1. Being "vegan" means not causing any animal death

All "vegans" start here. They believe that because
they don't consume any animal parts, they therefore
don't cause any animals to die.

This belief is provably false. Animals die all the
time in the course of commercial agriculture. Animals
are chopped to bits in the course of tilling fields, as
well as in the course of harvesting crops. Animals are
intentionally killed in and around food storage
facilities; for example, rodents are lethally trapped
and poisoned at grain storage facilities.

The initial false "vegan" belief is a classic logical
fallacy: denying the antecedent. This belief runs as
follows:

If I consume animal parts, I cause animals to die.

I do not consume animal parts;

therefore, I do not cause animals to die.


This belief is false. There are other ways to cause
animals to die other than by consuming products made
from them.


2. Being "vegan" means I "minimize" my animal death toll

False. To claim to be "minimizing" necessarily
presumes that a calculation has been made, even if only
a thought exercise. But it is trivially easy to show
that going "vegan" does not necessarily mean, in and of
itself, that one is "minimizing" one's animal death toll.

The easiest way to see this is to compare two different
"vegan" diets. Unless the heroic but unrealistic
assumption is made that all fruit and vegetable foods
cause exactly the same animal death toll on a per
serving basis, then clearly two different "vegan"
diets, with different elements comprising each diet,
have different animal death tolls, one necessarily
higher than the other. The person consuming the higher
death toll "vegan" diet clearly is not minimizing his
overall animal death toll. The claim of "veganism" in
and of itself yielding the lowest harm outcome is false.


3. Going "vegan" necessarily means causing less animal
death than a lifestyle that includes animal products

Still false. Which causes more animal deaths, a pound
of venison from a deer shot by the consumer, or a pound
of rice? Pound of venison: one dead deer. Pound of
rice: some unknowable number of animal deaths, but
certainly more than one. The issue is that *all* of
the deaths resulting from the cultivation of a rice
paddy are shared among *all* consumers of the rice from
that paddy. If cultivating a hectare of rice producing
land results in 100 animal deaths - undoubtedly on the
low side - then *each* consumer of rice from that
hectare shares in the responsibility for *all* 100
deaths. There are no fractional deaths, and no
proportional allocation of responsibility for them.

I think you are the delusional one, Rudy.
Do you know how many wild animals die because that deer you shot and
took out of the food chain? Or say a wild turkey? The only reason given
for hunting is to "thin out the herds."
The reason why the herds have to be "thinned out" is because when the
Europeans came to this country and pushed even further into the wilds
they killed every "scarry" preditor animal they came across.
We killed their preditors now we are told we have to kill their prey.
SMART THINKING!
Most Vegans consume Organic foods and those that don't should. This
means nothing has been killed to produce the food. NOTHING! Rodents are
traped in live cages and released back into the wild.
You see Rudy, Big Business organic farmers believe as us little Vegans
do...
ALL LIFE IS SACRED! Even yours Rudy.
Eddie

On Feb 21, 1:55*am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> 1. *Being "vegan" means not causing any animal death
>
> All "vegans" start here. *They believe that because
> they don't consume any animal parts, they therefore
> don't cause any animals to die.
>
> This belief is provably false. *Animals die all the
> time in the course of commercial agriculture. *Animals
> are chopped to bits in the course of tilling fields, as
> well as in the course of harvesting crops. *Animals are
> intentionally killed in and around food storage
> facilities; for example, rodents are lethally trapped
> and poisoned at grain storage facilities.
>
> The initial false "vegan" belief is a classic logical
> fallacy: *denying the antecedent. *This belief runs as
> follows:
>
> * * If I consume animal parts, I cause animals to die.
>
> * * I do not consume animal parts;
>
> * * therefore, I do not cause animals to die.
>
> This belief is false. *There are other ways to cause
> animals to die other than by consuming products made
> from them.
>
> 2. *Being "vegan" means I "minimize" my animal death toll
>
> False. *To claim to be "minimizing" necessarily
> presumes that a calculation has been made, even if only
> a thought exercise. *But it is trivially easy to show
> that going "vegan" does not necessarily mean, in and of
> itself, that one is "minimizing" one's animal death toll.
>
> The easiest way to see this is to compare two different
> "vegan" diets. *Unless the heroic but unrealistic
> assumption is made that all fruit and vegetable foods
> cause exactly the same animal death toll on a per
> serving basis, then clearly two different "vegan"
> diets, with different elements comprising each diet,
> have different animal death tolls, one necessarily
> higher than the other. *The person consuming the higher
> death toll "vegan" diet clearly is not minimizing his
> overall animal death toll. *The claim of "veganism" in
> and of itself yielding the lowest harm outcome is false.
>
> 3. *Going "vegan" necessarily means causing less animal
> * * *death than a lifestyle that includes animal products
>
> Still false. *Which causes more animal deaths, a pound
> of venison from a deer shot by the consumer, or a pound
> of rice? *Pound of venison: *one dead deer. *Pound of
> rice: *some unknowable number of animal deaths, but
> certainly more than one. *The issue is that *all* of
> the deaths resulting from the cultivation of a rice
> paddy are shared among *all* consumers of the rice from
> that paddy. *If cultivating a hectare of rice producing
> land results in 100 animal deaths - undoubtedly on the
> low side - then *each* consumer of rice from that
> hectare shares in the responsibility for *all* 100
> deaths. *There are no fractional deaths, and no
> proportional allocation of responsibility for them.



Rudi a liawwwwww.

Ronald 'More-More' Moshki wrote:
> On Feb 21, 1:55 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> 1. Being "vegan" means not causing any animal death
>>
>> All "vegans" start here. They believe that because
>> they don't consume any animal parts, they therefore
>> don't cause any animals to die.
>>
>> This belief is provably false. Animals die all the
>> time in the course of commercial agriculture. Animals
>> are chopped to bits in the course of tilling fields, as
>> well as in the course of harvesting crops. Animals are
>> intentionally killed in and around food storage
>> facilities; for example, rodents are lethally trapped
>> and poisoned at grain storage facilities.
>>
>> The initial false "vegan" belief is a classic logical
>> fallacy: denying the antecedent. This belief runs as
>> follows:
>>
>> If I consume animal parts, I cause animals to die.
>>
>> I do not consume animal parts;
>>
>> therefore, I do not cause animals to die.
>>
>> This belief is false. There are other ways to cause
>> animals to die other than by consuming products made
>> from them.
>>
>> 2. Being "vegan" means I "minimize" my animal death toll
>>
>> False. To claim to be "minimizing" necessarily
>> presumes that a calculation has been made, even if only
>> a thought exercise. But it is trivially easy to show
>> that going "vegan" does not necessarily mean, in and of
>> itself, that one is "minimizing" one's animal death toll.
>>
>> The easiest way to see this is to compare two different
>> "vegan" diets. Unless the heroic but unrealistic
>> assumption is made that all fruit and vegetable foods
>> cause exactly the same animal death toll on a per
>> serving basis, then clearly two different "vegan"
>> diets, with different elements comprising each diet,
>> have different animal death tolls, one necessarily
>> higher than the other. The person consuming the higher
>> death toll "vegan" diet clearly is not minimizing his
>> overall animal death toll. The claim of "veganism" in
>> and of itself yielding the lowest harm outcome is false.
>>
>> 3. Going "vegan" necessarily means causing less animal
>> death than a lifestyle that includes animal products
>>
>> Still false. Which causes more animal deaths, a pound
>> of venison from a deer shot by the consumer, or a pound
>> of rice? Pound of venison: one dead deer. Pound of
>> rice: some unknowable number of animal deaths, but
>> certainly more than one. The issue is that *all* of
>> the deaths resulting from the cultivation of a rice
>> paddy are shared among *all* consumers of the rice from
>> that paddy. If cultivating a hectare of rice producing
>> land results in 100 animal deaths - undoubtedly on the
>> low side - then *each* consumer of rice from that
>> hectare shares in the responsibility for *all* 100
>> deaths. There are no fractional deaths, and no
>> proportional allocation of responsibility for them.
>
>
>
> Rudi a liawwwwww.

Moooooshki a dumb **** who don't know boxing.

On Feb 22, 1:28*am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Ronald 'More-More' Moshki wrote:
> > On Feb 21, 1:55 am, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> >> 1. *Being "vegan" means not causing any animal death
>
> >> All "vegans" start here. *They believe that because
> >> they don't consume any animal parts, they therefore
> >> don't cause any animals to die.
>
> >> This belief is provably false. *Animals die all the
> >> time in the course of commercial agriculture. *Animals
> >> are chopped to bits in the course of tilling fields, as
> >> well as in the course of harvesting crops. *Animals are
> >> intentionally killed in and around food storage
> >> facilities; for example, rodents are lethally trapped
> >> and poisoned at grain storage facilities.
>
> >> The initial false "vegan" belief is a classic logical
> >> fallacy: *denying the antecedent. *This belief runs as
> >> follows:
>
> >> * * If I consume animal parts, I cause animals to die.
>
> >> * * I do not consume animal parts;
>
> >> * * therefore, I do not cause animals to die.
>
> >> This belief is false. *There are other ways to cause
> >> animals to die other than by consuming products made
> >> from them.
>
> >> 2. *Being "vegan" means I "minimize" my animal death toll
>
> >> False. *To claim to be "minimizing" necessarily
> >> presumes that a calculation has been made, even if only
> >> a thought exercise. *But it is trivially easy to show
> >> that going "vegan" does not necessarily mean, in and of
> >> itself, that one is "minimizing" one's animal death toll.
>
> >> The easiest way to see this is to compare two different
> >> "vegan" diets. *Unless the heroic but unrealistic
> >> assumption is made that all fruit and vegetable foods
> >> cause exactly the same animal death toll on a per
> >> serving basis, then clearly two different "vegan"
> >> diets, with different elements comprising each diet,
> >> have different animal death tolls, one necessarily
> >> higher than the other. *The person consuming the higher
> >> death toll "vegan" diet clearly is not minimizing his
> >> overall animal death toll. *The claim of "veganism" in
> >> and of itself yielding the lowest harm outcome is false.
>
> >> 3. *Going "vegan" necessarily means causing less animal
> >> * * *death than a lifestyle that includes animal products
>
> >> Still false. *Which causes more animal deaths, a pound
> >> of venison from a deer shot by the consumer, or a pound
> >> of rice? *Pound of venison: *one dead deer. *Pound of
> >> rice: *some unknowable number of animal deaths, but
> >> certainly more than one. *The issue is that *all* of
> >> the deaths resulting from the cultivation of a rice
> >> paddy are shared among *all* consumers of the rice from
> >> that paddy. *If cultivating a hectare of rice producing
> >> land results in 100 animal deaths - undoubtedly on the
> >> low side - then *each* consumer of rice from that
> >> hectare shares in the responsibility for *all* 100
> >> deaths. *There are no fractional deaths, and no
> >> proportional allocation of responsibility for them.
>
> > Rudi a liawwwwww.
>
> Moooooshki a dumb **** who don't know boxing.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


The question is: "What do Rudi know about Boxing?"

On Feb 20, 11:55*pm, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> 1. *Being "vegan" means not causing any animal death
>
> All "vegans" start here. *They believe that because
> they don't consume any animal parts, they therefore
> don't cause any animals to die.
>
> This belief is provably false. *Animals die all the
> time in the course of commercial agriculture. *Animals
> are chopped to bits in the course of tilling fields, as
> well as in the course of harvesting crops.



Since these deaths are so pervasive in agriculture, you should have no
trouble supplying photographic evidence of it.

How about doing that?







*Animals are
> intentionally killed in and around food storage
> facilities; for example, rodents are lethally trapped
> and poisoned at grain storage facilities.
>
> The initial false "vegan" belief is a classic logical
> fallacy: *denying the antecedent. *This belief runs as
> follows:
>
> * * If I consume animal parts, I cause animals to die.
>
> * * I do not consume animal parts;
>
> * * therefore, I do not cause animals to die.
>
> This belief is false. *There are other ways to cause
> animals to die other than by consuming products made
> from them.
>
> 2. *Being "vegan" means I "minimize" my animal death toll
>
> False. *To claim to be "minimizing" necessarily
> presumes that a calculation has been made, even if only
> a thought exercise. *But it is trivially easy to show
> that going "vegan" does not necessarily mean, in and of
> itself, that one is "minimizing" one's animal death toll.
>
> The easiest way to see this is to compare two different
> "vegan" diets. *Unless the heroic but unrealistic
> assumption is made that all fruit and vegetable foods
> cause exactly the same animal death toll on a per
> serving basis, then clearly two different "vegan"
> diets, with different elements comprising each diet,
> have different animal death tolls, one necessarily
> higher than the other. *The person consuming the higher
> death toll "vegan" diet clearly is not minimizing his
> overall animal death toll. *The claim of "veganism" in
> and of itself yielding the lowest harm outcome is false.
>
> 3. *Going "vegan" necessarily means causing less animal
> * * *death than a lifestyle that includes animal products
>
> Still false. *Which causes more animal deaths, a pound
> of venison from a deer shot by the consumer, or a pound
> of rice? *Pound of venison: *one dead deer. *Pound of
> rice: *some unknowable number of animal deaths, but
> certainly more than one. *The issue is that *all* of
> the deaths resulting from the cultivation of a rice
> paddy are shared among *all* consumers of the rice from
> that paddy. *If cultivating a hectare of rice producing
> land results in 100 animal deaths - undoubtedly on the
> low side - then *each* consumer of rice from that
> hectare shares in the responsibility for *all* 100
> deaths. *There are no fractional deaths, and no
> proportional allocation of responsibility for them.



Rudy Canoza is a paid shill by the food industry to infiltrate
newgroups and post obfuscating information and bafflegab.