Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
|||
Want to be a vegetarian
"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. 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. No, both sides are making claims that can't be backed up for lack of information. Pinning the burden of proof on the other side is very convenient. > >>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. There are not just two sides he vegans and anti-vegans. The prevalent anti-vegan side (at least in this ng) contends that vegans insist that their lifestyle eliminates ALL incidental animal suffering and casualties. I represent another side that vegans hope to MINIMIZE animal suffering and casualties, thus the "counting game". Since the counting game cannot be substantiated on either side, let's just give up the argument and have peace. > > 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. I think you are attributing claims to vegans that they did not make. You cannot make them support something they do not claim. > > 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. You keep turning the tables on vegans. I am talking about anti-vegan claims here. Things like veg*n lifestyle results in more animal casualties than eating meat. > >>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? Just the ones I stated previously. > > 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. Sure, that's fair. > What you failed to note > when reading the link before (when you first slammed it) is that > animalrights.net links back to primary sources. Okay, but I'm still reluctant to accept it as credible for all the reasons I stated previously. > > 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. I think you're wrong. > Even if there's a significant difference, the > facts still mitigate against a vegan diet being intrinsically moral or > ethical. Why? Don't you think that fewer incidents of animal suffering and deaths make it more ethical? > > 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. There will always be some people who take an absolute moral stand. Don't generalize a whole group based on the actions of a few. > > 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. I think that most veg*ns inherently care what's in their food and are willing to pay higher prices (compared to non-veg*n foods). If you are comparing two otherwise equivalent veg*n products then I agree that price will be a stronger influence to consumers. > > 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. Okay, but I'm not talking about people eating field corn! You reuse the same land to produce human consumable food. If you assume that the number of incidental casualties will be the same regardless of what is planted then it IS an apples:apples argument. As for truely grass-fed, I think it represents a very small part of the total number of beef that is sold. Why are we talking about something that is statistically insignificant? > > 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 have two issues with this. First, I know with certainty that I stated fact. I can prove it but I will not here in the interest of time. Second, it is unnecessary and rude to call someone a liar, particularly when you can't back up your claim that I knowingly attempted to mislead. I did not. If we were standing face to face you wouldn't call me a liar under the otherwise similar circumstances. Don't cower behind the internet. > > 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. And you are the police that hold them to it? |
|
|||
|
|||
Want to be a vegetarian
clueless bluefooted 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. Your trade accepts the consequences of farmers' actions since you are a very indiscriminate consumer. You seek out produce on the basis of price rather than humane practices. Produce grown humanely is available from farmers, and it's alternatively possible to grow your own humane produce. You choose to ignore and avoid the more expensive (in money or your personal time) humane alternatives. You're the reason the farmers whose produce you purchase cut all those moral-ethical corners. Your stance is meaningless in the face of what you do; you are a poseur, and a rank hypocrite. <snip rest of your meager sophistry> |
|
|||
|
|||
Want to be a vegetarian
C. James Strutz wrote:
>>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. > > No, both sides are making claims that can't be backed up for lack of > information. Pinning the burden of proof on the other side is very > convenient. You're still ignoring the fact that the deaths and suffering of animals are abhorred by only *one* side. IOW, it's the vegans and ARAs who make the sanctimonious claims about their practices, but those claims are meaningless without proof. The fact remains that animals die for either dietary choice. >>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. > > There are not just two sides he vegans and anti-vegans. The prevalent > anti-vegan side (at least in this ng) contends that vegans insist that their > lifestyle eliminates ALL incidental animal suffering and casualties. I > represent another side that vegans hope to MINIMIZE animal suffering and > casualties, thus the "counting game". Since the counting game cannot be > substantiated on either side, let's just give up the argument and have > peace. I'll give up the argument for the sake of peace as soon as you or anyone else can substantiate that any commercially-produced diet has no or minimal casualties with respect to animals. Your accounting practices remain suspect. >>>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. > > I think you are attributing claims to vegans that they did not make. You > cannot make them support something they do not claim. No, go back and review the post from "googlesux." Review posts in other threads by other posters like "exploratory." Review some of the claims made by others in afv. >>The sanctimonious claim that your diet causes no or less death and >>suffering than someone else's DEMANDS you support it. > > You keep turning the tables on vegans. They're the ones making outrageous claims. The burden is theirs. > I am talking about anti-vegan claims > here. Things like veg*n lifestyle results in more animal casualties than > eating meat. I find that claim to be more logically plausible than the 'vegan' claim that a vegan diet results in less animal casualties. >>Have you any reason to question an esteemed professor at Oregon State? > > Just the ones I stated previously. You didn't give reasons, you only spewed about it being from an anti-AR site. >>I'll remember that next time someone here cites PCRM, PETA, the >>Chelsea's vegan motorcyclist club thing, etc. > > Sure, that's fair. Glad you agree. >>What you failed to note >>when reading the link before (when you first slammed it) is that >>animalrights.net links back to primary sources. > > Okay, but I'm still reluctant to accept it as credible for all the reasons I > stated previously. That's your perogative. We have names for people who cling to their 'orthodoxy' in light of evidence against it. Those aren't nice names. >>I'm going to stick my neck out and say that I don't think there's a >>statistical difference. > > I think you're wrong. On what basis? >>Even if there's a significant difference, the >>facts still mitigate against a vegan diet being intrinsically moral or >>ethical. > > Why? Don't you think that fewer incidents of animal suffering and deaths > make it more ethical? Is it more ethical to only beat a child once a week as opposed to once a day? If something -- in this instance, animal causalties as a result of agriculture -- is unethical, then it's unethical whether it happens once or millions of times. >>>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. > > There will always be some people who take an absolute moral stand. Don't > generalize a whole group based on the actions of a few. See your previous comment about fewer incidents making something ethical. You're part of the crowd discussing things in terms of morality and ethics. The issue isn't just over absolutes, it's over the whole concept of what is moral and ethical. That doesn't just pertain to CDs, it goes to the whole nature of veganISM and AR. >>>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. > > I think that most veg*ns inherently care what's in their food and are > willing to pay higher prices (compared to non-veg*n foods). If you are > comparing two otherwise equivalent veg*n products then I agree that price > will be a stronger influence to consumers. I disagree. Other than a reflexive scan of ingredient lists to ensure no animal-derived ingredients are contained, most vegans are quite sloppy when it comes to shopping. >>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. > > Okay, but I'm not talking about people eating field corn! You reuse the same > land to produce human consumable food. If you assume that the number of > incidental casualties will be the same regardless of what is planted then it > IS an apples:apples argument. As for truely grass-fed, I think it represents > a very small part of the total number of beef that is sold. Why are we > talking about something that is statistically insignificant? Grass-fed is a growing market. It's also one of the sources of meat which invalidates your thesis that a diet containing meat is going to cause more suffering and death than a vegan diet. >>>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 have two issues with this. First, I know with certainty that I stated > fact. I can prove it but I will not here in the interest of time. Take your time, Jim. You're as rude and vulgar as anyone else in afv. You often don't even wait before lashing out; you seem to do so impulsively -- not from provocation -- when you see posts from certain users. > Second, it > is unnecessary and rude to call someone a liar, particularly when you can't > back up your claim that I knowingly attempted to mislead. It was necessary to point out that you rely on foul language as anyone else. You may think it's rude, but I think it's correct. > I did not. If we > were standing face to face you wouldn't call me a liar under the otherwise > similar circumstances. Wanna bet? > Don't cower behind the internet. I'm not cowering, C James. >>>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. > > And you are the police that hold them to it? I'm interested enough in the truth to ask them to support their moral-ethical statements or to cease making such outlandish claims. If that bothers them, or you, tough shit. |
|
|||
|
|||
Want to be a vegetarian
"usual suspect" > wrote in message news > clueless bluefooted 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. > > Your trade accepts the consequences of farmers' actions Mine doesn't. |
|
|||
|
|||
Want to be a vegetarian
Derek 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. >> >>Your trade accepts the consequences of farmers' actions > > Mine doesn't. Yes, it does. <restore> ....You are a very indiscriminate consumer. You seek out produce on the basis of price rather than humane practices. Produce grown humanely is available from farmers, and it's alternatively possible to grow your own humane produce. You choose to ignore and avoid the more expensive (in money or your personal time) humane alternatives. You're the reason the farmers whose produce you purchase cut all those moral-ethical corners. Your stance is meaningless in the face of what you do; you are a poseur, and a rank hypocrite. |
|
|||
|
|||
Dreck wants to be an animal-killing vegetarian
Derek wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message news > >>clueless bluefooted 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. >> >>Your trade accepts the consequences of farmers' actions > > > Mine doesn't. It does, by definition. You know of the consequences, and you know that continuing to trade with them means they will continue to cause those consequences. They have no incentive from you to stop. You are morally complicit in something you claim to be evil. Your denial of responsibility is indefensible. |
|
|||
|
|||
Want to be a vegetarian
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > Derek 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. > >> > >>Your trade accepts the consequences of farmers' actions > > > > Mine doesn't. > > Yes, it does. No, it doesn't. |
|
|||
|
|||
Want to be a vegetarian
Derek wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > >>Derek 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. >>>> >>>>Your trade accepts the consequences of farmers' actions >>> >>>Mine doesn't. >> >>Yes, it does. > > > No, it doesn't. Yes, it does. <restore> ....You are a very indiscriminate consumer. You seek out produce on the basis of price rather than humane practices. Produce grown humanely is available from farmers, and it's alternatively possible to grow your own humane produce. You choose to ignore and avoid the more expensive (in money or your personal time) humane alternatives. You're the reason the farmers whose produce you purchase cut all those moral-ethical corners. Your stance is meaningless in the face of what you do; you are a poseur, and a rank hypocrite. |
|
|||
|
|||
Dreck wants to be an animal-killing vegetarian
"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message k.net... > Derek wrote: > > "usual suspect" > wrote in message news > >> > >>>>>>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. > >> > >>Your trade accepts the consequences of farmers' actions > > > > Mine doesn't. > > It does, by definition. You know of the consequences, You are affirming the consequent. "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). A necessary condition for an event is something which is absolutely required to exist or happen if the event is to occur. 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. 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, in this example makes the assumption that a sufficient condition is also a necessary condition. 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 |
|
|||
|
|||
morally loathsome Dreck wants to be an animal-killing vegetarian,and just can't do logic
Gender-confused Dreck wrote:
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message k.net... > >>Gender-confused Dreck wrote: >> >>>"usual suspect" > wrote in message news >>> >>>>>>>>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. >>>> >>>>Your trade accepts the consequences of farmers' actions >>> >>>Mine doesn't. >> >>It does, by definition. You know of the consequences, > > > You are affirming the consequent. > > "If I eat vegetables, collateral deaths will occur." No, ****ing moron. You really can't do this logic stuff. The fallacy of affirming the consequence would be: If Dreck eats vegetables, collateral deaths will occur Collateral deaths occur Therefore, Dreck eats vegetables I haven't said anything remotely like that, you ****ing moron. What I have done is *affirm the antecedent*, which is a VALID logical construction: If Dreck eats vegetables, collateral deaths will occur Dreck eats vegetables Therefore, collateral deaths occur You *want* to argue with the truth of the first proposition, but you can't: if *you* eat vegetables, then collateral deaths *do* occur, because you continue to buy vegetables from farmers who farm using methods that you KNOW cause collateral deaths. **** you and your shitty understanding of logic. You do not understand it. I do. |
|
|||
|
|||
Want to be a vegetarian
"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. The position of vegans isn't "less animal deaths", it's "meat eaters are immoral". "Style" is a diversion. > Yes, some vegans will > claim meat-eaters are immoral, > just as particularly nasty Antis > will claim that ALL vegans, or ethical vegetarians, are immoral. Veganism *means* that meat-eating is immoral. It's not just a claim made by "some vegans". > 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_. If you say that my actions and basic belief system are immoral you are saying that *I* am immoral, there is no difference. > 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. Bullshit, it's not the "practises surrounding" those things you are saying are unethical, it's the very essence of them. Even the most humane livestock farming is unethical in AR/vegan philosophy, unless you are referring to strict Singerian utilitarianism, and I know you aren't. > 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. I'm not ignorant and/or unaware of anything, I just disagree with you. > 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. I realize that, you consider a basic aspect our society that I believe is proper, is immoral. However you try to dance around it, "less animal deaths" is FAR from accurate when describing the motivation behind veganism, which btw is the topic of this thread. No, it's meat-eaters (or their belief system if you must dance around it) are immoral. > It is not personal, or need not be personal. If I say to you that your belief system is false, based on fallacies, motivated by guilt, hate and/or self-righteousness, deluded, would you take that personally? You should. > It is mainly here > on TPA/AAEV that the argument degenerates -- usually from the Anti > side first -- into personal attack. It's difficult to lower oneself far enough to equal the insult I feel when someone tells me that I am a cruel, unfeeling killer. That's why you see the extreme rhetoric from the anti side. As hard-nosed as we might come across at times, we really are profoundly wounded by the accusation implicit in your message. We can accept that you have an alternative way of thinking that works for you, but when you turn it on others, it becomes a mean-spirited attack. > We know, of course, why Dutch has a particular problem with this > concept. That's so hypocritical, to lecture me about using personal attacks, then come out with a gratuitous remark like that. You love the nasty stuff, you just don't like losing at it. > > <snip> > > Rat > |
|
|||
|
|||
Want to be a vegetarian
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > > No, both sides are making claims that can't be backed up for lack of > > information. Pinning the burden of proof on the other side is very > > convenient. > > You're still ignoring the fact that the deaths and suffering of animals > are abhorred by only *one* side. I'm well aware that vegans abhor suffering and death of animals and you don't. > IOW, it's the vegans and ARAs who make > the sanctimonious claims about their practices, but those claims are > meaningless without proof. You're big into people's rights. Don't you think that people have a right to live and eat as they want without having to prove anything to you? > The fact remains that animals die for either > dietary choice. Yes. > > There are not just two sides he vegans and anti-vegans. The prevalent > > anti-vegan side (at least in this ng) contends that vegans insist that their > > lifestyle eliminates ALL incidental animal suffering and casualties. I > > represent another side that vegans hope to MINIMIZE animal suffering and > > casualties, thus the "counting game". Since the counting game cannot be > > substantiated on either side, let's just give up the argument and have > > peace. > > I'll give up the argument for the sake of peace as soon as you or anyone > else can substantiate that any commercially-produced diet has no or > minimal casualties with respect to animals. Your accounting practices > remain suspect. Why is that so important to you that you must beat people over the head with it? You know that it can't be proved either way. Are you going to spend the rest of your life here defending an issue that is mute? > > I think you are attributing claims to vegans that they did not make. You > > cannot make them support something they do not claim. > > No, go back and review the post from "googlesux." Review posts in other > threads by other posters like "exploratory." Review some of the claims > made by others in afv. People make claims they can't support. Don't you ever act on your sense of things in lieu of actual proof? If people want to be vegan for reasons that you don't agree with then they should be able to do so without having to prove things to you. Live with it. > > You keep turning the tables on vegans. > > They're the ones making outrageous claims. The burden is theirs. There's a skip in your record... > > I am talking about anti-vegan claims > > here. Things like veg*n lifestyle results in more animal casualties than > > eating meat. > > I find that claim to be more logically plausible than the 'vegan' claim > that a vegan diet results in less animal casualties. Why? > >>Have you any reason to question an esteemed professor at Oregon State? > > > > Just the ones I stated previously. > > You didn't give reasons, you only spewed about it being from an anti-AR > site. No, I also said I didn't see credible references substantiating his data, or who funded his work. > > Okay, but I'm still reluctant to accept it as credible for all the reasons I > > stated previously. > > That's your perogative. We have names for people who cling to their > 'orthodoxy' in light of evidence against it. There's nothing "orthodoxy" about questioning the credibility of information. If you're basing your whole premise on Davis' work then it's very, very weak indeed. > Those aren't nice names. The choice of names is yours. You can be as nice or as nasty as your character dictates. > >>I'm going to stick my neck out and say that I don't think there's a > >>statistical difference. > > > > I think you're wrong. > > On what basis? Based on my sense of how the numbers from the "counting game" would probably result. Pretty much the same level of basis as your "sticking your neck out". > > Why? Don't you think that fewer incidents of animal suffering and deaths > > make it more ethical? > > Is it more ethical to only beat a child once a week as opposed to once a > day? If something -- in this instance, animal causalties as a result of > agriculture -- is unethical, then it's unethical whether it happens once > or millions of times. Beating a child once a month wins over beating a child once a week every time. > > There will always be some people who take an absolute moral stand. Don't > > generalize a whole group based on the actions of a few. > > See your previous comment about fewer incidents making something > ethical. No, I never said that. Go back and read again. I keep saying that fewer incidents of suffering and death is better than more incidents of suffeing and death. You see only black and white when, in fact, there are many shades of gray. > You're part of the crowd discussing things in terms of morality > and ethics. The issue isn't just over absolutes, it's over the whole > concept of what is moral and ethical. When you talk about something being either ethical or not (i.e.: absolute) and then you say that "the issue isn't just over absolutes", I question the coherence of what you're saying. You must be "part of the crowd discussing things in terms of morality and ethics" too since we're having this discussion. > That doesn't just pertain to CDs, > it goes to the whole nature of veganISM and AR. Maybe you would care to explain this further? > > I think that most veg*ns inherently care what's in their food and are > > willing to pay higher prices (compared to non-veg*n foods). If you are > > comparing two otherwise equivalent veg*n products then I agree that price > > will be a stronger influence to consumers. > > I disagree. Other than a reflexive scan of ingredient lists to ensure no > animal-derived ingredients are contained, most vegans are quite sloppy > when it comes to shopping. Another generalization that can't be substantiated. > > Okay, but I'm not talking about people eating field corn! You reuse the same > > land to produce human consumable food. If you assume that the number of > > incidental casualties will be the same regardless of what is planted then it > > IS an apples:apples argument. As for truely grass-fed, I think it represents > > a very small part of the total number of beef that is sold. Why are we > > talking about something that is statistically insignificant? > > Grass-fed is a growing market. It's also one of the sources of meat > which invalidates your thesis that a diet containing meat is going to > cause more suffering and death than a vegan diet. Well, I'll give you that grass-fed will result in fewer CDs than grain-fed, but that's still a far cry from "invalidating my thesis". > >>Vegans cannot support their sanctimonious claims about morality or > >>ethics with respect to animal deaths and suffering. The buck stops there. > > > > And you are the police that hold them to it? > > I'm interested enough in the truth to ask them to support their > moral-ethical statements or to cease making such outlandish claims. If > that bothers them, or you, tough shit. I don't think you are interested in the truth. You have taken a position that you can't substantiate and you're defending it as the truth. You insist that vegans substantiate their position and then somehow take their failure to do so as support of your "truth". I think the truth is that there is no absolute truth in this argument. |
|
|||
|
|||
Want to be a vegetarian
"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message ink.net... > Derek wrote: > > "usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > >>Derek 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. > >>>> > >>>>Your trade accepts the consequences of farmers' actions > >>> > >>>Mine doesn't. > >> > ...You are a very indiscriminate consumer. You seek out > produce on the basis of price rather than humane > practices. Turn that 180 degrees and you'll be in the right direction. > Produce grown humanely is available from > farmers, and it's alternatively possible to grow your > own humane produce. From the position I'm in at the moment, you've got to be aving a big one! But that's besides the point because my purchase from farmers doesn't make me a candidate for blame OR praise. They're welcome to all the praise due for their own achievements. > You choose to ignore and avoid the > more expensive (in money or your personal time) humane > alternatives. You're the reason the farmers whose > produce you purchase cut all those moral-ethical > corners. [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. > Your stance is meaningless in the face of what > you do; you are a poseur, and a rank hypocrite. > yeah yeah yeah. Who takes moral responsibility for the collateral deaths accrued during the production of a bag of spuds which goes to ruin by going past its sell-by date? |
|
|||
|
|||
Want to be a vegetarian
See James Strut wrote:
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message > ... > > >>>No, both sides are making claims that can't be backed up for lack of >>>information. Pinning the burden of proof on the other side is very >>>convenient. >> >>You're still ignoring the fact that the deaths and suffering of animals >>are abhorred by only *one* side. > > > I'm well aware that vegans abhor suffering and death of animals and you > don't. No, "vegans" do not abhor suffering and death of animals. They abhor the *consumption* of animals. If animals suffer and are killed collaterally in the course of producing the things "vegans" self righteously consume, "vegans" don't care at all. > > >>IOW, it's the vegans and ARAs who make >>the sanctimonious claims about their practices, but those claims are >>meaningless without proof. > > > You're big into people's rights. Don't you think that people have a right to > live and eat as they want without having to prove anything to you? They do, and he hasn't said otherwise. However, "vegans" aren't content to live and eat as they want. They want everyone to live and eat as they do, and they claim to have the moral standing to tell the rest of us how we ought to eat and live. Quite clearly, they do not have that moral standing. > > >>The fact remains that animals die for either >>dietary choice. > > > Yes. Yes, proving that "vegans" do not abhor the deaths of animals; they merely abhor the consumption of animal parts. > > >>>There are not just two sides he vegans and anti-vegans. The prevalent >>>anti-vegan side (at least in this ng) contends that vegans insist that their >>>lifestyle eliminates ALL incidental animal suffering and casualties. No, the debunkers of "veganism" are not making that false claim about what "vegans" claim. What we point out is that ultimately, "vegans" IGNORE the incidental animal suffering and death, and pretend they have no responsibility for it. The "vegans" are, of course, wrong in this pretense. >>>I represent another side that vegans hope to MINIMIZE animal suffering and >>>casualties, But they DO NOT. They don't minimize ANYTHING. >>>thus the "counting game". It isn't a legitimate counting game, because: 1. "vegans" haven't counted anything 2. the comparison "vegans" want to hypothesize is bogus >>>Since the counting game cannot be >>>substantiated on either side, let's just give up the argument and have >>>peace. No. Let's just "vegans" give up their claims to be behaving "more ethically". >> >>I'll give up the argument for the sake of peace as soon as you or anyone >>else can substantiate that any commercially-produced diet has no or >>minimal casualties with respect to animals. Your accounting practices >>remain suspect. > > > Why is that so important to you that you must beat people over the head with > it? It isn't. He is reacting to the evil importance "vegans" give to trying to prove that they behave "more ethically". > You know that it can't be proved either way. Are you going to spend the > rest of your life here defending an issue that is mute? Mute? Don't you mean "moot"? Are "vegans" going to spend the rest of their lives making a bullshit claim to ethical superiority, when they have no grounds for the claim? > > >>>I think you are attributing claims to vegans that they did not make. You >>>cannot make them support something they do not claim. >> >>No, go back and review the post from "googlesux." Review posts in other >>threads by other posters like "exploratory." Review some of the claims >>made by others in afv. > > > People make claims they can't support. You do it all the time; cf. "minimizing". > Don't you ever act on your sense of > things in lieu of actual proof? One can forgive an initial wrong impulse. One cannot forgive continued fervent belief in a false ideal. > If people want to be vegan for reasons that > you don't agree with then they should be able to do so without having to > prove things to you. Live with it. He does; they don't have to prove anything, as long as they keep their mouths shut. When they start running their mouths about ethical superiority, they must offer proof. If they can't offer proof, they need to shut up. You in particular should shut up, because you not only can't offer any proof (right along with the rest of the "vegans"), but you also can't say why you *aren't* a "vegan". > > >>>You keep turning the tables on vegans. >> >>They're the ones making outrageous claims. The burden is theirs. > > > There's a skip in your record... No. There's a moral chasm in which "vegans" are stuck. > > >>>I am talking about anti-vegan claims >>>here. Things like veg*n lifestyle results in more animal casualties than >>>eating meat. >> >>I find that claim to be more logically plausible than the 'vegan' claim >>that a vegan diet results in less animal casualties. > > > Why? You dumb fat ****. It's been explained to you before. > > >>>>Have you any reason to question an esteemed professor at Oregon State? >>> >>>Just the ones I stated previously. >> >>You didn't give reasons, you only spewed about it being from an anti-AR >>site. > > > No, I also said I didn't see credible references substantiating his data, or > who funded his work. You didn't read his paper, so you don't know about data. The question of who funds work is a red herring, a dishonest and unethical digression on your part. The conclusion he reaches is either true or false, irrespective of who funds the work. > > >>>Okay, but I'm still reluctant to accept it as credible for all the >>>reasons I stated previously. >> >>That's your prerogative. We have names for people who cling to their >>'orthodoxy' in light of evidence against it. > > > There's nothing "orthodoxy" about questioning the credibility of > information. There is when you aren't questioning it from a position of knowledge, and when it is obvious you *are* questioning it from a position steeped in political dogma. > If you're basing your whole premise on Davis' work He isn't. > then it's very, very weak indeed. Ipse dixit. You have not credibly challenged Davis's work. >>>>I'm going to stick my neck out and say that I don't think there's a >>>>statistical difference. >>> >>>I think you're wrong. >> >>On what basis? > > > Based on my sense of how the numbers from the "counting game" would probably > result. Your "sense" is uninformed, and based on dogmatic ideological belief. > Pretty much the same level of basis as your "sticking your neck > out". > > >>>Why? Don't you think that fewer incidents of animal suffering and deaths >>>make it more ethical? >> >>Is it more ethical to only beat a child once a week as opposed to once a >>day? If something -- in this instance, animal causalties as a result of >>agriculture -- is unethical, then it's unethical whether it happens once >>or millions of times. > > > Beating a child once a month wins over beating a child once a week every > time. No. In either case, the beaters are morally guilty of cruelty, and criminally guilty as well. The weekly beater may get a stiffer criminal sentence, but morally they are equally evil. > > >>>There will always be some people who take an absolute moral stand. Don't >>>generalize a whole group based on the actions of a few. >> >>See your previous comment about fewer incidents making something >>ethical. > > > No, I never said that. Go back and read again. I keep saying that fewer > incidents of suffering and death is better than more incidents of suffeing > and death. That, and your claim above that the more frequent beater is "worse" than the who beats less frequently, MEANS that you believe the "minimization" you claim - falsely - "vegans" achieve makes them "more ethical". You are wrong. > You see only black and white when, in fact, there are many shades > of gray. It's exactly the opposite. > > >>You're part of the crowd discussing things in terms of morality >>and ethics. The issue isn't just over absolutes, it's over the whole >>concept of what is moral and ethical. > > > When you talk about something being either ethical or not (i.e.: absolute) > and then you say that "the issue isn't just over absolutes", Can you read, moron? He said, "the issue isn't ***just*** over absolutes" [emphasis added]. > I question the coherence of what you're saying. Not as strongly or as justifiably as we question your reading comprehension. > You must be "part of the crowd discussing > things in terms of morality and ethics" too since we're having this > discussion. > > >>That doesn't just pertain to CDs, >>it goes to the whole nature of veganISM and AR. > > > Maybe you would care to explain this further? It's been done. You ignored it. > > >>>I think that most veg*ns inherently care what's in their food and are >>>willing to pay higher prices (compared to non-veg*n foods). If you are >>>comparing two otherwise equivalent veg*n products then I agree that price >>>will be a stronger influence to consumers. >> >>I disagree. Other than a reflexive scan of ingredient lists to ensure no >>animal-derived ingredients are contained, most vegans are quite sloppy >>when it comes to shopping. > > > Another generalization that can't be substantiated. Of course it can, dummy: "vegans" don't care to scan a "moral ingredients" list. None of them does. > > >>>Okay, but I'm not talking about people eating field corn! You reuse the same >>>land to produce human consumable food. If you assume that the number of >>>incidental casualties will be the same regardless of what is planted then it >>>IS an apples:apples argument. As for truely grass-fed, I think it represents >>>a very small part of the total number of beef that is sold. Why are we >>>talking about something that is statistically insignificant? >> >>Grass-fed is a growing market. It's also one of the sources of meat >>which invalidates your thesis that a diet containing meat is going to >>cause more suffering and death than a vegan diet. > > > Well, I'll give you that grass-fed will result in fewer CDs than grain-fed, > but that's still a far cry from "invalidating my thesis". It NECESSARILY invalidates it, chump, because your "thesis" (it's nothing of the kind; it's a dogmatic belief) is that "vegan" diets minimize suffering over meat-including diets. It is possible to show that meat including diets cause *less* suffering than the diets followed by the overwhelming majority of "vegans". At their extremes, a "vegan" diet could cause less suffering than a meat-including diet; HOWEVER, it is easier for someone to follow a minimal suffering meat-including diet than for someone to follow a minimal suffering "vegan" diet. > > >>>>Vegans cannot support their sanctimonious claims about morality or >>>>ethics with respect to animal deaths and suffering. The buck stops >>>> there. > >>>And you are the police that hold them to it? >> >>I'm interested enough in the truth to ask them to support their >>moral-ethical statements or to cease making such outlandish claims. If >>that bothers them, or you, tough shit. > > > I don't think you are interested in the truth. He clearly is interested in it, and you are not. You have partially - inexplicably partially - embraced "veganism" as being the death-and-suffering minimizing diet. It demonstrably isn't, but you refuse to let go. Thus, you are the one not interested in truth: QED. > You have taken a position that you can't substantiate False. He has substantiated it more than adequately. > and you're defending it as the truth. Because he has substantiated it, shitwipe. > You insist that vegans substantiate their position Yes. They not only fail, they don't even try. > and then somehow take their failure > to do so as support of your "truth". No, that's false, and an indication of yor stupidity. He takes their failure as showing that their claims are not supported. |
|
|||
|
|||
Want to be a vegetarian
usual suspect wrote:
> fatpwr wrote: This is sidesplitting humor. > >>>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 Did you bother to read your own links? Check FAQ, Davis Mountain beef if corn-finished. > > > 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. I'm really impressed, but this doesn't answer my question about predator and "pest" control on the range, not unless you're saying that scabby-nosed kids plinking anything that moves with a .22 passes for range management on Suspcious Ranch. Is this an example of the quality of stewardship practiced by your purported ranching family? > > Doesn't your family innoculate their animals? > > Innoculation doesn't kill them. You're slow. Animals are killed in the production and development of vaccines. > > 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. Not relevant to the one cow = one death myth. > > >>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. If you weren't saying that one cow = one death, what was the point of comparing one cow eaten per year to a crop of soybeans that kills "many animals none of the eaten"? Though it's hard to imagine, this is even more stupid since it would take one person, their family and their friends many, many, many years to eat a typical "crop of soybeans" weighing in the tons. > > >>>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. Are you saying that Rick Etter eats meat and only meat? It's tempting to believe this since it would mean that rick was not long for this world, but I think you're lying. If he claims a meat exclusive diet, then he's lying, too. > I have many friends who eat only fish and game meat. Do you mean to say they never eat vegetables, fruits, grains, legumes? Never a piece of bread? A bit of oil? Butter? Are there Inuits in Texas? > > 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. The goalpost was set by you when you said a person can kill one cow and eat well for a year, as if this person's diet would contain nothing but the beef from one cow and that one cow can be raised and slaughtered without any associated deaths. > > >>>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? > Dyou only pick one serving of wheat or whatever > grain (since you avoid rice) at a time and leave the rest in the field? If buying 10oz of groats makes me responsible for all the deaths in the wheat field, eating one hamburger makes Ball responsible for the death of every head of cattle slaughtered on the day that hamburger was processed. > Face it, agriculture -- including sustainable organic stuff catering to > people with your and my sensitivities -- is performed on a large scale. These products should be avoided for a variety of reasons, don't you agree? It's difficult to sort out responsibility when widespread industrialization of agriculture is a fait accompli. But something's not right, if I blame you for the loss of topsoil when you buy a package of tortillas. (snip) > >>Do you count insects as animals? > > > > The line gets fuzzy. I have difficulty seeing insects as individual > > animals with individual interests. > > You hypocritical speciesist! My inability to view insects as individuals doesn't mean I support the wholesale elimination of crop or "pest" insects. I'm not foolish enough to think this would not have unforeseen consequences. > > >>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. Range cattle are not dipped and wormed at the same time they are innoculated? More bad husbandry at Suspicious Ranch. > Neither do game animals. > You weren't talking about game animals when you cooked up the one cow = one death myth. Who's moving the goalposts? > >>>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. > > 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. "Feces and gore" accurately describe the material likely to be found on the floor of cattle chutes, ramps, stunning boxes, ex-sanguination rooms and caracass disassembly lines. There is nothing "anthropomorphic" about it, pal. > > > Your attempt to side-step your previous statements by bringing up space > > travelers doesn't fool anyone. > > skag. Nice. |
|
|||
|
|||
Want to be a vegetarian
Dutch wrote:
> "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? I accept that death by direct poisoning is always "gruesome". I do not accept that death by farm machinery is always "gruesome" or even usually "gruesome". It could be gruesome in certain crop fields under certain kinds of cultivation methods at certain times of the year. Find me testimony of wildlife rehabilitators describing routine wounds from farm machinery. Direct me to records of collection and disposal of the huge number of carcasses laying in our fields. Let me read the necropsy reports of animals caught under the blades, in the screens, under the wheels. Give me something besides a guess that some burrowing mammal might not tunnel deep enough, fast enough, to avoid the plow or that eggs (keep in mind I'm not concerned about the unborn) or chicks might get squashed if they are unlucky enough to be nest-bound when machines are in the fields. I know chicks die quickly, they blow out of the trees in my backyard and die as soon as they hit the ground. > 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. These gruesome deaths are entirely avoidable because they are systematically contrived and carried out by human design. Doesn't it make sense to fix the intentional harm first and then work on the accidental? Do you eat poultry? Do you know where and how the birds are killed? > > 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. The reason for the decline of songbirds and other prairie species is complex. Most biologists agree that the primary causes are habitat conversion, fragmentation of breeding gounds and pesticide use. Monoculture sucks on every level except short-term profitability. Anyone who cares about any aspect of the environment should avoid buying industrial agricultural products, but let's not forget that most monocultural tracts are feed grains. > > 9 billion birds were slaughtered in the US in 2001. > For good reason, people have to eat. People don't have to eat birds. > > > 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. Entirely relevant. You made a blanket statement that "large numbers" of animals die "gruesome" deaths in the course of growing, storing and distributing vegetables. You're wrong and my garden plots prove you're wrong. > Animals don't suffer on "The Polyface Farm" either, but my > food doesn't come from there. Now you've switched from death to suffering. No animals die, let alone suffer, so I can eat vegetables from my garden. Polyface Farm animals might not suffer, but they _must_ die for me to eat them. > > I bought a bag of organic walnuts and grapes at Rainbow Co-op > > yesterday. What's the death toll for these? > don't know, do you? Then how can you rightfully claim that "large numbers" of animals die "gruesome" deaths to grow, store and distribute my food? > > 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. Are they? Still? Do you have any recent quotes to demonstrate this? (snip) > > 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. This analogy isn't detailed enough to understand degrees of culpability. On the way to rob a liquor store, you hit a child that runs in front of your car. That's a field death. While robbing a convenience store, you shoot the owner. That's livestock production. > > 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. No, they're not. That's obvious from his stupid claim that vegans believe by simply not eating animals they cause no suffering and no deaths of animals. That's idiotic because everyone knows that many animals suffer and die without having anything to do with food production. > > > 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. Damn right. I am absolutely, positively sure that it's possible to "grow, store and distribute" vegetables without killing animals. I've been doing it four seasons a year for the past 8 years. I even relocate the hated weevils instead of squishing them like I want to. > > > "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. He has as much understanding of vegan beliefs as he does of any other non-conformist beliefs, which is to say, none. (snip) > > The guy wanted receipes, dog-catcher. > He didn't ask for recipes, What's this? "I only came here for a few food recommendations." > and you obviously consider "dog-catcher" an > insult despite your earlier lying denials. A dog-catcher who is also a dog-dealer is an insult to the concept of "animal shelter" and to all compassionate human beings. |
|
|||
|
|||
Want to be a vegetarian
Gender-consused Dreck wrote:
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message ink.net... > >>Gender-consused Dreck wrote: >> >>>"usual suspect" > wrote in message ... >>> >>>>>>Your trade accepts the consequences of farmers' actions >>>>> >>>>>Mine doesn't. >>>> >>...You are a very indiscriminate consumer. You seek out >>produce on the basis of price rather than humane >>practices. > > > Turn that 180 degrees and you'll be in the right direction. Nope. It applies to you and all sanctimonious "vegans". You do not seek to know anything about the morality of the production of the products you consume, only price. > > >>Produce grown humanely is available from >>farmers, and it's alternatively possible to grow your >>own humane produce. > > > From the position I'm in at the moment, you've got > to be aving a big one! No. You could do it, or hire it done. > But that's besides the point > because my purchase from farmers doesn't make me > a candidate for blame OR praise. It most certainly does. This is established beyond dispute. >>You choose to ignore and avoid the >>more expensive (in money or your personal time) humane >>alternatives. You're the reason the farmers whose >>produce you purchase cut all those moral-ethical >>corners. > >>Your stance is meaningless in the face of what >>you do; you are a poseur, and a rank hypocrite. >> > > yeah yeah yeah. Yes. |
|
|||
|
|||
Affirming the consequent
"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message ink.net... > Gender-confused Dreck wrote: > > > "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message k.net... > > > >>Gender-confused Dreck wrote: > >> > >>>"usual suspect" > wrote in message news > >>> > >>>>>>>>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. > >>>> > >>>>Your trade accepts the consequences of farmers' actions > >>> > >>>Mine doesn't. > >> > >>It does, by definition. You know of the consequences, > > > > > > You are affirming the consequent. > > > > "If I eat vegetables, collateral deaths will occur." > > No, ****ing moron. You really can't do this logic stuff. > > The fallacy of affirming the consequence would be: > > If Dreck eats vegetables, collateral deaths will occur > > Collateral deaths occur > > Therefore, Dreck eats vegetables > > > I haven't said anything remotely like that, you ****ing > moron. What I have done is *affirm the antecedent*, > which is a VALID logical construction: > > If Dreck eats vegetables, collateral deaths will occur > > Dreck eats vegetables > > Therefore, collateral deaths occur > > You *want* to argue with the truth of the first > proposition And that is exactly what I'm challenging: your first proposition, so you needn't have gone to all that trouble describing the difference between those forms. Your first premise affirms the consequent. "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). A necessary condition for an event is something which is absolutely required to exist or happen if the event is to occur. 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. 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, in this example makes the assumption that a sufficient condition is also a necessary condition. 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 |
|
|||
|
|||
Affirming the consequent - Jon didn't do it.
Gender-confused Dreck wrote:
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message ink.net... > >>Gender-confused Dreck wrote: >> >> >>>"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message k.net... >>> >>> >>>>Gender-confused Dreck wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>Your trade accepts the consequences of farmers' actions >>>>> >>>>>Mine doesn't. >>>> >>>>It does, by definition. You know of the consequences, >>> >>> >>>You are affirming the consequent. >>> >>>"If I eat vegetables, collateral deaths will occur." >> >>No, ****ing moron. You really can't do this logic stuff. Admit it, ****wad: I did not commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent. You clearly don't know what the fallacy is. >> >>The fallacy of affirming the consequence would be: >> >> If Dreck eats vegetables, collateral deaths will occur >> >> Collateral deaths occur >> >> Therefore, Dreck eats vegetables >> >> >>I haven't said anything remotely like that, you ****ing >>moron. What I have done is *affirm the antecedent*, >>which is a VALID logical construction: >> >> If Dreck eats vegetables, collateral deaths will occur >> >> Dreck eats vegetables >> >> Therefore, collateral deaths occur >> >>You *want* to argue with the truth of the first >>proposition > > > And that is exactly what I'm challenging: You can't. As the vegetables YOU BUY are produced, your purchases and consumption DO lead to collateral deaths. They needn't, but they do, because you are a lazy fat **** who can't be bothered > your first > proposition, so you needn't have gone to all that > trouble describing the difference between those forms. > Your first premise affirms the consequent. No, Dreck, it does not. You are wrong. The affirmation DOES NOT occur in the first premise; the affirmation, of the antecedent, not the consequent, occurs in the second premise: Dreck eats vegetables > > "If I eat vegetables, collateral deaths will occur." > > This proposition is false; That proposition is true: all the vegetables you eat cause collateral deaths. > since the event (If I eat vegetables) > always assumes a necessary condition (collateral deaths will > occur). No, illiterate shitworm, it does not assume it's a necessary condition at all. It is a statement of fact. Give it up, illiterate greasemonkey. You cannot do logic. |
|
|||
|
|||
Want to be a vegetarian
"C. James Strutz" > wrote
> > "usual suspect" > wrote > > > > No, both sides are making claims that can't be backed up for lack of > > > information. Pinning the burden of proof on the other side is very > > > convenient. > > > > You're still ignoring the fact that the deaths and suffering of animals > > are abhorred by only *one* side. > > I'm well aware that vegans abhor suffering and death of animals and you > don't. Vegans abhor "certain" animal suffering but ignore most of it. > > IOW, it's the vegans and ARAs who make > > the sanctimonious claims about their practices, but those claims are > > meaningless without proof. > > You're big into people's rights. Don't you think that people have a right to > live and eat as they want without having to prove anything to you? You're not just living or eating right now, you're proclaiming on an ethics forum that your diet causes less animal death and suffering than another diet. That claim requires support if you want it to be believed. > > The fact remains that animals die for either > > dietary choice. > > Yes. > > > > There are not just two sides he vegans and anti-vegans. The prevalent > > > anti-vegan side (at least in this ng) contends that vegans insist that > their > > > lifestyle eliminates ALL incidental animal suffering and casualties. I > > > represent another side that vegans hope to MINIMIZE animal suffering and > > > casualties, thus the "counting game". Since the counting game cannot be > > > substantiated on either side, let's just give up the argument and have > > > peace. > > > > I'll give up the argument for the sake of peace as soon as you or anyone > > else can substantiate that any commercially-produced diet has no or > > minimal casualties with respect to animals. Your accounting practices > > remain suspect. > > Why is that so important to you that you must beat people over the head with > it? You know that it can't be proved either way. Are you going to spend the > rest of your life here defending an issue that is mute? If you want to just eat your beans and rice quietly without claiming your diet causes less death and suffering you wouldn't have to hear it. > > > I think you are attributing claims to vegans that they did not make. You > > > cannot make them support something they do not claim. > > > > No, go back and review the post from "googlesux." Review posts in other > > threads by other posters like "exploratory." Review some of the claims > > made by others in afv. > > People make claims they can't support. Don't you ever act on your sense of > things in lieu of actual proof? If people want to be vegan for reasons that > you don't agree with then they should be able to do so without having to > prove things to you. Live with it. Then acknowledge that you do not know if your diet causes more or less suffering than a diet that contains meat. > > > You keep turning the tables on vegans. > > > > They're the ones making outrageous claims. The burden is theirs. > > There's a skip in your record... Then stop making the claims. > > > > I am talking about anti-vegan claims > > > here. Things like veg*n lifestyle results in more animal casualties than > > > eating meat. > > > > I find that claim to be more logically plausible than the 'vegan' claim > > that a vegan diet results in less animal casualties. > > Why? Because contrary to the rule of veganism there are diets which include meat or fish that common sense will tell you cause fewer animal deaths than a typical vegan diet. > > >>Have you any reason to question an esteemed professor at Oregon State? > > > > > > Just the ones I stated previously. > > > > You didn't give reasons, you only spewed about it being from an anti-AR > > site. > > No, I also said I didn't see credible references substantiating his data, or > who funded his work. But common sense tells you that their is truth in what he's reporting. > > > Okay, but I'm still reluctant to accept it as credible for all the > reasons I > > > stated previously. > > > > That's your perogative. We have names for people who cling to their > > 'orthodoxy' in light of evidence against it. > > There's nothing "orthodoxy" about questioning the credibility of > information. If you're basing your whole premise on Davis' work then it's > very, very weak indeed. Do you question the credibility of reports from PeTA? > > Those aren't nice names. > > The choice of names is yours. You can be as nice or as nasty as your > character dictates. > > > >>I'm going to stick my neck out and say that I don't think there's a > > >>statistical difference. > > > > > > I think you're wrong. > > > > On what basis? > > Based on my sense of how the numbers from the "counting game" would probably > result. Pretty much the same level of basis as your "sticking your neck > out". > > > > Why? Don't you think that fewer incidents of animal suffering and deaths > > > make it more ethical? > > > > Is it more ethical to only beat a child once a week as opposed to once a > > day? If something -- in this instance, animal causalties as a result of > > agriculture -- is unethical, then it's unethical whether it happens once > > or millions of times. > > Beating a child once a month wins over beating a child once a week every > time. You're not talking about morals or ethics any more, that's a utilitarian measurement of greater good/lesser harm. On that basis, a diet including meat from a moose in your freezer probably causes less net harm to animals than one which substitutes an equivalent amount of factory farmed rice, wheat and soy products. Killing an animal once per winter beats killing them once a week every time. So which is it, are you following a rule that sometimes causes less death and sometimes causes more, or are you following a principle which attempts to cause less death all the time? If it's veganism, it's the former. > > > There will always be some people who take an absolute moral stand. Don't > > > generalize a whole group based on the actions of a few. > > > > See your previous comment about fewer incidents making something > > ethical. > > No, I never said that. Go back and read again. I keep saying that fewer > incidents of suffering and death is better than more incidents of suffeing > and death. You see only black and white when, in fact, there are many shades > of gray. Good advice, I think you should re-read that yourself. [..] > > Grass-fed is a growing market. It's also one of the sources of meat > > which invalidates your thesis that a diet containing meat is going to > > cause more suffering and death than a vegan diet. > > Well, I'll give you that grass-fed will result in fewer CDs than grain-fed, > but that's still a far cry from "invalidating my thesis". No it's not, as I described above, the fundamental thesis of veganism which is the systematic non-consumption of animal products does not categorically move in the direction of less suffering to animals. People who include freshly caught fish in their diet are very likely doing better than that. That fact invalidates the rule of veganism. > > >>Vegans cannot support their sanctimonious claims about morality or > > >>ethics with respect to animal deaths and suffering. The buck stops > there. > > > > > > And you are the police that hold them to it? > > > > I'm interested enough in the truth to ask them to support their > > moral-ethical statements or to cease making such outlandish claims. If > > that bothers them, or you, tough shit. > > I don't think you are interested in the truth. You have taken a position > that you can't substantiate and you're defending it as the truth. You insist > that vegans substantiate their position and then somehow take their failure > to do so as support of your "truth". I think the truth is that there is no > absolute truth in this argument. There is one undeniable fact, and that is that veganism is a faulty ideal if you are sincerely attempting to minimize the death and suffering to animals. *substituting plant-based foods* for animal products in many cases will undoubtedly have this effect, but not always, and the philosophy of veganism by definition dictates that one must *always* try to avoid animal products. In short, veganism is really about eliminating *the appearance of* causing harm to animals. |
|
|||
|
|||
Affirming the consequent - Jon didn't do it.
"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message ink.net... > > "If I eat vegetables, collateral deaths will occur." > > > > This proposition is false; > > That proposition is true: all the vegetables you eat > cause collateral deaths. > ALL? No, they don't. You're affirming the consequent. "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). A necessary condition for an event is something which is absolutely required to exist or happen if the event is to occur. 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. 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, in this example makes the assumption that a sufficient condition is also a necessary condition. 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 |
|
|||
|
|||
Want to be a vegetarian
C. James Putz wrote:
>>>No, both sides are making claims that can't be backed up for lack of >>>information. Pinning the burden of proof on the other side is very >>>convenient. >> >>You're still ignoring the fact that the deaths and suffering of animals >>are abhorred by only *one* side. > > I'm well aware that vegans abhor suffering and death of animals They only abhor the idea of the above when pronouncing their self-righteousness. Their consumption of agricultural products which do not avoid such casualties makes them hypocrites and demagogues. > and you don't. It depends on what kind of animal and under what conditions. I'm not under the delusion that my diet -- which is far stricter as far as the presence of animal-derived ingredients than YOURS -- is free of animal suffering or death. >>IOW, it's the vegans and ARAs who make >>the sanctimonious claims about their practices, but those claims are >>meaningless without proof. > > You're big into people's rights. Don't you think that people have a right to > live and eat as they want without having to prove anything to you? Eating and living as people want is fine and well. Remember, though, this discussion has its origin in certain ethical pronouncements by you and others. The entire continuum of such pronouncements is unfounded. Why do you set yourself up as more righteous than others simply because they eat meat? <...> >>I'll give up the argument for the sake of peace as soon as you or anyone >>else can substantiate that any commercially-produced diet has no or >>minimal casualties with respect to animals. Your accounting practices >>remain suspect. > > Why is that so important to you that you must beat people over the head with > it? You know that it can't be proved either way. The issue isn't *my* claims, it's the notion that a vegan diet is inherently more ethical than any other diet when such self-righteous bleatings are based on a flawed premise. > Are you going to spend the > rest of your life here defending an issue that is mute? The issue isn't mute. It's also not moot. So long as veg-ns make categorical statements of a moral or ethical nature, I will remind them that such views are based on deceit, ignorance, or both. >>>I think you are attributing claims to vegans that they did not make. You >>>cannot make them support something they do not claim. >> >>No, go back and review the post from "googlesux." Review posts in other >>threads by other posters like "exploratory." Review some of the claims >>made by others in afv. > > People make claims they can't support. Don't you ever act on your sense of > things in lieu of actual proof? If people want to be vegan for reasons that > you don't agree with then they should be able to do so without having to > prove things to you. Live with it. The issue isn't whether I agree with their reasons or not, it's whether their reasons are accurate, logical, and valid. When people make misleading or uninformed claims, it's proper (and even moral) for others to correct them or have them consider facts which show their claims are in error. You're the one who needs to live with it. >>>You keep turning the tables on vegans. >> >>They're the ones making outrageous claims. The burden is theirs. > > There's a skip in your record... Is it getting through your thick forehead? >>>I am talking about anti-vegan claims >>>here. Things like veg*n lifestyle results in more animal casualties than >>>eating meat. >> >>I find that claim to be more logically plausible than the 'vegan' claim >>that a vegan diet results in less animal casualties. > > Why? I guess it's *not* getting through your thick forehead. In essence, the vegan response is an extremist measure that fails to address the underlying "problem" it's based upon. Alternatives exist which would allow a far less extreme solution, even if one were to eat meat. As for the math, I've given examples of exceptions in which meat causes no or very few CDs. The only vegan parallel to those examples is to grow one's own food. Vegans won't grow their own food and they will not accept grass-fed/fish/game as valid alternatievs to their distorted beliefs about animal suffering and death. No matter how you look at it, 100% of your food is grown/produced with suffering and death unless you grow it yourself and apply the most humane diligence. More animals die for grain and legume production than in one hunt. The meat from one large deer or a grass-fed deer will feed a family many meals; reduce the animal deaths even further if that family grows their own vegetables. A commercially-grown vegan meal will cause many more animal deaths and injuries in comparison. >>>>Have you any reason to question an esteemed professor at Oregon State? >>> >>>Just the ones I stated previously. >> >>You didn't give reasons, you only spewed about it being from an anti-AR >>site. > > No, I also said I didn't see credible references substantiating his data, or > who funded his work. Seems to me that Professor Davis' body count goes a lot further than vegan activists are willing to support their grandiose claims. Stop with the red herring about funding: his work is either valid or invalid. Have you seen any research from pro-AR and vegan groups to substantiate any of their claims? How about this one from www.veganoutreach.com: Explains why people choose to follow a vegan lifestyle -- striving to live without contributing to animal suffering. http://www.veganoutreach.org/whyvegan/index.html They don't even address the issues of CDs while promoting veggie burgers and rice. Or how about this one from PETA: A vegetarian diet is the healthiest and most humane choice for animals, people, and the planet. http://www.peta.org/mc/facts/fsveg5.html Do you see any credible references supporting that assertion? Why don't *they* go out and demonstrate that soy farming is more humane grass-fed beef? (Hint: they'll have to backtrack on their claims about humane choices.) >>>Okay, but I'm still reluctant to accept it as credible for all the > reasons I >>>stated previously. >> >>That's your perogative. We have names for people who cling to their >>'orthodoxy' in light of evidence against it. > > There's nothing "orthodoxy" about questioning the credibility of > information. If you have bonafide knowledge to refute something, you should offer it; you shouldn't continue offering your tired dogma when it's not based on verifiable fact. > If you're basing your whole premise on Davis' work then it's > very, very weak indeed. Davis' work is only the tip of an iceberg in terms of getting a grasp on CDs. What are you basing *your* premise on? >>Those aren't nice names. > > The choice of names is yours. You can be as nice or as nasty as your > character dictates. I'll be as nasty as I can be if you don't support your flimsy premise with something more substantial than you've already offered. >>>>I'm going to stick my neck out and say that I don't think there's a >>>>statistical difference. >>> >>>I think you're wrong. >> >>On what basis? > > Based on my sense of how the numbers from the "counting game" would probably > result. Pretty much the same level of basis as your "sticking your neck > out". I can offer anecdotal evidence from working in agriculture. I've also offered Davis. Many other veg-n sites note that some agricultural products like rice are "less ethical" than others. What can you bring to the table other than your "sense"? >>>Why? Don't you think that fewer incidents of animal suffering and deaths >>>make it more ethical? >> >>Is it more ethical to only beat a child once a week as opposed to once a >>day? If something -- in this instance, animal causalties as a result of >>agriculture -- is unethical, then it's unethical whether it happens once >>or millions of times. > > Beating a child once a month wins over beating a child once a week every > time. No, both are immoral and unethical. >>>There will always be some people who take an absolute moral stand. Don't >>>generalize a whole group based on the actions of a few. >> >>See your previous comment about fewer incidents making something >>ethical. > > No, I never said that. Go back and read again. I keep saying that fewer > incidents of suffering and death is better than more incidents of suffeing > and death. You see only black and white when, in fact, there are many shades > of gray. You have a warped view of morality and ethics which has you in this quandry with respect to "minimization" and veganism being "more" ethical. You can argue over shades of grey all you want, but at the end of the discussion we're faced with a value judgment over morality as a *whole unit*. The vegan argument considers that ethical behavior is a whole unit, and makes categorical statements and distinctions with respect to vegan behavior and other behavior. You don't have to take my word for it, go review statements from vegans at afv, vegan activist sites, etc. >>You're part of the crowd discussing things in terms of morality >>and ethics. The issue isn't just over absolutes, it's over the whole >>concept of what is moral and ethical. > > When you talk about something being either ethical or not (i.e.: absolute) > and then you say that "the issue isn't just over absolutes", I question the > coherence of what you're saying. You must be "part of the crowd discussing > things in terms of morality and ethics" too since we're having this > discussion. I'll give you an opportunity to reconsider what I wrote, which *is* coherent. >>That doesn't just pertain to CDs, >>it goes to the whole nature of veganISM and AR. > > Maybe you would care to explain this further? See earlier in this thread, as well as so many other threads. >>I disagree. Other than a reflexive scan of ingredient lists to ensure no >>animal-derived ingredients are contained, most vegans are quite sloppy >>when it comes to shopping. > > Another generalization that can't be substantiated. I think it's substantiated by the shopping and ingredient lists offered by PETA and other activist groups who offer ideas on how to "go vegan." >>Grass-fed is a growing market. It's also one of the sources of meat >>which invalidates your thesis that a diet containing meat is going to >>cause more suffering and death than a vegan diet. > > Well, I'll give you that grass-fed will result in fewer CDs than grain-fed, > but that's still a far cry from "invalidating my thesis". No, it does invalidate your beliefs since you suggest that a veg-n diet in and of itself minimizes animal casualties. The very existence of exceptions to your rule -- grass-fed beef, bison, game, fish, etc. -- invalidates the extreme notion that meat must be avoided to be humane, moral, ethical, sustainable. >>>And you are the police that hold them to it? >> >>I'm interested enough in the truth to ask them to support their >>moral-ethical statements or to cease making such outlandish claims. If >>that bothers them, or you, tough shit. > > I don't think you are interested in the truth. I've tried reasoning with you, and I believe I've been quite civil about it. I haven't made insinuations about your motives; now you seek to make some about mine. Address the issues, Jim, and save your dislike of me for other threads. > You have taken a position > that you can't substantiate and you're defending it as the truth. I've substantiated my position. Have you substantiated your own, or are you still shooting from the hip with your "sense" of how things are? > You insist > that vegans substantiate their position Yes, when they make claims of morality with respect to diet. > and then somehow take their failure > to do so as support of your "truth". I haven't quite done that. I'm waiting, though, for someone to offer more than a "sense" of what makes them more moral or ethical than someone else. > I think the truth is that there is no > absolute truth in this argument. I think truth is truth regardless of what you think about it. |
|
|||
|
|||
Want Rick to subtract a month from his system clock
Fix your system clock, dude. It's a month fast.
rick etter wrote: > "C. James Strutz" > wrote in message > ... > >>"usual suspect" > wrote in message .. . >> >> >>>>No, both sides are making claims that can't be backed up for lack of >>>>information. Pinning the burden of proof on the other side is very >>>>convenient. >>> >>>You're still ignoring the fact that the deaths and suffering of animals >>>are abhorred by only *one* side. >> >>I'm well aware that vegans abhor suffering and death of animals and you >>don't. > > ================ > No stupid, you don't. You only make the claim that you do. Your actions > prove otherwise, killer. > > > >>>IOW, it's the vegans and ARAs who make >>>the sanctimonious claims about their practices, but those claims are >>>meaningless without proof. >> >>You're big into people's rights. Don't you think that people have a right > > to > >>live and eat as they want without having to prove anything to you? >> >> >>>The fact remains that animals die for either >>>dietary choice. >> >>Yes. >> >> >>>>There are not just two sides he vegans and anti-vegans. The > > prevalent > >>>>anti-vegan side (at least in this ng) contends that vegans insist that >> >>their >> >>>>lifestyle eliminates ALL incidental animal suffering and casualties. I >>>>represent another side that vegans hope to MINIMIZE animal suffering > > and > >>>>casualties, thus the "counting game". Since the counting game cannot > > be > >>>>substantiated on either side, let's just give up the argument and have >>>>peace. >>> >>>I'll give up the argument for the sake of peace as soon as you or anyone >>>else can substantiate that any commercially-produced diet has no or >>>minimal casualties with respect to animals. Your accounting practices >>>remain suspect. >> >>Why is that so important to you that you must beat people over the head > > with > >>it? You know that it can't be proved either way. Are you going to spend > > the > >>rest of your life here defending an issue that is mute? >>======================= > > Yes, it can be. It's proven that animals die by the millions for your > selfish convenience and entertainment. > > > >>>>I think you are attributing claims to vegans that they did not make. > > You > >>>>cannot make them support something they do not claim. >>> >>>No, go back and review the post from "googlesux." Review posts in other >>>threads by other posters like "exploratory." Review some of the claims >>>made by others in afv. >> >>People make claims they can't support. > > ======================== > Yes, you do. Why don't you try sometime, instead of whining for others to > prove their claims. > > > Don't you ever act on your sense of > >>things in lieu of actual proof? If people want to be vegan for reasons > > that > >>you don't agree with then they should be able to do so without having to >>prove things to you. Live with it. >> >> >>>>You keep turning the tables on vegans. >>> >>>They're the ones making outrageous claims. The burden is theirs. >> >>There's a skip in your record... > > =============== > Yours is gouged, it's stuck on hypocrite, hypocrite, hypocrite... > > > >>>>I am talking about anti-vegan claims >>>>here. Things like veg*n lifestyle results in more animal casualties > > than > >>>>eating meat. >>> >>>I find that claim to be more logically plausible than the 'vegan' claim >>>that a vegan diet results in less animal casualties. >> >>Why? >> >> >>>>>Have you any reason to question an esteemed professor at Oregon State? >>>> >>>>Just the ones I stated previously. >>> >>>You didn't give reasons, you only spewed about it being from an anti-AR >>>site. >> >>No, I also said I didn't see credible references substantiating his data, > > or > >>who funded his work. >> >> >>>>Okay, but I'm still reluctant to accept it as credible for all the >> >>reasons I >> >>>>stated previously. >>> >>>That's your perogative. We have names for people who cling to their >>>'orthodoxy' in light of evidence against it. >> >>There's nothing "orthodoxy" about questioning the credibility of >>information. If you're basing your whole premise on Davis' work then it's >>very, very weak indeed. >> >> >>>Those aren't nice names. >> >>The choice of names is yours. You can be as nice or as nasty as your >>character dictates. >> >> >>>>>I'm going to stick my neck out and say that I don't think there's a >>>>>statistical difference. >>>> >>>>I think you're wrong. >>> >>>On what basis? >> >>Based on my sense of how the numbers from the "counting game" would > > probably > >>result. Pretty much the same level of basis as your "sticking your neck >>out". >> >> >>>>Why? Don't you think that fewer incidents of animal suffering and > > deaths > >>>>make it more ethical? >>> >>>Is it more ethical to only beat a child once a week as opposed to once a >>>day? If something -- in this instance, animal causalties as a result of >>>agriculture -- is unethical, then it's unethical whether it happens once >>>or millions of times. >> >>Beating a child once a month wins over beating a child once a week every >>time. >> >> >>>>There will always be some people who take an absolute moral stand. > > Don't > >>>>generalize a whole group based on the actions of a few. >>> >>>See your previous comment about fewer incidents making something >>>ethical. >> >>No, I never said that. Go back and read again. I keep saying that fewer >>incidents of suffering and death is better than more incidents of suffeing >>and death. You see only black and white when, in fact, there are many > > shades > >>of gray. >> >> >>>You're part of the crowd discussing things in terms of morality >>>and ethics. The issue isn't just over absolutes, it's over the whole >>>concept of what is moral and ethical. >> >>When you talk about something being either ethical or not (i.e.: absolute) >>and then you say that "the issue isn't just over absolutes", I question > > the > >>coherence of what you're saying. You must be "part of the crowd discussing >>things in terms of morality and ethics" too since we're having this >>discussion. >> >> >>>That doesn't just pertain to CDs, >>>it goes to the whole nature of veganISM and AR. >> >>Maybe you would care to explain this further? >> >> >>>>I think that most veg*ns inherently care what's in their food and are >>>>willing to pay higher prices (compared to non-veg*n foods). If you are >>>>comparing two otherwise equivalent veg*n products then I agree that >> >>price >> >>>>will be a stronger influence to consumers. >>> >>>I disagree. Other than a reflexive scan of ingredient lists to ensure no >>>animal-derived ingredients are contained, most vegans are quite sloppy >>>when it comes to shopping. >> >>Another generalization that can't be substantiated. >> >> >>>>Okay, but I'm not talking about people eating field corn! You reuse > > the > >>same >> >>>>land to produce human consumable food. If you assume that the number > > of > >>>>incidental casualties will be the same regardless of what is planted >> >>then it >> >>>>IS an apples:apples argument. As for truely grass-fed, I think it >> >>represents >> >>>>a very small part of the total number of beef that is sold. Why are we >>>>talking about something that is statistically insignificant? >>> >>>Grass-fed is a growing market. It's also one of the sources of meat >>>which invalidates your thesis that a diet containing meat is going to >>>cause more suffering and death than a vegan diet. >> >>Well, I'll give you that grass-fed will result in fewer CDs than > > grain-fed, > >>but that's still a far cry from "invalidating my thesis". >> >> >>>>>Vegans cannot support their sanctimonious claims about morality or >>>>>ethics with respect to animal deaths and suffering. The buck stops >> >>there. >> >>>>And you are the police that hold them to it? >>> >>>I'm interested enough in the truth to ask them to support their >>>moral-ethical statements or to cease making such outlandish claims. If >>>that bothers them, or you, tough shit. >> >>I don't think you are interested in the truth. You have taken a position >>that you can't substantiate and you're defending it as the truth. You > > insist > >>that vegans substantiate their position and then somehow take their > > failure > >>to do so as support of your "truth". I think the truth is that there is no >>absolute truth in this argument. >> >> > > > |
|
|||
|
|||
Affirming the consequent - Jon didn't do it.
Derek wrote:
> "Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message ink.net... > > >>>"If I eat vegetables, collateral deaths will occur." >>> >>>This proposition is false; >> >>That proposition is true: all the vegetables you eat >>cause collateral deaths. >> > > ALL? No, they don't. You're affirming the consequent. No, I am not. You clearly don't know what that fallacy means. > > "If I eat vegetables, collateral deaths will occur." > > This proposition is false; No, it's true. |
|
|||
|
|||
Want Rick to subtract a month from his system clock
"Jonathan Ball" > wrote in message ink.net... > Fix your system clock, dude. It's a month fast. > ================= already did. thanks.. > > rick etter wrote: > > > "C. James Strutz" > wrote in message > > ... > > > >>"usual suspect" > wrote in message > .. . > >> > >> > >>>>No, both sides are making claims that can't be backed up for lack of > >>>>information. Pinning the burden of proof on the other side is very > >>>>convenient. > >>> > >>>You're still ignoring the fact that the deaths and suffering of animals > >>>are abhorred by only *one* side. > >> > >>I'm well aware that vegans abhor suffering and death of animals and you > >>don't. > > > > ================ > > No stupid, you don't. You only make the claim that you do. Your actions > > prove otherwise, killer. > > > > > > > >>>IOW, it's the vegans and ARAs who make > >>>the sanctimonious claims about their practices, but those claims are > >>>meaningless without proof. > >> > >>You're big into people's rights. Don't you think that people have a right > > > > to > > > >>live and eat as they want without having to prove anything to you? > >> > >> > >>>The fact remains that animals die for either > >>>dietary choice. > >> > >>Yes. > >> > >> > >>>>There are not just two sides he vegans and anti-vegans. The > > > > prevalent > > > >>>>anti-vegan side (at least in this ng) contends that vegans insist that > >> > >>their > >> > >>>>lifestyle eliminates ALL incidental animal suffering and casualties. I > >>>>represent another side that vegans hope to MINIMIZE animal suffering > > > > and > > > >>>>casualties, thus the "counting game". Since the counting game cannot > > > > be > > > >>>>substantiated on either side, let's just give up the argument and have > >>>>peace. > >>> > >>>I'll give up the argument for the sake of peace as soon as you or anyone > >>>else can substantiate that any commercially-produced diet has no or > >>>minimal casualties with respect to animals. Your accounting practices > >>>remain suspect. > >> > >>Why is that so important to you that you must beat people over the head > > > > with > > > >>it? You know that it can't be proved either way. Are you going to spend > > > > the > > > >>rest of your life here defending an issue that is mute? > >>======================= > > > > Yes, it can be. It's proven that animals die by the millions for your > > selfish convenience and entertainment. > > > > > > > >>>>I think you are attributing claims to vegans that they did not make. > > > > You > > > >>>>cannot make them support something they do not claim. > >>> > >>>No, go back and review the post from "googlesux." Review posts in other > >>>threads by other posters like "exploratory." Review some of the claims > >>>made by others in afv. > >> > >>People make claims they can't support. > > > > ======================== > > Yes, you do. Why don't you try sometime, instead of whining for others to > > prove their claims. > > > > > > Don't you ever act on your sense of > > > >>things in lieu of actual proof? If people want to be vegan for reasons > > > > that > > > >>you don't agree with then they should be able to do so without having to > >>prove things to you. Live with it. > >> > >> > >>>>You keep turning the tables on vegans. > >>> > >>>They're the ones making outrageous claims. The burden is theirs. > >> > >>There's a skip in your record... > > > > =============== > > Yours is gouged, it's stuck on hypocrite, hypocrite, hypocrite... > > > > > > > >>>>I am talking about anti-vegan claims > >>>>here. Things like veg*n lifestyle results in more animal casualties > > > > than > > > >>>>eating meat. > >>> > >>>I find that claim to be more logically plausible than the 'vegan' claim > >>>that a vegan diet results in less animal casualties. > >> > >>Why? > >> > >> > >>>>>Have you any reason to question an esteemed professor at Oregon State? > >>>> > >>>>Just the ones I stated previously. > >>> > >>>You didn't give reasons, you only spewed about it being from an anti-AR > >>>site. > >> > >>No, I also said I didn't see credible references substantiating his data, > > > > or > > > >>who funded his work. > >> > >> > >>>>Okay, but I'm still reluctant to accept it as credible for all the > >> > >>reasons I > >> > >>>>stated previously. > >>> > >>>That's your perogative. We have names for people who cling to their > >>>'orthodoxy' in light of evidence against it. > >> > >>There's nothing "orthodoxy" about questioning the credibility of > >>information. If you're basing your whole premise on Davis' work then it's > >>very, very weak indeed. > >> > >> > >>>Those aren't nice names. > >> > >>The choice of names is yours. You can be as nice or as nasty as your > >>character dictates. > >> > >> > >>>>>I'm going to stick my neck out and say that I don't think there's a > >>>>>statistical difference. > >>>> > >>>>I think you're wrong. > >>> > >>>On what basis? > >> > >>Based on my sense of how the numbers from the "counting game" would > > > > probably > > > >>result. Pretty much the same level of basis as your "sticking your neck > >>out". > >> > >> > >>>>Why? Don't you think that fewer incidents of animal suffering and > > > > deaths > > > >>>>make it more ethical? > >>> > >>>Is it more ethical to only beat a child once a week as opposed to once a > >>>day? If something -- in this instance, animal causalties as a result of > >>>agriculture -- is unethical, then it's unethical whether it happens once > >>>or millions of times. > >> > >>Beating a child once a month wins over beating a child once a week every > >>time. > >> > >> > >>>>There will always be some people who take an absolute moral stand. > > > > Don't > > > >>>>generalize a whole group based on the actions of a few. > >>> > >>>See your previous comment about fewer incidents making something > >>>ethical. > >> > >>No, I never said that. Go back and read again. I keep saying that fewer > >>incidents of suffering and death is better than more incidents of suffeing > >>and death. You see only black and white when, in fact, there are many > > > > shades > > > >>of gray. > >> > >> > >>>You're part of the crowd discussing things in terms of morality > >>>and ethics. The issue isn't just over absolutes, it's over the whole > >>>concept of what is moral and ethical. > >> > >>When you talk about something being either ethical or not (i.e.: absolute) > >>and then you say that "the issue isn't just over absolutes", I question > > > > the > > > >>coherence of what you're saying. You must be "part of the crowd discussing > >>things in terms of morality and ethics" too since we're having this > >>discussion. > >> > >> > >>>That doesn't just pertain to CDs, > >>>it goes to the whole nature of veganISM and AR. > >> > >>Maybe you would care to explain this further? > >> > >> > >>>>I think that most veg*ns inherently care what's in their food and are > >>>>willing to pay higher prices (compared to non-veg*n foods). If you are > >>>>comparing two otherwise equivalent veg*n products then I agree that > >> > >>price > >> > >>>>will be a stronger influence to consumers. > >>> > >>>I disagree. Other than a reflexive scan of ingredient lists to ensure no > >>>animal-derived ingredients are contained, most vegans are quite sloppy > >>>when it comes to shopping. > >> > >>Another generalization that can't be substantiated. > >> > >> > >>>>Okay, but I'm not talking about people eating field corn! You reuse > > > > the > > > >>same > >> > >>>>land to produce human consumable food. If you assume that the number > > > > of > > > >>>>incidental casualties will be the same regardless of what is planted > >> > >>then it > >> > >>>>IS an apples:apples argument. As for truely grass-fed, I think it > >> > >>represents > >> > >>>>a very small part of the total number of beef that is sold. Why are we > >>>>talking about something that is statistically insignificant? > >>> > >>>Grass-fed is a growing market. It's also one of the sources of meat > >>>which invalidates your thesis that a diet containing meat is going to > >>>cause more suffering and death than a vegan diet. > >> > >>Well, I'll give you that grass-fed will result in fewer CDs than > > > > grain-fed, > > > >>but that's still a far cry from "invalidating my thesis". > >> > >> > >>>>>Vegans cannot support their sanctimonious claims about morality or > >>>>>ethics with respect to animal deaths and suffering. The buck stops > >> > >>there. > >> > >>>>And you are the police that hold them to it? > >>> > >>>I'm interested enough in the truth to ask them to support their > >>>moral-ethical statements or to cease making such outlandish claims. If > >>>that bothers them, or you, tough shit. > >> > >>I don't think you are interested in the truth. You have taken a position > >>that you can't substantiate and you're defending it as the truth. You > > > > insist > > > >>that vegans substantiate their position and then somehow take their > > > > failure > > > >>to do so as support of your "truth". I think the truth is that there is no > >>absolute truth in this argument. > >> > >> > > > > > > > |
|
|||
|
|||
Dreck wants to be an animal-killing vegetarian
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 18:55:13 -0000, "Derek"
> wrote: >You are affirming the consequent. > >"If I eat vegetables, collateral deaths will occur." Acknowledging the consequent, since you don't grow them yourself or care about the way they're grown/harvested. You are denying them. Poorly I might add. -- swamp "Who, me officer? What's a ferut? These guys?? No, they're Polish cats." |
|
|||
|
|||
Want to be a vegetarian
Bill wrote: <snip> > 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, Never, since it is a strawman of your invention, Jonnie. No one says "nothing" can be done; much is done on an individual and small-group basis. But, as I have said, for society _in general_ to begin to consider CDs significant, society _in general_ will have to accept a different view of the moral status of animals in general, including food and fiber/leather animals as well as "pests". You keep reminding us that ethical vegetarians/vegans are a small minority. If that is so, we obviously cannot make much of a dent in the CD problem by ourselves. <snip> Rat |
|
|||
|
|||
Want to be a vegetarian
Dutch wrote: <snip> > Veganism *means* that meat-eating is immoral. That does not mean meat-EATERS are immoral. <snip> > If I say to you that your belief system is false, based on fallacies, That is a legitimate way of discussing the topic, and one I am happy to address. > motivated by guilt, hate and/or self-righteousness, deluded, That is not a legitimate way of discussing the topic, and I will not respond to it. It is personal attack based on a claim of mind-reading. <snip> Rat |
|
|||
|
|||
Want to be a vegetarian
Rat & Swan wrote:
> > > Bill wrote: > > <snip> > > > >> 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, > > > Never, since it is a strawman of your invention No, it isn't. It's precisely what you say. You claim that your inaction - your continued participation in the collateral slaughter of animals you don't eat - continues only because the slaughter of animals that are eaten continues. You make your behavior according to principle contingent on other people's behavior. That's bullshit. It's not a strawman; it's your bullshit rationale for your inaction, your failure to live according to principle. > > No one says "nothing" can be done; much is done on an > individual and small-group basis. Nothing is done, and you rationalize your do-nothing approach by blaming others. > But, as I have said, Once again. > for society _in general_ No one is interested in "society in general". People are interested in your moral hypocrisy. |
|
|||
|
|||
Want to be a vegetarian
Rat & Swan wrote:
> > > Bill wrote: > > <snip> > > > >> 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, > > > Never, since it is a strawman of your invention No, it isn't. It's precisely what you say. You claim that your inaction - your continued participation in the collateral slaughter of animals you don't eat - continues only because the slaughter of animals that are eaten continues. You make your behavior according to principle contingent on other people's behavior. That's bullshit. It's not a strawman; it's your bullshit rationale for your inaction, your failure to live according to principle. > > No one says "nothing" can be done; much is done on an > individual and small-group basis. Nothing is done, and you rationalize your do-nothing approach by blaming others. > But, as I have said, Once again. > for society _in general_ No one is interested in "society in general". People are interested in your moral hypocrisy. |
|
|||
|
|||
Want to be a vegetarian
Rat & Swan wrote:
> > > Dutch wrote: > > <snip> > >> Veganism *means* that meat-eating is immoral. > > > That does not mean meat-EATERS are immoral. Implied. You believe it, too. |
|
|||
|
|||
Want to be a vegetarian
usual suspect wrote:
> (snip) > Seems to me that Professor Davis' body count The only _number_ Davis puts to a body count is a 50% reduction in the vole population in _one_ field of _alfala_, a feed crop for livestock. "Millions and millions" is not scientific quantification, not even for a professor of animal science aka meat science. > Stop with > the red herring about funding: his work is either valid or invalid. > Financial disclosure of funding agents is hardly a "red herring". It is important enough to the validity of research for the NIH, the NSF and the PHS to require it for all grant applicants. The era of scientists as objective gods is long over. Everyone seems to know this but you. Davis has made his career in farm animal science. IOW, the study of how to spend the least while profiting the most from livestock production. Please list the peer-reviewed journals that have published Davis' "research". (snip) > Why don't *they* go out and demonstrate that soy farming is more humane grass-fed > beef? Please stop using "grass-fed" when you mean "pasture-fed". Grass-fed cattle could be fed exclusively or seasonally with cut hay, sending their CD count over the moon. (snip) > I can offer anecdotal evidence from working in agriculture. > I've also offered Davis. This is fantastic, but could we see those peer-reviewed journals just for the heck of it? |
|
|||
|
|||
Want to be a vegetarian
"usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > C. James Putz wrote: > They only abhor the idea of the above when pronouncing their > self-righteousness. Their consumption of agricultural products which do > not avoid such casualties makes them hypocrites and demagogues. Read carefully: you're way over the top with your notion that vegans think they are morally superior, or that they think that a vegan lifestyle will eliminate all animal suffering and deaths. And this coming from a vegan, sheesh! You need to rethink a lot of things. > It depends on what kind of animal and under what conditions. I'm not > under the delusion that my diet -- which is far stricter as far as the > presence of animal-derived ingredients than YOURS -- is free of animal > suffering or death. I didn't realize that we were in competition in diet strictness. I guess you "win" then. Good for you! > Eating and living as people want is fine and well. Remember, though, > this discussion has its origin in certain ethical pronouncements by you > and others. The entire continuum of such pronouncements is unfounded. > Why do you set yourself up as more righteous than others simply because > they eat meat? I have never set myself up as being any more righteous than anyone else. > Is it getting through your thick forehead? > I guess it's *not* getting through your thick forehead. You're getting frustrated by your failure to convince anybody here of anything. > The meat from one large deer or a grass-fed deer will feed > a family many meals; reduce the animal deaths even further if that > family grows their own vegetables. I don't know about Texas, but in Pennsylvania there is a short hunting season during which you can shoot a limited number of deer. It surely wouldn't be enough to feed a family for a year. What do you propose that people eat for the rest of the year if vegetables are immoral? > If you have bonafide knowledge to refute something, you should offer it; > you shouldn't continue offering your tired dogma when it's not based on > verifiable fact. You have no more verifiable facts than I do. Yet you persist in coming off as some know-all, be-all intellect with all the answers. You are even more righteous and sanctimonious than than the vegans you accuse of the same. You are a hypocrite without equal. > I'll be as nasty as I can be if you don't support your flimsy premise > with something more substantial than you've already offered. Nastiness is one of the mechanisms you resort to to put emphasis on your flimsy arguments, particularly when you can't convince anybody with your righteousness, exaggerations, inventions, shifting positions, evasions, "anecdotal experiences", and biased information that you try to pass off as legitimate proof. > No, it does invalidate your beliefs since you suggest that a veg-n diet > in and of itself minimizes animal casualties. The very existence of > exceptions to your rule -- grass-fed beef, bison, game, fish, etc. -- > invalidates the extreme notion that meat must be avoided to be humane, > moral, ethical, sustainable. Avoiding meat contributes to the betterment of the world in other ways beyond morality. > I've tried reasoning with you, and I believe I've been quite civil about > it. I haven't made insinuations about your motives; now you seek to make > some about mine. Address the issues, Jim, and save your dislike of me > for other threads. I don't dislike you. You have been fairly civil with me lately until this post, and I appreciate that. I too have tried to be civil with you. But you escalate to name calling and insults when you can't get your way. Just what do you think it will accomplish other than giving you some twisted sense of self-gratification? Grow up. > What can you bring to > the table other than your "sense"? > I've substantiated my position. Have you substantiated your own, or are > you still shooting from the hip with your "sense" of how things are? > I haven't quite done that. I'm waiting, though, for someone to offer > more than a "sense" of what makes them more moral or ethical than > someone else. Boy, you really picked up on my "sense" of things, didn't you? Does it make you feel good to beat me over the head with it? You can play emphasis games all you want, but in the end your argument has no more substance than anyone else's. I'm out of this thread... |
|
|||
|
|||
Want to be a vegetarian
"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message ... > "usual suspect" > wrote in message ... > > C. James Putz wrote: > > > They only abhor the idea of the above when pronouncing their > > self-righteousness. Their consumption of agricultural products which do > > not avoid such casualties makes them hypocrites and demagogues. > > Read carefully: you're way over the top with your notion that vegans think > they are morally superior, or that they think that a vegan lifestyle will > eliminate all animal suffering and deaths. And this coming from a vegan, > sheesh! You need to rethink a lot of things. > He has done, but that confused him and us even more. "I am vegan" usual suspect 2002-05-09 "First, don't EVER call me "a vegan" or even just "vegan." usual suspect 2003-06-10 "No thanks, I'm a vegan." usual suspect 2003-08-14 "You'll find my views have been consistent." usual suspect 2003-09-05 |
|
|||
|
|||
Want to be a vegetarian
C. James Strutz wrote:
>>They only abhor the idea of the above when pronouncing their >>self-righteousness. Their consumption of agricultural products which do >>not avoid such casualties makes them hypocrites and demagogues. > > Read carefully: you're way over the top with your notion that vegans think > they are morally superior, or that they think that a vegan lifestyle will > eliminate all animal suffering and deaths. http://www.johnkinsella.org/conversations/vegan.html http://www.veganforlife.org/ethics.htm http://www.vegan.com/vegandownload.php http://www.vegsource.com/joanne/letters/dynamic.htm http://www.vegsource.com/joanne/letters/crueltyfree.htm http://www.vegsource.com/joanne/letters/vegan_life.htm http://www.veganoutreach.org/advocac...yofethics.html http://www.veganvalues.org/veganism_religion.htm I didn't even look at PETA, PCRM, or any of the other better-known sites. They, too, make a lot of statements about the moral and ethical superiority of a vegan diet and lifestyle. They also allege, as a couple of the quotes I offered (but you snipped), a vegan diet is free of cruelty and animal suffering. Shame on you for failing to note their remarks, and even more shame for continuing to say that vegans don't make claims of moral superiority. *That* is why I mentioned something about clinging to your orthodoxy, holding fast to your disputable dogma, in light of proof to the contrary. > And this coming from a vegan, > sheesh! You need to rethink a lot of things. Such as? >>It depends on what kind of animal and under what conditions. I'm not >>under the delusion that my diet -- which is far stricter as far as the >>presence of animal-derived ingredients than YOURS -- is free of animal >>suffering or death. > > I didn't realize that we were in competition in diet strictness. I guess you > "win" then. Good for you! The point I made wasn't about a competition, it was about which of us harbors delusions about our diet vis a vis animal casualties. >>Eating and living as people want is fine and well. Remember, though, >>this discussion has its origin in certain ethical pronouncements by you >>and others. The entire continuum of such pronouncements is unfounded. >>Why do you set yourself up as more righteous than others simply because >>they eat meat? > > I have never set myself up as being any more righteous than anyone else. You claimed that a diet which you allege "minimizes" animal casualties is more ethical than a diet containing meat. >>Is it getting through your thick forehead? > >>I guess it's *not* getting through your thick forehead. > > You're getting frustrated by your failure to convince anybody here of > anything. No, I'm not frustrated; I also think my points have been sufficient to convince *reasonable* persons. >>The meat from one large deer or a grass-fed deer will feed >>a family many meals; reduce the animal deaths even further if that >>family grows their own vegetables. > > I don't know about Texas, but in Pennsylvania there is a short hunting > season during which you can shoot a limited number of deer. It surely > wouldn't be enough to feed a family for a year. What do you propose that > people eat for the rest of the year if vegetables are immoral? How many meals, at a reasonable serving size of a quarter pound, can you get from a deer which dresses at 100 pounds? I see 400 meals per deer. Pennsylvania allows one antlered and one unantlered deer per archery season. That's 800 meals if you use both tags. Add more if you also hunt with muzzleloader and/or rifle. If that's not enough, hunt other game as well. How much meat do you need? >>If you have bonafide knowledge to refute something, you should offer it; >>you shouldn't continue offering your tired dogma when it's not based on >>verifiable fact. > > You have no more verifiable facts than I do. Wait, what verifiable facts did you offer? > Yet you persist in coming off > as some know-all, be-all intellect with all the answers. You are even more > righteous and sanctimonious than than the vegans you accuse of the same. You > are a hypocrite without equal. Address the issues at hand, not your hatred of me. >>I'll be as nasty as I can be if you don't support your flimsy premise >>with something more substantial than you've already offered. > > Nastiness is one of the mechanisms you resort to to put emphasis on your > flimsy arguments, particularly when you can't convince anybody with your > righteousness, exaggerations, inventions, shifting positions, evasions, > "anecdotal experiences", and biased information that you try to pass off as > legitimate proof. I see. My information is "biased" but your (lack of) information is "objective." Nastiness is a matter of style, not substance. I've given as much substance -- if not more -- than you have in this discussion. I've also refrained from engaging in a nasty style despite your attempts to turn the debate away from CDs to what you think of me. >>No, it does invalidate your beliefs since you suggest that a veg-n diet >>in and of itself minimizes animal casualties. The very existence of >>exceptions to your rule -- grass-fed beef, bison, game, fish, etc. -- >>invalidates the extreme notion that meat must be avoided to be humane, >>moral, ethical, sustainable. > > Avoiding meat contributes to the betterment of the world in other ways > beyond morality. Please explain and justify this sentiment. >>I've tried reasoning with you, and I believe I've been quite civil about >>it. I haven't made insinuations about your motives; now you seek to make >>some about mine. Address the issues, Jim, and save your dislike of me >>for other threads. > > I don't dislike you. You have been fairly civil with me lately until this > post, and I appreciate that. I too have tried to be civil with you. But you > escalate to name calling and insults when you can't get your way. Just what > do you think it will accomplish other than giving you some twisted sense of > self-gratification? Grow up. Again, the issue at hand isn't me. It's CDs. Stick to the issue. >>What can you bring to >>the table other than your "sense"? > >>I've substantiated my position. Have you substantiated your own, or are >>you still shooting from the hip with your "sense" of how things are? > >>I haven't quite done that. I'm waiting, though, for someone to offer >>more than a "sense" of what makes them more moral or ethical than >>someone else. > > Boy, you really picked up on my "sense" of things, didn't you? It was obvious that you're playing without much more than your feelings about things even before you mentioned your "sense." > Does it make you feel good to beat me over the head with it? I feel very good but it has nothing to do with you. Get some facts that we can discuss and debate. Your "sense" can be fodder for discussion, but your feelings aren't germane to the discussion. > You can play emphasis games all you want, but in the end > your argument has no more substance than anyone else's. It has more than yours. > I'm out of this thread... Wuss. |
|
|||
|
|||
Want to be a vegetarian
On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 14:37:49 -0000, "Derek"
> wrote: > >"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message ... >> "usual suspect" > wrote in message ... >> > C. James Putz wrote: >> >> > They only abhor the idea of the above when pronouncing their >> > self-righteousness. Their consumption of agricultural products which do >> > not avoid such casualties makes them hypocrites and demagogues. >> >> Read carefully: you're way over the top with your notion that vegans think >> they are morally superior, or that they think that a vegan lifestyle will >> eliminate all animal suffering and deaths. And this coming from a vegan, >> sheesh! You need to rethink a lot of things. >> >He has done, but that confused him and us even more. > >"I am vegan" >usual suspect 2002-05-09 > >"First, don't EVER call me "a vegan" or even just "vegan." >usual suspect 2003-06-10 > >"No thanks, I'm a vegan." >usual suspect 2003-08-14 > >"You'll find my views have been consistent." >usual suspect 2003-09-05 Lol. Yes, that conclusively shows how confused jonathan is. 'You can't win 'em all.' Lord Haw Haw. Since I stopped donating money to CONservation hooligan charities Like the RSPB, Woodland Trust and all the other fat cat charities I am in the top 0.801% richest people in the world. There are 5,951,930,035 people poorer than me If you're really interested I am the 48,069,965 richest person in the world. And I'm keeping the bloody lot. So sue me. http://www.globalrichlist.com/ |
|
|||
|
|||
Want to be a vegetarian
Bill wrote: >> <snip> >>> 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, >> Never, since it is a strawman of your invention > No, it isn't. It's precisely what you say. You claim > that your inaction - your continued participation in > the collateral slaughter of animals you don't eat - > continues only because the slaughter of animals that > are eaten continues. I have never claimed any such thing. > You make your behavior according to principle > contingent on other people's behavior. I do not. > That's > bullshit. It's not a strawman; it's your bullshit > rationale for your inaction, your failure to live > according to principle. >> No one says "nothing" can be done; much is done on an >> individual and small-group basis. > Nothing is done, That is simply false, pure nonsense, and you know it, because examples which disprove this claim have been presented many times. Small-scale organic and farmers'-market vegetable growers, individuals like Feralpower and others, all have made steps toward reducing "pest control." There are even "predator-friendly" stock-raising ranches and farms which have replaced shooting, trapping, and poisoning of coyotes, wolves and other predators with natural population controls and guard-animals such as llamas or dogs. It is not a black-and-white situation. But such changes are limited in effect, and will remain small-scale as long as society _in general_ does not accept the reasoning behind such efforts. AR is making progress -- slowly, but some progress. I think things will change, but the current economic tide and the Bush administration's anti-environmental attitude have definitely created problems. > and you rationalize your do-nothing > approach by blaming others. I don't. >> But, as I have said, > Once again. >> for society _in general_ > No one is interested in "society in general". People > are interested in your moral hypocrisy. I think most rational people interested in ethical issues are interested in society in general. It is the sign of a petty, limited lack of vision to concentrate on personal attack. If real, large-scale change in our treatment of animals is going to come about, large numbers of people are going to have to make major changes in their basic worldview. It HAS happened in the past, it CAN happen in the future, I see limited evidence that it is happening today. But large-scale social change is the goal and the real issue, because the injuries to animals are large-scale and society -- indeed _species_--wide. Do you think slavery would ever have ended if people had done nothing but natter on endlessly about Thomas Jefferson's "hypocricy" without ever addressing the large- scale social issues, or the philosophical question posed by the slogan, "Am I not a Man and a Brother?" Jefferson held slaves himself and certainly participated in a slave- using economy. But Jefferson's philosophical ideas, and his writing, including his contribution to the writing of the U.S Constitution, had a major influence on the ideas of people who ended legal slavery in the United States a generation or two after Jefferson himself. In the long run, it is ideas and their consequences that matter for large-scale social change. One man freeing his slaves is a good thing, but one man convincing many others that slavery as an institution is unjust is what brings about real social change. Rat |
|
|||
|
|||
Want to be a vegetarian
Bill wrote: > Rat & Swan wrote: >> Dutch wrote: >> <snip> >>> Veganism *means* that meat-eating is immoral. >> That does not mean meat-EATERS are immoral. > Implied. You believe it, too. No, I don't, because I know otherwise from personal experience. It is only the myopic Anti tunnel- vision which makes them unable to understand this. Rat |
|
|||
|
|||
Want to be a vegetarian
"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
... > > > Dutch wrote: > > <snip> > > > Veganism *means* that meat-eating is immoral. > > That does not mean meat-EATERS are immoral. Yes it does. > <snip> > > > If I say to you that your belief system is false, based on fallacies, > > That is a legitimate way of discussing the topic, and one I > am happy to address. > > > motivated by guilt, hate and/or self-righteousness, deluded, > > That is not a legitimate way of discussing the topic, and > I will not respond to it. It is personal attack based on > a claim of mind-reading. > > <snip> > > Rat The significance in your reply is that you snipped everything relevant without responding. |
|
|||
|
|||
Want to be a vegetarian
Rat & Swan wrote:
> > > Bill wrote: > >>> <snip> > > >>>> 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, > > >>> Never, since it is a strawman of your invention > > >> No, it isn't. It's precisely what you say. You claim >> that your inaction - your continued participation in >> the collateral slaughter of animals you don't eat - >> continues only because the slaughter of animals that >> are eaten continues. > > > I have never claimed any such thing. Yes, you have. > >> You make your behavior according to principle >> contingent on other people's behavior. > > > I do not. Yes, you do. You are lying in claiming you don't. > >> That's bullshit. It's not a strawman; it's your bullshit >> rationale for your inaction, your failure to live >> according to principle. > > >>> No one says "nothing" can be done; much is done on an >>> individual and small-group basis. > > >> Nothing is done, > > > That is simply false, No. It is true. You are not doing anything to eliminate, or even to reduce, the collateral deaths caused by the production of the foods you eat. .... > >> and you rationalize your do-nothing >> approach by blaming others. > > > I don't. You do. You blame your inaction on others' refusal to see things your way. You claim that vegetarianism *must* precede doing something, anything, about collateral deaths. > >>> But, as I have said, > > >> Once again. > > >>> for society _in general_ > > >> No one is interested in "society in general". People >> are interested in your moral hypocrisy. > > > I think most rational people interested in ethical issues > are interested in society in general. First, they are interested in the moral hypocrisy and blatant lying of finger-wagging loudmouths like you. You have no credibility. None. .... |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
I'm considering being a vegetarian... | Vegan | |||
I'm considering being a vegetarian... | Vegan | |||
Vegetarian low fat | Recipes | |||
Near Vegetarian to Vegetarian to Vegan | Vegan | |||
FA: Four Vegetarian Books for children, mothers, etc. VEGAN VEGETARIAN | General Cooking |