"Jane" > wrote in message ...
>
> "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.

Good to have you back Derek. Your style is unmistakable.

> > > > 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.

Too bad, live with it, Derek.

> <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.

Thanks for proving what a liar you are Derek.

> > 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?

How can you take part in the commercial food industry while opposing the
harming of animals in food production in principle? Simple, you just do it.

> 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

False, I oppose in principle the abuse of animals in meat production.

> or
> b) don't honestly believe your hands are "dirty in the abuse of animals
> in meat production."

I know my hands are dirty, there is no way I could avoid complicity in some
animal abuse, I consume commercialy produced food.

> Either way, each outcome will show your aren't in a position to
> question other people's principles,

Other people are not acknowledging their own complicity as I am, therefore I
am justified in questioning their honesty.

> or whether they should accept
> the blame for something which is beyond their direct control.

It's not beyond their control. I stopped consuming non-free range eggs, so I
was able to eliminate my complicity in the battery egg business. I chose to
buy Lundburg rice, that may have made a difference, etc. There are endless
examples of how a person can have control over their connection to abusive
practises, however you want to define it. I could do likewise with every
other food that I consume, but I choose for now the stability and
convenience of my urban life. It's what we all do.

> Belinda Jane Nash.

Why are you lying about who you are Derek? Is it because of the falling-out
you had with your buddies?

"Dutch" > wrote in message ...
> "Jane" > wrote in message ...
> >
> > "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.
>
> Good to have you back Derek. Your style is unmistakable.
>
And where do you think Derek found that style, Dutch, in a garage?
I don't mean his aggression; I'm talking about his general arguments
and counters.

> > > > > 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.
>
> Too bad, live with it, Jane.
>
I can live with your inability to support your claims easily. It's you
that has to live with the fact that your arguments are just mere
unsupported opinions.

> > <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.
>
> Thanks for proving what a liar you are Derek.
>
It's true. I've had to move in with a friend who lives closer to the hospital
so I can visit him. He's been in for over two weeks now. He's lost his
teaching job and everything.

> > > 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?
>
> How can you take part in the commercial food industry while opposing the
> harming of animals in food production in principle? Simple, you just do it.
>
No you don't. If you honestly feel that your actions are against your
principles, then you must either give up your principles or the practice
which goes against them. Continuing to claim an opposition to something
on principle while taking part in that something is fundamentally wrong.

> > 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
>
> False, I oppose in principle the abuse of animals in meat production.
>
> > or
> > b) don't honestly believe your hands are "dirty in the abuse of animals
> > in meat production."
>
> I know my hands are dirty, there is no way I could avoid complicity in some
> animal abuse, I consume commercialy produced food.
>
Then you cannot claim to be against it on principle. You accept it.

> > Either way, each outcome will show your aren't in a position to
> > question other people's principles,
>
> Other people are not acknowledging their own complicity as I am, therefore I
> am justified in questioning their honesty.
>
Some people don't believe they are complicit in certain things, in the same
way that they don't feel they are complicit in the deaths of Iraqi children
during our oil grab, but if anyone should think they are complicit and claim
to be against these actions on principle, then they must avoid taking a part
in it or been seen as a hypocrite.

> > or whether they should accept
> > the blame for something which is beyond their direct control.
>
> It's not beyond their control. I stopped consuming non-free range eggs, so I
> was able to eliminate my complicity in the battery egg business. I chose to
> buy Lundburg rice, that may have made a difference, etc. There are endless
> examples of how a person can have control over their connection to abusive
> practises, however you want to define it. I could do likewise with every
> other food that I consume, but I choose for now the stability and
> convenience of my urban life. It's what we all do.
>
> > Belinda Jane Nash.
>
> Why are you lying about who you are Derek? Is it because of the falling-out
> you had with your buddies?
>
It really doesn't matter to me that you don't believe I'm Belinda, but
before continuing with this, why would I have told you that Jane was
me? I've been posting here all week using my middle name, and it was
only after I announced who I was that you all started accusing me of
being Derek, not before, and all the evidence I've produced does show
that you're all wrong.

And to answer your question, Derek ain't no buddy with people who
support vivisection and posts the particulars of people on the net. Ray
is just a common blackmailer who cannot defend a single point, and
Zakhar, well, he likes to think of himself as an ARA but no one can
support the rights of animals while at the same time promoting animal
research on them in labs.

frltrd wrote:
>>>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?

Let me modify my statement. Many vegans consume standard crop rices as a
daily staple. This is an observation made from personal experience,
acquaintances, etc.

If your position is that very few vegans eat rice, please share your
evidence.

>>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.

Compression. The compressive force used in baling hay and straw is
sufficient enough to maintain compression even after moisture is lost.

> 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.

Whoa, scumbag, I said bales of hay or straw. Straw bales come from grain
crops.

<snip>
> Do you hurt animals?

I ran over something the other night. I'm pretty sure I killed it. I
didn't lose any sleep.

<snip>
>>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.

No, they're amoral hypocrites. Their dietary choices cause the suffering
of even more animals. Kill a cow, feed a person very well for a year.
Grow a crop of soybeans to make TVP and you kill more than one animal,
none of which get eaten.

Dreck Nash, posing as "Jane" > wrote
>
> "Dutch" > wrote
> > "Jane" > wrote
> > >
> > > "Dutch" > wrote
> > > > "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.
> >
> > Good to have you back Derek. Your style is unmistakable.
> >
> And where do you think Derek found that style, Dutch, in a garage?
> I don't mean his aggression; I'm talking about his general arguments
> and counters.

Wherever YOU found it, you can't conceal it. It's as unmistakable as a
fingerprint.

You're lying, why?

> > > > > > 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.
> >
> > Too bad, live with it, Jane.
> >
> I can live with your inability to support your claims easily. It's you
> that has to live with the fact that your arguments are just mere
> unsupported opinions.

My opinions are well supported Dreck, the fact that you can't see it is a
problem of yours that nobody but you can solve.

> > > <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.
> >
> > Thanks for proving what a liar you are Derek.
> >
> It's true. I've had to move in with a friend who lives closer to the
hospital
> so I can visit him. He's been in for over two weeks now. He's lost his
> teaching job and everything.

You're Dreck and you're lying about it. Are you ashamed of yourself?

> > > > 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?
> >
> > How can you take part in the commercial food industry while opposing the
> > harming of animals in food production in principle? Simple, you just do
it.
> >
> No you don't.

You aren't a part of the commercial food industry? Where do you get your
food?

> If you honestly feel that your actions are against your
> principles, then you must either give up your principles or the practice
> which goes against them.

It's not that simple Dreck. We all have self-imposed limitations as to what
we're willing to do to stand up for principles.

>Continuing to claim an opposition to something
> on principle while taking part in that something is fundamentally wrong.

Maybe so, but I'd prefer to be honestly wrong than live a life of lies as
you do.

> > > 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
> >
> > False, I oppose in principle the abuse of animals in meat production.
> >
> > > or
> > > b) don't honestly believe your hands are "dirty in the abuse of
animals
> > > in meat production."
> >
> > I know my hands are dirty, there is no way I could avoid complicity in
some
> > animal abuse, I consume commercialy produced food.
> >
> Then you cannot claim to be against it on principle. You accept it.

No, I don't accept it, not in principle, I accept it in practice. I don't
accept the exploitation of children in garment factories, but I probably use
products they produce. The reason I'm complicit is that I *could* research
the source of my clothing to avoid consuming those products, but I don't.

> > > Either way, each outcome will show your aren't in a position to
> > > question other people's principles,
> >
> > Other people are not acknowledging their own complicity as I am,
therefore I
> > am justified in questioning their honesty.
> >
> Some people don't believe they are complicit in certain things,

Some people are kidding themself Dreck.

> in the same
> way that they don't feel they are complicit in the deaths of Iraqi
children
> during our oil grab,

I don't feel complicit in that. That's a remote event that we don't support
with our daily consuming habits as we do with food.

> but if anyone should think they are complicit and claim
> to be against these actions on principle, then they must avoid taking a
part
> in it or been seen as a hypocrite.

I would agree.

> > > or whether they should accept
> > > the blame for something which is beyond their direct control.
> >
> > It's not beyond their control. I stopped consuming non-free range eggs,
so I
> > was able to eliminate my complicity in the battery egg business. I chose
to
> > buy Lundburg rice, that may have made a difference, etc. There are
endless
> > examples of how a person can have control over their connection to
abusive
> > practises, however you want to define it. I could do likewise with every
> > other food that I consume, but I choose for now the stability and
> > convenience of my urban life. It's what we all do.

See Dreck? I provided a detailed explanation of something and you just
ignored it. That's why I don't waste time on your bullshit loaded questions,
you are not interested in communication.

> > > Belinda Jane Nash.
> >
> > Why are you lying about who you are Derek? Is it because of the
falling-out
> > you had with your buddies?
> >
> It really doesn't matter to me that you don't believe I'm Belinda, but
> before continuing with this, why would I have told you that Jane was
> me? I've been posting here all week using my middle name, and it was
> only after I announced who I was that you all started accusing me of
> being Derek, not before, and all the evidence I've produced does show
> that you're all wrong.

I was on to you part way through this message, before I saw the signature.
Your unmistakable bullshit rhetoric had returned, you knew it, that's why
you signed the post Belinda.

> And to answer your question, Derek ain't no buddy with people who
> support vivisection and posts the particulars of people on the net. Ray
> is just a common blackmailer who cannot defend a single point, and
> Zakhar, well, he likes to think of himself as an ARA but no one can
> support the rights of animals while at the same time promoting animal
> research on them in labs.

Pearl agreed with his position on the one rabbit death that could save 1000
humans, and then said that you would too.

usual suspect wrote:
>
> frltrd wrote:
> >>>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?
>
> Let me modify my statement. Many vegans consume standard crop rices as a
> daily staple. This is an observation made from personal experience,
> acquaintances, etc.

But you aren't a vegan for ethical reasons. Why would your "personal
experience" tell us anything about the purchasing behavior of ethical
vegans?

As for your "acquaintances", why should I believe you have access to
their pantries or that you know enough to judge the source of the items
you might find there?

> If your position is that very few vegans eat rice, please share your
> evidence.

It is my position that rice is not a daily staple for most ethical
vegans, as you claim. Unlike you, I'm not dumb enough to think people
will accept my "personal experience" or the personal experiences of my
"acquaintances" as proof.

> >>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.
>
> Compression. The compressive force used in baling hay and straw is
> sufficient enough to maintain compression even after moisture is lost.

Compression of this magnitude would likely kill a small animal very
quickly, no "horrid" death there, nothing compared to the slaughter
process which often takes days to complete. If a rodent survives
baling, there is no reason it couldn't chew its way out. The care
livestock operators take to prevent rodents from burrowing into set
bales illustrates this.
>
> > 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.
>
> Whoa, scumbag, I said bales of hay or straw. Straw bales come from grain
> crops.

No matter, if the material is baled it's been cut and set for livestock
feed. Animal deaths that occur as a result must be assigned to
livestock production, not human consumption.
>
> <snip>
> > Do you hurt animals?
>
> I ran over something the other night. I'm pretty sure I killed it. I
> didn't lose any sleep.

You didn't stop to see if the animal was dead or injured and in need of
treatment or mercy-killing? Asshole.
>
> <snip>
> >>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.
>
> No, they're amoral hypocrites. Their dietary choices cause the suffering
> of even more animals. Kill a cow, feed a person very well for a year.

You're either stupid or a liar. Animals are killed to house the "cow",
to feed the "cow", to protect the "cow", to medicate the "cow", to
transport the "cow", to slaughter the "cow", to process the "cow" and to
store the flesh of the "cow".

Not only that, _no one_ you or I know eats beef and nothing but beef for
a solid year. This is an extreme example that has no basis in reality.

> Grow a crop of soybeans to make TVP and you kill more than one animal,
> none of which get eaten.

What makes you think that comparing one "cow" to a crop of soybeans is a
legitimate comparison? It only makes sense to look for deaths per
portion. Every portion of meat _requres_ the death of, at least, one
animal. If one death was assigned to every 4 oz. portion of soybeans,
we could expect to see tens of thousands of animals per acre and we
don't.

I'm still waiting for your reply concerning transport time to slaughter
and a retraction of your statement that animals don't mind slipping and
sliding in feces and gore.

Jonathan Ball > wrote in message link.net>...
> WD West wrote:
>
> > The older I get, the more I am leaning towards becoming a vegetarian.
> > Not for any health reasons but it seems so hypocritical of me to care
> > as much about animals as I do and then consume them.
>
> Where is the hypocrisy in that? I don't see it.
>
> 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,
> but smarmy "vegans" don't think about them because
> those animals aren't eaten. "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.

Is this guy a major shareholder in ConAgra or something? Are these
guys for real? Finally, are they also 12-years-old? I'm new to this
group, and these posts are going to keep me amused for a while, I can
tell...

frlcnt wrote:
>>>>>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?
>>
>>Let me modify my statement. Many vegans consume standard crop rices as a
>>daily staple. This is an observation made from personal experience,
>>acquaintances, etc.
>
> But you aren't a vegan for ethical reasons. Why would your "personal
> experience" tell us anything about the purchasing behavior of ethical
> vegans?

"Ethical vegan" is an oxymoron. Stop moving goalposts.

> As for your "acquaintances", why should I believe you have access to
> their pantries or that you know enough to judge the source of the items
> you might find there?

Perhaps their asking to borrow a couple cups of rice clues me in to the
fact that they eat it. Or perhaps the fact that a Google search of afv
found over 4500 hits for rice. Go figure, huh.

>>If your position is that very few vegans eat rice, please share your
>>evidence.
>
> It is my position that rice is not a daily staple for most ethical
> vegans, as you claim.

That's a goalpost move, you fat cow. I said most/many vegans. You are
adding "ethical."

> Unlike you, I'm not dumb enough to think people
> will accept my "personal experience" or the personal experiences of my
> "acquaintances" as proof.

You're brazenly deceitful enough to move the goalposts, aren't ya.

>>>>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.
>>
>>Compression. The compressive force used in baling hay and straw is
>>sufficient enough to maintain compression even after moisture is lost.
>
> Compression of this magnitude would likely kill a small animal very
> quickly,

Are you sure? Where's your evidence, Farmer von Dyke?

> no "horrid" death there, nothing compared to the slaughter
> process which often takes days to complete.

Ipse dixit. Have you any proof?

> If a rodent survives
> baling, there is no reason it couldn't chew its way out.

Ipse dixit. You don't even know if a rodent can breathe adequately in a
bale, much less consume any hay or straw (yeah right). Here's your
experiment. Get a blanket and roll yourself up so tight that you can
barely get air into your lungs. Then fidget around until you tire. Then
start eating like there's no tomorrow and tell us if the ****ing blanket
doesn't get TIGHTER as you eat.

> The care
> livestock operators take to prevent rodents from burrowing into set
> bales illustrates this.

Do you consider the liberal use of poisons to be "care"?

>>>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.
>>
>>Whoa, scumbag, I said bales of hay or straw. Straw bales come from grain
>>crops.
>
> No matter, if the material is baled it's been cut and set for livestock
> feed.

Hay yes, straw not necessarily. Straw has other uses, including new age
housing. It's far more likely to be used in some kind of non-feed use or
burned for energy or just to get rid of the stuff. Note that its
compressive strength is sufficient enough to be used in load-bearing
walls. That should tell you something about how tight it is when baled.

http://www.calricestraw.org/uses/uses.html
http://www.eere.energy.gov/EE/strawh...-of-straw.html

I'll overlook your ignorance of baling if you overlook mine about what
assholes like you keep in your cupboards.

> Animal deaths that occur as a result must be assigned to
> livestock production, not human consumption.

For hay, okay. For straw, NO.

>><snip>
>>
>>>Do you hurt animals?
>>
>>I ran over something the other night. I'm pretty sure I killed it. I
>>didn't lose any sleep.
>
> You didn't stop to see if the animal was dead or injured and in need of
> treatment or mercy-killing? Asshole.

I was going about 70 mph around midnight on a busy highway; I don't
think it's wise for people to stop suddenly on highways. More power to
it if it lived. It was probably a skunk or possum.

>><snip>
>>>>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.
>>
>>No, they're amoral hypocrites. Their dietary choices cause the suffering
>>of even more animals. Kill a cow, feed a person very well for a year.
>
> You're either stupid or a liar. Animals are killed to house the "cow",
> to feed the "cow", to protect the "cow", to medicate the "cow", to
> transport the "cow", to slaughter the "cow", to process the "cow" and to
> store the flesh of the "cow".

Grain fed, yes. Grass fed, no. What about a deer? What about other game,
large or small? What about migratory game birds?

> Not only that, _no one_ you or I know eats beef and nothing but beef for
> a solid year. This is an extreme example that has no basis in reality.

It's a fair example and proves that valid and humane alternatives to
your extremist lifestyle DO exist.

>>Grow a crop of soybeans to make TVP and you kill more than one animal,
>>none of which get eaten.
>
> What makes you think that comparing one "cow" to a crop of soybeans is a
> legitimate comparison?

It's one you and other vegans like to make, albeit with great sanctimony.

> It only makes sense to look for deaths per
> portion.

Why?

> Every portion of meat _requres_ the death of, at least, one
> animal. If one death was assigned to every 4 oz. portion of soybeans,
> we could expect to see tens of thousands of animals per acre and we
> don't.

Do you count insects as animals? What about the water, energy, etc.,
required to convert however many pounds of soybeans into TVP and tofu?

> I'm still waiting for your reply concerning transport time to slaughter
> and a retraction of your statement that animals don't mind slipping and
> sliding in feces and gore.

I'm not retracting anything, you gruesome old hag. Your sloppy reasoning
might impress your fellow (space) travelers, but it doesn't hold up to
scrutiny.

yousuck wrote:

> Jonathan Ball > wrote in message link.net>...
>
>>WD West wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The older I get, the more I am leaning towards becoming a vegetarian.
>>>Not for any health reasons but it seems so hypocritical of me to care
>>>as much about animals as I do and then consume them.
>>
>>Where is the hypocrisy in that? I don't see it.
>>
>>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,
>>but smarmy "vegans" don't think about them because
>>those animals aren't eaten. "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.
>
>
> Is this guy a major shareholder in ConAgra or something?

No. Why don't you address my objection to so-called
"ethical" vegetarianism, instead of engaging in
juvenile ad hominem?

> Are these guys for real?

What "guys"? I am for real. What's your problem?

> Finally, are they also 12-years-old?

Who are "they"?

In my case, no. Why do you ask?

> I'm new to this
> group, and these posts are going to keep me amused for a while, I can
> tell...

Liar. You won't be around more than a few days.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...

> Grain fed, yes. Grass fed, no. What about a deer? What about other game,
> large or small? What about migratory game birds?

You claim to be vegan for health purposes. Since deer and other game aren't
fed antibiotics, growth hormones, steroids, etc., and are very low in
saturated fat and cholesterol then why won't you eat them?

C. James Strutz wrote:
>>Grain fed, yes. Grass fed, no. What about a deer? What about other game,
>>large or small? What about migratory game birds?
>
> You claim to be vegan for health purposes.

I stopped using the word "vegan" to describe anything about me several
months ago. I still remain committed to good health.

> Since deer and other game aren't
> fed antibiotics, growth hormones, steroids, etc., and are very low in
> saturated fat and cholesterol then why won't you eat them?

I may resume eating game in the future, but as I've noted in the past
I'm not exactly a fan of the taste and feel of meat. It's too heavy for
running, imo, which is more important to me right now.

FWIW, I resumed hunting this season. We have a major overpopulation of
deer in my state, and I'm tired of seeing cars (and people) destroyed
from collisions with deer. I donated the meat to a program which
distributes it to the needy.

usual suspect wrote:
>
> frlcnt wrote:
> >>>>>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?
> >>
> >>Let me modify my statement. Many vegans consume standard crop rices as a
> >>daily staple. This is an observation made from personal experience,
> >>acquaintances, etc.
> >
> > But you aren't a vegan for ethical reasons. Why would your "personal
> > experience" tell us anything about the purchasing behavior of ethical
> > vegans?
>
> "Ethical vegan" is an oxymoron.

Is there something about being vegan that makes it impossible to be
ethical? That's the condition required for the term to be an oxymoron.

> Stop moving goalposts.
>
I'm not. You don't eat meat for health reasons. Why would you care if
animals are killed in the procurement of your food?. There's no point
including vegans like you in a discussion of food choices based on the
number of collateral deaths or the "horidness" of those deaths.

> > As for your "acquaintances", why should I believe you have access to
> > their pantries or that you know enough to judge the source of the items
> > you might find there?
>
> Perhaps their asking to borrow a couple cups of rice clues me in to the
> fact that they eat it.

They would have to be asking to borrow rice every day for you to be able
to conclude that rice is their "daily staple".

> Or perhaps the fact that a Google search of afv
> found over 4500 hits for rice. Go figure, huh.

Even if each of these hits was a receipe for rice, (they're not), that
would not prove that rice is a "daily staple" for vegans.

Looking over the receipes in afv today, I can find only one calling for
rice noodles.
>
> >>If your position is that very few vegans eat rice, please share your
> >>evidence.
> >
> > It is my position that rice is not a daily staple for most ethical
> > vegans, as you claim.
>
> That's a goalpost move, you fat cow. I said most/many vegans. You are
> adding "ethical."

Health-oriented vegans have no place in a discussion of collateral
deaths. It's a non-issue for them.

Oh, and I would not be considered fat by anyone, anyplace, anytime.
>
> > Unlike you, I'm not dumb enough to think people
> > will accept my "personal experience" or the personal experiences of my
> > "acquaintances" as proof.
>
> You're brazenly deceitful enough to move the goalposts, aren't ya.

Okay, cry-baby, we'll make it many vegans. Now prove that rice is a
_daily staple_ for many vegans.

> >>>>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.
> >>
> >>Compression. The compressive force used in baling hay and straw is
> >>sufficient enough to maintain compression even after moisture is lost.
> >
> > Compression of this magnitude would likely kill a small animal very
> > quickly,
>
> Are you sure? Where's your evidence, Farmer von Dyke?

It's common sense, Mr.
My-Family-Are-Ranchers-Who-Think-Animals-Don't-Mind-Slipping
and-Sliding-in-Feces-and-Gore. Either an animal dies from baling or it
can work its way out.

> > no "horrid" death there, nothing compared to the slaughter
> > process which often takes days to complete.
>
> Ipse dixit. Have you any proof?

I asked you first. Can you prove that the deaths of field animals are
"horrid"?

> > If a rodent survives
> > baling, there is no reason it couldn't chew its way out.
>
> Ipse dixit. You don't even know if a rodent can breathe adequately in a
> bale,

If a farmer baled his hay tight enough to prevent air circulation, he
would lose the bale to mold.

> much less consume any hay or straw (yeah right).

Where did I say the animal had to "consume" the hay or straw? Rodents
chew up materials all the time without consuming them. Reduce blades of
straw to smaller pieces and you create an avenue of escape.

> Here's your experiment. Get a blanket and roll yourself up so tight that you can
> barely get air into your lungs. Then fidget around until you tire. Then
> start eating like there's no tomorrow and tell us if the ****ing blanket
> doesn't get TIGHTER as you eat.

There's a difference between eating your way out and chewing your way
out, dumbo. If rodents ate everything they chewed on they would have no
nesting materials.

As for your "experiment", I would simply gnaw an opening in the blanket
and spit out the fleece.
>
> > The care
> > livestock operators take to prevent rodents from burrowing into set
> > bales illustrates this.
>
> Do you consider the liberal use of poisons to be "care"?

You're pathetic and desperate. Clearly, the "care" of livestock
operators is for their stored bales. My point, as you well know, is
that rodents CAN and DO burrow into set bales. The process of burrowing
in is no different than the process of burrowing out.

> >>>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.
> >>
> >>Whoa, scumbag, I said bales of hay or straw. Straw bales come from grain
> >>crops.
> >
> > No matter, if the material is baled it's been cut and set for livestock
> > feed.
>
> Hay yes, straw not necessarily. Straw has other uses, including new age
> housing. It's far more likely to be used in some kind of non-feed use or
> burned for energy or just to get rid of the stuff.

Okay.

> Note that its compressive strength is sufficient enough to be used in load-bearing
> walls. That should tell you something about how tight it is when baled.

Note that in order to rodent proof the walls of straw-constructed
buildings a wire stucco netting must be applied to both sides of the
bales, the inner walls must be plastered and the outer walls must be
stuccoed.

(snip)

> I'll overlook your ignorance of baling

You have yet to show that baling or any other field practice causes
animals to experience a "horrid death".

> if you overlook mine about what
> assholes like you keep in your cupboards.

What I want you to do is to stop acting like your uninformed opinions
are facts.
>
> > Animal deaths that occur as a result must be assigned to
> > livestock production, not human consumption.
>
> For hay, okay. For straw, NO.

Can we get back to the point of this? Your claim that animals
experience "horrid" deaths in the fields.
>
> >><snip>
> >>
> >>>Do you hurt animals?
> >>
> >>I ran over something the other night. I'm pretty sure I killed it. I
> >>didn't lose any sleep.
> >
> > You didn't stop to see if the animal was dead or injured and in need of
> > treatment or mercy-killing? Asshole.
>
> I was going about 70 mph around midnight on a busy highway; I don't
> think it's wise for people to stop suddenly on highways.

Don't your highways have shoulders? You're a runner. Would it be too
much for you to trot back to the point of collision and check for a
wounded animal?

> More power to it if it lived.

What if you wounded it and it suffered for hours on the side of the road
before dying?

> It was probably a skunk or possum.

Do skunks and possums have less capacity for suffering than other
animals?
>
> >><snip>

> > You're either stupid or a liar. Animals are killed to house the "cow",
> > to feed the "cow", to protect the "cow", to medicate the "cow", to
> > transport the "cow", to slaughter the "cow", to process the "cow" and to
> > store the flesh of the "cow".
>
> Grain fed, yes. Grass fed, no.

Aren't pastures seeded or sprigged, fertilized, sprayed and cut for
winter feed? Don't field animals die during these activities? Aren't
range cattle supplementally fed in winter or dry months to make up for
the lack of or poor quality of seasonal grasses? What about cows close
to calving? Don't they get special feed?

What about predator control? What do range managers do to praire dog
towns? Doesn't your family innoculate their animals? I know you are not
farm slaughtering large herds of steer, that's against the law. That
means you transport them to a licensed plant for slaughter and
processing. Rodent control is mandatory in slaughterhouses and
meat-processing plants.

> What about a deer? What about other game,
> large or small? What about migratory game birds?

What are you getting on about? YOU said that one "cow" = one death and
you're wrong.
>
> > Not only that, _no one_ you or I know eats beef and nothing but beef for
> > a solid year. This is an extreme example that has no basis in reality.
>
> It's a fair example and proves that valid and humane alternatives to
> your extremist lifestyle DO exist.
>
Eating beef from one "cow" and only beef from one "cow" is as extreme as
a vegan eating handgrown fruits, vegetables, seeds, nuts and legumes and
only handgrown fruits, vegetables, seeds, nuts and legumes. Between
these two extremes, the vegan diet causes no deaths and the beef diet
causes one death. Bzzzzt.

(snip)>

> > It only makes sense to look for deaths per
> > portion.
>
> Why?
>
Because that's how most people in our society procure and prepare their
food.

> > Every portion of meat _requres_ the death of, at least, one
> > animal. If one death was assigned to every 4 oz. portion of soybeans,
> > we could expect to see tens of thousands of animals per acre and we
> > don't.
>
> Do you count insects as animals?

The line gets fuzzy. I have difficulty seeing insects as individual
animals with individual interests.

> What about the water, energy, etc.,
> required to convert however many pounds of soybeans into TVP and tofu?

What about the water, energy, etc. required to operate a slaughterhouse
or a feedlot? What about insect control at these facilities? What about
cattle dipping? What about worming? Good god, man, the collateral
deaths are racking up!

> > I'm still waiting for your reply concerning transport time to slaughter
> > and a retraction of your statement that animals don't mind slipping and
> > sliding in feces and gore.
>
> I'm not retracting anything, you gruesome old hag. Your sloppy reasoning
> might impress your fellow (space) travelers, but it doesn't hold up to
> scrutiny.

Then please show some evidence to refute Grandin's study showing loss of
footing as the most important factor in pre-slaughter stress and explain
how transport time for pre-slaughter animals has shortened when there
are fewer slaughterhouses and more animals being slaughtered than a
decade ago.

Your attempt to side-step your previous statements by bringing up space
travelers doesn't fool anyone.

fatpwr wrote:
>>"Ethical vegan" is an oxymoron.
>
> Is there something about being vegan that makes it impossible to be
> ethical? That's the condition required for the term to be an oxymoron.

It's damn sure a lot harder to be ethical as a vegan. It's a phony,
hypocritical kind of ethical. But it suits you, huh.

>>Stop moving goalposts.
>
> I'm not. You don't eat meat for health reasons. Why would you care if
> animals are killed in the procurement of your food?. There's no point
> including vegans like you in a discussion of food choices based on the
> number of collateral deaths or the "horidness" of those deaths.

Then why are you ranting and raving about it?

>>>As for your "acquaintances", why should I believe you have access to
>>>their pantries or that you know enough to judge the source of the items
>>>you might find there?
>>
>>Perhaps their asking to borrow a couple cups of rice clues me in to the
>>fact that they eat it.
>
> They would have to be asking to borrow rice every day for you to be able
> to conclude that rice is their "daily staple".

Well, again, we have discussions about food and all that. That's how I
know it's a daily staple.

>>Or perhaps the fact that a Google search of afv
>>found over 4500 hits for rice. Go figure, huh.
>
> Even if each of these hits was a receipe for rice, (they're not), that
> would not prove that rice is a "daily staple" for vegans.

Many of them are recipes, contain instructions, etc. I looked through a
couple pages and the only ones that dealt with ethical issues involved
questions about ingredients in certain brands of packaged rice dishes.
Funny, huh.

> Looking over the receipes in afv today, I can find only one calling for
> rice noodles.

Are you going to chime in and tell that poster what a traitor he is to
your movement for supporting the murderous rice industry, lol?

>>>>If your position is that very few vegans eat rice, please share your
>>>>evidence.
>>>
>>>It is my position that rice is not a daily staple for most ethical
>>>vegans, as you claim.
>>
>>That's a goalpost move, you fat cow. I said most/many vegans. You are
>>adding "ethical."
>
> Health-oriented vegans have no place in a discussion of collateral
> deaths. It's a non-issue for them.

Then why do you keep pursuing such a discussion with me?

> Oh, and I would not be considered fat by anyone, anyplace, anytime.

I consider you fat, right here, right now.

>>>Unlike you, I'm not dumb enough to think people
>>>will accept my "personal experience" or the personal experiences of my
>>>"acquaintances" as proof.
>>
>>You're brazenly deceitful enough to move the goalposts, aren't ya.
>
> Okay, cry-baby, we'll make it many vegans. Now prove that rice is a
> _daily staple_ for many vegans.

Already have, SAG.

>>>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>Compression. The compressive force used in baling hay and straw is
>>>>sufficient enough to maintain compression even after moisture is lost.
>>>
>>>Compression of this magnitude would likely kill a small animal very
>>>quickly,
>>
>>Are you sure? Where's your evidence, Farmer von Dyke?
>
> It's common sense, Mr.
> My-Family-Are-Ranchers-Who-Think-Animals-Don't-Mind-Slipping
> and-Sliding-in-Feces-and-Gore. Either an animal dies from baling or it
> can work its way out.

Ipse dixit.

>>>no "horrid" death there, nothing compared to the slaughter
>>>process which often takes days to complete.
>>
>>Ipse dixit. Have you any proof?
>
> I asked you first. Can you prove that the deaths of field animals are
> "horrid"?

Horrid is an adjective, and it's also pretty subjective. You probably
think one of my arrows going through is 'horrid,' while I find
suffocation, starvation, and being thrashed much more horrid.

<snip stupid houdini crap>

> You're pathetic and desperate.

No, sweetheart, you are.

<snip>

>>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>Whoa, scumbag, I said bales of hay or straw. Straw bales come from grain
>>>>crops.
>>>
>>>No matter, if the material is baled it's been cut and set for livestock
>>>feed.
>>
>>Hay yes, straw not necessarily. Straw has other uses, including new age
>>housing. It's far more likely to be used in some kind of non-feed use or
>>burned for energy or just to get rid of the stuff.
>
> Okay.

Don't argue with me. I know my bales.

>>Note that its compressive strength is sufficient enough to be used in load-bearing
>>walls. That should tell you something about how tight it is when baled.
>
> Note that in order to rodent proof the walls of straw-constructed
> buildings a wire stucco netting must be applied to both sides of the
> bales, the inner walls must be plastered and the outer walls must be
> stuccoed.

Rodents generally don't burrow in bales as a matter of habit. They
burrow between them, and they burrow in walls. That is why walls are
covered (and it needn't be with stucco: many SBHs are covered with
normal siding).

> (snip)
>
>>I'll overlook your ignorance of baling
>
> You have yet to show that baling or any other field practice causes
> animals to experience a "horrid death".

You don't consider thrashing, mutilation, suffocation, or starvation horrid?

>>if you overlook mine about what
>>assholes like you keep in your cupboards.
>
> What I want you to do is to stop acting like your uninformed opinions
> are facts.

You're the one whose opinions remain unsubstantiated. Oh yeah, you
offered the BS "common sense" above. When was the last time you even SAW
a bale in a field, much less touched one to see how tightly it was baled?

>>>Animal deaths that occur as a result must be assigned to
>>>livestock production, not human consumption.
>>
>>For hay, okay. For straw, NO.
>
> Can we get back to the point of this? Your claim that animals
> experience "horrid" deaths in the fields.

Is it your claim that they don't?

>>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>>Do you hurt animals?
>>>>
>>>>I ran over something the other night. I'm pretty sure I killed it. I
>>>>didn't lose any sleep.
>>>
>>>You didn't stop to see if the animal was dead or injured and in need of
>>>treatment or mercy-killing? Asshole.
>>
>>I was going about 70 mph around midnight on a busy highway; I don't
>>think it's wise for people to stop suddenly on highways.
>
> Don't your highways have shoulders?

Yes.

> You're a runner.

Yes.

> Would it be too
> much for you to trot back to the point of collision and check for a
> wounded animal?

Yes. Many late night accidents occur when sleepy or unattentive drivers
see cars on the shoulder and inadvertently crash into them. Is one
****ing animal worth endangering my own life, the lives of others in my
car, and the lives of other drivers and passengers?

>>More power to it if it lived.
>
> What if you wounded it and it suffered for hours on the side of the road
> before dying?

It's dead either way, right?

>>It was probably a skunk or possum.
>
> Do skunks and possums have less capacity for suffering than other
> animals?

Probably not, but possum have sharp teeth and skunks will spray.

<snip: have to meet someone for supper>

Jonathan Ball > wrote in message link.net>...

> Who are "they"?

You and the one other person who posts bizarre rants laced with
profanity.

> > I'm new to this
> > group, and these posts are going to keep me amused for a while, I can
> > tell...

> Liar. You won't be around more than a few days.

Lying about what? I've never read this group before yesterday or
possibly the day before. And I think your posts WILL keep me amused as
long as I'm reading the group. So both those statements are true. But
it's possible I won't keep reading this group for long what with the
signal-to-noise ratio. I only came here for a few food
recommendations. For some reason I thought this would be one newsgroup
that would be pretty much on topic, but it seems every thread has a
few odd tirades in it, and I was surprised.

"googlesux" > wrote

> Jonathan Ball > wrote


> > Who are "they"?
>
> You and the one other person who posts bizarre rants laced with
> profanity.

Jonathan Ball made a coherent argument, as follows..

<---->
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, but
smarmy "vegans" don't think about them because those animals aren't eaten.
"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.
<--->

How is that a bizarre rant? You didn't even attempt to reply, preferring the
following rhetorical question..

"Is this guy a major shareholder in ConAgra or something?"

When he followed up, you snipped the relevant part (without noting) and
responded to the irrelevent portion below about how long you'll be here.
Where is *your* crediblity in this discussion?


> > > I'm new to this
> > > group, and these posts are going to keep me amused for a while, I can
> > > tell...
>
> > Liar. You won't be around more than a few days.
>
> Lying about what? I've never read this group before yesterday or
> possibly the day before. And I think your posts WILL keep me amused as
> long as I'm reading the group. So both those statements are true. But
> it's possible I won't keep reading this group for long what with the
> signal-to-noise ratio. I only came here for a few food
> recommendations. For some reason I thought this would be one newsgroup
> that would be pretty much on topic, but it seems every thread has a
> few odd tirades in it, and I was surprised.

"Dutch" > wrote in message >...
> "googlesux" > wrote
>
> > Jonathan Ball > wrote
>
>
> > > Who are "they"?
> >
> > You and the one other person who posts bizarre rants laced with
> > profanity.
>
> Jonathan Ball made a coherent argument, as follows..
>
> <---->
> 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, but
> smarmy "vegans" don't think about them because those animals aren't eaten.
> "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.
> <--->
>
> How is that a bizarre rant? You didn't even attempt to reply, preferring the
> following rhetorical question..

Can someone please post a link(s) to source material regarding animal
deaths caused by vegetable production, including the number of animal
deaths caused INTENTIONALLY during vegetable production? This info
should include the types of animals and also the types of vegetables,
including those organically grown and grown on small farms and sold at
farmers markets.

"googlesux" > wrote in message
om...
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
>...
> > "googlesux" > wrote
> >
> > > Jonathan Ball > wrote
> >
> >
> > > > Who are "they"?
> > >
> > > You and the one other person who posts bizarre rants laced with
> > > profanity.
> >
> > Jonathan Ball made a coherent argument, as follows..
> >
> > <---->
> > 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,
but
> > smarmy "vegans" don't think about them because those animals aren't
eaten.
> > "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.
> > <--->
> >
> > How is that a bizarre rant? You didn't even attempt to reply, preferring
the
> > following rhetorical question..
>
> Can someone please post a link(s) to source material regarding animal
> deaths caused by vegetable production, including the number of animal
> deaths caused INTENTIONALLY during vegetable production? This info
> should include the types of animals and also the types of vegetables,
> including those organically grown and grown on small farms and sold at
> farmers markets.

Intentionally? The big discussion here are the unintentional animal deaths.

No, you won't get anyone here to post links on that subject because they
can't. Okay, someone posted a link to a lame anti-animal rights site article
that was questionable at best. Aside from that, the rabid discourse here
about the animal casualties that are said to result from vegetable
production cannot be supported with any credible information. Anytime you
ask them to support their claims you get only insults, foul language, and
evasion. It's all pretty stupid....

"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message ...
>
> "googlesux" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "googlesux" > wrote
> > >
> > > > Jonathan Ball > wrote
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Who are "they"?
> > > >
> > > > You and the one other person who posts bizarre rants laced with
> > > > profanity.
> > >
> > > Jonathan Ball made a coherent argument, as follows..
> > >
> > > <---->
> > > 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,
> but
> > > smarmy "vegans" don't think about them because those animals aren't
> eaten.
> > > "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.
> > > <--->
> > >
> > > How is that a bizarre rant? You didn't even attempt to reply, preferring
> the
> > > following rhetorical question..
> >
> > Can someone please post a link(s) to source material regarding animal
> > deaths caused by vegetable production, including the number of animal
> > deaths caused INTENTIONALLY during vegetable production? This info
> > should include the types of animals and also the types of vegetables,
> > including those organically grown and grown on small farms and sold at
> > farmers markets.
>
> Intentionally? The big discussion here are the unintentional animal deaths.
>
> No, you won't get anyone here to post links on that subject because they
> can't. Okay, someone posted a link to a lame anti-animal rights site article
> that was questionable at best. Aside from that, the rabid discourse here
> about the animal casualties that are said to result from vegetable
> production cannot be supported with any credible information. Anytime you
> ask them to support their claims you get only insults, foul language, and
> evasion. It's all pretty stupid....
>
I think it's fair to assume they do exist. Pesticides alone must cause
plenty, but I don't think they exist in the exaggerated estimates I've
seen here over the last few weeks.

"Ipse dixit" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "C. James Strutz" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > "googlesux" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "Dutch" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > "googlesux" > wrote
> > > >
> > > > > Jonathan Ball > wrote
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > Who are "they"?
> > > > >
> > > > > You and the one other person who posts bizarre rants laced with
> > > > > profanity.
> > > >
> > > > Jonathan Ball made a coherent argument, as follows..
> > > >
> > > > <---->
> > > > 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,
> > but
> > > > smarmy "vegans" don't think about them because those animals aren't
> > eaten.
> > > > "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.
> > > > <--->
> > > >
> > > > How is that a bizarre rant? You didn't even attempt to reply,
preferring
> > the
> > > > following rhetorical question..
> > >
> > > Can someone please post a link(s) to source material regarding animal
> > > deaths caused by vegetable production, including the number of animal
> > > deaths caused INTENTIONALLY during vegetable production? This info
> > > should include the types of animals and also the types of vegetables,
> > > including those organically grown and grown on small farms and sold at
> > > farmers markets.
> >
> > Intentionally? The big discussion here are the unintentional animal
deaths.
> >
> > No, you won't get anyone here to post links on that subject because they
> > can't. Okay, someone posted a link to a lame anti-animal rights site
article
> > that was questionable at best. Aside from that, the rabid discourse here
> > about the animal casualties that are said to result from vegetable
> > production cannot be supported with any credible information. Anytime
you
> > ask them to support their claims you get only insults, foul language,
and
> > evasion. It's all pretty stupid....
> >
> I think it's fair to assume they do exist. Pesticides alone must cause
> plenty, but I don't think they exist in the exaggerated estimates I've
> seen here over the last few weeks.

Oh, I agree with you. I think the underlying issue here is that several
people in this ng take exception to some vegans who they accuse of being
overly idealistic and emphatic about animal rights. They criticize so-called
"ethical vegans" with even MORE emphasis and bad behavior than that which
they accuse and criticize vegans. It defines hypocracy...

Dutch wrote:
>
(snip)
>
> <---->
> On the other hand, so-called "ethical vegetarianism" is fundamentally
> hypocritical. The reason is that animals are killed gruesomely

Proof?

Chickens, turkeys and other birds are mechanically slaughtered without
any requirement for pre-slaughter stunning.

Note fully conscious birds:
http://www.factoryfarming.com/gallery/turkey1.htm

> and in large numbers

Proof?

9 billion birds were slaughtered in the US in 2001.

> in the course of growing, storing and distributing vegetables,

Which vegetables? I harvested greens from my garden plots last night;
they're in my refrigerator and I plan on giving several bunches to my
neighbors.

What's the death toll for these?

I bought a bag of organic walnuts and grapes at Rainbow Co-op
yesterday. What's the death toll for these?

> but smarmy "vegans" don't think about them because those animals aren't eaten.

You're a filthy liar. Every vegan and every vegetarian who is currently
posting to tpa or aaev thinks about collateral deaths.

> "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.
> <--->
>
No, it goes like this:

If I eat meat, I cause food animals to suffer and die.

I do not eat meat;

Therefore, I do not cause food animals to suffer and die.

> How is that a bizarre rant?

"Bizzare" is too strong a word for an ordinary, little man like Bawl.
However, his mistaken idea about vegan beliefs has a stranglehold on
him and that is... well, peculiar.

> You didn't even attempt to reply, preferring the
> following rhetorical question..

Is that any worse than replying with vaccuous claims about "large
numbers' and "gruesome deaths".
>
> "Is this guy a major shareholder in ConAgra or something?"
>
> When he followed up, you snipped the relevant part

Ball has nothing relevant to say about vegan beliefs. He's tilting at
windmills.

> (without noting) and
> responded to the irrelevent portion below about how long you'll be here.

What do you expect? A new poster comes to afv for receipes and the
first thing he gets is Bawl calling him a "liar". Ball should be kept
tethered in a veal stall.

> Where is *your* crediblity in this discussion?

The guy wanted receipes, dog-catcher. Is that too hard for you to
understand?
>

"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message ...
>
> "Ipse dixit" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >
> > "C. James Strutz" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >
> > > "googlesux" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > "Dutch" > wrote in message
> > > >...
> > > > > "googlesux" > wrote
> > > > >
> > > > > > Jonathan Ball > wrote
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Who are "they"?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You and the one other person who posts bizarre rants laced with
> > > > > > profanity.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jonathan Ball made a coherent argument, as follows..
> > > > >
> > > > > <---->
> > > > > 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,
> > > but
> > > > > smarmy "vegans" don't think about them because those animals aren't
> > > eaten.
> > > > > "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.
> > > > > <--->
> > > > >
> > > > > How is that a bizarre rant? You didn't even attempt to reply,
> preferring
> > > the
> > > > > following rhetorical question..
> > > >
> > > > Can someone please post a link(s) to source material regarding animal
> > > > deaths caused by vegetable production, including the number of animal
> > > > deaths caused INTENTIONALLY during vegetable production? This info
> > > > should include the types of animals and also the types of vegetables,
> > > > including those organically grown and grown on small farms and sold at
> > > > farmers markets.
> > >
> > > Intentionally? The big discussion here are the unintentional animal
> deaths.
> > >
> > > No, you won't get anyone here to post links on that subject because they
> > > can't. Okay, someone posted a link to a lame anti-animal rights site
> article
> > > that was questionable at best. Aside from that, the rabid discourse here
> > > about the animal casualties that are said to result from vegetable
> > > production cannot be supported with any credible information. Anytime
> you
> > > ask them to support their claims you get only insults, foul language,
> and
> > > evasion. It's all pretty stupid....
> > >
> > I think it's fair to assume they do exist. Pesticides alone must cause
> > plenty, but I don't think they exist in the exaggerated estimates I've
> > seen here over the last few weeks.
>
> Oh, I agree with you. I think the underlying issue here is that several
> people in this ng take exception to some vegans who they accuse of being
> overly idealistic and emphatic about animal rights. They criticize so-called
> "ethical vegans" with even MORE emphasis and bad behavior than that which
> they accuse and criticize vegans. It defines hypocracy...
>
I've been criticised for my vegan diet and rants about the rights
of animals, but I've never been criticised for someone else's use
of pesticides yet.

"Ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C. James Strutz" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > "Ipse dixit" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> > >
> > > "C. James Strutz" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > >
> > > > "googlesux" > wrote in message
> > > > om...
> > > > > "Dutch" > wrote in message
> > > > >...
> > > > > > "googlesux" > wrote
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jonathan Ball > wrote
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Who are "they"?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You and the one other person who posts bizarre rants laced
with
> > > > > > > profanity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jonathan Ball made a coherent argument, as follows..
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <---->
> > > > > > 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,
> > > > but
> > > > > > smarmy "vegans" don't think about them because those animals
aren't
> > > > eaten.
> > > > > > "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.
> > > > > > <--->
> > > > > >
> > > > > > How is that a bizarre rant? You didn't even attempt to reply,
> > preferring
> > > > the
> > > > > > following rhetorical question..
> > > > >
> > > > > Can someone please post a link(s) to source material regarding
animal
> > > > > deaths caused by vegetable production, including the number of
animal
> > > > > deaths caused INTENTIONALLY during vegetable production? This info
> > > > > should include the types of animals and also the types of
vegetables,
> > > > > including those organically grown and grown on small farms and
sold at
> > > > > farmers markets.
> > > >
> > > > Intentionally? The big discussion here are the unintentional animal
> > deaths.
> > > >
> > > > No, you won't get anyone here to post links on that subject because
they
> > > > can't. Okay, someone posted a link to a lame anti-animal rights site
> > article
> > > > that was questionable at best. Aside from that, the rabid discourse
here
> > > > about the animal casualties that are said to result from vegetable
> > > > production cannot be supported with any credible information.
Anytime
> > you
> > > > ask them to support their claims you get only insults, foul
language,
> > and
> > > > evasion. It's all pretty stupid....
> > > >
> > > I think it's fair to assume they do exist. Pesticides alone must cause
> > > plenty, but I don't think they exist in the exaggerated estimates I've
> > > seen here over the last few weeks.
> >
> > Oh, I agree with you. I think the underlying issue here is that several
> > people in this ng take exception to some vegans who they accuse of being
> > overly idealistic and emphatic about animal rights. They criticize
so-called
> > "ethical vegans" with even MORE emphasis and bad behavior than that
which
> > they accuse and criticize vegans. It defines hypocracy...
> >
> I've been criticised for my vegan diet and rants about the rights
> of animals, but I've never been criticised for someone else's use
> of pesticides yet.

They'll say that buying produce (which may be grown using pesticides)
contradicts your ethical beliefs and call you a hypocrite and killer among
other things. Stupid.

conclusion...

fatpwr wrote:
>>>You're either stupid or a liar. Animals are killed to house the "cow",
>>>to feed the "cow", to protect the "cow", to medicate the "cow", to
>>>transport the "cow", to slaughter the "cow", to process the "cow" and to
>>>store the flesh of the "cow".
>>
>>Grain fed, yes. Grass fed, no.
>
> Aren't pastures seeded or sprigged, fertilized, sprayed and cut for
> winter feed? Don't field animals die during these activities? Aren't
> range cattle supplementally fed in winter or dry months to make up for
> the lack of or poor quality of seasonal grasses? What about cows close
> to calving? Don't they get special feed?

http://www.davismountainsorganicbeef.com/aboutus.asp
http://www.davismountainsorganicbeef...nvironment.asp

> What about predator control? What do range managers do to praire dog
> towns?

We kids learned to shoot by taking .22s out to nail prairiedogs,
coyotes, etc.

> Doesn't your family innoculate their animals?

Innoculation doesn't kill them.

> I know you are not
> farm slaughtering large herds of steer, that's against the law. That
> means you transport them to a licensed plant for slaughter and
> processing. Rodent control is mandatory in slaughterhouses and
> meat-processing plants.

Also for grain elevators and other food storage facilities.

>>What about a deer? What about other game,
>>large or small? What about migratory game birds?
>
> What are you getting on about? YOU said that one "cow" = one death and
> you're wrong.

No, I'm not. You're again moving goalposts.

>>>Not only that, _no one_ you or I know eats beef and nothing but beef for
>>>a solid year. This is an extreme example that has no basis in reality.
>>
>>It's a fair example and proves that valid and humane alternatives to
>>your extremist lifestyle DO exist.
>
> Eating beef from one "cow" and only beef from one "cow" is as extreme as
> a vegan eating handgrown fruits, vegetables, seeds, nuts and legumes and
> only handgrown fruits, vegetables, seeds, nuts and legumes.

Tell people like Rick that. I have many friends who eat only fish and
game meat.

> Between
> these two extremes, the vegan diet causes no deaths and the beef diet
> causes one death. Bzzzzt.

Strawman based on your ever increasing goalpost moves.

>>>It only makes sense to look for deaths per
>>>portion.
>>
>>Why?
>
> Because that's how most people in our society procure and prepare their
> food.

Do you only harvest one serving of broccoli at a time, or a quarter of a
head of cauliflower? Do you only pick one serving of wheat or whatever
grain (since you avoid rice) at a time and leave the rest in the field?
Face it, agriculture -- including sustainable organic stuff catering to
people with your and my sensitivities -- is performed on a large scale.
Most people purchase in quantities far exceeding such small portions.

>>>Every portion of meat _requres_ the death of, at least, one
>>>animal. If one death was assigned to every 4 oz. portion of soybeans,
>>>we could expect to see tens of thousands of animals per acre and we
>>>don't.
>>
>>Do you count insects as animals?
>
> The line gets fuzzy. I have difficulty seeing insects as individual
> animals with individual interests.

You hypocritical speciesist!

>>What about the water, energy, etc.,
>>required to convert however many pounds of soybeans into TVP and tofu?
>
> What about the water, energy, etc. required to operate a slaughterhouse
> or a feedlot? What about insect control at these facilities? What about
> cattle dipping? What about worming? Good god, man, the collateral
> deaths are racking up!

Grass-fed beef doesn't go to a finishing lot. Neither do game animals.

>>>I'm still waiting for your reply concerning transport time to slaughter
>>>and a retraction of your statement that animals don't mind slipping and
>>>sliding in feces and gore.
>>
>>I'm not retracting anything, you gruesome old hag. Your sloppy reasoning
>>might impress your fellow (space) travelers, but it doesn't hold up to
>>scrutiny.
>
> Then please show some evidence to refute Grandin's study showing loss of
> footing as the most important factor in pre-slaughter stress and explain
> how transport time for pre-slaughter animals has shortened when there
> are fewer slaughterhouses and more animals being slaughtered than a
> decade ago.

I'll accept Grandin's opinions on stress with respect to loss of
footing, but I still think you tend to make anthropomorphic projections
about such stimuli and response.

> Your attempt to side-step your previous statements by bringing up space
> travelers doesn't fool anyone.

I didn't side-step anything, you goalpost-moving skag.

"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message ...
>
> "Ipse dixit" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "C. James Strutz" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >
> > > "Ipse dixit" > wrote in message
> > > .. .
> > > >
> > > > "C. James Strutz" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "googlesux" > wrote in message
> > > > > om...
> > > > > > "Dutch" > wrote in message
> > > > > >...
> > > > > > > "googlesux" > wrote
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Jonathan Ball > wrote
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Who are "they"?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You and the one other person who posts bizarre rants laced
> with
> > > > > > > > profanity.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jonathan Ball made a coherent argument, as follows..
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <---->
> > > > > > > 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,
> > > > > but
> > > > > > > smarmy "vegans" don't think about them because those animals
> aren't
> > > > > eaten.
> > > > > > > "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.
> > > > > > > <--->
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > How is that a bizarre rant? You didn't even attempt to reply,
> > > preferring
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > following rhetorical question..
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can someone please post a link(s) to source material regarding
> animal
> > > > > > deaths caused by vegetable production, including the number of
> animal
> > > > > > deaths caused INTENTIONALLY during vegetable production? This info
> > > > > > should include the types of animals and also the types of
> vegetables,
> > > > > > including those organically grown and grown on small farms and
> sold at
> > > > > > farmers markets.
> > > > >
> > > > > Intentionally? The big discussion here are the unintentional animal
> > > deaths.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, you won't get anyone here to post links on that subject because
> they
> > > > > can't. Okay, someone posted a link to a lame anti-animal rights site
> > > article
> > > > > that was questionable at best. Aside from that, the rabid discourse
> here
> > > > > about the animal casualties that are said to result from vegetable
> > > > > production cannot be supported with any credible information.
> Anytime
> > > you
> > > > > ask them to support their claims you get only insults, foul
> language,
> > > and
> > > > > evasion. It's all pretty stupid....
> > > > >
> > > > I think it's fair to assume they do exist. Pesticides alone must cause
> > > > plenty, but I don't think they exist in the exaggerated estimates I've
> > > > seen here over the last few weeks.
> > >
> > > Oh, I agree with you. I think the underlying issue here is that several
> > > people in this ng take exception to some vegans who they accuse of being
> > > overly idealistic and emphatic about animal rights. They criticize
> so-called
> > > "ethical vegans" with even MORE emphasis and bad behavior than that
> which
> > > they accuse and criticize vegans. It defines hypocracy...
> > >
> > I've been criticised for my vegan diet and rants about the rights
> > of animals, but I've never been criticised for someone else's use
> > of pesticides yet.
>
> They'll say that buying produce (which may be grown using pesticides)
> contradicts your ethical beliefs and call you a hypocrite and killer among
> other things. Stupid.
>
"They" would have a point if vegans were laying down the
poisons, but I can't see how buying produce from people
who do use pesticides contradicts that vegan's beliefs.
You're right, it's stupid.

C. James Strutz wrote:
<...>
>>Can someone please post a link(s) to source material regarding animal
>>deaths caused by vegetable production, including the number of animal
>>deaths caused INTENTIONALLY during vegetable production? This info
>>should include the types of animals and also the types of vegetables,
>>including those organically grown and grown on small farms and sold at
>>farmers markets.
>
> Intentionally? The big discussion here are the unintentional animal deaths.
>
> No, you won't get anyone here to post links on that subject because they
> can't.

Are you familiar with any formal studies which actually counted the
number of animals snuffed out for *any* particular farm crop? I doubt it
since such deaths are considered normal, even acceptable, in the course
of agriculture. It's only become an issue in the last half century or so
with the advent of the animal rights movement and veganISM. The
professor named in the article to which you allude below did attempt to
do such a count in the course of mowing alfalfa; 50% of one species was
killed off during harvest.

> Okay, someone posted a link to a lame anti-animal rights site article
> that was questionable at best.

The story came from an honest researcher named Steven Davis who wanted
to see if the claims of AR proponent Tom Regan's "Least Harm Principle"
were valid. Davis found Regan's claim that a vegan diet caused the least
harm to animals to be wholly unsupported in practice. Professor Davis'
work was done in the context of "integrating ethics and moral reasoning
into the work and study of agriculture" -- something you should laud
since you take a side that diet can be moral. Davis concluded that a
diet based on plants and grazing (i.e., grass-fed or game) ruminants,
and not veganism, would cause the fewest CDs.

http://www.animalrights.net/articles/2002/000083.html
http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/otw/...2002/mar14.pdf

Don't shoot the messenger when you learn that your position has been
thoroughly debunked. What specifically do you find "questionable at
best" about the work of Davis?

> Aside from that, the rabid discourse here
> about the animal casualties that are said to result from vegetable
> production cannot be supported with any credible information.

Sorry, James, but the lack of collected CD data doesn't make the claims
of CDs incredible. The burden of evidence is wanting on both sides of
the equation, but it's specifically the *vegan* claim that a vegan diet
causes no, fewer, or reduced animal deaths than a standard diet which is
at issue. The burden is on vegans who make such claims, since nearly
everyone else accepts animal death and suffering in the course of
agriculture.

Pesticides are quite lethal, and nobody requires counts of species
except when domestic animals are inadvertantly killed (I just attempted
a search on pesticides and animal deaths and found out that many states
and counties report such figures); deaths of domestic animals are
significant, but how many uncounted birds and rodents and insects are
killed as well? Add the issues of the use of machinery and irrigation
and it's quite easy to see that animals die and/or are injured as a
matter of routine.

> Anytime you
> ask them to support their claims you get only insults, foul language, and
> evasion. It's all pretty stupid....

It goes both ways, in case you've yet to notice. And you're as foul and
nasty as anyone else in these groups. Stop whining or lead by example.

C. James Strutz wrote:
> They'll say that buying produce (which may be grown using pesticides)
> contradicts your ethical beliefs and call you a hypocrite and killer among
> other things. Stupid.

Strawman. You should know better.

"googlesux" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote
> > "googlesux" > wrote
> >
> > > Jonathan Ball > wrote
> >
> >
> > > > Who are "they"?
> > >
> > > You and the one other person who posts bizarre rants laced with
> > > profanity.
> >
> > Jonathan Ball made a coherent argument, as follows..
> >
> > <---->
> > 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,
but
> > smarmy "vegans" don't think about them because those animals aren't
eaten.
> > "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.
> > <--->
> >
> > How is that a bizarre rant? You didn't even attempt to reply, preferring
the
> > following rhetorical question..
>
> Can someone please post a link(s) to source material regarding animal
> deaths caused by vegetable production, including the number of animal
> deaths caused INTENTIONALLY during vegetable production?

All the wildlife destroyed by herbicides and pesticides are killed without
regard for any right to life you may imagine exists in your lifestyle.
Nobody counts them or even takes much notice of them, including vegans.
They're just pests. The latest trend in grain farming is "conservation
farming" where the field is soaked with Roundup to suppress weeds instead of
being tilled. That's REAL animal friendly.

> This info
> should include the types of animals and also the types of vegetables,
> including those organically grown and grown on small farms and sold at
> farmers markets.

Or what, you'll pretend they don't exist?

Nobody is going to

"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message
...
>
> "googlesux" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "googlesux" > wrote
> > >
> > > > Jonathan Ball > wrote
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Who are "they"?
> > > >
> > > > You and the one other person who posts bizarre rants laced with
> > > > profanity.
> > >
> > > Jonathan Ball made a coherent argument, as follows..
> > >
> > > <---->
> > > 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,
> but
> > > smarmy "vegans" don't think about them because those animals aren't
> eaten.
> > > "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.
> > > <--->
> > >
> > > How is that a bizarre rant? You didn't even attempt to reply,
preferring
> the
> > > following rhetorical question..
> >
> > Can someone please post a link(s) to source material regarding animal
> > deaths caused by vegetable production, including the number of animal
> > deaths caused INTENTIONALLY during vegetable production? This info
> > should include the types of animals and also the types of vegetables,
> > including those organically grown and grown on small farms and sold at
> > farmers markets.
>
> Intentionally? The big discussion here are the unintentional animal
deaths.
>
> No, you won't get anyone here to post links on that subject because they
> can't.

Rick Etter regularly posts a list of links.

> Okay, someone posted a link to a lame anti-animal rights site article
> that was questionable at best.

Because you're an animal rights advocate who only believes what feathers
your nest..

> Aside from that, the rabid discourse here
> about the animal casualties that are said to result from vegetable
> production cannot be supported with any credible information. Anytime you
> ask them to support their claims you get only insults, foul language, and
> evasion. It's all pretty stupid....

Do a google search for "pest control".

"Ipse dixit" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "C. James Strutz" > wrote in message
...
> >
> > "googlesux" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "Dutch" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > "googlesux" > wrote
> > > >
> > > > > Jonathan Ball > wrote
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > Who are "they"?
> > > > >
> > > > > You and the one other person who posts bizarre rants laced with
> > > > > profanity.
> > > >
> > > > Jonathan Ball made a coherent argument, as follows..
> > > >
> > > > <---->
> > > > 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,
> > but
> > > > smarmy "vegans" don't think about them because those animals aren't
> > eaten.
> > > > "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.
> > > > <--->
> > > >
> > > > How is that a bizarre rant? You didn't even attempt to reply,
preferring
> > the
> > > > following rhetorical question..
> > >
> > > Can someone please post a link(s) to source material regarding animal
> > > deaths caused by vegetable production, including the number of animal
> > > deaths caused INTENTIONALLY during vegetable production? This info
> > > should include the types of animals and also the types of vegetables,
> > > including those organically grown and grown on small farms and sold at
> > > farmers markets.
> >
> > Intentionally? The big discussion here are the unintentional animal
deaths.
> >
> > No, you won't get anyone here to post links on that subject because they
> > can't. Okay, someone posted a link to a lame anti-animal rights site
article
> > that was questionable at best. Aside from that, the rabid discourse here
> > about the animal casualties that are said to result from vegetable
> > production cannot be supported with any credible information. Anytime
you
> > ask them to support their claims you get only insults, foul language,
and
> > evasion. It's all pretty stupid....
> >
> I think it's fair to assume they do exist. Pesticides alone must cause
> plenty,

Don't forget herbicides like Roundup, they're used even more than
pesticides.

> but I don't think they exist in the exaggerated estimates I've seen here
over the last few weeks.

Do some reading on pest control..

usual suspect wrote:

> C. James Strutz wrote:
> <...>
>

[...]

>
>> Okay, someone posted a link to a lame anti-animal rights site article
>> that was questionable at best.
>
>
> The story came from an honest researcher named Steven Davis who wanted
> to see if the claims of AR proponent Tom Regan's "Least Harm Principle"
> were valid. Davis found Regan's claim that a vegan diet caused the least
> harm to animals to be wholly unsupported in practice. Professor Davis'
> work was done in the context of "integrating ethics and moral reasoning
> into the work and study of agriculture" -- something you should laud
> since you take a side that diet can be moral. Davis concluded that a
> diet based on plants and grazing (i.e., grass-fed or game) ruminants,
> and not veganism, would cause the fewest CDs.
>
> http://www.animalrights.net/articles/2002/000083.html
> http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/otw/...2002/mar14.pdf
>
> Don't shoot the messenger when you learn that your position has been
> thoroughly debunked. What specifically do you find "questionable at
> best" about the work of Davis?

Oh, that's easy: he doesn't like the conclusion.
See-jimmy has made the easy slide into lazy moral
complacency based on something he *doesn't* do: eat
most animal parts. It's especially funny with
See-jimmy, because he admits to not being "vegan", but
he can't say why he isn't, nor can he say why he headed
in that direction in the first place. "vegans" are
already hugely inconsistent, but See-jimmy somehow
manages to be even more inconsistent.

See-jimmy, like all "vegans", is a morally and
intellectually LAZY ass who wants to be "more ethical"
on the cheap, and he sees semi-"veganism" as just the
ticket. Along comes a scholar who demolishes the
fatuous, unwarranted basic assumption of "veganism",
and now See-jimmy is just ****ed. So quite naturally,
he tries casually to dismiss the conclusion, just as he
quite casually became semi-"vegan" in the first place.

There isn't a shred of rigor to anything a "vegan" or
"ara" has ever said or written on the topic.

>
>> Aside from that, the rabid discourse here
>> about the animal casualties that are said to result from vegetable
>> production cannot be supported with any credible information.
>
>
> Sorry, James, but the lack of collected CD data doesn't make the claims
> of CDs incredible. The burden of evidence is wanting on both sides of
> the equation, but it's specifically the *vegan* claim that a vegan diet
> causes no, fewer, or reduced animal deaths than a standard diet which is
> at issue.

Exactly so. The claim was made by intellectual slugs
who never had either the ability or the inclinination
to support the claim. It is the nature of the claim,
combined with the glaringly obvious bad character and
bad faith of its proponents, that makes "vegans" the
objects of such loathing. Of course, because "vegans"
are demonstrably mentally ill, they obtain a perverse
reward from the loathing.

> The burden is on vegans who make such claims, since nearly
> everyone else accepts animal death and suffering in the course of
> agriculture.

It's a burden that they will always shirk.

>
> Pesticides are quite lethal, and nobody requires counts of species
> except when domestic animals are inadvertantly killed (I just attempted
> a search on pesticides and animal deaths and found out that many states
> and counties report such figures); deaths of domestic animals are
> significant, but how many uncounted birds and rodents and insects are
> killed as well? Add the issues of the use of machinery and irrigation
> and it's quite easy to see that animals die and/or are injured as a
> matter of routine.
>
>> Anytime you
>> ask them to support their claims you get only insults, foul language, and
>> evasion. It's all pretty stupid....
>
>
> It goes both ways, in case you've yet to notice. And you're as foul and
> nasty as anyone else in these groups. Stop whining or lead by example.
>

"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ipse dixit" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >
> > "C. James Strutz" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >
> > > "googlesux" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > "Dutch" > wrote in message
> > > >...
> > > > > "googlesux" > wrote
> > > > >
> > > > > > Jonathan Ball > wrote
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Who are "they"?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You and the one other person who posts bizarre rants laced with
> > > > > > profanity.
> > > > >
> > > > > Jonathan Ball made a coherent argument, as follows..
> > > > >
> > > > > <---->
> > > > > 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,
> > > but
> > > > > smarmy "vegans" don't think about them because those animals
aren't
> > > eaten.
> > > > > "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.
> > > > > <--->
> > > > >
> > > > > How is that a bizarre rant? You didn't even attempt to reply,
> preferring
> > > the
> > > > > following rhetorical question..
> > > >
> > > > Can someone please post a link(s) to source material regarding
animal
> > > > deaths caused by vegetable production, including the number of
animal
> > > > deaths caused INTENTIONALLY during vegetable production? This info
> > > > should include the types of animals and also the types of
vegetables,
> > > > including those organically grown and grown on small farms and sold
at
> > > > farmers markets.
> > >
> > > Intentionally? The big discussion here are the unintentional animal
> deaths.
> > >
> > > No, you won't get anyone here to post links on that subject because
they
> > > can't. Okay, someone posted a link to a lame anti-animal rights site
> article
> > > that was questionable at best. Aside from that, the rabid discourse
here
> > > about the animal casualties that are said to result from vegetable
> > > production cannot be supported with any credible information. Anytime
> you
> > > ask them to support their claims you get only insults, foul language,
> and
> > > evasion. It's all pretty stupid....
> > >
> > I think it's fair to assume they do exist. Pesticides alone must cause
> > plenty, but I don't think they exist in the exaggerated estimates I've
> > seen here over the last few weeks.
>
> Oh, I agree with you. I think the underlying issue here is that several
> people in this ng take exception to some vegans who they accuse of being
> overly idealistic and emphatic about animal rights. They criticize
so-called
> "ethical vegans" with even MORE emphasis and bad behavior than that which
> they accuse and criticize vegans. It defines hypocracy...

Your perceptions are blurred. The underlying issue here is the way vegans
attack non-believers, as if consuming meat were a capital crime. The fact
that YOUR food rountinely costs animal lives, regardless of how many, makes
*that* attack the definition of hypocrisy.

"frlpwr" > wrote
> Dutch wrote:
> >
> (snip)
> >
> > <---->
> > On the other hand, so-called "ethical vegetarianism" is fundamentally
> > hypocritical. The reason is that animals are killed gruesomely
>
> Proof?

Denial?

> Chickens, turkeys and other birds are mechanically slaughtered without
> any requirement for pre-slaughter stunning.

I never denied that livestock are killed, sometimes gruesomely, but thanks
for reminding me.

> http://www.factoryfarming.com/gallery/turkey1.htm
>
> > and in large numbers
>
> Proof?

Nobody gathers statistics, but talk to any old-timer from the midwest, ask
him about wildlife on the prairies. Look at the number of songbird species
that exist there now compared to 60 years ago.

> 9 billion birds were slaughtered in the US in 2001.

For good reason, people have to eat.

> > in the course of growing, storing and distributing vegetables,
>
> Which vegetables? I harvested greens from my garden plots last night;
> they're in my refrigerator and I plan on giving several bunches to my
> neighbors.
>
> What's the death toll for these?

Not relevant. Animals don't suffer on "The Polyface Farm" either, but my
food doesn't come from there.

> I bought a bag of organic walnuts and grapes at Rainbow Co-op
> yesterday. What's the death toll for these?

I don't know, do you?

> > but smarmy "vegans" don't think about them because those animals aren't
eaten.
>
> You're a filthy liar. Every vegan and every vegetarian who is currently
> posting to tpa or aaev thinks about collateral deaths.

Only because we won't let them forget about them. Note the new participants
like James Strutz and googlesux are still in denial.

> > "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.
> > <--->
> >
> No, it goes like this:
>
> If I eat meat, I cause food animals to suffer and die.
>
> I do not eat meat;
>
> Therefore, I do not cause food animals to suffer and die.

That would be like saying I only rob liquor stores therefore I have the
moral authority to condemn people who rob convenience stores.

> > How is that a bizarre rant?
>
> "Bizzare" is too strong a word for an ordinary, little man like Bawl.
> However, his mistaken idea about vegan beliefs has a stranglehold on
> him and that is... well, peculiar.

His ideas about vegan beliefs are quite correct.

> > You didn't even attempt to reply, preferring the
> > following rhetorical question..
>
> Is that any worse than replying with vaccuous claims about "large
> numbers' and "gruesome deaths".

Denial.

> > "Is this guy a major shareholder in ConAgra or something?"
> >
> > When he followed up, you snipped the relevant part
>
> Ball has nothing relevant to say about vegan beliefs. He's tilting at
> windmills.

His ideas about vegan beliefs are quite correct.

> > (without noting) and
> > responded to the irrelevent portion below about how long you'll be here.
>
> What do you expect? A new poster comes to afv for receipes and the
> first thing he gets is Bawl calling him a "liar". Ball should be kept
> tethered in a veal stall.

He made no mention of recipes, his first message said "Is this guy a major
shareholder in ConAgra or something?"

> > Where is *your* crediblity in this discussion?
>
> The guy wanted receipes, dog-catcher.

He didn't ask for recipes, and you obviously consider "dog-catcher" an
insult despite your earlier lying denials.

> Is that too hard for you to
> understand?

Pretty hard to understand when he doesn't mention it.

usual suspect wrote:

<snip>

> Sorry, James, but the lack of collected CD data doesn't make the claims
> of CDs incredible. The burden of evidence is wanting on both sides of
> the equation, but it's specifically the *vegan* claim that a vegan diet
> causes no, fewer, or reduced animal deaths than a standard diet which is
> at issue. The burden is on vegans who make such claims, since nearly
> everyone else accepts animal death and suffering in the course of
> agriculture.

Which, as ethical vegans have noted many times, is the issue. The
ethical vegetarians and vegans ARE the only ones who care about
such deaths as a matter of philosophical principle, and until their
point of view bcomes more common, there will be no reason for those
who accept the collateral deaths to change their methods. I am
convinced that veganism is a more ethical position, since it rejects
such animal deaths in principle, and if the vegan position is
accepted, collateral deaths will decrease as a result of the awareness
of farmers. But CDs will be invisible to society as a whole until
a moral stance against the intentional deaths of animals in production
of food and other products is seen as unacceptable. Then society can
and will advance to the consideration of unintentional deaths as well.

<snip>

Rat

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> usual suspect wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Sorry, James, but the lack of collected CD data doesn't make the
>> claims of CDs incredible. The burden of evidence is wanting on both
>> sides of the equation, but it's specifically the *vegan* claim that a
>> vegan diet causes no, fewer, or reduced animal deaths than a standard
>> diet which is at issue. The burden is on vegans who make such claims,
>> since nearly everyone else accepts animal death and suffering in the
>> course of agriculture.
>
>
> Which, as ethical vegans have noted many times, is the issue. The
> ethical vegetarians and vegans ARE the only ones who care about
> such deaths as a matter of philosophical principle, and until their
> point of view bcomes more common, there will be no reason for those
> who accept the collateral deaths to change their methods. I am
> convinced that veganism is a more ethical position, since it rejects
> such animal deaths in principle, and if the vegan position is
> accepted, collateral deaths will decrease as a result of the awareness
> of farmers. But CDs will be invisible to society as a whole until
> a moral stance against the intentional deaths of animals in production
> of food and other products is seen as unacceptable.

Sorry, I meant "is seen as obligatory."

> Then society can
> and will advance to the consideration of unintentional deaths as well.
>
> <snip>
>
> Rat
>

"Ipse dixit" > wrote

[..]

> I've been criticised for my vegan diet and rants about the rights
> of animals,

Rightfully so, sanctimonious shit.

but I've never been criticised for someone else's use
> of pesticides yet.

YOU patronize an agricultural system that routinely uses herbicides,
pesticides, plows and harvests fields without regard for wildlife, and
poisons mice that dare to get near produce. In Saskatchewan this year the
grasshoppers were 1000/m² in places. Pesticide was used in record amounts to
try to save the crops, how do you think that affected birds who eat
grasshoppers? You have enough blood on your hands that you should reconsider
your self-serving rants.

"C. James Strutz" > wrote

[..]

> They'll say that buying produce (which may be grown using pesticides)

IS grown using pesticides and herbicides...

> contradicts your ethical beliefs and call you a hypocrite and killer among
> other things. Stupid.

I realize that you've become accustomed to a self-image based on the idea
that *others* are killers, not you, but If you live off the commercial food
production system, you *are* supporting the routine killing of animals. The
good news is that there IS life after self-righteousness.

"Ipse dixit" > wrote

> "They" would have a point if vegans were laying down the
> poisons, but I can't see how buying produce from people
> who do use pesticides contradicts that vegan's beliefs.
> You're right, it's stupid.

Got tired of using the "Jane" nym eh Derek? You can shift your nym, you may
disguise your style for a while, you can change your news server, but the
same old lame arguments give you away.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> C. James Strutz wrote:
> <...>
> >>Can someone please post a link(s) to source material regarding animal
> >>deaths caused by vegetable production, including the number of animal
> >>deaths caused INTENTIONALLY during vegetable production? This info
> >>should include the types of animals and also the types of vegetables,
> >>including those organically grown and grown on small farms and sold at
> >>farmers markets.
> >
> > Intentionally? The big discussion here are the unintentional animal
deaths.
> >
> > No, you won't get anyone here to post links on that subject because they
> > can't.
>
> Are you familiar with any formal studies which actually counted the
> number of animals snuffed out for *any* particular farm crop?

No.

> I doubt it
> since such deaths are considered normal, even acceptable, in the course
> of agriculture. It's only become an issue in the last half century or so
> with the advent of the animal rights movement and veganISM.

I agree that very little information is available on this subject. That's
why I question why some people here attribute SO many more animal deaths to
veg*nism. I don't think the numbers can be substantiated either way. So why
do people so vehemently support a position that they can't back up? And why
do they evade, ridicule, and chastise when pressed to produce any sort of
proof?

> The
> professor named in the article to which you allude below did attempt to
> do such a count in the course of mowing alfalfa; 50% of one species was
> killed off during harvest.

Regrettable if true.

> > Okay, someone posted a link to a lame anti-animal rights site article
> > that was questionable at best.
>
> The story came from an honest researcher named Steven Davis who wanted
> to see if the claims of AR proponent Tom Regan's "Least Harm Principle"
> were valid. Davis found Regan's claim that a vegan diet caused the least
> harm to animals to be wholly unsupported in practice. Professor Davis'
> work was done in the context of "integrating ethics and moral reasoning
> into the work and study of agriculture" -- something you should laud
> since you take a side that diet can be moral.

Okay...

> Davis concluded that a
> diet based on plants and grazing (i.e., grass-fed or game) ruminants,
> and not veganism, would cause the fewest CDs.
>
> http://www.animalrights.net/articles/2002/000083.html
> http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/otw/...2002/mar14.pdf

Great, thanks for posting the link. I hope the guy who was asking for links
is reading.

> Don't shoot the messenger when you learn that your position has been
> thoroughly debunked. What specifically do you find "questionable at
> best" about the work of Davis?

My position has been thoroughly debunked? I don't think so. The "messenger"
animalrights.net is dedicated to "debunking the animal rights movement".
Getting useful information from sites like that is akin to listening to Rush
Limbaugh for unbiased political opinion. Furthermore, no information was
given who funded Professor Davis' work or how/where he collected data.
Credible information comes from independent and unbiased sources.

> > Aside from that, the rabid discourse here
> > about the animal casualties that are said to result from vegetable
> > production cannot be supported with any credible information.
>
> Sorry, James, but the lack of collected CD data doesn't make the claims
> of CDs incredible.

Slight difference in context. I didn't mean to imply that claims of CDs are
incredible. I question claims that there are more CDs involved in vegetable
production than there are in meat production.

> The burden of evidence is wanting on both sides of
> the equation, but it's specifically the *vegan* claim that a vegan diet
> causes no, fewer, or reduced animal deaths than a standard diet which is
> at issue. The burden is on vegans who make such claims, since nearly
> everyone else accepts animal death and suffering in the course of
> agriculture.

I don't think that anyone disputes that there are animal deaths and
suffering in the course of agriculture. The issue should be where there are
fewer animal deaths and suffering.

> Pesticides are quite lethal, and nobody requires counts of species
> except when domestic animals are inadvertantly killed (I just attempted
> a search on pesticides and animal deaths and found out that many states
> and counties report such figures); deaths of domestic animals are
> significant, but how many uncounted birds and rodents and insects are
> killed as well? Add the issues of the use of machinery and irrigation
> and it's quite easy to see that animals die and/or are injured as a
> matter of routine.

Again, no argument that there are animal casualties in agriculture. In fact,
I tried (apparently in vain) to make the point that the cattle industry is
supported in no small way by agriculture. Nobody seems to have considered
that there are many, many CDs involved in food production for cattle. It
tilts the scale back towards the veg*n position.

> > Anytime you
> > ask them to support their claims you get only insults, foul language,
and
> > evasion. It's all pretty stupid....
>
> It goes both ways, in case you've yet to notice. And you're as foul and
> nasty as anyone else in these groups. Stop whining or lead by example.

I don't rely as much on foul language for emphasis as you or other people
here, but I'll be under anyone's skin mercilessly if provoked to it. I'm
tired of trying to debate claims with in-your-face morons. If people can't
back up claims with real information then let's just agree that we don't
know and go back to posting recipes.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> C. James Strutz wrote:
> > They'll say that buying produce (which may be grown using pesticides)
> > contradicts your ethical beliefs and call you a hypocrite and killer
among
> > other things. Stupid.
>
> Strawman. You should know better.

I see it all the time in this newsgroup. I'm just writing the truth...

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> usual suspect wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Sorry, James, but the lack of collected CD data doesn't make the
>> claims of CDs incredible. The burden of evidence is wanting on both
>> sides of the equation, but it's specifically the *vegan* claim that a
>> vegan diet causes no, fewer, or reduced animal deaths than a standard
>> diet which is at issue. The burden is on vegans who make such claims,
>> since nearly everyone else accepts animal death and suffering in the
>> course of agriculture.
>
>
> Which, as ethical vegans have noted many times, is the issue. The
> ethical vegetarians and vegans ARE the only ones who care about
> such deaths as a matter of philosophical principle,

No, they don't. They *claim*, self-servingly as
always, to care about them, but their behavior
indicates they do not care.

> and until their
> point of view bcomes more common, there will be no reason for those
> who accept the collateral deaths to change their methods.

No. Emphatically, no. This is why I genuinely don't
understand why you are back here. You advanced this
smarmy, self-serving line of nonsense when you were
here before, and you were skewered for it. You aren't
saying anything new.

Refraining from eating meat, and refraining from eating
CD-causing vegetables, BOTH are purely symbolic
gestures. What distinguishes them? Cost. You can
easily and cheaply refrain from eating meat.
Refraining from eating blood-drenched vegetables is
much more costly and difficult and inconvenient.

That you engage in one symbolic and extremely passive
gesture but not in the equally symbolic but, today at
least, more active gesture, is a mark of your moral
inconsistency at best, and bad character in the more
likely worst case. It illustrates why "veganism" is
not based on any principle, unless "pleasure-seeking
lazy self indulgence" may be called a "principle".

> I am
> convinced that veganism is a more ethical position, since it rejects
> such animal deaths in principle,

No, it most definitely does NOT reject deaths in
principle. It rejects them as a matter of your
convenience and enjoyment of a hedonistic "lifestyle".

> and if the vegan position is
> accepted, collateral deaths will decrease as a result of the awareness
> of farmers.

As the "vegan" position is seen to be a lie, from start
to finish, and as good people don't knowingly embrace
lies, the "vegan" position is destined to remain the
"lifestyle" of self-marginalized, self-alienated,
mentally ill blowhards like you.

> But CDs will be invisible to society as a whole until
> a moral stance against the intentional deaths of animals in production
> of food and other products is seen as unacceptable.

You have been asked to explain the mechanics of this
linkage a couple of years ago, and you failed; failed
utterly. Once again, you haven't brought anything new
to the, er, "debate".

Why are you here?

> Then society can
> and will advance to the consideration of unintentional deaths as well.

Yes, and the lion shall lay down with the lamb. Why
don't you sing a little bit of "Aquarius", too, and
tell us about peace guiding the planets and love
steering the stars.


Why ARE you back here?

Rat & Swan wrote:
>> Sorry, James, but the lack of collected CD data doesn't make the
>> claims of CDs incredible. The burden of evidence is wanting on both
>> sides of the equation, but it's specifically the *vegan* claim that a
>> vegan diet causes no, fewer, or reduced animal deaths than a standard
>> diet which is at issue. The burden is on vegans who make such claims,
>> since nearly everyone else accepts animal death and suffering in the
>> course of agriculture.
>
> Which, as ethical vegans have noted many times, is the issue. The
> ethical vegetarians and vegans ARE the only ones who care about
> such deaths as a matter of philosophical principle, and until their
> point of view bcomes more common, there will be no reason for those
> who accept the collateral deaths to change their methods.

I cannot agree with you about any point you have made above. Vegans love
to *talk* about compassion, but seldom if ever *engage* in it when given
appropriate options. The extreme act of abstaining from meat itself
doesn't make one ethical, it only means one isn't consuming animal
flesh. Animals continue to die because most vegans -- even self-heralded
"ethical" vegans -- refuse to grow their own food on a small enough
scale to prevent animal deaths.

Vegans are not part of the solution, they remain part of the "problem"
-- at least insofar as some weak people consider it one (most people don't).

> I am
> convinced that veganism is a more ethical position, since it rejects
> such animal deaths in principle, and if the vegan position is
> accepted, collateral deaths will decrease as a result of the awareness
> of farmers.

Hollow words unless you grow your own food and are conscientious about
not killing animals. Veganism is no more ethical than any other position
-- it's only hypocritical.

> But CDs will be invisible to society as a whole until
> a moral stance against the intentional deaths of animals in production
> of food and other products is seen as unacceptable.

Most people seem to accept that animals die in the course of producing
and transporting food, whether those deaths are intentional (how many of
our brave citizens spray for bugs or leave traps for rodents?) or
collateral. You're waiting for the rest of society to devolve to your
level; perhaps you should face reality and accept that your views are
far, far out of the mainstream.

> Then society can
> and will advance to the consideration of unintentional deaths as well.

Do such childish, utopian delusions help you cope with reality, or is it
a just an attempt to avoid it?