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 Search this Thread Display Modes
  #161 (permalink)   Report Post  
C. James Strutz
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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?


  #162 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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>

  #163 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.

  #164 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.


  #165 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.



  #166 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.

  #167 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.


  #168 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.

  #169 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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


  #170 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.



  #171 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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
>



  #172 (permalink)   Report Post  
C. James Strutz
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.


  #173 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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?


  #174 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.


  #175 (permalink)   Report Post  
frlpwr
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.




  #176 (permalink)   Report Post  
frlpwr
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.

  #177 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.

  #178 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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


  #179 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.

  #180 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.




  #181 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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


  #182 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.

  #183 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
>>
>>

>
>
>


  #184 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.

  #185 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.
> >>
> >>

> >
> >
> >

>





  #186 (permalink)   Report Post  
swamp
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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."
  #187 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rat & Swan
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

  #188 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rat & Swan
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

  #189 (permalink)   Report Post  
Jonathan Ball
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.

  #190 (permalink)   Report Post  
Bill
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.




  #191 (permalink)   Report Post  
Bill
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.


  #192 (permalink)   Report Post  
frlpwr
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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?

  #193 (permalink)   Report Post  
C. James Strutz
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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...


  #194 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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


  #195 (permalink)   Report Post  
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.



  #196 (permalink)   Report Post  
LordSnooty
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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/
  #197 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rat & Swan
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

  #198 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rat & Swan
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

  #199 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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.


  #200 (permalink)   Report Post  
Bill
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I'm considering being a vegetarian... Judy Vegan 114 20-06-2006 08:10 PM
I'm considering being a vegetarian... pearl Vegan 0 12-06-2006 01:27 PM
Vegetarian low fat Tabbi Recipes 0 05-07-2005 07:07 PM
Near Vegetarian to Vegetarian to Vegan Steve Vegan 14 07-10-2004 08:47 AM
FA: Four Vegetarian Books for children, mothers, etc. VEGAN VEGETARIAN Mark General Cooking 0 05-08-2004 09:11 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:20 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"