 |
|
| 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 | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
Want to be a vegetarian
"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message ... > > "Jonathan Bald" > wrote in message > ink.net... > > > No, ASSHOLE, it isn't important at all. The only > > importance of collateral animal deaths in fruit and > > vegetable agriculture is to show that "vegans" ignore > > them, which invalidates their position. > > Most vegans know that it's impossible to eliminate 100% of animal casualties > in products they buy and use. The idea is to minimize animal casualties > through the choices they make. ==================== ROTFLMAO What a hoot! You don't even believe that yourself killer. Here you are on usenet proving with each one of your ignorant, inane posts for nothing more than your selfish entertainment. I suggest you take up watching bullfights for entertainment. They kill far fewer bulls than your contributions to power and communications needs worldwide, hypocrite. Vegans choose not to eat meat, dairy, etc. > because it contributes less to animal casualties. ======================== A claim that you cannot support, and will never be able to prove. Where's you facts killer? The cattle industry is > responsible for a far greater number of collateral animal casualties than > vegan's collective contribution. You don't want vegans to know that because > it discredits your wild accusations. ===================== Why does that then mean all meat must be eliminated from ones diet? All you have are simple rules for simple minds, hypocrite. > > > > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message ... > > "Useless Subject" > wrote in message > ... > > > C. James Strutz wrote: > > >>How do you justify the deaths of animals, birds, and fish from the use > > >>of heavy machinery, pesticides (even in organic farming), storage, and > > >>transportation? The only thing that changes in a veg-n diet is that one > > >>no longer EATS animal parts. That does nothing to change the fact that > > >>animals still die horrid deaths from flooded fields, pesticide use, > > >>being run over by combines and other farm machinery, etc. > > > > > > There are many times more collateral deaths resulting from crop > production > > > for the cattle industry than it would take to feed an equivalent number > of > > > people directly. > > > > Answer the question, moron. The question was, How do you justify the > > suffering and deaths of all kinds of animals in the production of veg-n > > food as well as meat? If you consider a veg-n diet to be of a higher > > moral or ethical dimension than a meat-based diet, it should matter to > > you that your diet is qualitatively and quantitatively responsible for > > pain, suffering, and death, just like any other diet. > > Vegan and vegetarian lifestyle contributes less to pain, suffering, and > death of animals. MOst know there will always be some animal casualties no > matter what choices they make. ====================== Really? Where's you proof, killer? You're always demanding that from others, so let's see yours. > > > http://www.animalrights.net/articles/2002/000083.html > > I read this article and it doesn't even consider the HUGE agricultural > industry that supports the production of cattle for meat and which also > contributes to the same collateral animal deaths. ======================== Yet all meat doesn't come from this type of production. Why do you simply lump it all as one, when you know that there are differences? Just your simple mindedness? It also doesn't say > anything about the author, the professor who was quoted, or who funded his > work. The website is one that is devoted to discrediting the animal rights > movement, hardly a credible source from which to convince any vegan or > vegetarian of anything. What were you thinking?? Oh, I guess you weren't.... > ===================== All we need for your discrediting is for you to continue to support veganism with your stupidity and delusions. > > >>Your heart doesn't think, it only bleeeeeeeeeeeeeds. > > > > > > At least I have a heart... > > > > Your mamby-pamby notions are not a matter of having a "heart." It's the > > result of not growing up. > > If you're an example of what it's like to be "grown up" then I'm quite happy > the way I am. ================= What? A sanctimonious, hypocritical killer? > > >>>You have no creativity. None. Remember? > > > > > > I have a lot of creativity. > > > > See your stupidly conceived cookbook thread. > > I did (http://tinyurl.com/rxg7). I wrote that cookbooks are a source of > ideas for me. Go back and read it to refresh your apparently faulty memory. > > > >>What's the bloody point in eating something that's supposed to look, > > >>taste, and/or feel like something you *won't* eat? Hypocrite! > > > > > > Conscience, something you wouldn't know about. > > > > So it's okay that animals die in the production of your soy burgers, and > > it's okay that your soy burger smells, tastes, and feels just like a > > real dead ground cow burger. The fact remains that you haven't lost your > > appetite for the real thing, which is why you seek out substitutes. Your > > conscience is phony. > > Go back and read my original response in this thread. I suggested to W.D. > West that he might transition to vegetarian diet through meat alternative > products. I never wrote that I eat them myself. Either you can't read well > or you don't remember things well. ================== Again, how many more animals die for that meat substitute than if one just ate grass-fed beef or game in the first place? Ever care to even try to answer, killer? Now, go have that nice blood-drenched dinner, hypocrite. > > > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
Vioxel wrote:
>>>If you are more comfortable cutting back on meat, or only buying meat >>>from farmers or ranchers you know treat their animals ethically, then >>>do that. I fully intend to start eating eggs again as soon as I meet >>>someone who raises hens humanely. >> >>Hi, neighbor. Try the HEBs with the natural foods sections. They carry >>organic dairy and egg products, including eggs from hens raised on >>vegetarian diets (according to the packaging). You can get information >>from the packaging and drive out to see the operation for yourself. > >>Whole Foods and Wheatsville also carry eggs from humane farms. > > I'm moving to an apartment just a few blocks from Wheatsville. I'll > check them out. :-) Remembered something else after I sent the reply. You can also check out the new Saturday morning farmer's market at Republic Square. I recall seeing eggs, but I didn't ask about them since I don't eat them. Stuff sells pretty fast there, so you need to be an earlier riser. <...> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
hmmmm....it seems to me that the way to cause the least suffering is
get a rifle and go shoot a moose or an elk. Then you'd have a years supply of meat for only a few moments' suffering. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
"Steve Dufour" > wrote in message m... > hmmmm....it seems to me that the way to cause the least suffering is > get a rifle and go shoot a moose or an elk. Then you'd have a years > supply of meat for only a few moments' suffering. and only one animal death... |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 04:16:25 -0400, LordSnooty
> wrote: >On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 05:21:59 GMT, swamp > >wrote: > >>On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 20:20:23 GMT, frlpwr > wrote: >> >>>Jon wrote: >>> >>>(snip) >>> >>>> "vegans", or so-called >>>> "ethical vegetarians", engage in a classic logical >>>> fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It runs like this: >>>> >>>> If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die. >>>> >>>> I do not eat meat; >>>> >>>> Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die. >>> >>>Why do you refuse to be corrected on this point? >>> >>>The above should go like this: >>> >>> If I eat meat, I cause farmed animals to suffer and die. >>> >>> I do not eat meat; >>> >>> Therefore, I do not cause farmed animals to suffer and die. >> >>As long as we're shooting for accuracy, it should be: >> >>If I eat meat, I cause farmed animals to suffer and die. >> >>I do not eat meat, therefore, I do not cause farmed animals to suffer >>and die, > >Very good. > >>and make this point because it helps me ignore the death and >>suffering my own diet causes. > >What death and suffering? That caused by your very existence. >you have scientific, peer reviewed data that >a particular company, farm, product is a direct cause of wildlife >deaths? The peer-reviewed study you suggest is about as necessary as one showing starvation will cause starvation. >if so, show them and we can analyze your proof. Nothing allows >us to ignore any deaths of animals or humans. But you do so every day. "Lordsnooty." my... >>Demonizing others is less painful than accepting my own role in life >>and death. I'll respond to the following rant point by point: >You demonize yourselves... Who is "yourselves," and I predict you'll misuse the word "demonize" even after you check a reference. > and simply cannot stand the fact Since when have you dealt w/ facts? >there actually are some nice, caring people out there, who do things for the >benefits of others and nothing else That's rare among ar/evs. Can you name one? >, even so, since when has feeling >good about oneself been a crime? When it requires hurting others. >Snip it there, KISS. Doubt you'll like where I'll let you put it. Refer to the my... above. >'You can't win 'em all.' >Lord Haw Haw. I'm not looking to win, but your record's worse than the Cubs', --swamp |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 04:53:32 GMT, swamp >
wrote: >On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 04:16:25 -0400, LordSnooty > wrote: > >>On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 05:21:59 GMT, swamp > >>wrote: >> >>>On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 20:20:23 GMT, frlpwr > wrote: >>> >>>>Jon wrote: >>>> >>>>(snip) >>>> >>>>> "vegans", or so-called >>>>> "ethical vegetarians", engage in a classic logical >>>>> fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It runs like this: >>>>> >>>>> If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die. >>>>> >>>>> I do not eat meat; >>>>> >>>>> Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die. >>>> >>>>Why do you refuse to be corrected on this point? >>>> >>>>The above should go like this: >>>> >>>> If I eat meat, I cause farmed animals to suffer and die. >>>> >>>> I do not eat meat; >>>> >>>> Therefore, I do not cause farmed animals to suffer and die. >>> >>>As long as we're shooting for accuracy, it should be: >>> >>>If I eat meat, I cause farmed animals to suffer and die. >>> >>>I do not eat meat, therefore, I do not cause farmed animals to suffer >>>and die, >> >>Very good. >> >>>and make this point because it helps me ignore the death and >>>suffering my own diet causes. >> >>What death and suffering? > >That caused by your very existence. Yes Dick Etter! RU related? >>you have scientific, peer reviewed data that >>a particular company, farm, product is a direct cause of wildlife >>deaths? > >The peer-reviewed study you suggest is about as necessary as one >showing starvation will cause starvation. Yes Dick Etter! RU related 2 each other? >>if so, show them and we can analyze your proof. Nothing allows >>us to ignore any deaths of animals or humans. > >But you do so every day. "Lordsnooty." my... I do believe we have our first Dick Eatter sock puppet gentlemen. >>>Demonizing others is less painful than accepting my own role in life >>>and death. > >I'll respond to the following rant point by point: > >>You demonize yourselves... > >Who is "yourselves," and I predict you'll misuse the word "demonize" >even after you check a reference. The world of "normal" sane people. >> and simply cannot stand the fact > >Since when have you dealt w/ facts? It is hard, considering you never give any. >>there actually are some nice, caring people out there, who do things for the >>benefits of others and nothing else > >That's rare among ar/evs. Can you name one? Lord Snooty. >>, even so, since when has feeling >>good about oneself been a crime? > >When it requires hurting others. Sometimes retards and deviants need to be made to do what's best for them, which is why you are angry, it's a pride thing, but you have nothing to feel proud about in reality. >>Snip it there, KISS. > >Doubt you'll like where I'll let you put it. Refer to the my... above. I never go backwards. >>'You can't win 'em all.' >>Lord Haw Haw. > >I'm not looking to win, but your record's worse than the Cubs', Swamp, how apt. 'You can't win 'em all.' Lord Haw Haw. Since I stopped donating money to CONservation hooligan charities Like the RSPB, Woodland Trust and all the other fat cat charities I am in the top 0.801% richest people in the world. There are 5,951,930,035 people poorer than me If you're really interested I am the 48,069,965 richest person in the world. And I'm keeping the bloody lot. So sue me. http://www.globalrichlist.com/ |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
"Steve Dufour" > wrote in message
m... > hmmmm....it seems to me that the way to cause the least suffering is > get a rifle and go shoot a moose or an elk. Then you'd have a years > supply of meat for only a few moments' suffering. Why not .. 'get a rifle and shoot yourself'? Then you'd cause least suffering for 'only a few moments' suffering'. Or maybe just grow and/or buy eco-friendly organic plant produce.  . |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
"pearl" > wrote in message ... > "Steve Dufour" > wrote in message > m... > > hmmmm....it seems to me that the way to cause the least suffering is > > get a rifle and go shoot a moose or an elk. Then you'd have a years > > supply of meat for only a few moments' suffering. > > Why not .. 'get a rifle and shoot yourself'? Then you'd cause least > suffering for 'only a few moments' suffering'. > > Or maybe just grow and/or buy eco-friendly organic plant produce. > .===================== how often you going to spew this nonsense? Organic does not mean cruelty-free, killer. Just like your inane posts to usenet, hypocrite. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
"LordSnooty" > wrote in message ... > On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 04:53:32 GMT, swamp > > wrote: > > >On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 04:16:25 -0400, LordSnooty > > wrote: > > > >>On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 05:21:59 GMT, swamp > > >>wrote: > >> > >>>On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 20:20:23 GMT, frlpwr > wrote: > >>> > >>>>Jon wrote: > >>>> > >>>>(snip) > >>>> > >>>>> "vegans", or so-called > >>>>> "ethical vegetarians", engage in a classic logical > >>>>> fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It runs like this: > >>>>> > >>>>> If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die. > >>>>> > >>>>> I do not eat meat; > >>>>> > >>>>> Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die. > >>>> > >>>>Why do you refuse to be corrected on this point? > >>>> > >>>>The above should go like this: > >>>> > >>>> If I eat meat, I cause farmed animals to suffer and die. > >>>> > >>>> I do not eat meat; > >>>> > >>>> Therefore, I do not cause farmed animals to suffer and die. > >>> > >>>As long as we're shooting for accuracy, it should be: > >>> > >>>If I eat meat, I cause farmed animals to suffer and die. > >>> > >>>I do not eat meat, therefore, I do not cause farmed animals to suffer > >>>and die, > >> > >>Very good. > >> > >>>and make this point because it helps me ignore the death and > >>>suffering my own diet causes. > >> > >>What death and suffering? > > > >That caused by your very existence. > > Yes Dick Etter! RU related? > > >>you have scientific, peer reviewed data that > >>a particular company, farm, product is a direct cause of wildlife > >>deaths? > > > >The peer-reviewed study you suggest is about as necessary as one > >showing starvation will cause starvation. > > Yes Dick Etter! RU related 2 each other? > > >>if so, show them and we can analyze your proof. Nothing allows > >>us to ignore any deaths of animals or humans. > > > >But you do so every day. "Lordsnooty." my... > > I do believe we have our first Dick Eatter sock puppet gentlemen. > > >>>Demonizing others is less painful than accepting my own role in life > >>>and death. > > > >I'll respond to the following rant point by point: > > > >>You demonize yourselves... > > > >Who is "yourselves," and I predict you'll misuse the word "demonize" > >even after you check a reference. > > The world of "normal" sane people. ================ That sure leaves you and your family out of the loop, doesn't it killer? > > >> and simply cannot stand the fact > > > >Since when have you dealt w/ facts? > > It is hard, considering you never give any. ================= They've been given many times loser. You continue to ignore them so that you can continue to kill animals willy-nilly. You just must like all the killing you do, eh hypocrite? > > >>there actually are some nice, caring people out there, who do things for the > >>benefits of others and nothing else > > > >That's rare among ar/evs. Can you name one? > > Lord Snooty. ================ You aren't even vegan, you ignorant fool. You prove that with every ignorant post you make to usenet, killer. > > >>, even so, since when has feeling > >>good about oneself been a crime? > > > >When it requires hurting others. > > Sometimes retards and deviants need to be made to do what's best for > them, which is why you are angry, it's a pride thing, but you have > nothing to feel proud about in reality. > >>Snip it there, KISS. > > > >Doubt you'll like where I'll let you put it. Refer to the my... above. > > I never go backwards. > > >>'You can't win 'em all.' > >>Lord Haw Haw. > > > >I'm not looking to win, but your record's worse than the Cubs', > > Swamp, how apt. > > > > > > > > > 'You can't win 'em all.' > Lord Haw Haw. > > Since I stopped donating money to CONservation hooligan charities > Like the RSPB, Woodland Trust and all the other fat cat charities > I am in the top 0.801% richest people in the world. > There are 5,951,930,035 people poorer than me > > If you're really interested I am the 48,069,965 > richest person in the world. > > And I'm keeping the bloody lot. > > So sue me. > > http://www.globalrichlist.com/ |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
"rick etter" > wrote in message ...
> > "pearl" > wrote in message > ... > > "Steve Dufour" > wrote in message > > m... > > > hmmmm....it seems to me that the way to cause the least suffering is > > > get a rifle and go shoot a moose or an elk. Then you'd have a years > > > supply of meat for only a few moments' suffering. > > > > Why not .. 'get a rifle and shoot yourself'? Then you'd cause least > > suffering for 'only a few moments' suffering'. > > > > Or maybe just grow and/or buy eco-friendly organic plant produce. > > .> ===================== > how often you going to spew this nonsense? Organic does not mean > cruelty-free, killer. Just like your inane posts to usenet, hypocrite. How often you going to spew this nonsense, killer? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
"swamp" > wrote in message ... > On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 04:16:25 -0400, LordSnooty > > wrote: > > >On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 05:21:59 GMT, swamp > > >wrote: > > > >>On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 20:20:23 GMT, frlpwr > wrote: > >> > >>>Jon wrote: > >>> > >>>(snip) > >>> > >>>> "vegans", or so-called > >>>> "ethical vegetarians", engage in a classic logical > >>>> fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It runs like this: > >>>> > >>>> If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die. > >>>> > >>>> I do not eat meat; > >>>> > >>>> Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die. > >>> > >>>Why do you refuse to be corrected on this point? > >>> > >>>The above should go like this: > >>> > >>> If I eat meat, I cause farmed animals to suffer and die. > >>> > >>> I do not eat meat; > >>> > >>> Therefore, I do not cause farmed animals to suffer and die. > >> > >>As long as we're shooting for accuracy, it should be: > >> > >>If I eat meat, I cause farmed animals to suffer and die. > >> > >>I do not eat meat, therefore, I do not cause farmed animals to suffer > >>and die, > > > >Very good. > > > >>and make this point because it helps me ignore the death and > >>suffering my own diet causes. > > > >What death and suffering? > > That caused by your very existence. > > >you have scientific, peer reviewed data that > >a particular company, farm, product is a direct cause of wildlife > >deaths? > > The peer-reviewed study you suggest is about as necessary as one > showing starvation will cause starvation. > That's a false analogy, since one event (starving) will always cause the same condition (starvation), but the same can't be said for the other half of your analogy where one event (eating vegetables) will always cause the same condition (collateral deaths). Before showing you the fallacy in your argument over collateral deaths, look again at the first premise in Jonathan Ball's syllogism at the start of this thread. "If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die." This proposition is false, since the event (If I eat meat) always assumes a necessary condition (I cause animals to suffer and die). A necessary condition for an event is something which is absolutely required to exist or happen if the event is to occur. Ergo; causing suffering and death to animals is absolutely required to exist or must happen if I am to eat meat. A sufficient condition for an event, on the other hand, does not have to exist for the event to occur, but if it exists, then the event will occur. Ergo; causing animals to suffer and die isn't absolutely required to exist or happen, since meat can be sourced from animals which no one has caused to suffer or die, but if it does suffer and die from natural causes or accident, then I am still able to eat meat. A more formal way for saying that one thing, p, is a sufficient condition for some other thing, q, would be to say "if p then q," which is a standard hypothetical proposition. Confusing necessary and sufficient conditions is one way to understand how some of the rules of inference with hypothetical propositions can be violated. The fallacy of affirming the consequent, for example, makes the assumption that a sufficient condition is also a necessary condition. http://atheism.about.com/library/glo..._necessary.htm Another example of affirming the consequent is shown in your proposition, "If I eat vegetables, collateral deaths will occur." This proposition is false; since the event (If I eat vegetables) always assumes a necessary condition (collateral deaths will occur). Ergo; collateral deaths are absolutely required to exist or must happen if I am to eat vegetables. For the sufficient condition; collateral deaths aren't absolutely required to exist or happen, but if they do exist, then I am still able to eat vegetables. The fallacy of affirming the consequent, for this example makes the same assumption as the last in that a sufficient condition is also a necessary condition. <snip> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
Chelsea Gint wrote:
>>hmmmm....it seems to me that the way to cause the least suffering is >>get a rifle and go shoot a moose or an elk. Then you'd have a years >>supply of meat for only a few moments' suffering. > > Why not .. 'get a rifle and shoot yourself'? Then you'd cause least > suffering for 'only a few moments' suffering'. Oh, feel the love. Misanthrope. > Or maybe just grow and/or buy eco-friendly organic plant produce. > .Hunting is eco-friendly. Have you seen how much destruction uncontrolled ruminant populations can do to an ecosystem, much less when they start to starve? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:44:25 +0100, "Jane" > wrote:
> >"swamp" > wrote in message ... >> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 04:16:25 -0400, LordSnooty >> > wrote: >> >> >On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 05:21:59 GMT, swamp > >> >wrote: >> > >> >>On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 20:20:23 GMT, frlpwr > wrote: >> >> >> >>>Jon wrote: >> >>> >> >>>(snip) >> >>> >> >>>> "vegans", or so-called >> >>>> "ethical vegetarians", engage in a classic logical >> >>>> fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It runs like this: >> >>>> >> >>>> If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die. >> >>>> >> >>>> I do not eat meat; >> >>>> >> >>>> Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die. >> >>> >> >>>Why do you refuse to be corrected on this point? >> >>> >> >>>The above should go like this: >> >>> >> >>> If I eat meat, I cause farmed animals to suffer and die. >> >>> >> >>> I do not eat meat; >> >>> >> >>> Therefore, I do not cause farmed animals to suffer and die. >> >> >> >>As long as we're shooting for accuracy, it should be: >> >> >> >>If I eat meat, I cause farmed animals to suffer and die. >> >> >> >>I do not eat meat, therefore, I do not cause farmed animals to suffer >> >>and die, >> > >> >Very good. >> > >> >>and make this point because it helps me ignore the death and >> >>suffering my own diet causes. >> > >> >What death and suffering? >> >> That caused by your very existence. >> >> >you have scientific, peer reviewed data that >> >a particular company, farm, product is a direct cause of wildlife >> >deaths? >> >> The peer-reviewed study you suggest is about as necessary as one >> showing starvation will cause starvation. >> >That's a false analogy, since one event (starving) will always cause >the same condition (starvation), but the same can't be said for the >other half of your analogy where one event (eating vegetables) >will always cause the same condition (collateral deaths). Before >showing you the fallacy in your argument over collateral deaths, >look again at the first premise in Jonathan Ball's syllogism at the >start of this thread. > >"If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die." > >This proposition is false, since the event (If I eat meat) always >assumes a necessary condition (I cause animals to suffer and die). > >A necessary condition for an event is something which is >absolutely required to exist or happen if the event is to occur. >Ergo; causing suffering and death to animals is absolutely >required to exist or must happen if I am to eat meat. > >A sufficient condition for an event, on the other hand, does >not have to exist for the event to occur, but if it exists, then >the event will occur. Ergo; causing animals to suffer and die >isn't absolutely required to exist or happen, since meat can >be sourced from animals which no one has caused to suffer >or die, but if it does suffer and die from natural causes or >accident, then I am still able to eat meat. > >A more formal way for saying that one thing, p, is a sufficient >condition for some other thing, q, would be to say "if p then q," >which is a standard hypothetical proposition. Confusing >necessary and sufficient conditions is one way to understand >how some of the rules of inference with hypothetical propositions >can be violated. The fallacy of affirming the consequent, for >example, makes the assumption that a sufficient condition is also >a necessary condition. >http://atheism.about.com/library/glo..._necessary.htm > >Another example of affirming the consequent is shown in your >proposition, "If I eat vegetables, collateral deaths will occur." > >This proposition is false; since the event (If I eat vegetables) >always assumes a necessary condition (collateral deaths will >occur). >Ergo; collateral deaths are absolutely required to exist or >must happen if I am to eat vegetables. > >For the sufficient condition; collateral deaths aren't absolutely >required to exist or happen, but if they do exist, then I am still >able to eat vegetables. The fallacy of affirming the consequent, >for this example makes the same assumption as the last in that >a sufficient condition is also a necessary condition. ><snip> Lol, well that's certainly putting it straight, be gentle on them, they have barely left building block, word associations yet. 'You can't win 'em all.' Lord Haw Haw. Since I stopped donating money to CONservation hooligan charities Like the RSPB, Woodland Trust and all the other fat cat charities I am in the top 0.801% richest people in the world. There are 5,951,930,035 people poorer than me If you're really interested I am the 48,069,965 richest person in the world. And I'm keeping the bloody lot. So sue me. http://www.globalrichlist.com/ |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:45:02 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Chelsea Gint wrote: >>>hmmmm....it seems to me that the way to cause the least suffering is >>>get a rifle and go shoot a moose or an elk. Then you'd have a years >>>supply of meat for only a few moments' suffering. >> >> Why not .. 'get a rifle and shoot yourself'? Then you'd cause least >> suffering for 'only a few moments' suffering'. > >Oh, feel the love. Misanthrope. It's a good statement, I see no reason for it to happen. >> Or maybe just grow and/or buy eco-friendly organic plant produce. >> .> >Hunting is eco-friendly. Hunting is an abuse of wildlife, usually by lard arse, unemployed deviants, who also subject their families to the same abuse. > Have you seen how much destruction uncontrolled >ruminant populations can do to an ecosystem, much less when they start >to starve? Hunting does not control wildlife populations, aside from keeping them artificially high to provide amusement for bullies. 'You can't win 'em all.' Lord Haw Haw. Since I stopped donating money to CONservation hooligan charities Like the RSPB, Woodland Trust and all the other fat cat charities I am in the top 0.801% richest people in the world. There are 5,951,930,035 people poorer than me If you're really interested I am the 48,069,965 richest person in the world. And I'm keeping the bloody lot. So sue me. http://www.globalrichlist.com/ |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
LardShit wrote:
>>>>hmmmm....it seems to me that the way to cause the least suffering is >>>>get a rifle and go shoot a moose or an elk. Then you'd have a years >>>>supply of meat for only a few moments' suffering. >>> >>>Why not .. 'get a rifle and shoot yourself'? Then you'd cause least >>>suffering for 'only a few moments' suffering'. >> >>Oh, feel the love. Misanthrope. > > It's a good statement, I see no reason for it to happen. Your base hatred of your fellow man is also well known. >>>Or maybe just grow and/or buy eco-friendly organic plant produce. >>> .>> >>Hunting is eco-friendly. > > Hunting is an abuse of wildlife, usually by lard arse, unemployed > deviants, who also subject their families to the same abuse. Oh, so you hunt? >>Have you seen how much destruction uncontrolled >>ruminant populations can do to an ecosystem, much less when they start >>to starve? > > Hunting does not control wildlife populations, aside from keeping them > artificially high to provide amusement for bullies. You've never supported such claims with facts. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:54:55 GMT, usual suspect who is actually NoNuts
J Ball > wrote: >LardShit wrote: >>>>>hmmmm....it seems to me that the way to cause the least suffering is >>>>>get a rifle and go shoot a moose or an elk. Then you'd have a years >>>>>supply of meat for only a few moments' suffering. >>>> >>>>Why not .. 'get a rifle and shoot yourself'? Then you'd cause least >>>>suffering for 'only a few moments' suffering'. >>> >>>Oh, feel the love. Misanthrope. >> >> It's a good statement, I see no reason for it to happen. > >Your base hatred of your fellow man is also well known. You think it unfair I don't like deviants who are proud of the suffering they cause to animals and humans? tough. >>>>Or maybe just grow and/or buy eco-friendly organic plant produce. >>>> .>>> >>>Hunting is eco-friendly. >> >> Hunting is an abuse of wildlife, usually by lard arse, unemployed >> deviants, who also subject their families to the same abuse. > >Oh, so you hunt? Only deviants. >>>Have you seen how much destruction uncontrolled >>>ruminant populations can do to an ecosystem, much less when they start >>>to starve? >> >> Hunting does not control wildlife populations, aside from keeping them >> artificially high to provide amusement for bullies. > >You've never supported such claims with facts. I don't need to, anyone who has ever studied dynamics of wildlife controls know the score, hunters know it very well. 'You can't win 'em all.' Lord Haw Haw. Since I stopped donating money to CONservation hooligan charities Like the RSPB, Woodland Trust and all the other fat cat charities I am in the top 0.801% richest people in the world. There are 5,951,930,035 people poorer than me If you're really interested I am the 48,069,965 richest person in the world. And I'm keeping the bloody lot. So sue me. http://www.globalrichlist.com/ |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
"Useless Subject" > wrote in message ... > C. James Strutz wrote: > > Most vegans know that it's impossible to eliminate 100% of animal casualties > > in products they buy and use. > > They wouldn't make outlandish moral claims if they knew and accepted > that. I agree that most vegans don't think beyond steak=animal. I also agree that there are other animal casualties involved in vegetable production. But vegetable production is also a significant component of livestock production. The issue should be how to minimize animal casualties since they cannot be practically eliminated. Let's compare two cases (normalizing to one "steer unit"). Case 1: how many total animal casualties may be attributed to the steer being slaughtered for food? Case 2: how many total animal casualties are incurred during the same period of time for people eating only vegetable produce? Let's list the ways that lives are lost in Case 1. - the steer's life - animal casualties to production of food for the steer - animal casualties to transporting the steer and food for the steer - incidental animals casualties Same for Case 2: - animal casualties to production of food for people - animal casualties to transporting food for people - incidental animal casualties I contend that the steer is a relatively inefficient converter of grain to meat (losses from conversion of food to calories, excretion, etc.) in terms of volume. More people could be fed from the grain a steer eats in it's lifetime than the steer's meat would feed. Converting the steer's meat to an equivalent amount of grain, it's easy to see that more grain must be produced in Case 1 than in Case 2. Therefore, there are proportionally more animal casualties in Case 1 than in Case 2. > Many veg-ns are shocked and stunned to learn their diet does > *nothing* to eliminate animal suffering and death. I believe that veg-n diet does reduce animal deaths. > > The idea is to minimize animal casualties > > through the choices they make. > > No, the idea is to assume a moralistic posture and make judgmental > assessments of the dietary choices of others. If each and every animal > has a soul or some amount of sentience, how many voles, rats, mice, > birds, fish, deer, rabbits, skunks, etc., does it take to consider the > balance tilted toward harm? IOW, how many animal casualties do you > justify before meat consumption is morally acceptable? That's a question that people have to answer for themselves. The issue that you have with some vegans is that they don't respect other people's individuality. > If the goal is minimization, they needn't go to the extreme of veganism. > Plenty of humane alternatives are available which would allow them to > have their steak and eat it, too. Those alternatives include hunting, > grass-fed beef, and home-grown livestock. Well, there is still the matter of the life of the steer. Grass-fed beef is a better alternative than grain-fed beef. > You must get over your confusion about the minimization issue. The > solution offered is radical, and has very little, if any, bearing on > markets that could be affected were more moderate steps taken. I'm not confused about minimization. I think you are too anal in your anti-vegan stance. And it's quite odd that coming from a vegan. > > Vegans choose not to eat meat, dairy, etc. > > because it contributes less to animal casualties. > > Please justify your claim that veganism contributes less to animal > casualties. See above. > > The cattle industry is > > responsible for a far greater number of collateral animal casualties than > > vegan's collective contribution. > > Strawman since cattle ranching in and of itself needn't rely on grain > for feed. The vast majority of cattle ranching does rely on grain for feed. > > You don't want vegans to know that because > > it discredits your wild accusations. > > You're the one engaging in deceit. I think my points are quite valid. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
"Jonathan Bald" > wrote in message nk.net... > Irrelevant, ASSHOLE. "Vegans" are not minimizing, and > they ONLY are claiming to be "virtuous" by means of an > invalid comparison. The correct comparison is not > "vegans" to meat eaters, ASSHOLE. The correct > comparison is animal deaths caused by "vegans" to human > deaths caused by "vegans" in the course of obtaining > food. The number of the former is vastly higher than > the latter, and we all know it. You are incoherent. Get help. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
C. James Putz wrote:
>>They wouldn't make outlandish moral claims if they knew and accepted >>that. > > I agree that most vegans don't think beyond steak=animal. You should have stopped right here. This is the main issue. > I also agree that > there are other animal casualties involved in vegetable production. But > vegetable production is also a significant component of livestock > production. Not entirely accurate. The market for grass-fed livestock is growing. > The issue should be how to minimize animal casualties since they > cannot be practically eliminated. That would be a fine issue, but vegan activists aren't concerned with minimization. The vegan "solution" is radical and based on the flawed notion that not eating meat means no animals die. > Let's compare two cases (normalizing to one "steer unit"). Case 1: how many > total animal casualties may be attributed to the steer being slaughtered for > food? Case 2: how many total animal casualties are incurred during the same > period of time for people eating only vegetable produce? > > Let's list the ways that lives are lost in Case 1. > - the steer's life > - animal casualties to production of food for the steer Grass-fed animals -- wild game, cattle, lamb, etc. -- do not have collateral deaths, aside from insects they step upon. Would you count those? > - animal casualties to transporting the steer and food for the steer > - incidental animals casualties Your argument is valid only if we consider grain-fed animals. Alternatives exist which do away with your second point. > Same for Case 2: > - animal casualties to production of food for people > - animal casualties to transporting food for people > - incidental animal casualties > > I contend that the steer is a relatively inefficient converter of grain to > meat (losses from conversion of food to calories, excretion, etc.) in terms > of volume. What about grass-fed beef? What about grass-fed lamb? What about game? These are all valid alternatives. > More people could be fed from the grain a steer eats in it's > lifetime than the steer's meat would feed. How many people could be fed from the grasses consumed by a deer, buffalo, or cow? > Converting the steer's meat to an > equivalent amount of grain, it's easy to see that more grain must be > produced in Case 1 than in Case 2. Therefore, there are proportionally more > animal casualties in Case 1 than in Case 2. I think most people would remain undisturbed by such details. >>Many veg-ns are shocked and stunned to learn their diet does >>*nothing* to eliminate animal suffering and death. > > I believe that veg-n diet does reduce animal deaths. Only marginally. >>>The idea is to minimize animal casualties >>>through the choices they make. >> >>No, the idea is to assume a moralistic posture and make judgmental >>assessments of the dietary choices of others. If each and every animal >>has a soul or some amount of sentience, how many voles, rats, mice, >>birds, fish, deer, rabbits, skunks, etc., does it take to consider the >>balance tilted toward harm? IOW, how many animal casualties do you >>justify before meat consumption is morally acceptable? > > That's a question that people have to answer for themselves. The issue that > you have with some vegans is that they don't respect other people's > individuality. Especially when based upon a flawed moralism. >>If the goal is minimization, they needn't go to the extreme of veganism. >>Plenty of humane alternatives are available which would allow them to >>have their steak and eat it, too. Those alternatives include hunting, >>grass-fed beef, and home-grown livestock. > > Well, there is still the matter of the life of the steer. Grass-fed beef is > a better alternative than grain-fed beef. What's so special about the life of a steer? >>You must get over your confusion about the minimization issue. The >>solution offered is radical, and has very little, if any, bearing on >>markets that could be affected were more moderate steps taken. > > I'm not confused about minimization. I think you are too anal in your > anti-vegan stance. And it's quite odd that coming from a vegan. Address the issue rather than express your contempt for me. The solution you offer is extreme on one end and doesn't even fix the problem on the other. If people want to eat meat, encourage them to eat stuff that's humanely raised and sustainable. Encourage them to hunt, get back to nature. <...> >>>The cattle industry is >>>responsible for a far greater number of collateral animal casualties > than >>>vegan's collective contribution. >> >>Strawman since cattle ranching in and of itself needn't rely on grain >>for feed. > > The vast majority of cattle ranching does rely on grain for feed. That can be changed if the market demands, and the market is starting to push in that direction. <...> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
C. James Strutz wrote:
> "Useless Subject" > wrote in message > ... > > >>C. James Strutz wrote: >> >>>Most vegans know that it's impossible to eliminate 100% of animal > > casualties > >>>in products they buy and use. >> >>They wouldn't make outlandish moral claims if they knew and accepted >>that. > > > I agree that most vegans don't think beyond steak=animal. Exactly right. > I also agree that > there are other animal casualties involved in vegetable production. Right again. Your concession is accepted, jimmy. You're still a whiny asshole. > Bit vegetable production is also a significant component of livestock > production. The issue should be how to minimize animal casualties since they > cannot be practically eliminated. No, ****wit. The issue is "vegans'" outrageous claims. "vegans" claim to be doing something "good" by not eating meat. They clearly aren't: animals continue to be killed, in large numbers and without consequence, in order to produce food for them. The number of animals killed to produce cattle and other livestock feed is IRRELEVANT, jimmy, because we're talking ONLY about the food "vegans" eat. We're talking about the fact that animals are still killed, without consequence, to produce food for "vegans", and the sanctimonious, hypocritical "vegans" don't care. All they care about is their bogus pose. > > Let's compare two cases (normalizing to one "steer unit"). Case 1: how many > total animal casualties may be attributed to the steer being slaughtered for > food? Case 2: how many total animal casualties are incurred during the same > period of time for people eating only vegetable produce? > > Let's list the ways that lives are lost in Case 1. > - the steer's life > - animal casualties to production of food for the steer > - animal casualties to transporting the steer and food for the steer > - incidental animals casualties > > Same for Case 2: > - animal casualties to production of food for people > - animal casualties to transporting food for people > - incidental animal casualties > > I contend that the steer is a relatively inefficient converter of grain to > meat (losses from conversion of food to calories, excretion, etc.) in terms > of volume. That's irrelevant. We're not talking about caloric efficiency, jimmy, you moronic ****. > More people could be fed from the grain a steer eats in it's > lifetime than the steer's meat would feed. Converting the steer's meat to an > equivalent amount of grain, it's easy to see that more grain must be > produced in Case 1 than in Case 2. Therefore, there are proportionally more > animal casualties in Case 1 than in Case 2. Which is IRRELEVANT to the ****witted, hypocritical, sanctimonious, self-congratulatory "vegans'" claim, jimmy. Their claim is that they are following a principle, when they are not; they are following a stupid, ****witted rule that is NOT based on any principle. If they were really following a principle of, say, "it is wrong to cause harm to animals", then they would CARE about animal collateral deaths in fruit/vegetable production, and they would take steps to minimize those, too. But they don't, and they never will. It's [need whiny voice for this] "toooo haaaaaaaaaaaard!", and moral consistency is not what these goddamned mother****ing shitbags are about. What they're about, jimmy, and what YOU'RE about, is adopting a pose from which they imagine they can look down on the rest of us and wag a finger in our faces. They want the adoption of that pose to be easy, and doing something simple like not eating any animal parts is easy. Doing something REAL, like growing all their own food in such a way that the rates of collateral death and injury for animals are brought down to the same levels as the rates for humans, is really hard. Morally LAZY shitbags, which universally describes "vegans", can't be bothered. > > >>Many veg-ns are shocked and stunned to learn their diet does >>*nothing* to eliminate animal suffering and death. > > > I believe that veg-n diet does reduce animal deaths. > > >>>The idea is to minimize animal casualties >>>through the choices they make. >> >>No, the idea is to assume a moralistic posture and make judgmental >>assessments of the dietary choices of others. If each and every animal >>has a soul or some amount of sentience, how many voles, rats, mice, >>birds, fish, deer, rabbits, skunks, etc., does it take to consider the >>balance tilted toward harm? IOW, how many animal casualties do you >>justify before meat consumption is morally acceptable? > > > That's a question that people have to answer for themselves. The issue that > you have with some vegans is that they don't respect other people's > individuality. > > >>If the goal is minimization, they needn't go to the extreme of veganism. >>Plenty of humane alternatives are available which would allow them to >>have their steak and eat it, too. Those alternatives include hunting, >>grass-fed beef, and home-grown livestock. > > > Well, there is still the matter of the life of the steer. Grass-fed beef is > a better alternative than grain-fed beef. > > >>You must get over your confusion about the minimization issue. The >>solution offered is radical, and has very little, if any, bearing on >>markets that could be affected were more moderate steps taken. > > > I'm not confused about minimization. I think you are too anal in your > anti-vegan stance. And it's quite odd that coming from a vegan. > > >>>Vegans choose not to eat meat, dairy, etc. >>>because it contributes less to animal casualties. >> >>Please justify your claim that veganism contributes less to animal >>casualties. > > > See above. > > >>>The cattle industry is >>>responsible for a far greater number of collateral animal casualties > > than > >>>vegan's collective contribution. >> >>Strawman since cattle ranching in and of itself needn't rely on grain >>for feed. > > > The vast majority of cattle ranching does rely on grain for feed. > > >>>You don't want vegans to know that because >>>it discredits your wild accusations. >> >>You're the one engaging in deceit. > > > I think my points are quite valid. > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
C. James Strutz wrote:
> "Jonathan Bald" > wrote in message > nk.net... > > >>Irrelevant, ASSHOLE. "Vegans" are not minimizing, and >>they ONLY are claiming to be "virtuous" by means of an >>invalid comparison. The correct comparison is not >>"vegans" to meat eaters, ASSHOLE. The correct >>comparison is animal deaths caused by "vegans" to human >>deaths caused by "vegans" in the course of obtaining >>food. The number of the former is vastly higher than >>the latter, and we all know it. > > > You are incoherent. Get help. I'm perfectly coherent, scumbag. You are incoherent. You are even more incoherent than "vegans", scum, because you can explain NEITHER why you start down the road of so-called "ethical" vegetarianism, nor why you stop short. Your attempt to establish virtue by means of comparison not only is invalid, scumbag, but is in fact indicative of even LESS virtue. Every respectable thinker on ethics in the course of history has made clear that virtue does not reside in a comparison with the unvirtuous, but rather in doing the right thing in absolute terms, IRRESPECTIVE of what others do. The phony, sham virtue you want to set up actually means that the animal death toll you cause could go UP, and you still would consider yourself virtuous...provided the death toll of your dietary enemy went up by a greater comparison. Why are you so willfully stupid, jimmy? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > C. James Putz wrote: > >>They wouldn't make outlandish moral claims if they knew and accepted > >>that. > > > > I agree that most vegans don't think beyond steak=animal. > > You should have stopped right here. This is the main issue. > > > I also agree that > > there are other animal casualties involved in vegetable production. But > > vegetable production is also a significant component of livestock > > production. > > Not entirely accurate. The market for grass-fed livestock is growing. > > > The issue should be how to minimize animal casualties since they > > cannot be practically eliminated. > > That would be a fine issue, but vegan activists aren't concerned with > minimization. The vegan "solution" is radical and based on the flawed > notion that not eating meat means no animals die. > > > Let's compare two cases (normalizing to one "steer unit"). Case 1: how many > > total animal casualties may be attributed to the steer being slaughtered for > > food? Case 2: how many total animal casualties are incurred during the same > > period of time for people eating only vegetable produce? > > > > Let's list the ways that lives are lost in Case 1. > > - the steer's life > > - animal casualties to production of food for the steer > > Grass-fed animals -- wild game, cattle, lamb, etc. -- do not have > collateral deaths, aside from insects they step upon. Would you count those? > > > - animal casualties to transporting the steer and food for the steer > > - incidental animals casualties > > Your argument is valid only if we consider grain-fed animals. > Alternatives exist which do away with your second point. > > > Same for Case 2: > > - animal casualties to production of food for people > > - animal casualties to transporting food for people > > - incidental animal casualties > > > > I contend that the steer is a relatively inefficient converter of grain to > > meat (losses from conversion of food to calories, excretion, etc.) in terms > > of volume. > > What about grass-fed beef? What about grass-fed lamb? What about game? > These are all valid alternatives. > > > More people could be fed from the grain a steer eats in it's > > lifetime than the steer's meat would feed. > > How many people could be fed from the grasses consumed by a deer, > buffalo, or cow? > > > Converting the steer's meat to an > > equivalent amount of grain, it's easy to see that more grain must be > > produced in Case 1 than in Case 2. Therefore, there are proportionally more > > animal casualties in Case 1 than in Case 2. > > I think most people would remain undisturbed by such details. > > >>Many veg-ns are shocked and stunned to learn their diet does > >>*nothing* to eliminate animal suffering and death. > > > > I believe that veg-n diet does reduce animal deaths. > > Only marginally. > > >>>The idea is to minimize animal casualties > >>>through the choices they make. > >> > >>No, the idea is to assume a moralistic posture and make judgmental > >>assessments of the dietary choices of others. If each and every animal > >>has a soul or some amount of sentience, how many voles, rats, mice, > >>birds, fish, deer, rabbits, skunks, etc., does it take to consider the > >>balance tilted toward harm? IOW, how many animal casualties do you > >>justify before meat consumption is morally acceptable? > > > > That's a question that people have to answer for themselves. The issue that > > you have with some vegans is that they don't respect other people's > > individuality. > > Especially when based upon a flawed moralism. > > >>If the goal is minimization, they needn't go to the extreme of veganism. > >>Plenty of humane alternatives are available which would allow them to > >>have their steak and eat it, too. Those alternatives include hunting, > >>grass-fed beef, and home-grown livestock. > > > > Well, there is still the matter of the life of the steer. Grass-fed beef is > > a better alternative than grain-fed beef. > > What's so special about the life of a steer? > > >>You must get over your confusion about the minimization issue. The > >>solution offered is radical, and has very little, if any, bearing on > >>markets that could be affected were more moderate steps taken. > > > > I'm not confused about minimization. I think you are too anal in your > > anti-vegan stance. And it's quite odd that coming from a vegan. > > Address the issue rather than express your contempt for me. I showed no contempt for you in this post aside from referring to you as "Useless Subject" above. I answered you carefully in the same tone in which you asked me to explain myself. My use of the word 'anal' wasn't meant to be insulting in any way. It was simply the best word I could use to explain how I feel about your position on this issue. Having meaningful dialogue with you is much more constructive than slinging mud at each other. I am out of this thread for now. I will be away from computers for the weekend. I'll be hunting mushrooms, not deer! >The solution > you offer is extreme on one end and doesn't even fix the problem on the > other. If people want to eat meat, encourage them to eat stuff that's > humanely raised and sustainable. Encourage them to hunt, get back to nature. > > <...> > >>>The cattle industry is > >>>responsible for a far greater number of collateral animal casualties > > than > >>>vegan's collective contribution. > >> > >>Strawman since cattle ranching in and of itself needn't rely on grain > >>for feed. > > > > The vast majority of cattle ranching does rely on grain for feed. > > That can be changed if the market demands, and the market is starting to > push in that direction. > > <...> > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
"pearl" > wrote in message ... > "rick etter" > wrote in message ... > > > > "pearl" > wrote in message > > ... > > > "Steve Dufour" > wrote in message > > > m... > > > > hmmmm....it seems to me that the way to cause the least suffering is > > > > get a rifle and go shoot a moose or an elk. Then you'd have a years > > > > supply of meat for only a few moments' suffering. > > > > > > Why not .. 'get a rifle and shoot yourself'? Then you'd cause least > > > suffering for 'only a few moments' suffering'. > > > > > > Or maybe just grow and/or buy eco-friendly organic plant produce. > > > .> > ===================== > > how often you going to spew this nonsense? Organic does not mean > > cruelty-free, killer. Just like your inane posts to usenet, hypocrite. > > How often you going to spew this nonsense, killer? ================ Until you understand a little truth, killer. > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
"LordSnooty" > wrote in message news  > On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 12:54:55 GMT, usual suspect who is actually NoNuts > J Ball > wrote: > > >LardShit wrote: > >>>>>hmmmm....it seems to me that the way to cause the least suffering is > >>>>>get a rifle and go shoot a moose or an elk. Then you'd have a years > >>>>>supply of meat for only a few moments' suffering. > >>>> > >>>>Why not .. 'get a rifle and shoot yourself'? Then you'd cause least > >>>>suffering for 'only a few moments' suffering'. > >>> > >>>Oh, feel the love. Misanthrope. > >> > >> It's a good statement, I see no reason for it to happen. > > > >Your base hatred of your fellow man is also well known. > > You think it unfair I don't like deviants who are proud of the > suffering they cause to animals and humans? tough. =============== that's why you display all that self-hatred, eh killer? > > >>>>Or maybe just grow and/or buy eco-friendly organic plant produce. > >>>> .> >>> > >>>Hunting is eco-friendly. > >> > >> Hunting is an abuse of wildlife, usually by lard arse, unemployed > >> deviants, who also subject their families to the same abuse. > > > >Oh, so you hunt? > > Only deviants. ================== you kill far more animals posting your inane ignorant delusions to usenet than most hunters manage, hypocrite... > > >>>Have you seen how much destruction uncontrolled > >>>ruminant populations can do to an ecosystem, much less when they start > >>>to starve? > >> > >> Hunting does not control wildlife populations, aside from keeping them > >> artificially high to provide amusement for bullies. > > > >You've never supported such claims with facts. > > I don't need to, anyone who has ever studied dynamics of wildlife > controls know the score, hunters know it very well. =============== you know nothing, killer.... > > > > > > > > > 'You can't win 'em all.' > Lord Haw Haw. > > Since I stopped donating money to CONservation hooligan charities > Like the RSPB, Woodland Trust and all the other fat cat charities > I am in the top 0.801% richest people in the world. > There are 5,951,930,035 people poorer than me > > If you're really interested I am the 48,069,965 > richest person in the world. > > And I'm keeping the bloody lot. > > So sue me. > > http://www.globalrichlist.com/ |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message ... > > "Useless Subject" > wrote in message > ... > > > C. James Strutz wrote: > > > Most vegans know that it's impossible to eliminate 100% of animal > casualties > > > in products they buy and use. > > > > They wouldn't make outlandish moral claims if they knew and accepted > > that. > > I agree that most vegans don't think beyond steak=animal. I also agree that > there are other animal casualties involved in vegetable production. But > vegetable production is also a significant component of livestock > production. ============= No, it is not. No crops are grown for the beef I buy and eat. No crops are grown for the game I eat. You've now lost on that count, because now I can easily replace 100s of 1000s of calories with the deaths of just a couple of animals, from that many calories of factory-farmed, mono culture crop foods. Where is the benefit in fewer/less/no animal deaths and suffering by eating all my calories in veggies? The issue should be how to minimize animal casualties since they > cannot be practically eliminated. ================== By including meat. that should be obvious to even the most brain-dead vegan. It seems to go right over all their heads though. Why is that? Because they have only simple rules to live by. Simple rules for simple minds. Meat bad, veggie good. regardless of the circumstances. > > Let's compare two cases (normalizing to one "steer unit"). Case 1: how many > total animal casualties may be attributed to the steer being slaughtered for > food? ===================== 1 Case 2: how many total animal casualties are incurred during the same > period of time for people eating only vegetable produce? ==================== 100s, 1000s? None of you *compassionate* vegan types really care to find out. > > Let's list the ways that lives are lost in Case 1. > - the steer's life > - animal casualties to production of food for the steer ================= none needed. grass grows just fine. without any extra inputs. Cows, being what they are, well, cows, can convert that grass into human edible protein without any intervention from us at all. There also is no need for hormanes or routine anti-biotics for growing cows. Again, grass does just fine. Now, how often to you eat grass? > - animal casualties to transporting the steer and food for the steer ================ none needed. Cows are grown right here, slaughtered right here, and eaten right here. Again, there is no need for transporting grass as it grows just fine all by itself. > - incidental animals casualties ================= Which would be what? Those run over by plows, harvesters, sprayers? Don't think so, none needed. Those that are poisoned to protect the storage silos? Don't think so. > > Same for Case 2: > - animal casualties to production of food for people ================== 100s, 1,000s, 1,000,000s? How many you want? > - animal casualties to transporting food for people ======================= Don't forget processing too. Changing your soy into tofu meat substitutes is a process intensive operation requiring lots of power. > - incidental animal casualties ================= millions poisoned deliberatly, millions poisoned by pesticides, how many killed in the production of the petro-chemical industry that provides all the fuels, power, poisons needed to put your *eco* veggies on your plate. > > I contend that the steer is a relatively inefficient converter of grain to > meat (losses from conversion of food to calories, excretion, etc.) in terms > of volume. ===================== Really? You contend this do you? How good are you at converting grass to protein? I contend that you are very inefficient at this, to the extreme of non-existant. What resources need to go into growing grass? millions of pounds of ferts/pesticides? Don't think so. millions of gallons of fuel? Millions of kilowatts? Nope, don't think so. what's left? Oh yaeh, it does use up a lot of precious sunlight that you could be using to tan with, right? More people could be fed from the grain a steer eats in it's > lifetime than the steer's meat would feed. ========================== Really? How much grass you figure it takes to keep you alive? Besides, your background implication that the world is starving because some people eat meat is just another vegan delusional ly. Converting the steer's meat to an > equivalent amount of grain, it's easy to see that more grain must be > produced in Case 1 than in Case 2. ================== Really? You must have missed math class those days thay did addition, eh? Therefore, there are proportionally more > animal casualties in Case 1 than in Case 2. ====================== Wrong. your stupidity knows no bounds, does it killer? > > > Many veg-ns are shocked and stunned to learn their diet does > > *nothing* to eliminate animal suffering and death. > > I believe that veg-n diet does reduce animal deaths. ===================== I believe you're wrong, and you';ve yet to prove that you are right. > > > > The idea is to minimize animal casualties > > > through the choices they make. > > > > No, the idea is to assume a moralistic posture and make judgmental > > assessments of the dietary choices of others. If each and every animal > > has a soul or some amount of sentience, how many voles, rats, mice, > > birds, fish, deer, rabbits, skunks, etc., does it take to consider the > > balance tilted toward harm? IOW, how many animal casualties do you > > justify before meat consumption is morally acceptable? > > That's a question that people have to answer for themselves. The issue that > you have with some vegans is that they don't respect other people's > individuality. > > > If the goal is minimization, they needn't go to the extreme of veganism. > > Plenty of humane alternatives are available which would allow them to > > have their steak and eat it, too. Those alternatives include hunting, > > grass-fed beef, and home-grown livestock. > > Well, there is still the matter of the life of the steer. Grass-fed beef is > a better alternative than grain-fed beef. ====================== Um... How much better? care to redo your above *calculations*? > > > You must get over your confusion about the minimization issue. The > > solution offered is radical, and has very little, if any, bearing on > > markets that could be affected were more moderate steps taken. > > I'm not confused about minimization. I think you are too anal in your > anti-vegan stance. And it's quite odd that coming from a vegan. > > > > Vegans choose not to eat meat, dairy, etc. > > > because it contributes less to animal casualties. > > > > Please justify your claim that veganism contributes less to animal > > casualties. > > See above. ================== You didn't show any such thing... > > > > The cattle industry is > > > responsible for a far greater number of collateral animal casualties > than > > > vegan's collective contribution. > > > > Strawman since cattle ranching in and of itself needn't rely on grain > > for feed. > > The vast majority of cattle ranching does rely on grain for feed. ====================== And you do nothing to make any changes in that production. meat eaters, on the other hand, are making changes. You can look for grass-fed, free range meats anywhere now. Your following simple rules eliminates any part you could have in making these changes come about. Stopping eating meat is just a blip, not even regeristing. Even if somehow you managed to make a dent in the meat demand, all you would accomplish is the greater 'suffering' that you claim factory-farmed animals now endure. Producers aren't just going to throw up their hands and quit, they're going to put even more animals into the same system designed for fewer to make up the loses by producing even cheaper. We provide an alternative, a lucrative, and more eco-friendly alternative. Try thinking with what ever part of your brain isn't fried for a change. > > > > You don't want vegans to know that because > > > it discredits your wild accusations. > > > > You're the one engaging in deceit. > > I think my points are quite valid. ================ No, they are not. They are the same old diatribes without any thought. Now, go have that nice blood-drenched dinner, hypocrite. > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
"LordSnooty" > wrote
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:36:02 GMT, Jonathan Ball > > wrote: [..] > >On the other hand, so-called "ethical vegetarianism" is > >fundamentally hypocritical. The reason is that animals > >are killed gruesomely and in large numbers in the > >course of growing, storing and distributing vegetables, > > That's because it's a lie. You are deliberately confusing the odd > accident, Grain fields are routinely soaked with Roundup to supress weeds. Try ingesting 1/1000 your bodyweight in Roundup. > with the deliberate slaughter of animals to produce food. What's accidental about using Roundup? > It > simply doesn't happen in vegetable production, whereas in meat > production there is no dispute. There's no dispute that animal populations have been and and are still being decimated by herbicides and pesicides, these are not accidents. You're in denial. -snip-> |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 15:14:06 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"LordSnooty" > wrote >> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:36:02 GMT, Jonathan Ball >> > wrote: > >[..] > >> >On the other hand, so-called "ethical vegetarianism" is >> >fundamentally hypocritical. The reason is that animals >> >are killed gruesomely and in large numbers in the >> >course of growing, storing and distributing vegetables, >> >> That's because it's a lie. You are deliberately confusing the odd >> accident, > >Grain fields are routinely soaked with Roundup to supress weeds. Try >ingesting 1/1000 your bodyweight in Roundup. That is why I regularly campaign against Monsanto and lazy farmers who use the poison, and I buy organic, as well as grow your own. It's the only way to go So it looks like it may be the veggies in your meat and two veg diet, that are causing the suffering after all. >> with the deliberate slaughter of animals to produce food. > >What's accidental about using Roundup? Nothing. It is a wanton act of abuse, not only on wildlife but on humans too. >> It >> simply doesn't happen in vegetable production, whereas in meat >> production there is no dispute. > >There's no dispute that animal populations have been and and are still being >decimated by herbicides and pesicides, these are not accidents. Not in my diet. >You're in denial. You are struggling to find a desperate shred of credibility for your nonsense argument. 'You can't win 'em all.' Lord Haw Haw. Since I stopped donating money to CONservation hooligan charities Like the RSPB, Woodland Trust and all the other fat cat charities I am in the top 0.801% richest people in the world. There are 5,951,930,035 people poorer than me If you're really interested I am the 48,069,965 richest person in the world. And I'm keeping the bloody lot. So sue me. http://www.globalrichlist.com/ |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
"LordSnooty" > wrote
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 15:14:06 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > > >"LordSnooty" > wrote > >> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:36:02 GMT, Jonathan Ball > >> > wrote: > > > >[..] > > > >> >On the other hand, so-called "ethical vegetarianism" is > >> >fundamentally hypocritical. The reason is that animals > >> >are killed gruesomely and in large numbers in the > >> >course of growing, storing and distributing vegetables, > >> > >> That's because it's a lie. You are deliberately confusing the odd > >> accident, > > > >Grain fields are routinely soaked with Roundup to supress weeds. Try > >ingesting 1/1000 your bodyweight in Roundup. > > That is why I regularly campaign against Monsanto and lazy farmers who > use the poison, and I buy organic, as well as grow your own. It's the > only way to go Organic farmers still use chemicals, they just use less of them. Very, very few vegans grow their own, and they still believe their diets are death-free. > So it looks like it may be the veggies in your meat and two veg diet, > that are causing the suffering after all. No, EVERYTHING does. > >> with the deliberate slaughter of animals to produce food. > > > >What's accidental about using Roundup? > > Nothing. It is a wanton act of abuse, not only on wildlife but on > humans too. Those "wanton acts of abuse" live in the history of virtually every vegan's diet. > >> It > >> simply doesn't happen in vegetable production, whereas in meat > >> production there is no dispute. > > > >There's no dispute that animal populations have been and and are still being > >decimated by herbicides and pesicides, these are not accidents. > > Not in my diet. Bullshit. > >You're in denial. > > You are struggling to find a desperate shred of credibility for your > nonsense argument. I don't have to struggle at all, the truth is very easy to support. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 13:44:25 +0100, "Jane" > wrote:
> >"swamp" > wrote in message ... >> On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 04:16:25 -0400, LordSnooty >> > wrote: >> >> >On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 05:21:59 GMT, swamp > >> >wrote: >> > >> >>On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 20:20:23 GMT, frlpwr > wrote: >> >> >> >>>Jon wrote: >> >>> >> >>>(snip) >> >>> >> >>>> "vegans", or so-called >> >>>> "ethical vegetarians", engage in a classic logical >> >>>> fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It runs like this: >> >>>> >> >>>> If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die. >> >>>> >> >>>> I do not eat meat; >> >>>> >> >>>> Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die. >> >>> >> >>>Why do you refuse to be corrected on this point? >> >>> >> >>>The above should go like this: >> >>> >> >>> If I eat meat, I cause farmed animals to suffer and die. >> >>> >> >>> I do not eat meat; >> >>> >> >>> Therefore, I do not cause farmed animals to suffer and die. >> >> >> >>As long as we're shooting for accuracy, it should be: >> >> >> >>If I eat meat, I cause farmed animals to suffer and die. >> >> >> >>I do not eat meat, therefore, I do not cause farmed animals to suffer >> >>and die, >> > >> >Very good. >> > >> >>and make this point because it helps me ignore the death and >> >>suffering my own diet causes. >> > >> >What death and suffering? >> >> That caused by your very existence. >> >> >you have scientific, peer reviewed data that >> >a particular company, farm, product is a direct cause of wildlife >> >deaths? >> >> The peer-reviewed study you suggest is about as necessary as one >> showing starvation will cause starvation. >> >That's a false analogy, since one event (starving) will always cause >the same condition (starvation), but the same can't be said for the >other half of your analogy where one event (eating vegetables) >will always cause the same condition (collateral deaths). The analogy, simplified, is that life causes death. The two are inseparable. >Before >showing you the fallacy in your argument over collateral deaths, >look again at the first premise in Jonathan Ball's syllogism at the >start of this thread. > >"If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die." > >This proposition is false, since the event (If I eat meat) always >assumes a necessary condition (I cause animals to suffer and die). Of course it's false. Jon's parroting ar/evs. You're not off to a good start. >A necessary condition for an event is something which is >absolutely required to exist or happen if the event is to occur. >Ergo; causing suffering and death to animals is absolutely >required to exist or must happen if I am to eat meat. Correct about the death, not about the suffering, and one's diet is irrelevant. >A sufficient condition for an event, on the other hand, does >not have to exist for the event to occur, but if it exists, then >the event will occur. How can an event occur if pre-conditions don't exist? >Ergo; causing animals to suffer and die >isn't absolutely required to exist or happen, since meat can >be sourced from animals which no one has caused to suffer >or die, but if it does suffer and die from natural causes or >accident, then I am still able to eat meat. Do you believe in miracles? >A more formal way for saying that one thing, p, is a sufficient >condition for some other thing, q, would be to say "if p then q," >which is a standard hypothetical proposition. Confusing >necessary and sufficient conditions is one way to understand >how some of the rules of inference with hypothetical propositions >can be violated. The fallacy of affirming the consequent, for >example, makes the assumption that a sufficient condition is also >a necessary condition. >http://atheism.about.com/library/glo..._necessary.htm Stop w/ the pseudo logical nonsense. You don't understand it anyway. Here are the facts. Your live at the expense of other lives. "Suffering" isn't a necessary part of the equation. Death is. >Another example of affirming the consequent is shown in your >proposition, "If I eat vegetables, collateral deaths will occur." > >This proposition is false; since the event (If I eat vegetables) >always assumes a necessary condition (collateral deaths will >occur). >Ergo; collateral deaths are absolutely required to exist or >must happen if I am to eat vegetables. > >For the sufficient condition; collateral deaths aren't absolutely >required to exist or happen, but if they do exist, then I am still >able to eat vegetables. The fallacy of affirming the consequent, >for this example makes the same assumption as the last in that >a sufficient condition is also a necessary condition CDs are an absolute outcome of farming whether you deny them or not, ergo your "affirming the consequent" argument is duly dismissed. The only way not to kill animals is to not exist. I suggest you'd have better luck taking a sideways look at David Harrison's argument. Think of all the veggies that wouldn't get planted if it weren't for ar/evs. --swamp |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
Dutch wrote:
> > "frlpwr" > wrote > > wrote: > > > > > > frlpwr wrote: > > > > > > > Jon wrote: > > > > > > > > (snip) > > > > > > > >>"vegans", or so-called > > > >>"ethical vegetarians", engage in a classic logical > > > >>fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It runs like this: > > > >> > > > >> If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die. > > > >> > > > >> I do not eat meat; > > > >> > > > >> Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die. > > > > > > > > > > > > Why do you refuse to be corrected on this point? > > > > > > > > The above should go like this: > > > > > > > > If I eat meat, I cause farmed animals to suffer and die. > > > > > > Because that's not the thinking, and it would be absurd > > > to think it could be. > > > > I would be absurd to think otherwise. As I said in the snipped portion > > of my previous post, no vegan thinks her diet effects the suffering and > > dying of shelter animals, circus animals, animals displaced by human > > development, laboratory animals, animals killed in vehicular > > accidents,etc.. > > You're REALLY obfuscating here, stick to the topic of diets. I am, silly. It is because veganism is all about consumables that "farmed animals" or "food and fiber animals" is clearly implied in a vegan's, "...I do not contribute to the suffering and death of animals..." claim. >A more precise > wording of the fallacy would be as follows: > > Eating meat contributes to the deaths of animals. > Talk about obfuscation! Eating meat does not "contribute" to the death of animals, it requires it. A more precise wording of the above statement would be as follows: Eating meat requires the death of food animals. > I don't eat meat therefore *MY diet* doesn't contribute to the deaths of > animals. This is true if you insert "food" before "animals". > > The virulent rhetoric of anti-meat campaigners makes it crystal clear that > collateral deaths associated with their non-meat diets are *right* off their > radar screen. Virtually every new vegan who comes here is caught off-guard > by the cd argument. It's true that many vegans are oblivious to the field deaths associated with various crops. Once informed, I don't recall any dismissing them as unimportant. Unquantified or unquantifiable, yes. We are missing an all important point here. Conceding that an unknown number of field animals die from cultivation, the voles, the mice, the woodchucks, the gophers, the moles, the rabbits, the shrews, do not experience suffering over time, as do most industrially produced livestock. Field animals live their lives contentedly, then BLAMMM, the blade. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
"frlpwr" > wrote
> Dutch wrote: > > > > "frlpwr" > wrote > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > frlpwr wrote: > > > > > > > > > Jon wrote: > > > > > > > > > > (snip) > > > > > > > > > >>"vegans", or so-called > > > > >>"ethical vegetarians", engage in a classic logical > > > > >>fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It runs like this: > > > > >> > > > > >> If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die. > > > > >> > > > > >> I do not eat meat; > > > > >> > > > > >> Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why do you refuse to be corrected on this point? > > > > > > > > > > The above should go like this: > > > > > > > > > > If I eat meat, I cause farmed animals to suffer and die. > > > > > > > > Because that's not the thinking, and it would be absurd > > > > to think it could be. > > > > > > I would be absurd to think otherwise. As I said in the snipped portion > > > of my previous post, no vegan thinks her diet effects the suffering and > > > dying of shelter animals, circus animals, animals displaced by human > > > development, laboratory animals, animals killed in vehicular > > > accidents,etc.. > > > > You're REALLY obfuscating here, stick to the topic of diets. > > I am, silly. It is because veganism is all about consumables that > "farmed animals" or "food and fiber animals" is clearly implied in a > vegan's, "...I do not contribute to the suffering and death of > animals..." claim. You brought up circus and shelter animals, that was a diversion, nobody was ever referring to them in this context. It was not a valid refutation of the cd argument, the charge still stands, most vegans are at least subconciously are committing the fallacy, their posts here confirm it. > >A more precise > > wording of the fallacy would be as follows: > > > > Eating meat contributes to the deaths of animals. > > > Talk about obfuscation! Eating meat does not "contribute" to the death > of animals, it requires it. That wasn't obfuscation, but I accept your term as more accurate. > A more precise wording of the above statement would be as follows: > > Eating meat requires the death of food animals. > > > I don't eat meat therefore *MY diet* doesn't contribute to the deaths of > > animals. > > This is true if you insert "food" before "animals". Correct, but that is not the mind set that most vegans have. When they talk about 'not requiring the deaths of animals' they have not factored cds into it. CDs are simply not on their radar screen at all. > > The virulent rhetoric of anti-meat campaigners makes it crystal clear that > > collateral deaths associated with their non-meat diets are *right* off their > > radar screen. Virtually every new vegan who comes here is caught off-guard > > by the cd argument. > > It's true that many vegans are oblivious to the field deaths associated > with various crops. Most, and nearly 100% fail to consider them as actually "animals killed in order to feed *them*". > Once informed, I don't recall any dismissing them > as unimportant. Unquantified or unquantifiable, yes. There have been a wide variety of responses to this revelation. Derek washes his hands of them, LordSnooty demands peer-reviewed data proving they exist, one way or another the killing of those animals lives is dismissed in some way to defend the counter-attack against vegan self-righteousness. > We are missing an all important point here. Conceding that an unknown > number of field animals die from cultivation, the voles, the mice, the > woodchucks, the gophers, the moles, the rabbits, the shrews, do not > experience suffering over time, as do most industrially produced > livestock. Field animals live their lives contentedly, then BLAMMM, the > blade. That's a red herring, vegans oppose ALL killing of animals for their meat, even wild animals killed by hunters humanely with a single shot. Arguably they oppose this even more than slaughterhouses. Lets be straight about it. AR/veganism is about man *using* animals as a benefit to themselves. it's not about animal suffering. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
"Dutch" > wrote in message ... > "LordSnooty" > wrote > > On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 15:14:06 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > > > > >"LordSnooty" > wrote > > >> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:36:02 GMT, Jonathan Ball > > >> > wrote: > > > > > >[..] > > > > > >> >On the other hand, so-called "ethical vegetarianism" is > > >> >fundamentally hypocritical. The reason is that animals > > >> >are killed gruesomely and in large numbers in the > > >> >course of growing, storing and distributing vegetables, > > >> > > >> That's because it's a lie. You are deliberately confusing the odd > > >> accident, > > > > > >Grain fields are routinely soaked with Roundup to supress weeds. Try > > >ingesting 1/1000 your bodyweight in Roundup. > > > > That is why I regularly campaign against Monsanto and lazy farmers who > > use the poison, and I buy organic, as well as grow your own. It's the > > only way to go > > Organic farmers still use chemicals, they just use less of them. =============== Some organic pesticides are very short-lived. great for residueless crops, but some need to be sprayed more than once per growing season because of that. That spraying is still mechanized and fueled by the petro-chemical industry. Very, very > few vegans grow their own, and they still believe their diets are > death-free. > > > So it looks like it may be the veggies in your meat and two veg diet, > > that are causing the suffering after all. > > No, EVERYTHING does. > > > >> with the deliberate slaughter of animals to produce food. > > > > > >What's accidental about using Roundup? > > > > Nothing. It is a wanton act of abuse, not only on wildlife but on > > humans too. > > Those "wanton acts of abuse" live in the history of virtually every vegan's > diet. > > > >> It > > >> simply doesn't happen in vegetable production, whereas in meat > > >> production there is no dispute. > > > > > >There's no dispute that animal populations have been and and are still > being > > >decimated by herbicides and pesicides, these are not accidents. > > > > Not in my diet. > > Bullshit. ================= Isn't denial just a wonderful thing to watch? > > > >You're in denial. > > > > You are struggling to find a desperate shred of credibility for your > > nonsense argument. > > I don't have to struggle at all, the truth is very easy to support. > > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
usual suspect wrote:
> > frlsht wrote: (snip) > > Run-off, evaporation and accelerated transpiration rates make it enormously > > wasteful. Flood irrigation leads to soil compaction and changes in soil > > chemistry. It's used, primarily, in underdeveloped countries or in the western US > > for use on _pastureland_, _grassland_, _alfalfa fields_ and grain crops of the > > water-guzzling type. > Thanks for your useless lecture. Not useless, since it directs attention to the crops most commonly watered by flood irrigation, _pastureland_, _grassland_, _alfalfa fields_, all used to feed livestock. Further, it shows that flood irrigation systems waste water and damage the soil, proving that growers who use this method are poor land stewards, even without calculating the toll their practices take on wildlife. > > Vegans hooked on rice can select wild varities grown on natural floodplains. > Most vegans eat standard crop rices as a daily staple. Do you have any evidence to substantiate this? (snip) > > That photo of the mangled fawn that you creeps use to 'prove' the existence of > > field deaths...it's of a silage field. > I've used a combine to harvest cotton (and milo and maize). I've seen what happens > to deer, rabbits, snakes, and birds. Not that I believe your red dirt anecdote, but haven't you yokels heard of flushing bars? > Do you wear cotton clothing? Exclusively, except for synthetic outerwear and footwear. > Your lifestyle is NOT cruelty-free. I would not be foolish enough to claim it is. (snip) > > Lastly, explain how dying in the field where you were born is as "horrid" as being > > transported for hours, sometimes days, to a slaughterhouse, being unloaded into a > > holding pen with hundreds of strange animals, being pushed and shocked with prods > > wielded by unfamiliar humans, slipping and sliding in the feces and gore of the > > animals ahead, and having a bolt gun discharged into your brain, sometimes twice, > > sometimes three times. > First, many animals don't die in the field itself; some of them are bound into bales > (straw, hay) What would prevent a live animal from chewing its way out of a bale of hay? It's certainly capable of chewing its way into one. > some are transported with grains or other products Okay, so some are, unfortunately, relocated without their consent. > Second, transportation to slaughter rarely is a matter of days; The 48-Hour law exists for a reason. Slaughterhouse guru, Grandin, sets 32 hours as the maximum travel time without unloading and reloading livestock for a rest stop. There are fewer slaughterhouses in the US then there were a decade ago and they are more specialized. More animals are being transported farther distances, not less animals and not shorter distances. >> finishing lots are usually adjacent to slaughterhouses. Uh, how do you think the cattle get to the feedlots, Mr. My-Family-Are-Ranchers? Do you think they're born there? > Third, animals find slipping and sliding in manure less distasteful than humans According to Temple Grandin, the single most stressful aspect of pre-slaughter handling is loss of footing. > (if you'd grown up around cattle you'd know that) I grew up around swine. I know that animals do not have the same aversion to feces as we do. I also know that animals are terrified of losing their balance and avoid slippery surfaces like the plague. > I'm not saying it's a pretty picture for the end of any animal's life. That's a switch. > The fact remains, animals suffer and die regardless of what one eats regardless of > your personal dietary preferences. The prolonged suffering of animals sent to commercial slaughter is not comparable to the suffering of an ex-sanguinated field mouse. How long does it take for a 2" animal to lose enough blood to induce unconsciousness and death? > The only way around that is to grow your own food or co-op with others whose > sensitivities match your own. This is what I do, but my location makes it easier for me than most. (snip) > > Where are your "facts" showing: 1) a vegan diet causes more suffering and death. > > 2) field deaths are as "horrid" as slaughterhouse deaths. > 1) http://www.animalrights.net/articles/2002/000083.html You mean this? "One study Davis mentions, for example, found a 50 percent reductionin gray-tailed voles from just a single mowing of alfalfa." This is the closest the article comes to quantifiable data. Alfalfa is a feed crop for livestock and it's cut lower and more often than most grain crops grown for human consumption. > 2) personal experiences in agriculture You know better than to offer anecdotes as evidence. If we're going to start accepting tales of personal experiences, I'd like to add my own. Everyday I trudge across a wide field, cut with gang-mowers a minimum of once a month, to feed cats. This is unused cemetary land, pesticides and poisons are prohibited by law. Consequently, there is a large resident population of voles, gophers and shrews. The cemetary workers mow the weeds to the bare ground. Unlike growers, they are unfettered by concerns about soil quality and the benefits of crop residue. By the evening of the day they mow, the entire field is riddled with newly dug tunnels and holes. It's clear to me that most of the animals living in the field survive the close-cropping of their vegetative cover. (snip) > My brain works quite well, skag. I've noticed a marked disintegration whenver Ball isn't around for you to imitate. (snip) > > Okay, now you've got something else to prove. Please show that compassion is an > > incorrect human response to the suffering of others. > In general, the compassion of a vegetarian diet is completely misplaced A diet is not capable of compassion or cruelty, goofy. > and unfounded. Dietary abstention from animal parts does not mean that such a diet > is free of animal death or suffering. Maybe not, but such a diet is free from the suffering and death of animals held in the throes of the meat industry. It is free from the suffering and death of animals stalked and killed in the morning mist by humans wearing, gulp, flannel shirts. > > In specific, your sense of compassion is overshadowed by your personal support of > > animal rights terrorism. I believe people who hurt others, unprovoked, deserve to be punished. Cows, pigs, chickens, deer, rabbits and ducks don't, normally, hurt others intentionally. (snip) > > What's the bloody point in eating something that's supposed to look,taste, and/or > > feel like something you *won't* eat? > Because veganism is not about aesthetics, doofus, it's about reducing the demand for > meat production. > It's all about aesthetics, skag. Is this supposed to be a convincing argument? Let me help you out here. When intelligent people say veganism is about aesthetics, not ethics, they mean vegans avoid meat because they are repulsed by the look, taste and feel of meat. You've just given us evidence they aren't. > It's all about moral posturing. If a meat-eater were to advocate eating only pasture-raised, farm-slaughtered animals, would you say he was "posturing"? (snip) > >Please demonstrate the hypocrisy in a vegan eating a meat substitute item. > I've already explained this numerous times. Always unsuccessfully. > Your moral posture allows you to eat, even desire, something which tastes, feels, > and smells just like a product you find quite immoral. The taste apparently still > appeals to you; your love for the cow and chicken has not yet exceeded your love for > the taste of their flesh. If anything, people who enjoy or crave the taste of meat and yet abstain from meat products are _more_ ethical than those for whom meat has no appeal. Their dietary choices require self-denial and self-sacrifice. > The issue is the *appeal* of such a close substitute. You still like and want to eat > meat. As long as you don't, no principle of veganism is broken. (snip) > The magazine's quality has dropped significantly over the years. So has yours, > carpetmunch. You'll never be anything but Ball's lowly apprentice, pal. Try to find your own style. Mimicry doesn't become you. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
"frlpwr" > wrote in message ... > Dutch wrote: > > > > "frlpwr" > wrote > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > frlpwr wrote: > > > > > > > > > Jon wrote: > > > > > > > > > > (snip) > > > > > > > > > >>"vegans", or so-called > > > > >>"ethical vegetarians", engage in a classic logical > > > > >>fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It runs like this: > > > > >> > > > > >> If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die. > > > > >> > > > > >> I do not eat meat; > > > > >> > > > > >> Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why do you refuse to be corrected on this point? > > > > > > > > > > The above should go like this: > > > > > > > > > > If I eat meat, I cause farmed animals to suffer and die. > > > > > > > > Because that's not the thinking, and it would be absurd > > > > to think it could be. > > > > > > I would be absurd to think otherwise. As I said in the snipped portion > > > of my previous post, no vegan thinks her diet effects the suffering and > > > dying of shelter animals, circus animals, animals displaced by human > > > development, laboratory animals, animals killed in vehicular > > > accidents,etc.. > > > > You're REALLY obfuscating here, stick to the topic of diets. > > I am, silly. It is because veganism is all about consumables that > "farmed animals" or "food and fiber animals" is clearly implied in a > vegan's, "...I do not contribute to the suffering and death of > animals..." claim. > > >A more precise > > wording of the fallacy would be as follows: > > > > Eating meat contributes to the deaths of animals. > > > Talk about obfuscation! Eating meat does not "contribute" to the death > of animals, it requires it. > > A more precise wording of the above statement would be as follows: > > Eating meat requires the death of food animals. > > > I don't eat meat therefore *MY diet* doesn't contribute to the deaths of > > animals. > > This is true if you insert "food" before "animals". > > > > The virulent rhetoric of anti-meat campaigners makes it crystal clear that > > collateral deaths associated with their non-meat diets are *right* off their > > radar screen. Virtually every new vegan who comes here is caught off-guard > > by the cd argument. > > It's true that many vegans are oblivious to the field deaths associated > with various crops. Once informed, I don't recall any dismissing them > as unimportant. Unquantified or unquantifiable, yes. ======================= Then you haven't been paying attention, have you? Even you dismiss them as umimportant since you refuse to consider that other options are better. > > We are missing an all important point here. Conceding that an unknown > number of field animals die from cultivation, the voles, the mice, the > woodchucks, the gophers, the moles, the rabbits, the shrews, do not > experience suffering over time, as do most industrially produced > livestock. ================= More typical BS. The cows I eat don't 'suffer' any more than your mice or voles during their lives. The real difference is that the cows I eat die a very humane death compared to the animals you condemn to die horribly for your selfish conveninece. Field animals live their lives contentedly, then BLAMMM, the > blade. ======================= Really? Even those that die slowly from poisons while their guts turn to mush? Even those that die from starvation and predation after you take all the easy foods and cover that allowed their population to explode in the first place? You mean like *those* quick, humane deaths? > > |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
Dutch wrote:
> > "frlpwr" > wrote (snip) > > > > It is because veganism is all about consumables that > > "farmed animals" or "food and fiber animals" is clearly implied in a > > vegan's, "...I do not contribute to the suffering and death of > > animals..." claim. > > You brought up circus and shelter animals, that was a diversion, nobody was > ever referring to them in this context. It was Ball who unduly broadened the vegan claim of "causing no suffering and death...". Veganism focuses on food and fiber animals and makes no claim regarding its effect on wildlife, circus animals, shelter animals, etc. > It was not a valid refutation of the cd argument, It was not meant as a refutation, it was a correction of Ball's strawman statement. > the charge still stands, most vegans are at least subconciously > are committing the fallacy I don't believe you're qualified to determine what other people think or don't think subconsciously. > their posts here confirm it. I must have missed these. Can you reproduce the posts that show vegans, after being apprised of the probability of collateral field deaths in industrial agrigculture, believe no animals suffer and die because of them? (snip) > Correct, but that is not the mind set that most vegans have. When they talk > about 'not requiring the deaths of animals' they have not factored cds into > it. CDs are simply not on their radar screen at all. After being informed, who denies that some collateral field deaths occur? The question becomes how many deaths, who controls the deaths, and the quality of the lives of field animals and the agony of their deaths. > (snip) > > > > It's true that many vegans are oblivious to the field deaths associated > > with various crops. > > Most, and nearly 100% fail to consider them as actually "animals killed in > order to feed *them*". Animals don't have to die "in order" to grow plants. Growers don't want to kill animals with their machinery, bone and hair dulls blades and mucks up screens. They kill animals because they are too cheap, lazy or uninformed to use devices and adopt practices that could reduce field deaths. > > Once informed, I don't recall any dismissing them > > as unimportant. Unquantified or unquantifiable, yes. > > There have been a wide variety of responses to this revelation. Derek washes > his hands of them, LordSnooty demands peer-reviewed data proving they exist, > one way or another the killing of those animals lives is dismissed in some > way to defend the counter-attack against vegan self-righteousness. I don't think either of these examples constitutes a dismissal of the existence or the ethical import of collateral deaths. Derek is correct to lay the ultimate blame for field deaths at the feet of producers and the Lord needs quantifiable, reliable data to determine whether a vegan diet causes _more_ animals to suffer than the billions of animals we know die in slaughterhouses every year. > > > We are missing an all important point here. Conceding that an unknown > > number of field animals die from cultivation, the voles, the mice, the > > woodchucks, the gophers, the moles, the rabbits, the shrews, do not > > experience suffering over time, as do most industrially produced > > livestock. Field animals live their lives contentedly, then BLAMMM, the > > blade. > > That's a red herring No, it isn't since most meat eaten in North American comes from industrially raised and commercially slaughtered animals. , vegans oppose ALL killing of animals for their meat, > even wild animals killed by hunters humanely with a single shot. Now we need to discuss wounding and retrieval rates, the effects of spent shot on birds and aquatic life, hunting with dogs, prey baiting, the diversion of tax dollars from conservation programs to hunting enhancement programs, the stress of stalked animals,etc. (snip) > AR/veganism is about man *using* animals as a benefit to themselves. it's > not about animal suffering. It's about the suffering of animals which man uses. That's why the death of wildlife in crop fields in "off the radar" of many vegans. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
"frlpwr" > wrote
> Dutch wrote: > > > > "frlpwr" > wrote > > (snip) > > > > > > It is because veganism is all about consumables that > > > "farmed animals" or "food and fiber animals" is clearly implied in a > > > vegan's, "...I do not contribute to the suffering and death of > > > animals..." claim. > > > > You brought up circus and shelter animals, that was a diversion, nobody was > > ever referring to them in this context. > > It was Ball who unduly broadened the vegan claim of "causing no > suffering and death...". Veganism focuses on food and fiber animals and > makes no claim regarding its effect on wildlife, circus animals, shelter > animals, etc. > > > It was not a valid refutation of the cd argument, > > It was not meant as a refutation, it was a correction of Ball's strawman > statement. He didn't make a strawman statement. You introduced extraneous elements into a discussion about diets. There's absolutely no reason to introduce circuses into the argument except to muddy the waters. > > the charge still stands, most vegans are at least subconciously > > are committing the fallacy > > I don't believe you're qualified to determine what other people think or > don't think subconsciously. I can see it in their words. How could a person who is fully aware that indirectly they cause animals to be killed for their food, be so virulently hateful and disrespectful of people who knowingly cause animals to be killed for their food? > > their posts here confirm it. > > I must have missed these. Can you reproduce the posts that show vegans, > after being apprised of the probability of collateral field deaths in > industrial agrigculture, believe no animals suffer and die because of > them? That's not what I am saying. I'm saying that by judging meat eaters so harshly they are demonstrating a willful blindness to the impact of their own lives. They use different mechanisms to avoid confronting their own culpability, as I've already described. It's like a shoplifter condemning a B&E artist for being a crook. (snip) > > > Correct, but that is not the mind set that most vegans have. When they talk > > about 'not requiring the deaths of animals' they have not factored cds into > > it. CDs are simply not on their radar screen at all. > > After being informed, who denies that some collateral field deaths > occur? Vegans talk out of both sides of their mouths, many who are experienced in this debate such as you, pay lip service to cds, then continue concluding that killing animals for food the way *others* do, is immoral, while their own complicity is given a free pass. It's self-serving. > The question becomes how many deaths, That's not the question. Vegans claim to abhor ONE death committed in the fashion they proscribe. Vegans are unable to measure the deaths they cause, and I daresay are not interested in doing so. > who controls the deaths, Humans control the deaths in slaughterhouses AND grain fields. > and the quality of the lives of field animals The quality of the lives of livestock is Animal Welfare. > and the agony of their deaths. There's no evidence that poisoned animals die with less agony than animals in slaughterhouses, quite the contrary. > (snip) > > > > > > It's true that many vegans are oblivious to the field deaths associated > > > with various crops. > > > > Most, and nearly 100% fail to consider them as actually "animals killed in > > order to feed *them*". > > Animals don't have to die "in order" to grow plants. Livestock don't have to suffer either. If I had to decide which abuse could be more readily solved, I would choose livestock. > Growers don't want > to kill animals with their machinery, bone and hair dulls blades and > mucks up screens. They kill animals because they are too cheap, lazy or > uninformed to use devices and adopt practices that could reduce field > deaths. Machinery deaths are just one small part of cds. Poisoning is worse. > > > Once informed, I don't recall any dismissing them > > > as unimportant. Unquantified or unquantifiable, yes. > > > > There have been a wide variety of responses to this revelation. Derek washes > > his hands of them, LordSnooty demands peer-reviewed data proving they exist, > > one way or another the killing of those animals lives is dismissed in some > > way to defend the counter-attack against vegan self-righteousness. > > I don't think either of these examples constitutes a dismissal of the > existence or the ethical import of collateral deaths. Derek is correct > to lay the ultimate blame for field deaths at the feet of producers He lays ALL the blame there. He believes his hands are completely clean. I otoh accept that my hands are dirty in the abuse of animals in meat production even though I oppose it in principle. > and > the Lord needs quantifiable, reliable data to determine whether a vegan > diet causes _more_ animals to suffer than the billions of animals we > know die in slaughterhouses every year. That's not what he implies by his demand. He is attempting to cast doubt that the phenomenon even exists. > > > We are missing an all important point here. Conceding that an unknown > > > number of field animals die from cultivation, the voles, the mice, the > > > woodchucks, the gophers, the moles, the rabbits, the shrews, do not > > > experience suffering over time, as do most industrially produced > > > livestock. Field animals live their lives contentedly, then BLAMMM, the > > > blade. > > > > That's a red herring > > No, it isn't since most meat eaten in North American comes from > industrially raised and commercially slaughtered animals. It is, because there is NO difference between the outrage towards hunters and slaughterhouses to support the idea that the concern fundamentally has anything to with the quality of the animal's life as you claim. > , vegans oppose ALL killing of animals for their meat, > > even wild animals killed by hunters humanely with a single shot. > > Now we need to discuss wounding and retrieval rates, the effects of > spent shot on birds and aquatic life, hunting with dogs, prey baiting, > the diversion of tax dollars from conservation programs to hunting > enhancement programs, the stress of stalked animals,etc. No, you need to acknowledge that ARAs are opposed to killing animals directly for food <period> that's the common thread in all their objections. The rest is animal welfare, conservation, health, and any other thing they can think of to window-dress their real concern. > (snip) > > > AR/veganism is about man *using* animals as a benefit to themselves. it's > > not about animal suffering. > > It's about the suffering of animals which man uses. No, that's Animal Welfare. AR is about not using them AT ALL. > That's why the > death of wildlife in crop fields in "off the radar" of many vegans. That's wrong. Cds are off the radar because AR is about *using* animals as a benefit to man. Killing wildlife collaterally is not about "using". At least try to come clean about exactly what it's all about. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
"Dutch" > wrote in message ... > "frlpwr" > wrote > > Dutch wrote: > > > > > > "frlpwr" > wrote <snip> > > > the charge still stands, most vegans are at least subconciously > > > are committing the fallacy > > > > I don't believe you're qualified to determine what other people think or > > don't think subconsciously. > > I can see it in their words. Then produce them as requested and back this claim. > > > > their posts here confirm it. > > > > I must have missed these. Can you reproduce the posts that show vegans, > > after being apprised of the probability of collateral field deaths in > > industrial agrigculture, believe no animals suffer and die because of > > them? > > That's not what I am saying. It IS what you're saying. Read it again. You're claiming "most vegans are at least committing the fallacy" (denying that animals die during the course of crop production), and, that "their posts here confirm it", so why don't you produce them like you've been asked to do? That way, your claim will have some support. Otherwise, your claim is empty and mere opinion. <snip> > > I don't think either of these examples constitutes a dismissal of the > > existence or the ethical import of collateral deaths. Derek is correct > > to lay the ultimate blame for field deaths at the feet of producers > He believes there's no use in pointing the finger anywhere else, because if there IS anyone to blame for them, then it only makes sense to identify the culprit to see if his methods can be improved upon to reduce them. When he's out of his body brace and back in his chair, he'll explain it in his own usual way. He had some major work done on his spine after a spectacular fall down the stairs a couple of weeks ago, so he'll have plenty of time now that he has no job to go to. > He lays ALL the blame there. He believes his hands are completely clean. I > otoh accept that my hands are dirty in the abuse of animals in meat > production even though I oppose it in principle. > Don't just skip over these definitions of the term; read them. Principle n. 1.. A basic truth, law, or assumption: the principles of democracy. 2.. a.. A rule or standard, especially of good behavior: a man of principle. b.. The collectivity of moral or ethical standards or judgments: a decision based on principle rather than expediency. 3.. A fixed or predetermined policy or mode of action. 4.. A basic or essential quality or element determining intrinsic nature or characteristic behavior http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=principles How can you oppose something on principle while at the same time accepting and taking part in that something? If you had any one of those definitions of a principle in you, you would not allow your hands to get "dirty in the abuse of animals in meat production." You either; a) don't have any principles or b) don't honestly believe your hands are "dirty in the abuse of animals in meat production." Either way, each outcome will show your aren't in a position to question other people's principles, or whether they should accept the blame for something which is beyond their direct control. Belinda Jane Nash. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
While frolicking around in alt.food.vegan, WD West of
http://groups.google.com said: > Is there any choice between continuing to eat meat and never >really enjoying a meal again? If there isn't, I will probably choose >to pass on enjoying food but I'd rather there was a choice. Can >someone suggest a cookbook that may benefit someone such as myself? >Is it simply becoming used to meatless meals and how long does that >take? My thanks for any guidance you may provide. I agree with those who say "go slow". I used to eat meat at almost every meal and dislike vegetables, but I have changed my taste gradually while learning to cook. At first it wasn't a decision to transfer to veganism, but just to live healthier - So, I gradually stopped with fast food and learned how to cook simple things; I begun to include different vegetables as I learned how to cook them and I learned to like them in moderate amounts. After changing gradually for a while, I decided to become vegetarian and did so over night, from the time I made the decision - But I had made some big changes in my diet even before deciding to become a vegetarian, so the change wasn't so hard for me. The change to veganism came almost 3 years after, partly helped by advice and recipes from this newsgroup. Now I enjoy all kinds of different vegetables, and I do mean enjoy :0) I don't see why you can't make a similar progress in your diet, only with the clear aim of becoming vegetarian, which I didn't have at the time. Consider how most people didn't like coffee, beer, whiskey and other such things first time they tried it, but they learned to like it - I can't see why you can't do the same with vegetables. I did :0) I can't help you with cookbooks, but go and look for a vegetarian cookbook, see if there's one which appeals to you and begin to try the recipes. Keep an eye out for Mr.Falafel, as he posts a lot of good recipes, depending on how experienced a chef you are. In any case: belated welcome to AFV, feel free to ask more questions as they come up and don't let the trolls scare you away :0) -- Nikitta a.a. #1759 Apatriot(No, not apricot)#18 ICQ# 251532856 Unreferenced footnotes: http://www.nut.house.cx/cgi-bin/nemwiki.pl?ISFN Hi, I'm the .signature virus. Copy me into your .sig file and help me spread! |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Want to be a vegetarian
frlpwr wrote:
> > usual suspect wrote: > > > > frlsht wrote: > > (snip) >> > > Most vegans eat standard crop rices as a daily staple. > > Do you have any evidence to substantiate this? > Since you haven't supported your claim, can I assume you have withdrawn it? > (snip) > > > Lastly, explain how dying in the field where you were born is as "horrid" as > > > being transported for hours, sometimes days, to a slaughterhouse, being unloaded > > > into a holding pen with hundreds of strange animals, being pushed and shocked > > > with prods wielded by unfamiliar humans, slipping and sliding in the feces and > > > gore of the animals ahead, and having a bolt gun discharged into your brain, > > > sometimes twice, sometimes three times. > > > First, many animals don't die in the field itself; some of them are bound into > > bales (straw, hay) > > What would prevent a live animal from chewing its way out of a bale of > hay? It's certainly capable of chewing its way into one. I need to add that, when you say animals die after being bound in bales of hay, you are talking about animals that die in silage fields. > (snip) > > Second, transportation to slaughter rarely is a matter of days; > > The 48-Hour law exists for a reason. Slaughterhouse guru, Grandin, sets > 32 hours as the maximum travel time without unloading and reloading > livestock for a rest stop. There are fewer slaughterhouses in the US > then there were a decade ago and they are more specialized. More > animals are being transported farther distances, not less animals and > not shorter distances. > Well? > >> finishing lots are usually adjacent to slaughterhouses. > > Uh, how do you think the cattle get to the feedlots, Mr. > My-Family-Are-Ranchers? Do you think they're born there? Well? > > > Third, animals find slipping and sliding in manure less distasteful than humans > >According to Temple Grandin, the single most stressful aspect of > >pre-slaughter handling is loss of footing. > > > (if you'd grown up around cattle you'd know that) > > I grew up around swine. I know that animals do not have the same > aversion to feces as we do. I also know that animals are terrified of > losing their balance and avoid slippery surfaces like the plague. Well? Do you think Grandin is wrong? Do you think animals don't mind slipping and sliding? > > > I'm not saying it's a pretty picture for the end of any animal's life. > > That's a switch. > > > The fact remains, animals suffer and die regardless of what one eats regardless of > > your personal dietary preferences. > > The prolonged suffering of animals sent to commercial slaughter is not > comparable to the suffering of an ex-sanguinated field mouse. How long > does it take for a 2" animal to lose enough blood to induce > unconsciousness and death? Well? > (snip) > > > > Where are your "facts" showing: 1) a vegan diet causes more suffering and death. > > 2) field deaths are as "horrid" as slaughterhouse deaths. > > > 1) http://www.animalrights.net/articles/2002/000083.html > > You mean this? > > "One study Davis mentions, for example, found a 50 percent reduction in > gray-tailed voles from just a single mowing of alfalfa." > > This is the closest the article comes to quantifiable data. Alfalfa is > a feed crop for livestock and it's cut lower and more often than most > grain crops grown for human consumption. Well? Do you think deaths in alfalfa fields are comparable to deaths in wheat fields? Would you accept Davis' claim of "millions and millions" collateral deaths as scientific quantification? > > > 2) personal experiences in agriculture > > You know better than to offer anecdotes as evidence. If we're going to > start accepting tales of personal experiences, I'd like to add my own. > Everyday I trudge across a wide field, cut with gang-mowers a minimum of > once a month, to feed cats. This is unused cemetary land, pesticides > and poisons are prohibited by law. Consequently, there is a large > resident population of voles, gophers and shrews. > > The cemetary workers mow the weeds to the bare ground. Unlike growers, > they are unfettered by concerns about soil quality and the benefits of > crop residue. By the evening of the day they mow, the entire field is > riddled with newly dug tunnels and holes. It's clear to me that most of > the animals living in the field survive the close-cropping of their > vegetative cover. > My cemetary anecdote cancels your red dirt anecdote. > (snip) > > Dietary abstention from animal parts does not mean that such a diet > > is free of animal death or suffering. > > Maybe not, but such a diet is free from the suffering and death of > animals held in the throes of the meat industry. It is free from the > suffering and death of animals stalked and killed in the morning mist by > humans wearing, gulp, flannel shirts. This is the limited claim of veganism, not the generalized claim of no suffering and no death. > > > > In specific, your sense of compassion is overshadowed by your personal support > > > of animal rights terrorism. > > I believe people who hurt others, unprovoked, deserve to be punished. Do you hurt animals? > Cows, pigs, chickens, deer, rabbits and ducks don't, normally, hurt > others intentionally. > > (snip) > > > > What's the bloody point in eating something that's supposed to look,taste, > > > and/or feel like something you *won't* eat? > > > Because veganism is not about aesthetics, doofus, it's about reducing the demand > > for meat production. > > > It's all about aesthetics, skag. > > Is this supposed to be a convincing argument? > > Let me help you out here. When intelligent people say veganism is about > aesthetics, not ethics, they mean vegans avoid meat because they are > repulsed by the look, taste and feel of meat. You've just given us > evidence they aren't. Do you finally get it, dummy? (snip) > > Your moral posture allows you to eat, even desire, something which tastes, feels, > > and smells just like a product you find quite immoral. The taste apparently still > > appeals to you; your love for the cow and chicken has not yet exceeded your love > > for the taste of their flesh. > > If anything, people who enjoy or crave the taste of meat and yet abstain > from meat products are _more_ ethical than those for whom meat has no > appeal. Their dietary choices require self-denial and self-sacrifice. Well? > > (snip) > |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| I'm considering being a vegetarian... | Vegan | |||
| I'm considering being a vegetarian... | Vegan | |||
| Vegetarian low fat | Recipes | |||
| Near Vegetarian to Vegetarian to Vegan | Vegan | |||
| FA: Four Vegetarian Books for children, mothers, etc. VEGAN VEGETARIAN | General Cooking | |||
Linear Mode
