usual suspect wrote:
> 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.

Karen Winter has been peddling this crap for years.
She's been gone for quite a few months, and it's a
genuine puzzle why she's come back, because she isn't
saying anything that she didn't already say and see
thoroughly discredited.

She's a sophist of just barely enough talent to
bamboozle the typical semi-literate usenet reader, but
not enough to bamboozle me. This laughable claptrap
about how it's "necessary" for meat production to stop
before *anything* can be done about collateral animal
deaths in vegetable production was dealt with before,
and in fact was what prompted her lachrymose flight
from the groups back in February 2001. She was
challenged to explain why it's a necessary condition
for OTHERS to behave according to her warped sense of
ethics before she will do so herself, and couldn't.
When she returned from her first humiliating flight,
she began moaning angrily and bitterly about "personal
attacks", and took ANOTHER drubbing over that.

As I elaborated in direct response to her, refraining
from direct consumption of animal parts is cheap and
easy, while refraining from CD-causing vegetable
consumption is orders of magnitude more difficult and
costly. BOTH are utterly symbolic gestures that do
nothing meaningful to stop animal slaughter. However,
cheap and easy symbolic gestures are the stock-in-trade
of the loony left, to which "vegans" clearly belong.

The fact that Karen Winter and all other "vegans" are
willing to engage in the cheap and easy symbolic
gesture, but not the costly and hard one, proves that
"veganism" is NOT based on principle, UNLESS (as I also
said earlier) the principle is one of cheap and easy
self flattery.

>
> 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?
>

"Dutch" > wrote in message ...
> "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.
>
Have you got something to say?

"Dutch" > wrote in message ...
> "Ipse dixit" > wrote
>
> [..]
>
> > I've been criticised for my vegan diet and rants about the rights
> > of animals,
>
> Rightfully so, sanctimonious shit.
>
Wrongly so, troll.

> 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.

So? And?

In Saskatchewan this year the
> grasshoppers were 1000/m² in places. Pesticide was used in record amounts to
> try to save the crops

By whom?

, 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.
>
Do you think I farm all my own food or something?

Dutch wrote:

> "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.

Could be. I'm not sure, though. Easynews is not a
free newsserver, and I think Dreck is a bit of a
cheapskate. Still, it's only $10 for 6 GB or 30 days,
whichever comes first, so the lousy dole scrounger
might do it, stiffing the British taxpayer.

Funny how this dickweed showed up right after "Jane"
whiffed off.

C. James Strutz wrote:
>>>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.

One side in the debate accepts that animals die as a matter of course in
agriculture. The other side ("vegans") is making the historically novel
and fantastical claim that animals either don't die or that not as many
die because they don't eat meat. The former example deny the antecedent;
the latter have no objective proof. The burden lies with both the former
and the latter so long as they make the claim.

>>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.

Your concern about "SO many more" being attributed is appreciated, but a
moot point given certain alternatives like grass-fed livestock and game.
The counting game is not one chosen by the side you oppose, it's one
assumed when someone makes a moral claim about diet in the first place
(i.e., a vegan). So let the vegans count, but count fairly. Animals die
for the meat-centered diet; animals die for the vegan diet.

> 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?

You mean vegans? Vegans are the ones making the claims. Let them support
it or shut up.

> And why
> do they evade, ridicule, and chastise when pressed to produce any sort of
> proof?

The sanctimonious claim that your diet causes no or less death and
suffering than someone else's DEMANDS you support it.

>>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.

Have you any reason to question an esteemed professor at Oregon State?

>>>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.

So do I, especially as he suggested I'm a religious nutcase the other day.

>>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.

I'll remember that next time someone here cites PCRM, PETA, the
Chelsea's vegan motorcyclist club thing, etc. What you failed to note
when reading the link before (when you first slammed it) is that
animalrights.net links back to primary 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.

I'm going to stick my neck out and say that I don't think there's a
statistical difference. Even if there's a significant difference, the
facts still mitigate against a vegan diet being intrinsically moral or
ethical.

>>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 "googlesux" person who started this tangent certainly took
exception, and many other veg-ns continue to make broad generalizations
about the morality of their diet in contrast to those who eat meat. I
encourage you to pay closer attention to posters like "googlesux" and
"exploratory" (tpa) who either don't comprehend the issue of CDs or
remain willfully ignorant of it.

> The issue should be where there are fewer animal deaths and suffering.

Perhaps for those to whom it matters. Most people, including vegans,
make food purchases without consideration. Many, if not most, vegans
assume because it's marked "vegan" and has no objectionable ingredients
that it must be free of deaths and suffering. Most people genuinely do
not ca all they want is food that tastes good at the lowest possible
price.

>>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.

Not an apples:apples argument. You're excluding valid, sustainable
alternatives like grass-fed. Most grains fed to cattle are the stuff
that wouldn't or can't be sold for human consumption anyway. Corn
(maize) fed to cattle isn't the kind you would buy at the supermarket;
it's not sweet at all and it doesn't taste very good. Cows will eat it,
though, and convert it and grasses into protein.

>>>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.

Liar.

> 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.

Vegans cannot support their sanctimonious claims about morality or
ethics with respect to animal deaths and suffering. The buck stops there.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message ink.net...
> Dutch wrote:
>
> > "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.
>
> Could be. I'm not sure, though. Easynews is not a
> free newsserver, and I think Dreck is a bit of a
> cheapskate. Still, it's only $10 for 6 GB or 30 days,
> whichever comes first, so the lousy dole scrounger
> might do it, stiffing the British taxpayer.
>
> Funny how this dickweed showed up right after "Jane"
> whiffed off.
>
Has she? Check the headers. I'm back home now and on
Broadband again. Who else are you going to accuse of
being Derek this week? I think the only person you've
missed out is yourself, Jon. Check your headers to make
certain.

Jane wrote:

> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message ink.net...
>
>>Dutch wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"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.
>>
>>Could be. I'm not sure, though. Easynews is not a
>>free newsserver, and I think Dreck is a bit of a
>>cheapskate. Still, it's only $10 for 6 GB or 30 days,
>>whichever comes first, so the lousy dole scrounger
>>might do it, stiffing the British taxpayer.
>>
>>Funny how this dickweed showed up right after "Jane"
>>whiffed off.
>>
>
> Has she? Check the headers. I'm back home now and on
> Broadband again.

**** off, Dreck, you dolescrounging shitwipe. We know
it's you; why do you bother? Not sure about this ipse
dipshit twit, but probably.

> Who else are you going to accuse of
> being Derek this week? I think the only person you've
> missed out is yourself, Jon. Check your headers to make
> certain.

Here ya go, Dutch - just as I predicted. You may
furnish the proof of the prediction at your leisure.
Be sure to include the full headers with the e-mail,
minus the real e-mail addresses of course.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> C. James Strutz wrote:
> >>>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.
>
> One side in the debate accepts that animals die as a matter of course in
> agriculture. The other side ("vegans") is making the historically novel
> and fantastical claim that animals either don't die or that not as many
> die because they don't eat meat.

"If you insist on playing a stupid countig game, you'll
lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
feed for the animals you eat.

The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
Jonathan Ball 2003-05-22

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message ink.net...
> Jane wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message ink.net...
> >
> >>Dutch wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"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.
> >>
> >>Could be. I'm not sure, though. Easynews is not a
> >>free newsserver, and I think Dreck is a bit of a
> >>cheapskate. Still, it's only $10 for 6 GB or 30 days,
> >>whichever comes first, so the lousy dole scrounger
> >>might do it, stiffing the British taxpayer.
> >>
> >>Funny how this dickweed showed up right after "Jane"
> >>whiffed off.
> >>
> >
> > Has she? Check the headers. I'm back home now and on
> > Broadband again.
>
> **** off, Dreck, you dolescrounging shitwipe. We know
> it's you; why do you bother?

Exactly. Why would he?

Not sure about this ipse
> dipshit twit, but probably.
>
> > Who else are you going to accuse of
> > being Derek this week? I think the only person you've
> > missed out is yourself, Jon. Check your headers to make
> > certain.
>
> Here ya go, Dutch - just as I predicted. You may
> furnish the proof of the prediction at your leisure.
> Be sure to include the full headers with the e-mail,
> minus the real e-mail addresses of course.
>

"C. James Strutz" > wrote

[..]
> 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.

That's not the claim being made. The claim is that there is death and
suffering of animals in *both*.

> > 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.

If vegans were making a more reasonable and supportable claim then we
wouldn't be having this discussion.

> > 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.

The position of vegans isn't "less animal deaths", it's "meat eaters are
immoral". A free-range or hunted animal or fresh caught fish may provide
many, many kilocalories of nourishment for one animal death, the same can't
be said of an equivalent amount of veggie-burgers. Looking at the whole
picture, veganism's extremely judgmental position is not supportable.

> > > 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.

But you base your belief in moral superiority on ignorance, or more
accurately, on a fallacy.

Jane wrote:
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message ink.net...
>
>>Jane wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message ink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dutch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"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.
>>>>
>>>>Could be. I'm not sure, though. Easynews is not a
>>>>free newsserver, and I think Dreck is a bit of a
>>>>cheapskate. Still, it's only $10 for 6 GB or 30 days,
>>>>whichever comes first, so the lousy dole scrounger
>>>>might do it, stiffing the British taxpayer.
>>>>
>>>>Funny how this dickweed showed up right after "Jane"
>>>>whiffed off.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Has she? Check the headers. I'm back home now and on
>>>Broadband again.
>>
>>**** off, Dreck, you dolescrounging shitwipe. We know
>>it's you; why do you bother?
>
>
> Exactly. Why would he?

Because you're a really stupid ****wit who takes
pleasure in really stupid, ****witted things like this.

You stupid, bluefooted, dying ****.

"Jane" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> > Dutch wrote:
> >
> > > "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.
> >
> > Could be. I'm not sure, though. Easynews is not a
> > free newsserver, and I think Dreck is a bit of a
> > cheapskate. Still, it's only $10 for 6 GB or 30 days,
> > whichever comes first, so the lousy dole scrounger
> > might do it, stiffing the British taxpayer.
> >
> > Funny how this dickweed showed up right after "Jane"
> > whiffed off.
> >
> Has she? Check the headers. I'm back home now and on
> Broadband again. Who else are you going to accuse of
> being Derek this week? I think the only person you've
> missed out is yourself, Jon. Check your headers to make
> certain.

Right on cue, Derek/Jane/Ipse Dixit. Jonathan predicted about an hour ago
that you would resurface as Jane as soon as I outed you as Ipse Dixit.
You're more fun than a barrel of monkeys. Go back and make a few more posts
as Ipse Dixit so I can spot more tells.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Jane wrote:
>
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> >
> >>Dutch wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"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.
> >>
> >>Could be. I'm not sure, though. Easynews is not a
> >>free newsserver, and I think Dreck is a bit of a
> >>cheapskate. Still, it's only $10 for 6 GB or 30 days,
> >>whichever comes first, so the lousy dole scrounger
> >>might do it, stiffing the British taxpayer.

Easynews has a one week money-back guarantee. Let's see if he lasts that
long.

> >>Funny how this dickweed showed up right after "Jane"
> >>whiffed off.
> >>
> >
> > Has she? Check the headers. I'm back home now and on
> > Broadband again.
>
> **** off, Dreck, you dolescrounging shitwipe. We know
> it's you; why do you bother? Not sure about this ipse
> dipshit twit, but probably.

If someone came along and said that animals benefit from farming, we would
*know* it was ****wit in disguise. By the same token when someone comes
along and says that he can't be held responsible for the sins of farmers
it's got to be Dreck. He tries to conceal himself by altering his server and
his style but there's no mistaking those lame-brained ideas, they're like
fingerprints.

>
> > Who else are you going to accuse of
> > being Derek this week? I think the only person you've
> > missed out is yourself, Jon. Check your headers to make
> > certain.
>
> Here ya go, Dutch - just as I predicted. You may
> furnish the proof of the prediction at your leisure.
> Be sure to include the full headers with the e-mail,
> minus the real e-mail addresses of course.

You hit the nail on the head. I've got it right here.

"Jane" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> > Jane wrote:
> >
> > > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> > >
> > >>Dutch wrote:
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>"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.
> > >>
> > >>Could be. I'm not sure, though. Easynews is not a
> > >>free newsserver, and I think Dreck is a bit of a
> > >>cheapskate. Still, it's only $10 for 6 GB or 30 days,
> > >>whichever comes first, so the lousy dole scrounger
> > >>might do it, stiffing the British taxpayer.
> > >>
> > >>Funny how this dickweed showed up right after "Jane"
> > >>whiffed off.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Has she? Check the headers. I'm back home now and on
> > > Broadband again.
> >
> > **** off, Dreck, you dolescrounging shitwipe. We know
> > it's you; why do you bother?
>
> Exactly. Why would he?

Because you're an irrational dork. You keep cooking up dumb ideas that
always end up backfiring on you.


> > Not sure about this ipse
> > dipshit twit, but probably.

No doubt about it. Nobody else would EVER argue that he's not connected to
cds in farming because the farmer did it, any more than anyone else would
argue that meat-eating is more moral because it provides life for animals.

> > > Who else are you going to accuse of
> > > being Derek this week? I think the only person you've
> > > missed out is yourself, Jon. Check your headers to make
> > > certain.
> >
> > Here ya go, Dutch - just as I predicted. You may
> > furnish the proof of the prediction at your leisure.
> > Be sure to include the full headers with the e-mail,
> > minus the real e-mail addresses of course.
> >
>
>

"Dutch" > wrote in message ...
> "Jane" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > > Dutch wrote:
> > >
> > > > "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.
> > >
> > > Could be. I'm not sure, though. Easynews is not a
> > > free newsserver, and I think Dreck is a bit of a
> > > cheapskate. Still, it's only $10 for 6 GB or 30 days,
> > > whichever comes first, so the lousy dole scrounger
> > > might do it, stiffing the British taxpayer.
> > >
> > > Funny how this dickweed showed up right after "Jane"
> > > whiffed off.
> > >
> > Has she? Check the headers. I'm back home now and on
> > Broadband again. Who else are you going to accuse of
> > being Derek this week? I think the only person you've
> > missed out is yourself, Jon. Check your headers to make
> > certain.
>
> Right on cue, Derek/Jane/Ipse Dixit. Jonathan predicted about an hour ago
> that you would resurface as Jane as soon as I outed you as Ipse Dixit.

Jon also made a right fool of himself shouting his mouth off
claiming Derek was "immortalist" only a few days ago. It's
so funny.

> You're more fun than a barrel of monkeys. Go back and make a few more posts
> as Ipse Dixit so I can spot more tells.

Shall I write them in French? Check through the archives.
>
>
>

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message ink.net...
> Jane wrote:
> > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message ink.net...
> >
> >>Jane wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message ink.net...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Dutch wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>"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.
> >>>>
> >>>>Could be. I'm not sure, though. Easynews is not a
> >>>>free newsserver, and I think Dreck is a bit of a
> >>>>cheapskate. Still, it's only $10 for 6 GB or 30 days,
> >>>>whichever comes first, so the lousy dole scrounger
> >>>>might do it, stiffing the British taxpayer.
> >>>>
> >>>>Funny how this dickweed showed up right after "Jane"
> >>>>whiffed off.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>Has she? Check the headers. I'm back home now and on
> >>>Broadband again.
> >>
> >>**** off, Dreck, you dolescrounging shitwipe. We know
> >>it's you; why do you bother?
> >
> >
> > Exactly. Why would he?
>
> Because you're a really stupid ****wit who takes
> pleasure in really stupid, ****witted things like this.
>
> You stupid, bluefooted, dying ****.
>
Not yet I ain't.

"Jane" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
...
> > "Jane" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > > > Dutch wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "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.
> > > >
> > > > Could be. I'm not sure, though. Easynews is not a
> > > > free newsserver, and I think Dreck is a bit of a
> > > > cheapskate. Still, it's only $10 for 6 GB or 30 days,
> > > > whichever comes first, so the lousy dole scrounger
> > > > might do it, stiffing the British taxpayer.
> > > >
> > > > Funny how this dickweed showed up right after "Jane"
> > > > whiffed off.
> > > >
> > > Has she? Check the headers. I'm back home now and on
> > > Broadband again. Who else are you going to accuse of
> > > being Derek this week? I think the only person you've
> > > missed out is yourself, Jon. Check your headers to make
> > > certain.
> >
> > Right on cue, Derek/Jane/Ipse Dixit. Jonathan predicted about an hour
ago
> > that you would resurface as Jane as soon as I outed you as Ipse Dixit.
>
> Jon also made a right fool of himself shouting his mouth off
> claiming Derek was "immortalist" only a few days ago. It's
> so funny.
>
> > You're more fun than a barrel of monkeys. Go back and make a few more
posts
> > as Ipse Dixit so I can spot more tells.
>
> Shall I write them in French? Check through the archives.

Why should I?

"Bill" > wrote in message ink.net...
> Rat & Swan wrote:
> > usual suspect 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,
>
> No, they don't. They *claim*, self-servingly as
> always, to care about them, but their behavior
> indicates they do not care.
>
Their behaviour indicates they do care about collateral
deaths, and it was you who decided this when writing,
"If you insist on playing a stupid countig game, you'll
lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
feed for the animals you eat.

The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
Jonathan Ball 2003-05-22

Anyone who cares about the rights of animals killed
collaterally during the production of food are morally
obliged to follow a strict vegan lifestyle, because it's
the best ethical solution in reducing them.

--
Ask a vivisectionist why it's alright to use animals,
and he'll answer, "Because they are like us."
Ask a vivisectionist why it's morally alright to use
animals, and he'll answer, "Because they aren't
like us."

"Ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
> "Dutch" > wrote in message ...
> > "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.
> >
> Have you got something to say?
>
No. He has no valid cause to claim you are to blame
for the deaths caused by farmers during the production
of your veg. He simply wants to convince you you are
as bad as he is by insisting your purchase from farmers
shows an equal contempt for animal rights as a meatarian's.

"Jane" > wrote in message ...
>
> "swamp" > wrote in message ...
> > On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 04:16:25 -0400, LordSnooty
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 05:21:59 GMT, swamp >
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >>On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 20:20:23 GMT, frlpwr > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>Jon wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>(snip)
> > >>>
> > >>>> "vegans", or so-called
> > >>>> "ethical vegetarians", engage in a classic logical
> > >>>> fallacy: Denying the Antecedent. It runs like this:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I do not eat meat;
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Therefore, I do not cause animals to suffer and die.
> > >>>
> > >>>Why do you refuse to be corrected on this point?
> > >>>
> > >>>The above should go like this:
> > >>>
> > >>> If I eat meat, I cause farmed animals to suffer and die.
> > >>>
> > >>> I do not eat meat;
> > >>>
> > >>> Therefore, I do not cause farmed animals to suffer and die.
> > >>
> > >>As long as we're shooting for accuracy, it should be:
> > >>
> > >>If I eat meat, I cause farmed animals to suffer and die.
> > >>
> > >>I do not eat meat, therefore, I do not cause farmed animals to suffer
> > >>and die,
> > >
> > >Very good.
> > >
> > >>and make this point because it helps me ignore the death and
> > >>suffering my own diet causes.
> > >
> > >What death and suffering?
> >
> > That caused by your very existence.
> >
> > >you have scientific, peer reviewed data that
> > >a particular company, farm, product is a direct cause of wildlife
> > >deaths?
> >
> > The peer-reviewed study you suggest is about as necessary as one
> > showing starvation will cause starvation.
> >
> That's a false analogy, since one event (starving) will always cause
> the same condition (starvation), but the same can't be said for the
> other half of your analogy where one event (eating vegetables)
> will always cause the same condition (collateral deaths). Before
> showing you the fallacy in your argument over collateral deaths,
> look again at the first premise in Jonathan Ball's syllogism at the
> start of this thread.
>
> "If I eat meat, I cause animals to suffer and die."
>
> This proposition is false, since the event (If I eat meat) always
> assumes a necessary condition (I cause animals to suffer and die).
>
> A necessary condition for an event is something which is
> absolutely required to exist or happen if the event is to occur.
> Ergo; causing suffering and death to animals is absolutely
> required to exist or must happen if I am to eat meat.
>
> A sufficient condition for an event, on the other hand, does
> not have to exist for the event to occur, but if it exists, then
> the event will occur. Ergo; causing animals to suffer and die
> isn't absolutely required to exist or happen, since meat can
> be sourced from animals which no one has caused to suffer
> or die, but if it does suffer and die from natural causes or
> accident, then I am still able to eat meat.
>
> A more formal way for saying that one thing, p, is a sufficient
> condition for some other thing, q, would be to say "if p then q,"
> which is a standard hypothetical proposition. Confusing
> necessary and sufficient conditions is one way to understand
> how some of the rules of inference with hypothetical propositions
> can be violated. The fallacy of affirming the consequent, for
> example, makes the assumption that a sufficient condition is also
> a necessary condition.
> http://atheism.about.com/library/glo..._necessary.htm
>
> Another example of affirming the consequent is shown in your
> proposition, "If I eat vegetables, collateral deaths will occur."
>
> This proposition is false; since the event (If I eat vegetables)
> always assumes a necessary condition (collateral deaths will
> occur).
> Ergo; collateral deaths are absolutely required to exist or
> must happen if I am to eat vegetables.
>
> For the sufficient condition; collateral deaths aren't absolutely
> required to exist or happen, but if they do exist, then I am still
> able to eat vegetables. The fallacy of affirming the consequent,
> for this example makes the same assumption as the last in that
> a sufficient condition is also a necessary condition.

Very nice.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...

> 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.
>
That's not an honest explanation. They die because
farmers cut corners and prefer to use pesticides
instead of trying to improve their farming methods
and storage facilities. It's cheaper for them and less
labour intensive.

"Derek" > wrote

> Very nice.

Figures you'd like it, you wrote it.

"Derek" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Ipse dixit" > wrote in message
...
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message
...
> > > "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.
> > >
> > Have you got something to say?
> >
> No. He has no valid cause to claim you are to blame
> for the deaths caused by farmers during the production
> of your veg. He simply wants to convince you you are
> as bad as he is by insisting your purchase from farmers
> shows an equal contempt for animal rights as a meatarian's.

Not planning to keep your Easynews account eh Derek?

Dreck wrote:
<...>
>>No, they don't. They *claim*, self-servingly as
>>always, to care about them, but their behavior
>>indicates they do not care.
>
> Their behaviour indicates they do care about collateral
> deaths,

Nonsense. Their behavior is brazenly hypocritical, just as yours is you
old buck-passer. They give lip service to animal suffering and death,
but their actions only add to the ever-growing pile of dead animals.

<...>
> Anyone who cares about the rights of animals killed
> collaterally during the production of food are morally
> obliged to follow a strict vegan lifestyle, because it's
> the best ethical solution in reducing them.

Ipse dixit and you're at odds with studies like Steven Davis'. Davis
concluded that a diet including grazing ruminants would cause fewer
deaths than your so-called "strict" vegan diet.

Dreck wrote:
<...>
> Very nice.

Do you masturbate with your sock puppet as you watch your internet porn?

Dreck wrote:
>> 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.
>
> That's not an honest explanation. They die because
> farmers cut corners and prefer to use pesticides
> instead of trying to improve their farming methods
> and storage facilities. It's cheaper for them and less
> labour intensive.

Next time you send your poor wife to the store, make sure she buys only
the most expensive of each available item to ensure farmers are making
the most money possible so maybe they can afford to stop cutting
corners, as you say. You cheap ****, you're the reason the farmer cuts
corners. You won't pay him to farm in the fashion your "ethics" demand.
*You* are the weakest link. Goodbye!

"Derek" > wrote
>
> "Bill" > wrote

> > Rat & Swan wrote:
> > > usual suspect 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,
> >
> > No, they don't. They *claim*, self-servingly as
> > always, to care about them, but their behavior
> > indicates they do not care.
> >
> Their behaviour indicates they do care about collateral
> deaths,

It indicates that they think nothing about collateral deaths. To a man,
every new vegan to this forum is taken aback by this revelation.

> and it was you who decided this when writing,
> "If you insist on playing a stupid countig game, you'll
> lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
> have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
> grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
> eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
> deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
> CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
> feed for the animals you eat.

If the cds caused in producing the food you eat has no moral consequence to
you, how does the cds caused in feeding animals have any?

> The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
> meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
> the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
> hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
> Jonathan Ball 2003-05-22
>
> Anyone who cares about the rights of animals killed
> collaterally during the production of food are morally
> obliged to follow a strict vegan lifestyle, because it's
> the best ethical solution in reducing them.

No it's not, that's the whole point. If one honestly considers cds as part
of the death toll associated with one's diet, then it's wrong to adhere to a
strict vegan diet when in some cases a serving of meat or fish might be a
better option. Adhering to a strict vegan diet means that one does NOT
consider cds important. It's incredible that you still don't understand the
basic principle behind the philosophy you're espousing. Only one vegan/ARA I
have ever seen here truly understood the vegan philosphy. I'll leave it to
you, Derek/Jane/Ipse Dixit to guess who it was.

"Derek" > wrote
>
> "usual suspect" > wrote
>
> > 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.
> >
> That's not an honest explanation.

It's the truth, you do refuse to do what is necessary to prevent cds. I
don't blame you, neither do I.

> They die because
> farmers cut corners and prefer to use pesticides

We use very few pesticides, but we do use herbicides. Without them the
fields would become overgrown with wild oats and other weeds. The wheat
would be ruined.

> instead of trying to improve their farming methods
> and storage facilities. It's cheaper for them and less
> labour intensive.

The farmer that works my section works five others. He is 72 years old and
does it all by himself. He barely makes ends meet as it is. That's the
reality of farming, nobody wants to do it, it's bloody hard work. Your
claims that they're lazy and trying to pump up profits are pure ignorance.

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 12:25:01 -0700, 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.

Which, as "antis" have noted many times, isn't really the issue for
ar/evs. Ar/evs are more concerned w/ themselves than animals.

> 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.

Actually, ar/evs are the only ones who distance themselves from CDs.
AWists can discuss them openly. Until you and your ilk stop burying
your heads in the soil you'll see no change in the methods.

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

....but it doesn't. It rejects livestock and hunting, which most likely
reduce CDs. Next time you take the chisel to stone you might want to
double-check before you start banging the hammer.

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

Unlikely.

> 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.

CDs are only invisible to one-eyed ar/evs. The rest of us are well
aware of them.

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

By your rules, there won't be much society left to embrace them.

> Rat

-- swamp

"Derek" > wrote

> Anyone who cares about the rights of animals killed
> collaterally during the production of food are morally
> obliged to follow a strict vegan lifestyle, because it's
> the best ethical solution in reducing them.

Actually the reverse is true for another reason. Supporting veganism
requires that the whole idea of cds be dismissed out-of-hand as every vegan
here does in one way or another, and only animals used directly be
considered to be significant. As long as the vegan focus remains narrowly on
those animals who are exploited directly, the vegan can maintain the
illusion of being a benevolent philospher, something essential to it's
appeal.

Derek wrote:

[snip Dreck's own shit]

>
>
> Very nice.

It's arrogant to compliment yourself in public, shitworm.

Dutch wrote:

<snip>

> The position of vegans isn't "less animal deaths", it's "meat eaters are
> immoral".

This unjustified sense of...guilt, inadequacy,whatever...is at the
root of the Antis' personal-attack style. Yes, some vegans will
claim meat-eaters are immoral, just as particularly nasty Antis
will claim that ALL vegans, or ethical vegetarians, are immoral.
But this is basically a strawman, because none of the major
AR writers, and certainly many of those who have been attacked
as immoral by the Antis ( myself included) do not claim meat-
EATERS are immoral _per se_. What AR has said is that the
practices surrounding meat production in our society, particularly
sport hunting and raising/slaughter of animals for sale as meat
are unethical. This is not a personal attack on the character of
meat eaters, or even meat purchasers, who are ignorant, unaware,
or unconvinced of the immorality of meat production. AR is at
its base a philosophical argument about a basic aspect of of our
society, as anti-slavery or argument for women rights was a
philosophical argument about a basic aspect of earlier societies.
It is not personal, or need not be personal. It is mainly here
on TPA/AAEV that the argument degenerates -- usually from the Anti
side first -- into personal attack.


We know, of course, why Dutch has a particular problem with this
concept.

<snip>

Rat

Rat & Swan wrote:

>
>
> Dutch wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> The position of vegans isn't "less animal deaths", it's "meat eaters are
>> immoral".
>
>
> This unjustified sense of...guilt, inadequacy,whatever...is at the
> root of the Antis' personal-attack style.

Bad attempt at redirection. Your embrace of a weird,
marginalizing pseudo-philosophy is based on your guilt.
Guilt is what makes you embrace it;
life-extinguishing laziness is what makes you think it
is adequate to make you "more ethical".

"Derek" > wrote in message ...
>
> "Ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
> > "Dutch" > wrote in message ...
> > > "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.
> > >
> > Have you got something to say?
> >
> No. He has no valid cause to claim you are to blame
> for the deaths caused by farmers during the production
> of your veg. He simply wants to convince you you are
> as bad as he is by insisting your purchase from farmers
> shows an equal contempt for animal rights as a meatarian's.

I guessed that for myself almost straight away. I've been reading
the posts in alt.food.vegan (trolltown) for quite a while. I came
here looking for vegan recipes I can cope with making on my own
but most of what I've seen so far are a bit hard going and require loads
of preparation for a novice like me. It's a long story, but I'm going to
bore you to death with the short version anyway. :-) My girlfriend is
now someone else's girlfriend and I'm learning how to cook for myself.
For most men living on their own after years of being fed, making
adjustments like these isn't too much of a problem, but she got me into
vegan food as soon as we moved in together and there's no way I can
go back to eating meat now. The trouble is, i can't cook and don't know
what to look out for when I go to the shops. I ate something with egg in
it the other day. It's a case of 'can't cook-must learn to cook' .... quickly.

"Ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
>
> "Derek" > wrote in message ...
> >
> > "Ipse dixit" > wrote in message ...
> > > "Dutch" > wrote in message ...
> > > > "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.
> > > >
> > > Have you got something to say?
> > >
> > No. He has no valid cause to claim you are to blame
> > for the deaths caused by farmers during the production
> > of your veg. He simply wants to convince you you are
> > as bad as he is by insisting your purchase from farmers
> > shows an equal contempt for animal rights as a meatarian's.
>
> I guessed that for myself almost straight away. I've been reading
> the posts in alt.food.vegan (trolltown) for quite a while. I came
> here looking for vegan recipes I can cope with making on my own
> but most of what I've seen so far are a bit hard going and require loads
> of preparation for a novice like me. It's a long story, but I'm going to
> bore you to death with the short version anyway. :-) My girlfriend is
> now someone else's girlfriend and I'm learning how to cook for myself.
> For most men living on their own after years of being fed, making
> adjustments like these isn't too much of a problem, but she got me into
> vegan food as soon as we moved in together and there's no way I can
> go back to eating meat now. The trouble is, i can't cook and don't know
> what to look out for when I go to the shops. I ate something with egg in
> it the other day. It's a case of 'can't cook-must learn to cook' .... quickly.
>
I know what you mean about the "being fed" part, because
like you, I'm fed everything I eat as well and wouldn't have
a clue where to start if suddenly left to cook for myself. I've
picked up a few things, but not enough to keep myself happy.
As for the eggs you ate a couple of days ago, I can beat that.
Up until about a year ago I was using Lea & Perrins Worcester
sauce in copious amounts on just about everything I ate during
a whole decade while I thought I was completely vegan.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> Dreck wrote:
> <...>
> >>No, they don't. They *claim*, self-servingly as
> >>always, to care about them, but their behavior
> >>indicates they do not care.
> >
> > Their behaviour indicates they do care about collateral
> > deaths,
>
> Nonsense. Their behavior is brazenly hypocritical, just as yours is you
> old buck-passer. They give lip service to animal suffering and death,
> but their actions only add to the ever-growing pile of dead animals.
>
That pile would be even greater if it weren't for the
care I take in what I eat.
"If you insist on playing a stupid countig game, you'll
lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
feed for the animals you eat.

The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
Jonathan Ball 2003-05-22

Anyone who cares about the rights of animals killed
collaterally during the production of food are morally
obliged to follow a strict vegan lifestyle, because it's
the best ethical solution in reducing them.
> <...>
> > Anyone who cares about the rights of animals killed
> > collaterally during the production of food are morally
> > obliged to follow a strict vegan lifestyle, because it's
> > the best ethical solution in reducing them.
>
> Ipse dixit and you're at odds with studies like Steven Davis'. Davis
> concluded that a diet including grazing ruminants would cause fewer
> deaths than your so-called "strict" vegan diet.
>
[Nettie Schwager, a member of the OSU Vegetarian Resource
Network (VRN) felt that Davis' numbers might be missing some
important animal deaths.

"I think that he is missing some of the fatalities due to Animal
Damage Control, due to destruction of habitat; it takes a lot more
land to raise cows (than grow crops). Another area which he
doesn't mention ... is we do a lot of medical research on animals.
If you eat a plant-based diet, you can prevent a lot of the diseases
that we are doing this animal research on," Schwager said.

Schwager feels as though the vegan model still presents the least
harm.

"The kindest thing (to animals) would be a vegan diet, the second
thing would be Steven Davis' proposal, and the absolute worst is
the current situation," Schwager said.

Dean Youngquist, a Botany major and member of the VRN pointed
out another possible way to reduce animal deaths.

"(Davis) didn't consider at all the possibility of redesigning the farming
implements or the farming methods in order to avoid killing the animals,"
Youngquist said.

Davis found very few numbers and little research about how many
animals die in the field to base his findings on, and he believes that more
research needs to be done on the subject to get increasingly accurate
numbers regarding the field animals.]
http://barometer.orst.edu/0102/02spr.../020415n2.html
Throw again, loser.

"Dutch" > wrote in message ...
> "Derek" > wrote
> >
> > "Bill" > wrote
>
> > > Rat & Swan wrote:
> > > > usual suspect 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,
> > >
> > > No, they don't. They *claim*, self-servingly as
> > > always, to care about them, but their behavior
> > > indicates they do not care.
> > >
> > Their behaviour indicates they do care about collateral
> > deaths,
>
> It indicates that they think nothing about collateral deaths. To a man,
> every new vegan to this forum is taken aback by this revelation.
>
Learning about the dangers to man and animals in
industy starts at school. Everyone understands that
animals are killed during the production of veg and
housing etc.

> > and it was you who decided this when writing,
> > "If you insist on playing a stupid countig game, you'll
> > lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
> > have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
> > grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
> > eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
> > deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
> > CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
> > feed for the animals you eat.
>
> If the cds caused in producing the food you eat has no moral consequence to
> you, how does the cds caused in feeding animals have any?
>
They don't.

> > The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
> > meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
> > the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
> > hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
> > Jonathan Ball 2003-05-22
> >
> > Anyone who cares about the rights of animals killed
> > collaterally during the production of food are morally
> > obliged to follow a strict vegan lifestyle, because it's
> > the best ethical solution in reducing them.
>
> No it's not, that's the whole point. If one honestly considers cds as part
> of the death toll associated with one's diet, then it's wrong to adhere to a
> strict vegan diet when in some cases a serving of meat or fish might be a
> better option.

If you want to look at extremes, the vegan diet has you
beat there too.

"Dutch" > wrote in message ...
> "Derek" > wrote
>
> > Anyone who cares about the rights of animals killed
> > collaterally during the production of food are morally
> > obliged to follow a strict vegan lifestyle, because it's
> > the best ethical solution in reducing them.
>
> Actually the reverse is true

No, it isn't.
"If you insist on playing a stupid countig game, you'll
lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
feed for the animals you eat.

The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
Jonathan Ball 2003-05-22

"usual suspect" > wrote in message ...
> Dreck wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> > That's not an honest explanation. They die because
> > farmers cut corners and prefer to use pesticides
> > instead of trying to improve their farming methods
> > and storage facilities. It's cheaper for them and less
> > labour intensive.
>
> Next time you send your poor wife to the store, make sure she buys only
> the most expensive of each available item to ensure farmers are making
> the most money possible so maybe they can afford to stop cutting
> corners, as you say.

My trade with farmers doesn't include a demand they
cause collateral deaths during the production of veg. My
trade is only for his produce and has no bearing upon
how he produces it. Veg production per se doesn't require
that animals be killed, and this is why I demand veg instead
of meat because my moral code does not allow me to
demand the slaughter of animals. My money cannot move
the farmer's hand to kill unless he wants to kill. Only he can
move it according to his traits. There is no causal link between
my trade with him and the method he uses to satisfy my demand.
It doesn't instruct him to farm one way or the other. Those
options are his, and he, being completely autonomous is
responsible for his actions. I blame him on the basis that he is
a morally responsible agent carrying obligations to endure the
consequences of his actions.

[According to Aristotle, a voluntary action or trait has two
distinctive features. First, there is a control condition: the
action or trait must have its origin in the agent. That is, it
must be up to the agent whether to perform that action
or possess the trait -- it cannot be compelled externally]

That being so, my trade with the farmer cannot be viewed
as causal to the deaths he accumulates. It is up to him
whether to perform that action -- I cannot compel him
externally.

"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message ink.net...
> Derek wrote:
>
> [snip Dreck's own shit]
>
> >
> >
> > Very nice.
>
> It's arrogant to compliment yourself in public, shitworm.
>
She nailed the lot of you in less than two weeks. What
a bunch of ******s.