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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #241 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.usenet.kooks,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 282
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 6, 9:07 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> On Jun 5, 4:01 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Jun 5, 9:35 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>> Irrelevant. What I said is still correct.
>>> There's really nothing for us to argue about anyway. I said "Maybe it
>>> can be justified, maybe it can't", which is basically not saying
>>> anything. You said "What is there to justify?", meaning, you think it
>>> obviously can be justified

>> No, ****wit; that's not what the question implies at all. The
>> question implies he thinks there's no moral dimension to it.
>>

>
> If it could not be justified, there would be a moral dimension to it.


****wit: his question implies there is no *need* for
justification, because of no moral dimension to it.
That is the implication of the question, you stubborn
arrogant ****: there is nothing that needs to be
justified.

You are such an arrogant little ****, rupie.
  #242 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.usenet.kooks,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 282
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 6, 3:27 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> 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.

>
> Why is it false,


Not consuming the parts doesn't mean one doesn't harm
animals, killer.
  #243 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.usenet.kooks,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 53
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

Dutch > Thou giglet wench. Hag-seed hence. Ye whistled:

> Jon uses logic and embellishes it with direct insults


Eh? I have a doppelganger?

--
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

Ik vind jou een afghanistanse uitgeknepen schurk.
  #244 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.usenet.kooks,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jun 6, 2:41 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> > I doubt very much that you are making a good faith attempt at serious
> > debate. If you are, then poor you.

>
> That about sums you up Rupert. For all your posturing about being serious
> about moral philosophy and bragging that you're into real serious debate,
> the threads you get heavliy involved with are always the lowest common
> demoninator mudslinging contests.


Agreed, but I hardly think that's my fault.

> Jon uses logic and embellishes it with
> direct insults, you use pseudo-intellectual jibber-jabber and condescension
> as your ad hominem weapons of choice. Bottom line, it's all the same gutter.


Jon provides flawed arguments, I provide him with reasoned responses.
I am occasionally condescending, but only as tit-for-tat.


  #245 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.usenet.kooks,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 282
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 6, 2:41 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote
>>
>>> I doubt very much that you are making a good faith attempt at serious
>>> debate. If you are, then poor you.

>> That about sums you up Rupert. For all your posturing about being serious
>> about moral philosophy and bragging that you're into real serious debate,
>> the threads you get heavliy involved with are always the lowest common
>> demoninator mudslinging contests.

>
> Agreed, but I hardly think that's my fault.


It is entirely your fault, rupie. Just as you
voluntarily, actively, knowingly and repeatedly
participate in processes that cause animals to die, so
do you choose to participate in mudslinging, with all
the same attributes attaching to your choice.


>> Rudy uses logic and embellishes it with
>> direct insults, you use pseudo-intellectual jibber-jabber and condescension
>> as your ad hominem weapons of choice. Bottom line, it's all the same gutter.

>
> Rudy provides flawed arguments,


No.


> I provide him with reasoned responses.


No, absolutely not. You regurgitate "ar" dogma, that's
all.


  #246 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.usenet.kooks,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jun 6, 2:33 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> > What is irrelevant is your contention that discrimination is part of
> > the human condition. That does not bear on the remark to which you
> > were replying.

>
> Discrimination is every animal's most important survival tool. Without the
> ability to discriminate antelope would walk right up to a pride of lions and
> we would continue to eat foods known to be poisonous. You have taken a
> negative *******ization of the word and made into your reality.
>


Discrimination, in the sense of making different moral judgements
about two different cases, requires justification, i.e. pointing out
some morally relevant distinction between the cases. This is a basic
point in moral philosophy.

> > You contended that there is nothing to justify about the fact that we
> > would be more willing to kill animals to save ourselves than to kill
> > humans to save ourselves. I don't agree with this and I bothered to
> > say something about it, but I don't regard it as a major issue. (You
> > later conflated this with the issue of whether there is anything to
> > justify about the practice of eating meat, obviously I regard that as
> > a more important issue).

>
> That cannot be the issue, because meat is dead. The issue must come earlier,
> that is the killing or, or the sponsoring of the killing of animals for the
> purpose of creating food. Then the question must be asked, why is it
> necessary to justify the killing an animal to turn it into food and clothing
> and other useful products while at the same time it does not seem to be
> necessary to justify killing animals collaterally in other forms of
> agriculture. This raises the point, isn't food the justification?
>


Both require some justification. A form of agriculture which causes
less harm might be easier to justify.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> > I said "Maybe it
> >> > can be justified, maybe it can't", which is basically not saying
> >> > anything. You said "What is there to justify?", meaning, you think it
> >> > obviously can be justified and it's not worth arguing about.

>
> >> Er, no. The question "What is there to justify?" means exactly what it
> >> asks,
> >> "What is there to justify?"; i.e. "What is there to justify if people
> >> kill
> >> animals to eat?"

>
> > That's actually not what we were talking about. Saying "what is there
> > to justify" about that issue is really just a move to opt out of
> > serious discussion of the issue. If you're not interested in seriously
> > discussing the issue, you probably shouldn't be on
> > alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian.

>
> You're constantly condescending towards people, implying they're not
> discussing the issues properly, but you never say much of any substance
> yourself.
>


I am only condescending as tit-for-tat. The points I make in reply to
people are usually relevant, good points. In particular, I have
pointed out important limitations to the arguments the antis make
here, which they have never really adequately responded to.

  #247 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.usenet.kooks,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jun 6, 2:55 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jun 6, 9:07 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> On Jun 5, 4:01 pm, Rupert > wrote:

>
> >>> On Jun 5, 9:35 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
> >>>> 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
> oglegroups.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.
> >>> Irrelevant. What I said is still correct.
> >>> There's really nothing for us to argue about anyway. I said "Maybe it
> >>> can be justified, maybe it can't", which is basically not saying
> >>> anything. You said "What is there to justify?", meaning, you think it
> >>> obviously can be justified
> >> No, ****wit; that's not what the question implies at all. The
> >> question implies he thinks there's no moral dimension to it.

>
> > If it could not be justified, there would be a moral dimension to it.

>
> ****wit: his question implies there is no *need* for
> justification, because of no moral dimension to it.
> That is the implication of the question, you stubborn
> arrogant ****: there is nothing that needs to be
> justified.
>


Which in no way contradicts anything I said.

> You are such an arrogant little ****, rupie.


Stop projecting, you silly fool.



  #248 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.usenet.kooks,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jun 6, 4:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jun 6, 2:41 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote

>
> >>> I doubt very much that you are making a good faith attempt at serious
> >>> debate. If you are, then poor you.
> >> That about sums you up Rupert. For all your posturing about being serious
> >> about moral philosophy and bragging that you're into real serious debate,
> >> the threads you get heavliy involved with are always the lowest common
> >> demoninator mudslinging contests.

>
> > Agreed, but I hardly think that's my fault.

>
> It is entirely your fault, rupie. Just as you
> voluntarily, actively, knowingly and repeatedly
> participate in processes that cause animals to die, so
> do you choose to participate in mudslinging, with all
> the same attributes attaching to your choice.
>


It is not my fault that this newsgroup is constantly in the gutter. I
never initiate a mudslingling match. When relatively civilized people
like Dutch engage in unjustified insults, I ask them to apologize
rather than retaliating. When people like you who are beyond hope hurl
insults at me, I occasionally give back some of what I get, but my
behaviour in no way compares to yours. I am a civilized person, you
and Rick Etter are contemptible low-lifes. The idea of *you*
suggesting that I am somehow responsible for the fact that this
newsgroup is constantly in the gutter is utterly absurd.

> >> Rudy uses logic and embellishes it with
> >> direct insults, you use pseudo-intellectual jibber-jabber and condescension
> >> as your ad hominem weapons of choice. Bottom line, it's all the same gutter.

>
> > Rudy provides flawed arguments,

>
> No.
>


Yep, Ball. I've told you what's wrong with them, you've declined to
give any serious comment. Keep your head in the sand if that's the way
you want it.

> > I provide him with reasoned responses.

>
> No, absolutely not. You regurgitate "ar" dogma, that's
> all.



  #249 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jun 6, 1:58 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 5, 9:06 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "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.

>
> > No, they're advocating veganism as a moral baseline, but on the basis
> > of arguments other than the environmental argument.

>
> They're not "suggesting" veganism as a reasonable alternative as you
> portrayed, they are stating categorically that it is the only moral avenue
> available to us, assuming of course that we have a choice.
>
> >> Not you
> >> either, based on everything you've said.

>
> > Why not?

>
> Because your words reveal that you have bought the AR party line on a
> fundamental level. You can't do that and at the same time take a moderate
> view of animal use. The two are incongruent.
>


What does that mean? What's wrong with my views about animal use?

> >> 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 trouble is you don't really understand what principles I do
> > accept, and when I try to explain it to you you tell me I'm not really
> > saying anything and I'm a pseudo-intellectual.

>
> That's because you tend to talk in circles. If something like this can't be
> parsed down to simple understandable terms then the person speaking doesn't
> really understand what they're saying. This subject is unlike higher
> mathematics in that way.
>


Well, Dutch, I hate to tell you this but if I tried to explain my
thesis (in maths) to you it would take many years for you to
understand. You could probably understand my ideas in moral philosophy
with a bit of effort, but you've got to approach the subject seriously
and with an open mind. You asked me to explain how my views are
consistent with equal consideration, I said Peter Singer's views are,
and other, non-consequentialist views could be as well, and you said
that was just waffle. Well, it's not. It was a reasonable explanation
of how a view could be consistent with equal consideration without
being an absolutist animal rights position. You've got to be prepared
to listen with an open mind and actually think about what's being said
for more than two seconds if you want to make progress. Do you know
much about Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism?

> > I see a problem with
> > discriminating on the basis of species alone.

>
> That statement is internally corrupt from start to finish. What do you mean
> by problem, and discrimination? What do you mean when you say something is a
> problem?


There's nothing corrupt about it. If you want to understand what I
mean, check out the talk I'm giving to some Honours students. It's in
my Yahoo group, discussion_of_animal_ethics, in the Files section.

> Discrimination per se is not a negative, it is a positive. You seem
> to be borrowing from the shorthand use of the word in the place of "injust
> or unfair discrimination".


No, I'm not. Not all discrimination is unjust or unfair, but any kind
of discrimination needs justification. If species discrimination is
not unjust and unfair, then fine, it must have a justification. I want
to see it. Pointing out that we kill demodex mites when we wash our
hair isn't good enough.

> And we don't discriminate on species "alone", we
> also discriminate within our species, and not always unfairly, but not
> always equitably either.


Yes, that's fine. My problem is with discriminating on the basis of
species *alone*. To the extent that a practice cannot be justified
without pure species discrimination, I think it is problematic.

> Perhaps a clearer statement of that idea would be,
> " It seems unjust to harm members of other species in circumstances and ways
> in which we would not harm other humans."
>


Who are relevantly similar to the members of other species. Yes,
exactly. Thank you.

> The answer is, yes, if you look at animals and attempt to apply the
> principles of human rights to them, then it seems unjust. The first question
> is, was it a valid exercise to attempt that in the first place? Does it make
> sense outside the confines of a theoretical model? What I know is that it is
> foolhardy to subscribe to the notion that is de facto truth before grasping
> all the implications and complications that it introduces in the real world.
>


All right, well why not also say that it's invalid to apply the notion
of human rights to radically cognitively impaired humans? The point is
that we draw a distinction, and it needs to be justified.

> > I acknowledge that it is
> > a serious challenge to construct a plausible comprehensive ethical
> > theory which does not discriminate on the basis of species. You think
> > it's obvious that it can't be done, I don't agree with you and I think
> > your view is partly based on a misapprehension about what constitutes
> > discrimination on the basis of species. For example, when you say that
> > if we abandoned discrimination on the basis of species we would no
> > longer be able to wash our hair because it kills demodex mites, that
> > is definitely incorrect.

>
> You're relying on the most extreme example,


Well, it was *your* example.

> what about bees, spiders and
> other small critters in the lawn? What about moles and voles and lizards and
> toads in crop fields? Why does their plight seem so much less important to
> the vegan than the plight of the chicken? And it does.
>


I wouldn't necessarily say that. It's just that it's harder to do
something about it.

> That definitely shows you've got a long way
>
> > to go before you understand what certain arguments do and don't
> > entail. I apologize if I've been unduly condescending in pointing this
> > out, and I apologize if I haven't done a very good job of helping you
> > to a better understanding, but it definitely is the case that you need
> > to improve your understanding before you can seriously engage with
> > arguments like these. You say that's all nonsense and tell me I'm a
> > pseudo-intellectual, well, you're entitled to that view, but it's
> > wrong.

>
> Those last dozen or so lines might have been better served attempting to
> explain how you think instead of rambling on about my perceived
> shortcomings.
>
> I have some rough ideas about the foundations of your form of thought, but I
> would prefer to hear you try to elucidate them in your own way first, using
> Rupert language, not phrases pulled out of books.


Why don't you join my Yahoo group discussion_of_animal_ethics and
check out the talk I'm going to give to some Honours students, and
tell me what you think of it?



  #250 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jun 6, 2:13 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 5, 9:06 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "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.

>
> > Actually, this contention that I should be "skeptical" about them is
> > interesting. One of two things has to be done: we either have to find
> > a good justification for discrimination on the basis of species, or
> > else we have to build a plausible comprehensive ethical framework
> > which avoids it.

>
> I think that we can more closely examine the notion that there exists an
> onus to find justification, something you have assumed to be true. Since
> discrimination in and of itself is good, therefore the task is to establish
> if that particular discrimination is unreasonable. I won't attempt that, but
> I would submit that it is your job to establish before you begin to believe
> in something like this.
>


Well, yes, we certainly can examine it more closely, and that is
precisely what DeGrazia attempts to do. You've read what he has to say
and you don't have much to say in reply except that it's all rubbish.
I'm afraid I don't find that to be a very compelling response. I think
DeGrazia does a good job of placing the onus of justification on those
who would discriminate on the basis of species alone.

> You're saying I should be more skeptical about the
>
> > possibility of the latter than the former, partly because you think
> > that it's obvious that the latter can't be done and hence the former
> > needs no justification anyway. As I say, I don't share that view. I
> > think your skepticism about the possibility of building a
> > comprehensive ethical framework which avoids discrimination on the
> > basis of species is partly based on a misapprehension of what that
> > would involve. I am somewhat skeptical about the possibility of
> > building such a framework, but I am at least equally skeptical about
> > the possibility of finding a good justification for discrimination on
> > the basis of species.

>
> > The analogy with trisection of the angle is not quite apt because I
> > have read and understood the proof that such a thing is impossible.

>
> Unfortunately, as complex as that proof is, even valid proofs of moral
> concepts are not so clear cut. All of the logic in the world can't overrule
> someone's aversion to the idea of a certain type of killing, even while they
> may sponsor other kinds.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -





  #251 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.usenet.kooks,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jun 6, 2:57 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jun 6, 3:27 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> 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.

>
> > Why is it false,

>
> Not consuming the parts doesn't mean one doesn't harm
> animals, killer.


Yes, I know. Maybe you could answer the question that you snipped.

  #252 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.usenet.kooks,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jun 6, 2:41 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> > I doubt very much that you are making a good faith attempt at serious
> > debate. If you are, then poor you.

>
> That about sums you up Rupert. For all your posturing about being serious
> about moral philosophy and bragging that you're into real serious debate,
> the threads you get heavliy involved with are always the lowest common
> demoninator mudslinging contests. Jon uses logic and embellishes it with
> direct insults, you use pseudo-intellectual jibber-jabber and condescension
> as your ad hominem weapons of choice. Bottom line, it's all the same gutter.


I would add that I am not condescending very often. Most of the time I
am perfectly reasonable. Jon does occasionally manage to provoke me
into mudslinging contests. Why not? He's beyond redemption and he
certainly has nothing to complain about, why not indulge the urge to
give him some of his own medicine. And I am sometimes perhaps a bit
condescending to you. Well, okay, I'm sorry if you don't like it, but
really, the way you rubbish DeGrazia when you clearly don't understand
him is really a bit much. If you want to engage seriously with
DeGrazia you really need to make a bit more of an effort to understand
him. I'd be happy to help you, but you don't seem capable of
responding to my efforts to help with anything other than calling me a
pseudo-intellectual. So what's the point? When I say you don't
understand DeGrazia, I'm just stating the facts.

If you can't distinguish my conduct here from Jon Ball's, or the
quality of my arguments, then I think your powers of discrimination
need improving.

  #253 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.usenet.kooks,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 227
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

"Rupert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 6, 2:41 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote
>>
>> > I doubt very much that you are making a good faith attempt at serious
>> > debate. If you are, then poor you.

>>
>> That about sums you up Rupert. For all your posturing about being serious
>> about moral philosophy and bragging that you're into real serious debate,
>> the threads you get heavliy involved with are always the lowest common
>> demoninator mudslinging contests.

>
> Agreed, but I hardly think that's my fault.


You're a willing participant.

>> Jon uses logic and embellishes it with
>> direct insults, you use pseudo-intellectual jibber-jabber and
>> condescension
>> as your ad hominem weapons of choice. Bottom line, it's all the same
>> gutter.

>
> Jon provides flawed arguments, I provide him with reasoned responses.


Hardly.

> I am occasionally condescending, but only as tit-for-tat.


Always the victim eh Rupert? yawn...

  #254 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.usenet.kooks,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 227
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

"Rupert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 6, 2:33 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote
>>
>> > What is irrelevant is your contention that discrimination is part of
>> > the human condition. That does not bear on the remark to which you
>> > were replying.

>>
>> Discrimination is every animal's most important survival tool. Without
>> the
>> ability to discriminate antelope would walk right up to a pride of lions
>> and
>> we would continue to eat foods known to be poisonous. You have taken a
>> negative *******ization of the word and made into your reality.
>>

>
> Discrimination, in the sense of making different moral judgements
> about two different cases, requires justification, i.e. pointing out
> some morally relevant distinction between the cases. This is a basic
> point in moral philosophy.
>
>> > You contended that there is nothing to justify about the fact that we
>> > would be more willing to kill animals to save ourselves than to kill
>> > humans to save ourselves. I don't agree with this and I bothered to
>> > say something about it, but I don't regard it as a major issue. (You
>> > later conflated this with the issue of whether there is anything to
>> > justify about the practice of eating meat, obviously I regard that as
>> > a more important issue).

>>
>> That cannot be the issue, because meat is dead. The issue must come
>> earlier,
>> that is the killing or, or the sponsoring of the killing of animals for
>> the
>> purpose of creating food. Then the question must be asked, why is it
>> necessary to justify the killing an animal to turn it into food and
>> clothing
>> and other useful products while at the same time it does not seem to be
>> necessary to justify killing animals collaterally in other forms of
>> agriculture. This raises the point, isn't food the justification?
>>

>
> Both require some justification.


Food, what better justification could there be?

> A form of agriculture which causes
> less harm might be easier to justify.


Easier to justify than food?


>> >> > I said "Maybe it
>> >> > can be justified, maybe it can't", which is basically not saying
>> >> > anything. You said "What is there to justify?", meaning, you think
>> >> > it
>> >> > obviously can be justified and it's not worth arguing about.

>>
>> >> Er, no. The question "What is there to justify?" means exactly what it
>> >> asks,
>> >> "What is there to justify?"; i.e. "What is there to justify if people
>> >> kill
>> >> animals to eat?"

>>
>> > That's actually not what we were talking about. Saying "what is there
>> > to justify" about that issue is really just a move to opt out of
>> > serious discussion of the issue. If you're not interested in seriously
>> > discussing the issue, you probably shouldn't be on
>> > alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian.

>>
>> You're constantly condescending towards people, implying they're not
>> discussing the issues properly, but you never say much of any substance
>> yourself.
>>

>
> I am only condescending as tit-for-tat. The points I make in reply to
> people are usually relevant, good points. In particular, I have
> pointed out important limitations to the arguments the antis make
> here, which they have never really adequately responded to.


If you have made such points I don't recall reading them.


  #255 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 227
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

"Rupert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 6, 1:58 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>
>> oups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jun 5, 9:06 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> "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.

>>
>> > No, they're advocating veganism as a moral baseline, but on the basis
>> > of arguments other than the environmental argument.

>>
>> They're not "suggesting" veganism as a reasonable alternative as you
>> portrayed, they are stating categorically that it is the only moral
>> avenue
>> available to us, assuming of course that we have a choice.
>>
>> >> Not you
>> >> either, based on everything you've said.

>>
>> > Why not?

>>
>> Because your words reveal that you have bought the AR party line on a
>> fundamental level. You can't do that and at the same time take a moderate
>> view of animal use. The two are incongruent.
>>

>
> What does that mean? What's wrong with my views about animal use?


I didn't say they were wrong, I said that they are not moderate. Your
position reflects strong animal rights thinking, and therefore is not
congruent with moderate statements like the ones you posited above. If one
believes that slavery is wrong then one does not "suggest that perhaps we
should cut down on the number of slaves we own".


>> >> 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 trouble is you don't really understand what principles I do
>> > accept, and when I try to explain it to you you tell me I'm not really
>> > saying anything and I'm a pseudo-intellectual.

>>
>> That's because you tend to talk in circles. If something like this can't
>> be
>> parsed down to simple understandable terms then the person speaking
>> doesn't
>> really understand what they're saying. This subject is unlike higher
>> mathematics in that way.
>>

>
> Well, Dutch, I hate to tell you this but if I tried to explain my
> thesis (in maths) to you it would take many years for you to
> understand.


I agree, I have read some of your thesis, it's way above my head, however,
as I just said, mathematics is not moral philosophy.

> You could probably understand my ideas in moral philosophy
> with a bit of effort, but you've got to approach the subject seriously
> and with an open mind.


I do have an open mind, but you have to learn how to articulate.

>You asked me to explain how my views are
> consistent with equal consideration,


I did not, I asked how any life could be.

> I said Peter Singer's views are,
> and other, non-consequentialist views could be as well, and you said
> that was just waffle. Well, it's not. It was a reasonable explanation
> of how a view could be consistent with equal consideration without
> being an absolutist animal rights position. You've got to be prepared
> to listen with an open mind and actually think about what's being said
> for more than two seconds if you want to make progress. Do you know
> much about Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism?


What you don't get it is that what I am interested in is ideas that can
survive in the crucible of a real-world test, not endless rhetoric.

>> > I see a problem with
>> > discriminating on the basis of species alone.

>>
>> That statement is internally corrupt from start to finish. What do you
>> mean
>> by problem, and discrimination? What do you mean when you say something
>> is a
>> problem?

>
> There's nothing corrupt about it. If you want to understand what I
> mean, check out the talk I'm giving to some Honours students. It's in
> my Yahoo group, discussion_of_animal_ethics, in the Files section.


See, you didn't respond again.

>> Discrimination per se is not a negative, it is a positive. You seem
>> to be borrowing from the shorthand use of the word in the place of
>> "injust
>> or unfair discrimination".

>
> No, I'm not. Not all discrimination is unjust or unfair, but any kind
> of discrimination needs justification.


No it doesn't. You don't understand the meaning of the word.

> If species discrimination is
> not unjust and unfair, then fine, it must have a justification. I want
> to see it. Pointing out that we kill demodex mites when we wash our
> hair isn't good enough.


Why not, because you say so and you are a hot-shot? I never presented that
as a definitive argument, but since you keep referring to it, why isn't
pointing out that we kill demodex mites good enough to show that we must
discriminate based on species?

>> And we don't discriminate on species "alone", we
>> also discriminate within our species, and not always unfairly, but not
>> always equitably either.

>
> Yes, that's fine. My problem is with discriminating on the basis of
> species *alone*. To the extent that a practice cannot be justified
> without pure species discrimination, I think it is problematic.


So you have frequently pointed out, but never explained.

>> Perhaps a clearer statement of that idea would be,
>> " It seems unjust to harm members of other species in circumstances and
>> ways
>> in which we would not harm other humans."
>>

>
> Who are relevantly similar to the members of other species.


You had to insert a waffle into a perfectly clear statement, why?

Yes,
> exactly. Thank you.


No problem.

>> The answer is, yes, if you look at animals and attempt to apply the
>> principles of human rights to them, then it seems unjust. The first
>> question
>> is, was it a valid exercise to attempt that in the first place? Does it
>> make
>> sense outside the confines of a theoretical model? What I know is that it
>> is
>> foolhardy to subscribe to the notion that is de facto truth before
>> grasping
>> all the implications and complications that it introduces in the real
>> world.
>>

>
> All right, well why not also say that it's invalid to apply the notion
> of human rights to radically cognitively impaired humans?


We don't. The rights of profoundly retarded individuals are curtailed to
near zero, and their obligations as well. We do not charge such people with
crimes regardless of their actions.

> The point is
> that we draw a distinction, and it needs to be justified.


You need to justify it perhaps, most of us do not. I don't need to justify
discriminating between a chicken and a human any more than I need to justify
discriminating between a mouse and a fly, or a spider and a banana. It's
just something I do naturally.

>> > I acknowledge that it is
>> > a serious challenge to construct a plausible comprehensive ethical
>> > theory which does not discriminate on the basis of species. You think
>> > it's obvious that it can't be done, I don't agree with you and I think
>> > your view is partly based on a misapprehension about what constitutes
>> > discrimination on the basis of species. For example, when you say that
>> > if we abandoned discrimination on the basis of species we would no
>> > longer be able to wash our hair because it kills demodex mites, that
>> > is definitely incorrect.

>>
>> You're relying on the most extreme example,

>
> Well, it was *your* example.


But not my only one, and you knew it.

>> what about bees, spiders and
>> other small critters in the lawn? What about moles and voles and lizards
>> and
>> toads in crop fields? Why does their plight seem so much less important
>> to
>> the vegan than the plight of the chicken? And it does.
>>

>
> I wouldn't necessarily say that.


You should, if you are really searching for the truth. Vegans constantly
make arguments why the death of the field mouse is less morally significant
than the death of the chicken or cow, as if the animals cared. I argue that
the deaths are morally equivalent, therefore it should be as important to a
vegan to consume less, or make better choices among vegetarian fare, as it
is to avoid animal products, but that is not the case. The avoidance of
animal products dwarfs all other concerns in the vegan mindset.

>It's just that it's harder to do
> something about it.


That should not make it any less significant, they die for the same reason,
because we want food. Veganism suffers from myopia, it thinks too much of
it's own prime directive, which has been foisted upon it from the animal
rights movement.

>
>> That definitely shows you've got a long way
>>
>> > to go before you understand what certain arguments do and don't
>> > entail. I apologize if I've been unduly condescending in pointing this
>> > out, and I apologize if I haven't done a very good job of helping you
>> > to a better understanding, but it definitely is the case that you need
>> > to improve your understanding before you can seriously engage with
>> > arguments like these. You say that's all nonsense and tell me I'm a
>> > pseudo-intellectual, well, you're entitled to that view, but it's
>> > wrong.

>>
>> Those last dozen or so lines might have been better served attempting to
>> explain how you think instead of rambling on about my perceived
>> shortcomings.
>>
>> I have some rough ideas about the foundations of your form of thought,
>> but I
>> would prefer to hear you try to elucidate them in your own way first,
>> using
>> Rupert language, not phrases pulled out of books.

>
> Why don't you join my Yahoo group discussion_of_animal_ethics and
> check out the talk I'm going to give to some Honours students, and
> tell me what you think of it?


I browsed some points there the other day, I'll have a look.





  #256 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 227
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

"Rupert" > wrote
> On Jun 6, 2:13 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:


>> I think that we can more closely examine the notion that there exists an
>> onus to find justification, something you have assumed to be true. Since
>> discrimination in and of itself is good, therefore the task is to
>> establish
>> if that particular discrimination is unreasonable. I won't attempt that,
>> but
>> I would submit that it is your job to establish before you begin to
>> believe
>> in something like this.
>>

>
> Well, yes, we certainly can examine it more closely, and that is
> precisely what DeGrazia attempts to do. You've read what he has to say
> and you don't have much to say in reply except that it's all rubbish.
> I'm afraid I don't find that to be a very compelling response. I think
> DeGrazia does a good job of placing the onus of justification on those
> who would discriminate on the basis of species alone.


Well, that's not a very compelling commentary either. I think he does an
inadequate job of it, his arguments just go in circles endlessly. I suspect
he could have recited Mary had a little lamb and you would have found it
convincing.



  #257 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.usenet.kooks,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 227
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

"Rupert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Jun 6, 2:41 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote
>>
>> > I doubt very much that you are making a good faith attempt at serious
>> > debate. If you are, then poor you.

>>
>> That about sums you up Rupert. For all your posturing about being serious
>> about moral philosophy and bragging that you're into real serious debate,
>> the threads you get heavliy involved with are always the lowest common
>> demoninator mudslinging contests. Jon uses logic and embellishes it with
>> direct insults, you use pseudo-intellectual jibber-jabber and
>> condescension
>> as your ad hominem weapons of choice. Bottom line, it's all the same
>> gutter.

>
> I would add that I am not condescending very often. Most of the time I
> am perfectly reasonable. Jon does occasionally manage to provoke me
> into mudslinging contests. Why not? He's beyond redemption and he
> certainly has nothing to complain about, why not indulge the urge to
> give him some of his own medicine. And I am sometimes perhaps a bit
> condescending to you. Well, okay, I'm sorry if you don't like it, but
> really, the way you rubbish DeGrazia when you clearly don't understand
> him is really a bit much. If you want to engage seriously with
> DeGrazia you really need to make a bit more of an effort to understand
> him. I'd be happy to help you, but you don't seem capable of
> responding to my efforts to help with anything other than calling me a
> pseudo-intellectual. So what's the point? When I say you don't
> understand DeGrazia, I'm just stating the facts.


I don't disagree, but I think it's because his prose is incomprehensible to
anyone who is attempting to read it critically.

>
> If you can't distinguish my conduct here from Jon Ball's, or the
> quality of my arguments, then I think your powers of discrimination
> need improving.



Do I need to justify discriminating between you and he? :>)


  #258 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 227
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

"Rupert" > wrote
> Why don't you join my Yahoo group discussion_of_animal_ethics and
> check out the talk I'm going to give to some Honours students, and
> tell me what you think of it?


Where's the talk?
  #259 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.usenet.kooks,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 20
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jun 5, 12:35 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
...
> Erm... Chimpanzees and apes eat meat.


'According to Tuttle, the first substantive information on chimp
diets was provided by Nissen in 1931 (p.75). In 1930 Nissen
spent 75 days of a 3-month period tracking and observing
chimps. He made direct unquantified observations and
examined fecal deposits and leftovers at feeding sites. He also
found "no evidence that they ate honey, eggs or animal prey"
- this observation may have been too limited due to seasonal
variations in the chimp diet.

In Reynolds and Reynolds (1965), Tuttle says that a 300 hour
study of Budongo Forest chimps over an 8-month period
revealed "no evidence for avian eggs, termites or vertebrates",
although they thought that insects formed 1% of their diet (p.81).

In another study of Budongo Forest chimps from 1966 to 1967,
Sugiyama did not observe "meat-eating or deliberate captures
of arthropods", although he reported that "the chimpanzees
did ingest small insects that infested figs" (p.82).

Tuttle says that later observations at Budongo by Suzuki revealed
meat eating. Where the earlier observations wrong, or incomplete,
or maybe an accurate reflection of their diet at the time? Did the
chimps change their diet later? We do not know. Chimps
sometimes change their diets on a monthly basis. A study of
chimps at the Kabogo Point region from 1961 to 1962 by Azuma
and Toyoshima, revealed that they witnessed "only one instance
of chimpanzees ingesting animal food, vis. termites or beetles
from rotten wood." (p.87).

>From 1963 to 1964, similar observations were found in Kasakati

Basin by a Kyoto University team, and when Izawa and Itani
published in 1966 they reported "no chimpanzees eating insects,
vertebrates, avian eggs, soil or tree leaves and found no trace in
the 14 stools that they inspected " (p.86). In contrast Kawabe
and Suzuki found the Kasakati chimps hunting in the same year
(p.88), although only 14 of 174 fecal samples contained traces
of insects and other animal foods. So perhaps these differing
observations are due to seasonal variation, or even local
differences (cultural variation) in feeding preferences - Tuttle
does not reveal which. Maybe some of the chimps groups are
'vegetarian', while others are not. But see the Kortlandt
observations below before believing that all chimps are
meat-eaters.

Far less is known about bonobo feeding habits than about the
common chimpanzee. Like chimps, the bonobo is also known
to eat insects and carrion, although unlike chimps it has not
been observed to hunt. Kano and Mulavwa provided the most
detailed account of the feeding behaviour of Wamba bonobos
based on a 4-month study. Tuttle reports that their diet was
80% fruit pulp, 15% fibrous foods and 5% seeds, and that
"Animal foods constituted a minute part of their fare" (p.95).

The best evidence, if there is any, of a "vegetarian" ape is the
gorilla. As with the other apes, there is great variation in what
gorillas eat based on their locality, and season. A 15-month
study of gorillas at Campo by Calvert, is reported by Tuttle
(p.100), in which he says that out of 280 stools, 1 example of
stomach contents and 1400 feeding sites, plus direct
observations, there was "no evidence" that "Campo gorillas
ingested animal matter." Similarly, Casimir and Butenandt
followed a group about 20 gorillas at Kahuzi during 15 months
in 1971 to 1972 (Tuttle, ibid., p.102). They collected 43 fecal
samples at fairly regular intervals but none "contained remains
of vertebrates or invertebrates". In addition, the gorillas did
not disturb active birds and honeybee nests that were clearly
visible near their own nests. Nor did they unearth bee nests.
Goodall also noted that Kahuzi gorillas ignored eggs and
fledglings and did not invade bees nests (Tuttle, ibid., p.105),
and that none of the many fecal samples he found contained
animal remnants. Tuttle also reports that the "most detailed"
study of 10 groups of Zairean Virunga mountain gorillas by
Schaller in 13 months from 1956 to 1960, including fecal
samples and 466 direct hours of observation, found "no
evidence that they raided apian nests, which were common
at Kabara, ingested animal foods, or drank water." (p.107)
In 1959, a 64-day study by Kawai and Mizuhara of gorillas
at Mts. Muhavura and Gahinga also found "no evidence for
animal foods in the gorillas' fare." (p.108)

The story for gorillas is by no means a clear one, as findings
seem to vary from one study to another. You can pick them
to suit your agenda. For example, Adriaan Kortlandt says in
'Food Acquisition And Processing In Primates', page 133-135,
that "Gorillas have never been observed to eat honey, eggs,
insects or meat, not even when they were sitting or nesting
almost on top of honeycomb or a bird's nest, except for
one single case of honey-eating reported by Sabater-Pi (1960)"
He adds however, that Fossey (1974) reports that slugs, larvae
and worms were found to constitute 1% of the food item
observations recorded. Kortlandt adds that "No animal
remains have been found in gorilla dung, except for one
case presumably indicating cannibalism (Fossey, 1981)."

Kortlandt states that predation by chimpanzees on vertebrates
is undoubtedly a rather rare phenomenon among rainforest-
dwelling populations of chimpanzees. Kortlandt lists the
reasons given below in his evidence.

# the absence (or virtual absence) of animal matter in the
digestive systems of hundreds of hunted, dissected or
otherwise investigated cases
# the rarity of parasites indicating carnivorous habits
# rarity of pertinent field observations
# the responses when he placed live as well as dead potential
prey animals along the chimpanzee paths at Beni (in the
poorer environments of the savanna landscape however,
predation on vertebrates appears to be much more common)

Kortlandt concludes this section on primate diets by saying
that the wealth of flora and insect fauna in the rain-forest
provides both chimpanzees and orang-utans with a dietary
spectrum that seems wide enough to meet their nutritional
requirements, without hunting and killing of vertebrates being
necessary. It is in the poorer nutritional environments, where
plant sources may be scarce or of low quality where
carnivorous behaviour arises. Even then he says that the meat
obtained are minimal and perhaps insufficient to meet basic
needs. Finally he adds "The same conclusion applies, of course,
to hominids . . . it is strange that most palaeoanthropologists
have never been willing to accept the elementary facts on this
matter that have emerged from both nutritional science and
primate research."
...'
http://venus.nildram.co.uk/veganmc/polemics.htm

> Man eats meat because man likes the taste of meat.


'The big problem we have before us in the meat industry is to
how to reduce the levels of fat in meat without leaving it dry
and tasteless when we eat it. Fat contributes a lot of taste to
meat, particularly those flavours that allow us to recognize
one species from another. Without it, we may end up with
just a bland, general meaty taste. '
http://www.aps.uoguelph.ca/~swatland/ch2_4.htm

'Measuring Brain Activity In People Eating Chocolate Offers
New Clues About How The Body Becomes Addicted

CHICAGO --- Using positron emission tomography scans to
measure brain activity in people eating chocolate, a team of U.S.
and Canadian neuroscientists believe they have identified areas
of the brain that may underlie addiction and eating disorders.

Dana Small, assistant professor of neurology at Northwestern
University Medical School, and colleagues found that
individuals' ratings of the pleasantness of eating chocolate
were associated with increased blood flow in areas of the
brain, particularly in the orbital frontal cortex and midbrain,
that are also activated by addictive drugs such as cocaine.
...
According to Small, a primary reinforcer is a stimulus that an
individual doesn't have to learn to like but, rather, is enjoyed
from birth. Addictive drugs can be viewed as primary
reinforcers. Fat and sweet also are primary reinforcers, and
chocolate is chock full of fat and sweet, Small said.
...
Small explained that studying the brain's response to eating a
highly rewarding food such as chocolate provides an effective
"in-health" model of addiction. "
...'
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0829082943.htm

'The combination of fat with sugar or fat with salt seems to
have a very particular neurochemical effect on the brain,"
Ann Kelley, a professor at the University of Wisconsin
(search) who co-authored the unpublished study, said on the
Fox News Channel. "What that does is release certain
chemicals that are similar to drugs, like heroin and morphine."
...'
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,93031,00.html

  #260 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.usenet.kooks,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 20
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jun 5, 12:36 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
> 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>


<yawn>

> 22KB snipped, entirely unread.


All of it is relevant.

> And the point you wish to make is what?


You're wrong,




  #261 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.usenet.kooks,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 53
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

pearl > Thou ape. Thou insane, big-nosed young
waverer. Ye snickered:
> On Jun 5, 12:36 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
>> 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>

>
> <yawn>


Ask mummy to tuck you in. Sleep tight.

--
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 verrotgeneukte natte amfitryon.
  #262 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.usenet.kooks,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 20
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jun 6, 2:01 am, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
...
> Cooked meat


"The natural food of man, judging from his structure, appears
to consist principally of the fruits, roots, and other succulent
parts of vegetables. His hands afford every facility for
gathering them; his short but moderately strong jaws on the
other hand, and his canines being equal only in length to the
other teeth, together with his tuberculated molars on the
other, would scarcely permit him either to masticate herbage,
or to devour flesh, were these condiments not previously
prepared by cooking."
-- Georges Cuvier (1769-1832), Regne Animal, Vol 1, p73

['Without a doubt, Georges Cuvier possessed one of the
finest minds in history. Almost single-handedly, he founded
vertebrate paleontology as a scientific discipline and created
the comparative method of organismal biology, an incredibly
powerful tool. It was Cuvier who firmly established the fact
of the extinction of past lifeforms. He contributed an immense
amount of research in vertebrate and invertebrate zoology and
paleontology, and also wrote and lectured on the history of
science. ..'
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/cuvier.html ]

> can be eaten and digested in
> a small fraction of the time it takes to eat and digest raw meat. Also,
> cooked bones are far more easily broken than raw bones, thus the marrow is
> more easily exposed for consumption. Furthermore cooked meat does not
> deteriorate anywhere nearly as rapdily as raw meat.


Asia Pacific J Clin Nutr (1996) Vol5, No 1: 2-9
Intestinal flora and human health
Tomotari Mitsuoka, DVM, PhD
Professor Emeritus, The University of Tokyo, Japan
...
Other intestinal bacteria produce substances that are harmful to
the host, such as putrefactive products, toxins and carcinogenic
substances. When harmful bacteria dominate in the intestines,
essential nutrients are not produced and the level of harmful
substances rises. These substances may not have an immediate
detrimental effect on the host but they are thought to be
contributing factors to ageing, promoting cancer, liver and kidney
disease, hypertension and arteriosclerosis, and reduced immunity.
Little is known regarding which intestinal bacteria are responsible
for these effects. A number of factors can change the balance of
intestinal flora in favour of harmful bacteria. These include
peristalsis disorders, surgical operations of stomach or small
intestine, liver or kidney diseases, pernicious anaemia, cancer,
radiation or antibiotic therapies, immune disorders, emotional
stress, poor diet and ageing.
.....
The intestinal flora may play an important role in the causation
of cancer and ageing

Dietary factors are considered important environmental risk
determinants for colorectal cancer development. From
epidemiological observations, a high fat intake is associated
positively and a high fibre intake negatively with colorectal cancer.
This is thought to occur by the following mechanisms. From food
components in the gastrointestinal tract, organisms produce
various carcinogens from the dietary components and endogenous
substances, detoxify carcinogens, or enhance the host's immune
function, which results in changes in the incidence of cancers. The
ingestion of large amounts of animal fat enhances bile secretion,
causing an increase in bile acid and cholesterol in the intestine.
These increased substances are converted by intestinal bacteria
into secondary bile acids, their derivatives, aromatic polycyclic
hydrocarbons, oestrogen and epoxides derivatives that are
related to carcinogenesis. Various tryptophan metabolites (indole,
skatole, 3-hydroxykinurenine, 3-hydroxyanthranilic acid, etc.)
phenols, amines, and nitroso compounds produced by intestinal
bacteria from protein also participate in carcinogenesis (Fig. 5).
...
Figure 5. Relationships among diet, intestinal bacteria and cancer.

Recent epidemiological studies have revealed that insufficient intake
of dietary fibre is associated with high incidences of Western
diseases such as colorectal cancer, obesity, heart disease, diabetes,
and hypertension. Ingested dietary fibre causes increased volume
of faeces, dilution of noxious substances, and shortening of the
transit time of intestinal contents, resulting in early excretion of
noxious substances such as carcinogens produced by intestinal
bacteria. '
http://elecpress.monash.edu.au/APJCN.../51p02.htm#top

> So, you can take my assertion of a more general reference to "eating
> protein-rich meat"


<coff>

> to a more specific reference of "eating cooked meat".


Were some magical ingredient in flesh is responsible for brain
development, then why don't (real) carnivores have MASSIVE
brains, eh?

  #263 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.usenet.kooks,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 53
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

pearl > Thou gosling. Thou pedlar's excrement. Ye
pleaded:

> On Jun 6, 2:01 am, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
> ..
>> Cooked meat

>
> "T<BITCHSLAP>


Was it something important?

--
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 een afgetakelde aangeklede anuscoureur.
  #264 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.usenet.kooks,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 282
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 6, 2:55 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jun 6, 9:07 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> On Jun 5, 4:01 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 5, 9:35 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>> Irrelevant. What I said is still correct.
>>>>> There's really nothing for us to argue about anyway. I said "Maybe it
>>>>> can be justified, maybe it can't", which is basically not saying
>>>>> anything. You said "What is there to justify?", meaning, you think it
>>>>> obviously can be justified
>>>> No, ****wit; that's not what the question implies at all. The
>>>> question implies he thinks there's no moral dimension to it.
>>> If it could not be justified, there would be a moral dimension to it.

>> ****wit: his question implies there is no *need* for
>> justification, because of no moral dimension to it.
>> That is the implication of the question, you stubborn
>> arrogant ****: there is nothing that needs to be
>> justified.
>>

>
> Which in no way contradicts anything I said.


Yes, it plainly does contradict it, rupie, you ****wit.
You are claiming there is something that needs to be
justified, and hasn't been. The poster is saying there
is nothing that needs to be justified.


>> You are such an arrogant little ****, rupie.

>
> Stop projecting


No - still accurately describing you, ****wit.
  #265 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.usenet.kooks,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 282
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 6, 4:44 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jun 6, 2:41 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>> "Rupert" > wrote
>>>>> I doubt very much that you are making a good faith attempt at serious
>>>>> debate. If you are, then poor you.
>>>> That about sums you up Rupert. For all your posturing about being serious
>>>> about moral philosophy and bragging that you're into real serious debate,
>>>> the threads you get heavliy involved with are always the lowest common
>>>> demoninator mudslinging contests.
>>> Agreed, but I hardly think that's my fault.

>> It is entirely your fault, rupie. Just as you
>> voluntarily, actively, knowingly and repeatedly
>> participate in processes that cause animals to die, so
>> do you choose to participate in mudslinging, with all
>> the same attributes attaching to your choice.
>>

>
> It is not my fault that this newsgroup is constantly in the gutter


It is largely the fault of you and people like you.
You are a gutter dweller.


>>>> Rudy uses logic and embellishes it with
>>>> direct insults, you use pseudo-intellectual jibber-jabber and condescension
>>>> as your ad hominem weapons of choice. Bottom line, it's all the same gutter.
>>> Rudy provides flawed arguments,

>> No.
>>

>
> Yep,


No.


>>> I provide him with reasoned responses.

>> No, absolutely not. You regurgitate "ar" dogma, that's
>> all.


Right.


  #266 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.usenet.kooks,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 282
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 6, 2:57 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jun 6, 3:27 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>> Why is it false,

>> Not consuming the parts doesn't mean one doesn't harm
>> animals, killer.

>
> Yes, I know.


Then, you know why the moral belief is false, too.
  #267 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.usenet.kooks,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 282
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

lesley the whore of Cork, Ireland lied:
> 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,
> [snip anti-intellectual twaddle]


First of all, YOU are the one who attempts to use
anthropology to justify a dietary "philosophy", you
stupid **** whore. The problem is you try to do it
selectively, picking the tiny bits that support your
crackpot dietary philosophy and rejecting the vast
majority that contradicts it. Of course, as I've
pointed out dozens of times, you have read NOT ONE
****ING WORD of original literature on the topic. You
CANNOT read it, as you have no exposure to the field.

But the second thing is, the entire attempt on your
part is a waste of time, because anthropologists don't
care about a dietary "philosophy"; they're interested
only showing what early humans actually did eat. Their
conclusion is, they ate meat. The earliest humans and
their predecessor species ate meat. This is not in
serious dispute among anthropologists. You can try to
supply whatever crackpot "philosophical" explanations
you wish for it, but humans eat and have always eaten
meat. And yes, they are adapted to it.
  #268 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.usenet.kooks,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 282
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

Kadaitcha Man wrote:
> pearl > Thou ape. Thou insane, big-nosed young
> waverer. Ye snickered:
>> On Jun 5, 12:36 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
>>> 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>

>> <yawn>

>
> Ask mummy to tuck you in. Sleep tight.


lesley - she ain't no pearl - is an anti-intellectual,
anti-science crackpot. She also is a whore in Cork,
Ireland, who believes in and promotes:

"veganism"
"inner earth beings"
"hollow earth"
that goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe
helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef
rain forest destruction
Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade)
Stolen French flying saucer
Zapper
Foot massage (as cure-all)
Astrology
Numerology
Alien abduction
bestiality
Leprechauns
Channeling
Polar fountains
Sun gazing
Chemtrails
AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory
Crop circles
sexually aroused by violent ex-convicts
participation in skinhead subculture
the validity of online IQ tests
crackpot 9-11 conspiracy theories
Jeff Rense for "news"
long-debunked legends about "ageless wonders"

archived evidence of the above:
http://tinyurl.com/h0br
http://tinyurl.com/h0bl
http://tinyurl.com/v5p8
http://tinyurl.com/v5pf
http://tinyurl.com/mh5w
http://tinyurl.com/mh6h
http://tinyurl.com/mh6r
http://tinyurl.com/mh71
http://tinyurl.com/mh7a
http://tinyurl.com/mh7j
http://tinyurl.com/mh7p
http://tinyurl.com/v5jj
http://tinyurl.com/v5kd
http://tinyurl.com/v5l6
http://tinyurl.com/v5ft
http://tinyurl.com/v5fj
http://tinyurl.com/v5fp
http://tinyurl.com/v5ft
http://tinyurl.com/v5ga
http://tinyurl.com/v5gc
http://tinyurl.com/v5i2
http://tinyurl.com/v5gk
http://tinyurl.com/v5h1
http://tinyurl.com/v5h9
  #269 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.usenet.kooks,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 282
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

lesley the whore of Cork, Ireland blabbered:
> On Jun 6, 2:01 am, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
> ..
>> Cooked meat

>
> "The natural food of man,


No such thing.


> judging from his structure,


I thought you said it was folly to try to use
anthropology to support dietary philosophy?

You stupid bitch: "natural diet" is a *philosophy*.
It is a moral judgment, not a scientific one. Like
other nature-as-religion assholes, you believe that to
"deviate" from what you wrongly consider to be "nature"
is a sin.

Kadaitcha Man: lesley will now whine and cry about
"bullies". Bet on it.
  #270 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.usenet.kooks,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 282
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

lesley the whore of Cork, Ireland deliberately misled:
> On Jun 5, 12:35 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
> ..
>> Erm... Chimpanzees and apes eat meat.

>
> 'According to Tuttle,<triple bitchslap - WHAP!>


You haven't read Tuttle or any other literature in
anthropology. **** off.


  #271 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,652
Default Are you a goo?

On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 01:07:17 GMT, "nemo" > wrote:

>Eccles: Nope. Iyyyyyy'm not a goo


Excellent choice.

>- I'm a Goon!


Oh well, at least you're not a goo. If you were, then you'd be a
Goon and a goo too.

>Bluebottule: Eyuu are not thee onlee one, Eccules. I am one too!
>
>Eccles: Well I was one B4 you was so that makes me one two, and you, three
>four!! So dere! Hohoho!
>
>Neddie: What, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what, what,
>what, what, what, what, what, what, what??!! What about the rest of us, you
>pair of spotty-faced Herberts?
>
>Omnes: Yerr. Flippin cheek!
>
>Eccles: Oooh. We're spotty-faced Herberts . . . Did you know that Bottule??
>
>Bottule: Well it's better than bein a little tea-stained, crumpet-ridden
>idiot!


Or a goo.

>I'm a little tea-stained, crumpet-ridden idiot! I'm a little
>tea-stained, crumpet-ridden idiot! I'm a little tea-stained, crumpet-ridden
>id . . .


Well at least you're not a goo too.

>Grams: BANG!!!!
>
>Got eem!
>
>Wal: If this is all completely meaningless to you, dear listener, please
>look here . . . .
>
>http://www.thegoonshow.net/
>
>and here . .
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Goon_Show


But look what a moron you would have to admire in order to
be a goo too:

"Dogs NEVER anticipate, nor do cats, or cattle, or
any other animal you've ever encountered." - Goo

"Animals do not experience frustration." - Goo

"No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing
benefits from coming into existence. No farm animals
benefit from farming." - Goo

"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
.. . . is no mitigation at all for killing them." - Goo

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo

"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo

"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo

"I have examined the question at length, and feel
there is only one reasonable conclusion: life, per se,
is not a benefit." - Goo

"Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Goo

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo

"Animals cannot be or feel disappointed." - Goo

"Non human animals experience neither pride nor
disappointment. They don't have the mental ability
to feel either." - Goo

"Darwin, a sentimental person, was projecting. He
saw something that wasn't there. He was, in a way,
hallucinating." - Goo

"The dog didn't do what Darwin said. His statement of
the "changes in behavior" is not reliable." - Goo

"Anticipation requires language." - Goo

"No animals anticipate." - Goo

"Dogs, cats, cattle, almost all animals "lower" than
the great apes have no sense of self." - Goo

"They are not aware that they can see. " - Goo

"They are *not* aware that they can smell." - Goo

"Ranchers . . . have no idea if a steer they raise is
going to be used entirely for human consumption,
entirely for animal consumption, or for some
combination; nor do they care." - Goo

"Cattle are specifically bred into existence to be
pet food. " - Goo

"I'm right about all of it." - Goo
"I can explain myself in logical and coherent terms" - Goo
"my name and reputation are sterling" - Goo
"Why are you laughing at mental illness" - Goo
"I'm not stupid." - Goo
"I know exactly what I think" - Goo
"I educated the public" - Goo
"I haven't made any absurd claims" - Goo
"You have never identified a single lie I've told." - Goo
  #272 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.usenet.kooks,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 13
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jun 6, 10:08 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> lesley the whore of Cork, Ireland deliberately misled:
>
> > On Jun 5, 12:35 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
> > ..
> >> Erm... Chimpanzees and apes eat meat.

>
> > 'According to Tuttle,<triple bitchslap - WHAP!>

>
> You haven't read Tuttle or any other literature in
> anthropology. **** off.




Goo, are you teaching Dutch to be a GOOBER like you?

Do you make him practice his ****witted absurdities in front of a
mirror?


  #273 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.usenet.kooks,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 53
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

Rudy Canoza > Thou proud traitor. Thou
billowy-headed, humourless grown serpent. Ye inveighed:
> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>> pearl > Thou ape. Thou insane, big-nosed young
>> waverer. Ye snickered:
>>> On Jun 5, 12:36 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
>>>> 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>
>>> <yawn>

>>
>> Ask mummy to tuck you in. Sleep tight.

>
> lesley - she ain't no pearl - is an anti-intellectual,
> anti-science crackpot. She also is a whore in Cork,
> Ireland, who believes in and promotes:
>
> "veganism"
> "inner earth beings"
> "hollow earth"
> that goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe
> helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef
> rain forest destruction
> Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade)
> Stolen French flying saucer
> Zapper
> Foot massage (as cure-all)
> Astrology
> Numerology
> Alien abduction
> bestiality
> Leprechauns
> Channeling
> Polar fountains
> Sun gazing
> Chemtrails
> AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory
> Crop circles
> sexually aroused by violent ex-convicts
> participation in skinhead subculture
> the validity of online IQ tests
> crackpot 9-11 conspiracy theories
> Jeff Rense for "news"
> long-debunked legends about "ageless wonders"
>
> archived evidence of the above:
> http://tinyurl.com/h0br
> http://tinyurl.com/h0bl
> http://tinyurl.com/v5p8
> http://tinyurl.com/v5pf
> http://tinyurl.com/mh5w
> http://tinyurl.com/mh6h
> http://tinyurl.com/mh6r
> http://tinyurl.com/mh71
> http://tinyurl.com/mh7a
> http://tinyurl.com/mh7j
> http://tinyurl.com/mh7p
> http://tinyurl.com/v5jj
> http://tinyurl.com/v5kd
> http://tinyurl.com/v5l6
> http://tinyurl.com/v5ft
> http://tinyurl.com/v5fj
> http://tinyurl.com/v5fp
> http://tinyurl.com/v5ft
> http://tinyurl.com/v5ga
> http://tinyurl.com/v5gc
> http://tinyurl.com/v5i2
> http://tinyurl.com/v5gk
> http://tinyurl.com/v5h1
> http://tinyurl.com/v5h9


Well then, she'll be right at home in alt.usenet.kooks. Thanks for the info.

--
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 verrotte getrokken zatmuil.
  #274 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.usenet.kooks,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 282
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

Kadaitcha Man wrote:
> Rudy Canoza > Thou proud traitor. Thou
> billowy-headed, humourless grown serpent. Ye inveighed:
>> Kadaitcha Man wrote:
>>> pearl > Thou ape. Thou insane, big-nosed young
>>> waverer. Ye snickered:
>>>> On Jun 5, 12:36 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
>>>>> 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>
>>>> <yawn>
>>> Ask mummy to tuck you in. Sleep tight.

>> lesley - she ain't no pearl - is an anti-intellectual,
>> anti-science crackpot. She also is a whore in Cork,
>> Ireland, who believes in and promotes:
>>
>> "veganism"
>> "inner earth beings"
>> "hollow earth"
>> that goofy patent for a MANUFACTURED globe
>> helium-inflated number(s) for feed:beef
>> rain forest destruction
>> Brazil's exports (based on *Argentina's* trade)
>> Stolen French flying saucer
>> Zapper
>> Foot massage (as cure-all)
>> Astrology
>> Numerology
>> Alien abduction
>> bestiality
>> Leprechauns
>> Channeling
>> Polar fountains
>> Sun gazing
>> Chemtrails
>> AIDS and ebola conspiracy theory
>> Crop circles
>> sexually aroused by violent ex-convicts
>> participation in skinhead subculture
>> the validity of online IQ tests
>> crackpot 9-11 conspiracy theories
>> Jeff Rense for "news"
>> long-debunked legends about "ageless wonders"
>>
>> archived evidence of the above:
>> http://tinyurl.com/h0br
>> http://tinyurl.com/h0bl
>> http://tinyurl.com/v5p8
>> http://tinyurl.com/v5pf
>> http://tinyurl.com/mh5w
>> http://tinyurl.com/mh6h
>> http://tinyurl.com/mh6r
>> http://tinyurl.com/mh71
>> http://tinyurl.com/mh7a
>> http://tinyurl.com/mh7j
>> http://tinyurl.com/mh7p
>> http://tinyurl.com/v5jj
>> http://tinyurl.com/v5kd
>> http://tinyurl.com/v5l6
>> http://tinyurl.com/v5ft
>> http://tinyurl.com/v5fj
>> http://tinyurl.com/v5fp
>> http://tinyurl.com/v5ft
>> http://tinyurl.com/v5ga
>> http://tinyurl.com/v5gc
>> http://tinyurl.com/v5i2
>> http://tinyurl.com/v5gk
>> http://tinyurl.com/v5h1
>> http://tinyurl.com/v5h9

>
> Well then, she'll be right at home in alt.usenet.kooks. Thanks for the info.


That group was formed with her in mind.
  #275 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jun 6, 6:53 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> > Why don't you join my Yahoo group discussion_of_animal_ethics and
> > check out the talk I'm going to give to some Honours students, and
> > tell me what you think of it?

>
> Where's the talk?


http://groups.yahoo.com/group/discus..._ethics/files/



  #276 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jun 6, 6:33 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
> > On Jun 6, 1:58 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message

>
> groups.com...

>
> >> > On Jun 5, 9:06 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >> "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.

>
> >> > No, they're advocating veganism as a moral baseline, but on the basis
> >> > of arguments other than the environmental argument.

>
> >> They're not "suggesting" veganism as a reasonable alternative as you
> >> portrayed, they are stating categorically that it is the only moral
> >> avenue
> >> available to us, assuming of course that we have a choice.

>
> >> >> Not you
> >> >> either, based on everything you've said.

>
> >> > Why not?

>
> >> Because your words reveal that you have bought the AR party line on a
> >> fundamental level. You can't do that and at the same time take a moderate
> >> view of animal use. The two are incongruent.

>
> > What does that mean? What's wrong with my views about animal use?

>
> I didn't say they were wrong, I said that they are not moderate. Your
> position reflects strong animal rights thinking, and therefore is not
> congruent with moderate statements like the ones you posited above.


My position is not inconsistent with the moderate statement I posted
above. I do believe in that moderate statement and my position is not
inconsistent with it.

> If one
> believes that slavery is wrong then one does not "suggest that perhaps we
> should cut down on the number of slaves we own".
>


I think that there are other arguments which have stronger outcomes
than the environmental argument. I acknowledge that there may well be
some non-vegan diets which are at least as good as the typical vegan
diet.

> >> >> 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 trouble is you don't really understand what principles I do
> >> > accept, and when I try to explain it to you you tell me I'm not really
> >> > saying anything and I'm a pseudo-intellectual.

>
> >> That's because you tend to talk in circles. If something like this can't
> >> be
> >> parsed down to simple understandable terms then the person speaking
> >> doesn't
> >> really understand what they're saying. This subject is unlike higher
> >> mathematics in that way.

>
> > Well, Dutch, I hate to tell you this but if I tried to explain my
> > thesis (in maths) to you it would take many years for you to
> > understand.

>
> I agree, I have read some of your thesis, it's way above my head, however,
> as I just said, mathematics is not moral philosophy.
>


No, it's not, but you should be open to the possibility that there are
some concepts in moral philosophy which take just a little bit of
effort to understand if you're relatively new to the subject. Yes,
you're right, I misread your statement, I think I read "like" instead
of "unlike" for some reason.

> > You could probably understand my ideas in moral philosophy
> > with a bit of effort, but you've got to approach the subject seriously
> > and with an open mind.

>
> I do have an open mind, but you have to learn how to articulate.
>


Well, maybe, but perhaps you could do me the favour of having some
respect for the fact that I've spent a while studying the subject and
I'm taking the trouble to impart my understanding of it to you. I
mean, you don't have to think that I'm some sort of genius at moral
philosophy and you should be privileged to talk to me, but you could
at least listen politely and with an open mind and be open to the
possibility that I may have a few things to teach you here. I mean,
I'm sure there are some subjects you understand better than me. Maybe
I'm deluding myself, maybe you're right that this is all just waffle,
but you could at least just listen politely and refrain from calling
from me a pseudo-intellectual. I mean, I find it a bit ironic that you
take it upon yourself to criticize me for being condescending. I think
you're a lot more condescending than me. Anyway, you seem to be
concerned about raising the tone of this newsgroup, so why don't we
try to have a conversation where we're not condescending to each
other, where we assume good faith on each other's part, and it's about
the issues, not the people? And I'll try to be as clear as I can.

> >You asked me to explain how my views are

>
> > consistent with equal consideration,

>
> I did not, I asked how any life could be.
>


Well, that's a good question. One answer is provided by Peter Singer.
There may be other answers. We can talk about it if you like.

> > I said Peter Singer's views are,
> > and other, non-consequentialist views could be as well, and you said
> > that was just waffle. Well, it's not. It was a reasonable explanation
> > of how a view could be consistent with equal consideration without
> > being an absolutist animal rights position. You've got to be prepared
> > to listen with an open mind and actually think about what's being said
> > for more than two seconds if you want to make progress. Do you know
> > much about Peter Singer's preference utilitarianism?

>
> What you don't get it is that what I am interested in is ideas that can
> survive in the crucible of a real-world test, not endless rhetoric.
>


Well, why shouldn't Peter Singer's views be put into practice? Do you
know what they are? I don't see what your complaint is.

> >> > I see a problem with
> >> > discriminating on the basis of species alone.

>
> >> That statement is internally corrupt from start to finish. What do you
> >> mean
> >> by problem, and discrimination? What do you mean when you say something
> >> is a
> >> problem?

>
> > There's nothing corrupt about it. If you want to understand what I
> > mean, check out the talk I'm giving to some Honours students. It's in
> > my Yahoo group, discussion_of_animal_ethics, in the Files section.

>
> See, you didn't respond again.
>


Well, I pointed you to something which I thought might help to explain
what I mean by "discrimination on the basis of species". It's a little
bit tiresome, you telling me that my statements are "corrupt" and then
complaining my supposed non-responsiveness. Can't you try and be a
little more polite?


> >> Discrimination per se is not a negative, it is a positive. You seem
> >> to be borrowing from the shorthand use of the word in the place of
> >> "injust
> >> or unfair discrimination".

>
> > No, I'm not. Not all discrimination is unjust or unfair, but any kind
> > of discrimination needs justification.

>
> No it doesn't. You don't understand the meaning of the word.
>


Well, I beg to differ. See my talk.

> > If species discrimination is
> > not unjust and unfair, then fine, it must have a justification. I want
> > to see it. Pointing out that we kill demodex mites when we wash our
> > hair isn't good enough.

>
> Why not, because you say so and you are a hot-shot? I never presented that
> as a definitive argument, but since you keep referring to it, why isn't
> pointing out that we kill demodex mites good enough to show that we must
> discriminate based on species?
>


Well, for one thing, it's very possible that demodex mites aren't
sentient.

> >> And we don't discriminate on species "alone", we
> >> also discriminate within our species, and not always unfairly, but not
> >> always equitably either.

>
> > Yes, that's fine. My problem is with discriminating on the basis of
> > species *alone*. To the extent that a practice cannot be justified
> > without pure species discrimination, I think it is problematic.

>
> So you have frequently pointed out, but never explained.
>


I think I've said a bit by way of explaining it. Why don't you have a
look at my talk?

> >> Perhaps a clearer statement of that idea would be,
> >> " It seems unjust to harm members of other species in circumstances and
> >> ways
> >> in which we would not harm other humans."

>
> > Who are relevantly similar to the members of other species.

>
> You had to insert a waffle into a perfectly clear statement, why?
>


It's not waffle, and it was a necessary qualification.

> Yes,
>
> > exactly. Thank you.

>
> No problem.
>
> >> The answer is, yes, if you look at animals and attempt to apply the
> >> principles of human rights to them, then it seems unjust. The first
> >> question
> >> is, was it a valid exercise to attempt that in the first place? Does it
> >> make
> >> sense outside the confines of a theoretical model? What I know is that it
> >> is
> >> foolhardy to subscribe to the notion that is de facto truth before
> >> grasping
> >> all the implications and complications that it introduces in the real
> >> world.

>
> > All right, well why not also say that it's invalid to apply the notion
> > of human rights to radically cognitively impaired humans?

>
> We don't. The rights of profoundly retarded individuals are curtailed to
> near zero, and their obligations as well. We do not charge such people with
> crimes regardless of their actions.
>


We give them a lot more rights than we give animals. That's the point.
Why?

> > The point is
> > that we draw a distinction, and it needs to be justified.

>
> You need to justify it perhaps, most of us do not. I don't need to justify
> discriminating between a chicken and a human any more than I need to justify
> discriminating between a mouse and a fly, or a spider and a banana. It's
> just something I do naturally.
>


The task of moral philosophy is to think critically about this kind of
thing.

> >> > I acknowledge that it is
> >> > a serious challenge to construct a plausible comprehensive ethical
> >> > theory which does not discriminate on the basis of species. You think
> >> > it's obvious that it can't be done, I don't agree with you and I think
> >> > your view is partly based on a misapprehension about what constitutes
> >> > discrimination on the basis of species. For example, when you say that
> >> > if we abandoned discrimination on the basis of species we would no
> >> > longer be able to wash our hair because it kills demodex mites, that
> >> > is definitely incorrect.

>
> >> You're relying on the most extreme example,

>
> > Well, it was *your* example.

>
> But not my only one, and you knew it.
>
> >> what about bees, spiders and
> >> other small critters in the lawn? What about moles and voles and lizards
> >> and
> >> toads in crop fields? Why does their plight seem so much less important
> >> to
> >> the vegan than the plight of the chicken? And it does.

>
> > I wouldn't necessarily say that.

>
> You should, if you are really searching for the truth. Vegans constantly
> make arguments why the death of the field mouse is less morally significant
> than the death of the chicken or cow, as if the animals cared.


Well, I've never seen them. I don't agree with this contention.

> I argue that
> the deaths are morally equivalent, therefore it should be as important to a
> vegan to consume less, or make better choices among vegetarian fare, as it
> is to avoid animal products, but that is not the case. The avoidance of
> animal products dwarfs all other concerns in the vegan mindset.
>


It should be important to be selective in one's choice of plant food
if one had reliable information that this would make a significant
difference.

> >It's just that it's harder to do
> > something about it.

>
> That should not make it any less significant, they die for the same reason,
> because we want food. Veganism suffers from myopia, it thinks too much of
> it's own prime directive, which has been foisted upon it from the animal
> rights movement.
>
>
>
> >> That definitely shows you've got a long way

>
> >> > to go before you understand what certain arguments do and don't
> >> > entail. I apologize if I've been unduly condescending in pointing this
> >> > out, and I apologize if I haven't done a very good job of helping you
> >> > to a better understanding, but it definitely is the case that you need
> >> > to improve your understanding before you can seriously engage with
> >> > arguments like these. You say that's all nonsense and tell me I'm a
> >> > pseudo-intellectual, well, you're entitled to that view, but it's
> >> > wrong.

>
> >> Those last dozen or so lines might have been better served attempting to
> >> explain how you think instead of rambling on about my perceived
> >> shortcomings.

>
> >> I have some rough ideas about the foundations of your form of thought,
> >> but I
> >> would prefer to hear you try to elucidate them in your own way first,
> >> using
> >> Rupert language, not phrases pulled out of books.

>
> > Why don't you join my Yahoo group discussion_of_animal_ethics and
> > check out the talk I'm going to give to some Honours students, and
> > tell me what you think of it?

>
> I browsed some points there the other day, I'll have a look.



  #277 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jun 6, 6:38 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 6, 2:13 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> I think that we can more closely examine the notion that there exists an
> >> onus to find justification, something you have assumed to be true. Since
> >> discrimination in and of itself is good, therefore the task is to
> >> establish
> >> if that particular discrimination is unreasonable. I won't attempt that,
> >> but
> >> I would submit that it is your job to establish before you begin to
> >> believe
> >> in something like this.

>
> > Well, yes, we certainly can examine it more closely, and that is
> > precisely what DeGrazia attempts to do. You've read what he has to say
> > and you don't have much to say in reply except that it's all rubbish.
> > I'm afraid I don't find that to be a very compelling response. I think
> > DeGrazia does a good job of placing the onus of justification on those
> > who would discriminate on the basis of species alone.

>
> Well, that's not a very compelling commentary either. I think he does an
> inadequate job of it, his arguments just go in circles endlessly. I suspect
> he could have recited Mary had a little lamb and you would have found it
> convincing.


Well, that's not true at all. I read it critically and found it
convincing. Evidently you didn't respond the same way. Fine, what are
your criticisms of it?

  #278 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.usenet.kooks,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jun 7, 1:51 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> > On Jun 6, 2:55 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> Rupert wrote:
> >>> On Jun 6, 9:07 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >>>> On Jun 5, 4:01 pm, Rupert > wrote:
> >>>>> On Jun 5, 9:35 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
> >>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>>>>>news:1181029663.976921.25060@j4g2000prf. googlegroups.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.
> >>>>> Irrelevant. What I said is still correct.
> >>>>> There's really nothing for us to argue about anyway. I said "Maybe it
> >>>>> can be justified, maybe it can't", which is basically not saying
> >>>>> anything. You said "What is there to justify?", meaning, you think it
> >>>>> obviously can be justified
> >>>> No, ****wit; that's not what the question implies at all. The
> >>>> question implies he thinks there's no moral dimension to it.
> >>> If it could not be justified, there would be a moral dimension to it.
> >> ****wit: his question implies there is no *need* for
> >> justification, because of no moral dimension to it.
> >> That is the implication of the question, you stubborn
> >> arrogant ****: there is nothing that needs to be
> >> justified.

>
> > Which in no way contradicts anything I said.

>
> Yes, it plainly does contradict it, rupie, you ****wit.


Silly man.

> You are claiming there is something that needs to be
> justified, and hasn't been. The poster is saying there
> is nothing that needs to be justified.
>


This does not contradict the statement I made to which you were
replying.

> >> You are such an arrogant little ****, rupie.

>
> > Stop projecting

>
> No - still accurately describing you, ****wit.


No - accurately describing *you*.

  #279 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.usenet.kooks,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 282
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

Rupert wrote:
> On Jun 7, 1:51 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>> On Jun 6, 2:55 pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 6, 9:07 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>> On Jun 5, 4:01 pm, Rupert > wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 9:35 pm, "Kadaitcha Man" > wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>> Irrelevant. What I said is still correct.
>>>>>>> There's really nothing for us to argue about anyway. I said "Maybe it
>>>>>>> can be justified, maybe it can't", which is basically not saying
>>>>>>> anything. You said "What is there to justify?", meaning, you think it
>>>>>>> obviously can be justified
>>>>>> No, ****wit; that's not what the question implies at all. The
>>>>>> question implies he thinks there's no moral dimension to it.
>>>>> If it could not be justified, there would be a moral dimension to it.
>>>> ****wit: his question implies there is no *need* for
>>>> justification, because of no moral dimension to it.
>>>> That is the implication of the question, you stubborn
>>>> arrogant ****: there is nothing that needs to be
>>>> justified.
>>> Which in no way contradicts anything I said.

>> Yes, it plainly does contradict it, rupie, you ****wit.
>> You are claiming there is something that needs to be
>> justified, and hasn't been. The poster is saying there
>> is nothing that needs to be justified.
>>

>
> This does not contradict the statement I made to which you were
> replying.


Yes, it does, you stupid ****. It flatly contradicts
what you said. You said something needs to be
justified, and wasn't; the poster was saying there is
nothing at all that needs to be justified. That
contradicts the statement you made, you stupid arrogant
****. "Something needs to be justified" is
contradicted by "nothing needs to be justified.

You're stupid - terminally stupid.


>>>> You are such an arrogant little ****, rupie.
>>> Stop projecting

>> No - still accurately describing you, ****wit.

>
> No - accurately describing


rupie. It is accurately describing rupie.
  #280 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.usenet.kooks,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,380
Default The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate

On Jun 6, 6:00 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 6, 2:33 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote

>
> >> > What is irrelevant is your contention that discrimination is part of
> >> > the human condition. That does not bear on the remark to which you
> >> > were replying.

>
> >> Discrimination is every animal's most important survival tool. Without
> >> the
> >> ability to discriminate antelope would walk right up to a pride of lions
> >> and
> >> we would continue to eat foods known to be poisonous. You have taken a
> >> negative *******ization of the word and made into your reality.

>
> > Discrimination, in the sense of making different moral judgements
> > about two different cases, requires justification, i.e. pointing out
> > some morally relevant distinction between the cases. This is a basic
> > point in moral philosophy.

>
> >> > You contended that there is nothing to justify about the fact that we
> >> > would be more willing to kill animals to save ourselves than to kill
> >> > humans to save ourselves. I don't agree with this and I bothered to
> >> > say something about it, but I don't regard it as a major issue. (You
> >> > later conflated this with the issue of whether there is anything to
> >> > justify about the practice of eating meat, obviously I regard that as
> >> > a more important issue).

>
> >> That cannot be the issue, because meat is dead. The issue must come
> >> earlier,
> >> that is the killing or, or the sponsoring of the killing of animals for
> >> the
> >> purpose of creating food. Then the question must be asked, why is it
> >> necessary to justify the killing an animal to turn it into food and
> >> clothing
> >> and other useful products while at the same time it does not seem to be
> >> necessary to justify killing animals collaterally in other forms of
> >> agriculture. This raises the point, isn't food the justification?

>
> > Both require some justification.

>
> Food, what better justification could there be?
>


That's a totally inadequate justification.

> > A form of agriculture which causes
> > less harm might be easier to justify.

>
> Easier to justify than food?
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> > I said "Maybe it
> >> >> > can be justified, maybe it can't", which is basically not saying
> >> >> > anything. You said "What is there to justify?", meaning, you think
> >> >> > it
> >> >> > obviously can be justified and it's not worth arguing about.

>
> >> >> Er, no. The question "What is there to justify?" means exactly what it
> >> >> asks,
> >> >> "What is there to justify?"; i.e. "What is there to justify if people
> >> >> kill
> >> >> animals to eat?"

>
> >> > That's actually not what we were talking about. Saying "what is there
> >> > to justify" about that issue is really just a move to opt out of
> >> > serious discussion of the issue. If you're not interested in seriously
> >> > discussing the issue, you probably shouldn't be on
> >> > alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian.

>
> >> You're constantly condescending towards people,


You have some nerve criticizing me for being condescending.

> implying they're not
> >> discussing the issues properly, but you never say much of any substance
> >> yourself.

>
> > I am only condescending as tit-for-tat. The points I make in reply to
> > people are usually relevant, good points. In particular, I have
> > pointed out important limitations to the arguments the antis make
> > here, which they have never really adequately responded to.

>
> If you have made such points I don't recall reading them.


I've made plenty of such points to Jon Ball in this very thread. Have
another read.

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Fried food heart risk 'a myth' (as long as you use olive oil or sunflower oil)" Christopher M.[_3_] General Cooking 34 07-02-2012 06:31 PM
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate Fred C. Dobbs[_2_] Vegan 47 24-05-2010 03:22 PM
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate Rudy Canoza[_4_] Vegan 448 23-03-2008 08:06 AM
+ Asian Food Experts: Source for "Silver Needle" or "Rat Tail" Noodles? + Chris General Cooking 1 29-12-2006 08:13 PM
The myth of food production "efficiency" in the "ar" debate Jonathan Ball Vegan 76 28-02-2004 11:16 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:30 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"