll where I claimed I was > >> >>>> a vegan who would die if I didn't eat raw liver. All I got was > >> >>>> platitudes and offers of luck in making the decision. Oh, I also > >> >>>> got thanks that "they" didn't have to make the same decision. The > >> >>>> "moral commitment" of the vegan is worthless when they are faced > >> >>>> with their own demise. > > >> >>> But it's only some vegans who literally believe that you should > >> >>> never eat meat even if it's a matter of life and death. Most people > >> >>> are more moderate in their views: they think that if you can stay > >> >>> in good health by being vegan, then you should. > > >> >> What evidence can you offer to support the idea that there exist a > >> >> group of people labelled "moderate vegans"? > > >> > Well, I know a few vegans, and I've also read a few philosophical > >> > works that offer justification for following a vegan or near-vegan > >> > diet, and my experience bears out the remarks I made. > > >> If I say I have experience with evil Grey aliens and their painful anal > >> probes, would you believe that Grey aliens exist? > > > I am a Grey alien and I want your ass for probing. > > > Art Deco > > Correction: You are NOT a Grey Alien, but a *** Butt-Pirate who wants to > probe anyone's anal cavity, especially if they fall into that "little boy" > age bracket I bet you have a cute butt Hagar. Art Deco -- Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco "Causation of gravity is missing frame field always attempting renormalization back to base memory of equalized uniform momentum." -- nightbat the saucerhead-in-chief "Of doing Venus in person would obviously incorporate a composite rigid airship, along with it's internal cache of frozen pizza and ice cold beer." -- Brad Guth, bigoted racist "You really are one of the litsiest people I know, Mr. Deco." --Kali, quoted endlessly by David Tholen as evidence of "something" |
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
Don wrote:
> "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote >> What is there to justify? Man's brain developed off the back of eating >> protein-rich meat. > > Make that *raw* meat and you may be close. Meat any way you look at it. > >> If humans didn't eat meat then vegans would not be in a >> position to contemplate the fate of animals they might otherwise devour. >> >> Lindsay Allen (US Agricultural Research Service) says that denying animal >> products to growing children is unethical. > > So you cite a gov't parasite? > You can do better than that, I know you can. ad hominem > >> Cite: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/4283585.stm >> >> So, vegans who force their children to be vegans are being ethical to >> animals but not to their own children. Vegan altruism is very skew-whiff >> indeed. > > Parents should have no say in how they raise their kids. > They should read usenet and take the word of anonomous people and feed their > kids nothing but raw meat everyday as thats how *man's brain developed*. LOL > And you have the gall to mention the word altruism? donnie can't give coherent reasons for his opposition to meat consumption, but we know what they are anyway: his view of himself as morally superior. |
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate
Don wrote:
> "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote in message > ... >> Dutch > Thou issue of a mangy dog. Thou damnable fellow. Ye >> afforded: >> >>> Diet is not normally considered to be a major >>> moral issue except by vegans, so a non-vegan who decides they want to >>> explore the health benefits of a vegan diet is unlikely to feel a >>> moral barrier to making such a change, that would not even come up as >>> an issue. However, a vegan who is used to thinking of their diet as a >>> statement of moral commitment, which is most of them, is very likely >>> to have psychological barriers or hangups preventing them from >>> starting to eat meat. >> Suppose, for one moment, that all vegans suddenly discover that their >> bodies >> are lacking in a certain mineral or enzyme (et al) and that they will die >> horrible deaths over the space of a month due to the supposed lack. Also >> suppose that they must do what the man below did or die horribly because >> the >> life-saving ingredient cannot be obtained any other way: >> >> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070605/...uk_china_frogs >> >> How many vegans do you suppose will succumb to their innate will to live >> thereby ****ing off their alleged "moral commitment"? >> >> I say damn near every one of them would. So then, what value is the "moral >> commitment"? > > This so called *moral code* is largely a figment of the posters imagination. No. What is imaginary is your belief that you are morally superior by virtue of not consuming animal parts. That such a false moral belief underlies "veganism" is not in rational dispute. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:32 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter