FoodBanter.com

FoodBanter.com (https://www.foodbanter.com/)
-   Vegan (https://www.foodbanter.com/vegan/)
-   -   What to eat (https://www.foodbanter.com/vegan/415895-re-what-eat.html)

dh@. 27-02-2012 06:22 PM

What to eat
 
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:39:12 -0500, ToolPackinMama >
wrote:

>My favorite food used to be chicken. recently, while I was preparing
>chicken for my family, I had an epiphany.
>
>I was handling the chicken parts with great caution. I had vinyl gloves
>on, and I was working hard to keep the process sanitary. I am aware of
>how unclean chicken meat generally is.
>
>It suddenly struck me: "If I believe this has to be handled like toxic
>waste, why am I feeding it to my family!?"


It's not that way with "meat". It's that way with *some* meat. Notice that
it's that way with meat from omnivores, which we are. So it makes sense that
there is a danger of exchanging microbes that can thrive in the bodies of
omnivores if you eat the bodies of omnivores without doing something to kill
those particular microbes. Notice that it's a danger in pork and chicken which
are both omnivores, and not in beef and fish because their systems are too
different. But the good part is that if you kill the microbes which is simple
enough, then the meat is good for you and your family.

>It hit me like a bolt of lightning: I believe that meat is unwholesome,
>so why am I still eating it, and serving it to others!?


Just make sure you kill the microbes which also results in better tasting
meat. No one likes rare chicken, and though rare pork tastes awesome it can make
a person horribly sick. So cook it.

>I have always hated the cruelty that "food animals" were subjected to.
>I had to not think about it, to be able to eat meat at all. Well, I am
>thinking about it now, and it makes the thought of meat even more repugnant.


Broiler chickens and their parents are not kept in little cages and the vast
majority of them get to enjoy lives of positive value, imo. The same is true of
cage free laying hens in general so if you buy cage free eggs you are supporting
a system which deliberately tries to provide lives of positive value for laying
hens. There's reason to feel good about doing that, not reason to feel bad about
it. There's reason to feel bad about buying battery cage eggs though especially
if you could get cage free simply by spending more money. Not only does buying
cage free eggs and whatever other animal friendly products deliberately
contribute to lives of positive value for livestock animals, but it also puts
you in the position of deliberately contributing to a more considerate type of
society and thinking in general. Notice that it's a level of consideration and
participation that eliminationists do NOT want other people to intentionally
rise to because it works AGAINST their selfish and lowly elimination objective.

>OK! The solution seems simple: vegetarianism.


· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:

tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
gelatin capsules, adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings

The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

Rupert 27-02-2012 06:37 PM

What to eat
 
On Feb 27, 6:22*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:39:12 -0500, ToolPackinMama >
> wrote:
>
> >My favorite food used to be chicken. *recently, while I was preparing
> >chicken for my family, I had an epiphany.

>
> >I was handling the chicken parts with great caution. *I had vinyl gloves
> >on, and I was working hard to keep the process sanitary. *I am aware of
> >how unclean chicken meat generally is.

>
> >It suddenly struck me: *"If I believe this has to be handled like toxic
> >waste, why am I feeding it to my family!?"

>
> * * It's not that way with "meat". It's that way with *some* meat. Notice that
> it's that way with meat from omnivores, which we are. So it makes sense that
> there is a danger of exchanging microbes that can thrive in the bodies of
> omnivores if you eat the bodies of omnivores without doing something to kill
> those particular microbes. Notice that it's a danger in pork and chicken which
> are both omnivores, and not in beef and fish because their systems are too
> different. But the good part is that if you kill the microbes which is simple
> enough, then the meat is good for you and your family.
>
> >It hit me like a bolt of lightning: *I believe that meat is unwholesome,
> >so why am I still eating it, and serving it to others!?

>
> * * Just make sure you kill the microbes which also results in better tasting
> meat. No one likes rare chicken, and though rare pork tastes awesome it can make
> a person horribly sick. So cook it.
>
> >I have always hated the cruelty that "food animals" were subjected to.
> >I had to not think about it, to be able to eat meat at all. *Well, I am
> >thinking about it now, and it makes the thought of meat even more repugnant.

>
> * * Broiler chickens and their parents are not kept in little cages and the vast
> majority of them get to enjoy lives of positive value, imo. The same is true of
> cage free laying hens in general so if you buy cage free eggs you are supporting
> a system which deliberately tries to provide lives of positive value for laying
> hens. There's reason to feel good about doing that, not reason to feel bad about
> it. There's reason to feel bad about buying battery cage eggs though especially
> if you could get cage free simply by spending more money. Not only does buying
> cage free eggs and whatever other animal friendly products deliberately
> contribute to lives of positive value for livestock animals, but it also puts
> you in the position of deliberately contributing to a more considerate type of
> society and thinking in general. Notice that it's a level of consideration and
> participation that eliminationists do NOT want other people to intentionally
> rise to because it works AGAINST their selfish and lowly elimination objective.
>
> >OK! *The solution seems simple: *vegetarianism.

>
> * · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.


Which gives her absolutely no reason why she shouldn't go vegetarian.

dh@. 01-03-2012 11:37 PM

What to eat
 
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:37:37 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
wrote:

>On Feb 27, 6:22*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:39:12 -0500, ToolPackinMama >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >My favorite food used to be chicken. *recently, while I was preparing
>> >chicken for my family, I had an epiphany.

>>
>> >I was handling the chicken parts with great caution. *I had vinyl gloves
>> >on, and I was working hard to keep the process sanitary. *I am aware of
>> >how unclean chicken meat generally is.

>>
>> >It suddenly struck me: *"If I believe this has to be handled like toxic
>> >waste, why am I feeding it to my family!?"

>>
>> * * It's not that way with "meat". It's that way with *some* meat. Notice that
>> it's that way with meat from omnivores, which we are. So it makes sense that
>> there is a danger of exchanging microbes that can thrive in the bodies of
>> omnivores if you eat the bodies of omnivores without doing something to kill
>> those particular microbes. Notice that it's a danger in pork and chicken which
>> are both omnivores, and not in beef and fish because their systems are too
>> different. But the good part is that if you kill the microbes which is simple
>> enough, then the meat is good for you and your family.
>>
>> >It hit me like a bolt of lightning: *I believe that meat is unwholesome,
>> >so why am I still eating it, and serving it to others!?

>>
>> * * Just make sure you kill the microbes which also results in better tasting
>> meat. No one likes rare chicken, and though rare pork tastes awesome it can make
>> a person horribly sick. So cook it.
>>
>> >I have always hated the cruelty that "food animals" were subjected to.
>> >I had to not think about it, to be able to eat meat at all. *Well, I am
>> >thinking about it now, and it makes the thought of meat even more repugnant.

>>
>> * * Broiler chickens and their parents are not kept in little cages and the vast
>> majority of them get to enjoy lives of positive value, imo. The same is true of
>> cage free laying hens in general so if you buy cage free eggs you are supporting
>> a system which deliberately tries to provide lives of positive value for laying
>> hens. There's reason to feel good about doing that, not reason to feel bad about
>> it. There's reason to feel bad about buying battery cage eggs though especially
>> if you could get cage free simply by spending more money. Not only does buying
>> cage free eggs and whatever other animal friendly products deliberately
>> contribute to lives of positive value for livestock animals, but it also puts
>> you in the position of deliberately contributing to a more considerate type of
>> society and thinking in general. Notice that it's a level of consideration and
>> participation that eliminationists do NOT want other people to intentionally
>> rise to because it works AGAINST their selfish and lowly elimination objective.
>>
>> >OK! *The solution seems simple: *vegetarianism.

>>
>> * · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
>> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
>> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.

>
>Which gives her absolutely no reason why she shouldn't go vegetarian.


Other things which you snipped suggest why it would be ethically equivalent
or superior if she becomes a conscientious consumer of both plant AND animal
products.

Rupert 02-03-2012 01:03 PM

What to eat
 
On 1 Mrz., 23:37, dh@. wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:37:37 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 27, 6:22*pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:39:12 -0500, ToolPackinMama >
> >> wrote:

>
> >> >My favorite food used to be chicken. *recently, while I was preparing
> >> >chicken for my family, I had an epiphany.

>
> >> >I was handling the chicken parts with great caution. *I had vinyl gloves
> >> >on, and I was working hard to keep the process sanitary. *I am aware of
> >> >how unclean chicken meat generally is.

>
> >> >It suddenly struck me: *"If I believe this has to be handled like toxic
> >> >waste, why am I feeding it to my family!?"

>
> >> * * It's not that way with "meat". It's that way with *some* meat. Notice that
> >> it's that way with meat from omnivores, which we are. So it makes sense that
> >> there is a danger of exchanging microbes that can thrive in the bodies of
> >> omnivores if you eat the bodies of omnivores without doing something to kill
> >> those particular microbes. Notice that it's a danger in pork and chicken which
> >> are both omnivores, and not in beef and fish because their systems are too
> >> different. But the good part is that if you kill the microbes which is simple
> >> enough, then the meat is good for you and your family.

>
> >> >It hit me like a bolt of lightning: *I believe that meat is unwholesome,
> >> >so why am I still eating it, and serving it to others!?

>
> >> * * Just make sure you kill the microbes which also results in better tasting
> >> meat. No one likes rare chicken, and though rare pork tastes awesome it can make
> >> a person horribly sick. So cook it.

>
> >> >I have always hated the cruelty that "food animals" were subjected to..
> >> >I had to not think about it, to be able to eat meat at all. *Well, I am
> >> >thinking about it now, and it makes the thought of meat even more repugnant.

>
> >> * * Broiler chickens and their parents are not kept in little cages and the vast
> >> majority of them get to enjoy lives of positive value, imo. The same is true of
> >> cage free laying hens in general so if you buy cage free eggs you are supporting
> >> a system which deliberately tries to provide lives of positive value for laying
> >> hens. There's reason to feel good about doing that, not reason to feel bad about
> >> it. There's reason to feel bad about buying battery cage eggs though especially
> >> if you could get cage free simply by spending more money. Not only does buying
> >> cage free eggs and whatever other animal friendly products deliberately
> >> contribute to lives of positive value for livestock animals, but it also puts
> >> you in the position of deliberately contributing to a more considerate type of
> >> society and thinking in general. Notice that it's a level of consideration and
> >> participation that eliminationists do NOT want other people to intentionally
> >> rise to because it works AGAINST their selfish and lowly elimination objective.

>
> >> >OK! *The solution seems simple: *vegetarianism.

>
> >> * · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
> >> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
> >> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.

>
> >Which gives her absolutely no reason why she shouldn't go vegetarian.

>
> * * Other things which you snipped suggest why it would be ethically equivalent
> or superior if she becomes a conscientious consumer of both plant AND animal
> products.


But, as we saw elsewhere, your case for this claim is not actually
grounded in any evidence.

Most animal products require more collateral deaths than plant-based
products, because grain needs to be grown and fed to the animals and
it is a less efficient means of producing protein than directly
feeding the grain to humans. Grass-fed beef may possibly be an
exception, but you have demonstrated yourself unable to substantiate
the assertion, which you nevertheless keep making, that one serving of
soy products is likely to involve hundreds of times as many deaths as
one serving of grass-fed beef.

I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility that there might be some
dietary choices she might make which are not vegetarian and yet are
nevertheless just as good as a vegetarian diet, but you haven't given
her practical guidance about any specific such choice. In the absence
of specific practical advice going vegetarian is a good strategy for
her to reduce her contribution to animal suffering. It's also better
for her health to be vegetarian than not.

Mr.Smartypants[_4_] 02-03-2012 02:36 PM

What to eat
 
On Mar 2, 5:03*am, Rupert > wrote:
> On 1 Mrz., 23:37, dh@. wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:37:37 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
> > wrote:

>
> > >On Feb 27, 6:22*pm, dh@. wrote:
> > >> On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:39:12 -0500, ToolPackinMama >
> > >> wrote:

>
> > >> >My favorite food used to be chicken. *recently, while I was preparing
> > >> >chicken for my family, I had an epiphany.

>
> > >> >I was handling the chicken parts with great caution. *I had vinyl gloves
> > >> >on, and I was working hard to keep the process sanitary. *I am aware of
> > >> >how unclean chicken meat generally is.

>
> > >> >It suddenly struck me: *"If I believe this has to be handled like toxic
> > >> >waste, why am I feeding it to my family!?"

>
> > >> * * It's not that way with "meat". It's that way with *some* meat. Notice that
> > >> it's that way with meat from omnivores, which we are. So it makes sense that
> > >> there is a danger of exchanging microbes that can thrive in the bodies of
> > >> omnivores if you eat the bodies of omnivores without doing something to kill
> > >> those particular microbes. Notice that it's a danger in pork and chicken which
> > >> are both omnivores, and not in beef and fish because their systems are too
> > >> different. But the good part is that if you kill the microbes which is simple
> > >> enough, then the meat is good for you and your family.

>
> > >> >It hit me like a bolt of lightning: *I believe that meat is unwholesome,
> > >> >so why am I still eating it, and serving it to others!?

>
> > >> * * Just make sure you kill the microbes which also results in better tasting
> > >> meat. No one likes rare chicken, and though rare pork tastes awesome it can make
> > >> a person horribly sick. So cook it.

>
> > >> >I have always hated the cruelty that "food animals" were subjected to.
> > >> >I had to not think about it, to be able to eat meat at all. *Well, I am
> > >> >thinking about it now, and it makes the thought of meat even more repugnant.

>
> > >> * * Broiler chickens and their parents are not kept in little cages and the vast
> > >> majority of them get to enjoy lives of positive value, imo. The same is true of
> > >> cage free laying hens in general so if you buy cage free eggs you are supporting
> > >> a system which deliberately tries to provide lives of positive value for laying
> > >> hens. There's reason to feel good about doing that, not reason to feel bad about
> > >> it. There's reason to feel bad about buying battery cage eggs though especially
> > >> if you could get cage free simply by spending more money. Not only does buying
> > >> cage free eggs and whatever other animal friendly products deliberately
> > >> contribute to lives of positive value for livestock animals, but it also puts
> > >> you in the position of deliberately contributing to a more considerate type of
> > >> society and thinking in general. Notice that it's a level of consideration and
> > >> participation that eliminationists do NOT want other people to intentionally
> > >> rise to because it works AGAINST their selfish and lowly elimination objective.

>
> > >> >OK! *The solution seems simple: *vegetarianism.

>
> > >> * · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
> > >> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
> > >> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.

>
> > >Which gives her absolutely no reason why she shouldn't go vegetarian.

>
> > * * Other things which you snipped suggest why it would be ethically equivalent
> > or superior if she becomes a conscientious consumer of both plant AND animal
> > products.

>
> But, as we saw elsewhere, your case for this claim is not actually
> grounded in any evidence.
>
> Most animal products require more collateral deaths than plant-based
> products, because grain needs to be grown and fed to the animals and
> it is a less efficient means of producing protein than directly
> feeding the grain to humans. Grass-fed beef may possibly be an
> exception, but you have demonstrated yourself unable to substantiate
> the assertion, which you nevertheless keep making, that one serving of
> soy products is likely to involve hundreds of times as many deaths as
> one serving of grass-fed beef.
>
> I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility that there might be some
> dietary choices she might make which are not vegetarian and yet are
> nevertheless just as good as a vegetarian diet, but you haven't given
> her practical guidance about any specific such choice. In the absence
> of specific practical advice going vegetarian is a good strategy for
> her to reduce her contribution to animal suffering. It's also better
> for her health to be vegetarian than not.


Rupert, you've just put forth the most lucid argument I've seen here
in a decade.

Rupert 02-03-2012 03:08 PM

What to eat
 
On Mar 2, 2:36*pm, "Mr.Smartypants" > wrote:
> On Mar 2, 5:03*am, Rupert > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 1 Mrz., 23:37, dh@. wrote:

>
> > > On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:37:37 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
> > > wrote:

>
> > > >On Feb 27, 6:22*pm, dh@. wrote:
> > > >> On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:39:12 -0500, ToolPackinMama >
> > > >> wrote:

>
> > > >> >My favorite food used to be chicken. *recently, while I was preparing
> > > >> >chicken for my family, I had an epiphany.

>
> > > >> >I was handling the chicken parts with great caution. *I had vinyl gloves
> > > >> >on, and I was working hard to keep the process sanitary. *I am aware of
> > > >> >how unclean chicken meat generally is.

>
> > > >> >It suddenly struck me: *"If I believe this has to be handled like toxic
> > > >> >waste, why am I feeding it to my family!?"

>
> > > >> * * It's not that way with "meat". It's that way with *some* meat. Notice that
> > > >> it's that way with meat from omnivores, which we are. So it makes sense that
> > > >> there is a danger of exchanging microbes that can thrive in the bodies of
> > > >> omnivores if you eat the bodies of omnivores without doing something to kill
> > > >> those particular microbes. Notice that it's a danger in pork and chicken which
> > > >> are both omnivores, and not in beef and fish because their systems are too
> > > >> different. But the good part is that if you kill the microbes which is simple
> > > >> enough, then the meat is good for you and your family.

>
> > > >> >It hit me like a bolt of lightning: *I believe that meat is unwholesome,
> > > >> >so why am I still eating it, and serving it to others!?

>
> > > >> * * Just make sure you kill the microbes which also results in better tasting
> > > >> meat. No one likes rare chicken, and though rare pork tastes awesome it can make
> > > >> a person horribly sick. So cook it.

>
> > > >> >I have always hated the cruelty that "food animals" were subjected to.
> > > >> >I had to not think about it, to be able to eat meat at all. *Well, I am
> > > >> >thinking about it now, and it makes the thought of meat even more repugnant.

>
> > > >> * * Broiler chickens and their parents are not kept in little cages and the vast
> > > >> majority of them get to enjoy lives of positive value, imo. The same is true of
> > > >> cage free laying hens in general so if you buy cage free eggs you are supporting
> > > >> a system which deliberately tries to provide lives of positive value for laying
> > > >> hens. There's reason to feel good about doing that, not reason to feel bad about
> > > >> it. There's reason to feel bad about buying battery cage eggs though especially
> > > >> if you could get cage free simply by spending more money. Not only does buying
> > > >> cage free eggs and whatever other animal friendly products deliberately
> > > >> contribute to lives of positive value for livestock animals, but it also puts
> > > >> you in the position of deliberately contributing to a more considerate type of
> > > >> society and thinking in general. Notice that it's a level of consideration and
> > > >> participation that eliminationists do NOT want other people to intentionally
> > > >> rise to because it works AGAINST their selfish and lowly elimination objective.

>
> > > >> >OK! *The solution seems simple: *vegetarianism.

>
> > > >> * · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
> > > >> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
> > > >> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.

>
> > > >Which gives her absolutely no reason why she shouldn't go vegetarian..

>
> > > * * Other things which you snipped suggest why it would be ethically equivalent
> > > or superior if she becomes a conscientious consumer of both plant AND animal
> > > products.

>
> > But, as we saw elsewhere, your case for this claim is not actually
> > grounded in any evidence.

>
> > Most animal products require more collateral deaths than plant-based
> > products, because grain needs to be grown and fed to the animals and
> > it is a less efficient means of producing protein than directly
> > feeding the grain to humans. Grass-fed beef may possibly be an
> > exception, but you have demonstrated yourself unable to substantiate
> > the assertion, which you nevertheless keep making, that one serving of
> > soy products is likely to involve hundreds of times as many deaths as
> > one serving of grass-fed beef.

>
> > I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility that there might be some
> > dietary choices she might make which are not vegetarian and yet are
> > nevertheless just as good as a vegetarian diet, but you haven't given
> > her practical guidance about any specific such choice. In the absence
> > of specific practical advice going vegetarian is a good strategy for
> > her to reduce her contribution to animal suffering. It's also better
> > for her health to be vegetarian than not.

>
> Rupert, you've just put forth the most lucid argument I've seen here
> in a decade.


Thanks.

George Plimpton 02-03-2012 05:43 PM

What to eat
 
On 3/2/2012 4:03 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 1 Mrz., 23:37, dh@. wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:37:37 -0800 (PST), >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 27, 6:22 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:39:12 -0500, >
>>>> wrote:

>>
>>>>> My favorite food used to be chicken. recently, while I was preparing
>>>>> chicken for my family, I had an epiphany.

>>
>>>>> I was handling the chicken parts with great caution. I had vinyl gloves
>>>>> on, and I was working hard to keep the process sanitary. I am aware of
>>>>> how unclean chicken meat generally is.

>>
>>>>> It suddenly struck me: "If I believe this has to be handled like toxic
>>>>> waste, why am I feeding it to my family!?"

>>
>>>> It's not that way with "meat". It's that way with *some* meat. Notice that
>>>> it's that way with meat from omnivores, which we are. So it makes sense that
>>>> there is a danger of exchanging microbes that can thrive in the bodies of
>>>> omnivores if you eat the bodies of omnivores without doing something to kill
>>>> those particular microbes. Notice that it's a danger in pork and chicken which
>>>> are both omnivores, and not in beef and fish because their systems are too
>>>> different. But the good part is that if you kill the microbes which is simple
>>>> enough, then the meat is good for you and your family.

>>
>>>>> It hit me like a bolt of lightning: I believe that meat is unwholesome,
>>>>> so why am I still eating it, and serving it to others!?

>>
>>>> Just make sure you kill the microbes which also results in better tasting
>>>> meat. No one likes rare chicken, and though rare pork tastes awesome it can make
>>>> a person horribly sick. So cook it.

>>
>>>>> I have always hated the cruelty that "food animals" were subjected to.
>>>>> I had to not think about it, to be able to eat meat at all. Well, I am
>>>>> thinking about it now, and it makes the thought of meat even more repugnant.

>>
>>>> Broiler chickens and their parents are not kept in little cages and the vast
>>>> majority of them get to enjoy lives of positive value, imo. The same is true of
>>>> cage free laying hens in general so if you buy cage free eggs you are supporting
>>>> a system which deliberately tries to provide lives of positive value for laying
>>>> hens. There's reason to feel good about doing that, not reason to feel bad about
>>>> it. There's reason to feel bad about buying battery cage eggs though especially
>>>> if you could get cage free simply by spending more money. Not only does buying
>>>> cage free eggs and whatever other animal friendly products deliberately
>>>> contribute to lives of positive value for livestock animals, but it also puts
>>>> you in the position of deliberately contributing to a more considerate type of
>>>> society and thinking in general. Notice that it's a level of consideration and
>>>> participation that eliminationists do NOT want other people to intentionally
>>>> rise to because it works AGAINST their selfish and lowly elimination objective.

>>
>>>>> OK! The solution seems simple: vegetarianism.

>>
>>>> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
>>>> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
>>>> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.

>>
>>> Which gives her absolutely no reason why she shouldn't go vegetarian.

>>
>> Other things which you snipped suggest why it would be ethically equivalent
>> or superior if she becomes a conscientious consumer of both plant AND animal
>> products.

>
> But, as we saw elsewhere, your case for this claim is not actually
> grounded in any evidence.


Correct, it isn't grounded in evidence. It is grounded in logical
consideration of plausible and likely true propositions.


> Most animal products require more collateral deaths than plant-based
> products, because grain needs to be grown and fed to the animals and
> it is a less efficient means of producing protein than directly
> feeding the grain to humans. Grass-fed beef may possibly be an
> exception, but you have demonstrated yourself unable to substantiate
> the assertion, which you nevertheless keep making, that one serving of
> soy products is likely to involve hundreds of times as many deaths as
> one serving of grass-fed beef.


We aren't talking about "most animal products". 100% grass-fed beef
exists, and plausibly, it causes no additional animal deaths at all.
You might wish to speculate idly about a beef steer putting its foot
into a rodent burrow and crushing some rodents to death, but in fact
cattle try to avoid stepping in holes.

It is entirely *implausible* to think that mechanized vegetable
agriculture does *not* kill significant numbers of field animals -
certainly far more than grazing animals.


> I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility that there might be some
> dietary choices she might make which are not vegetarian and yet are
> nevertheless just as good as a vegetarian diet, but you haven't given
> her practical guidance about any specific such choice.


Not his job.

What I have done is show that the easy, casual and fatuously
ego-gratifying assumption that refraining from consuming animal bits
*necessarily* shows one is pursuing the least-harm consumption pattern
is false.

George Plimpton 02-03-2012 05:44 PM

What to eat
 
On 3/2/2012 6:08 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 2, 2:36 pm, > wrote:
>> On Mar 2, 5:03 am, > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 1 Mrz., 23:37, dh@. wrote:

>>
>>>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:37:37 -0800 (PST), >
>>>> wrote:

>>
>>>>> On Feb 27, 6:22 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:39:12 -0500, >
>>>>>> wrote:

>>
>>>>>>> My favorite food used to be chicken. recently, while I was preparing
>>>>>>> chicken for my family, I had an epiphany.

>>
>>>>>>> I was handling the chicken parts with great caution. I had vinyl gloves
>>>>>>> on, and I was working hard to keep the process sanitary. I am aware of
>>>>>>> how unclean chicken meat generally is.

>>
>>>>>>> It suddenly struck me: "If I believe this has to be handled like toxic
>>>>>>> waste, why am I feeding it to my family!?"

>>
>>>>>> It's not that way with "meat". It's that way with *some* meat. Notice that
>>>>>> it's that way with meat from omnivores, which we are. So it makes sense that
>>>>>> there is a danger of exchanging microbes that can thrive in the bodies of
>>>>>> omnivores if you eat the bodies of omnivores without doing something to kill
>>>>>> those particular microbes. Notice that it's a danger in pork and chicken which
>>>>>> are both omnivores, and not in beef and fish because their systems are too
>>>>>> different. But the good part is that if you kill the microbes which is simple
>>>>>> enough, then the meat is good for you and your family.

>>
>>>>>>> It hit me like a bolt of lightning: I believe that meat is unwholesome,
>>>>>>> so why am I still eating it, and serving it to others!?

>>
>>>>>> Just make sure you kill the microbes which also results in better tasting
>>>>>> meat. No one likes rare chicken, and though rare pork tastes awesome it can make
>>>>>> a person horribly sick. So cook it.

>>
>>>>>>> I have always hated the cruelty that "food animals" were subjected to.
>>>>>>> I had to not think about it, to be able to eat meat at all. Well, I am
>>>>>>> thinking about it now, and it makes the thought of meat even more repugnant.

>>
>>>>>> Broiler chickens and their parents are not kept in little cages and the vast
>>>>>> majority of them get to enjoy lives of positive value, imo. The same is true of
>>>>>> cage free laying hens in general so if you buy cage free eggs you are supporting
>>>>>> a system which deliberately tries to provide lives of positive value for laying
>>>>>> hens. There's reason to feel good about doing that, not reason to feel bad about
>>>>>> it. There's reason to feel bad about buying battery cage eggs though especially
>>>>>> if you could get cage free simply by spending more money. Not only does buying
>>>>>> cage free eggs and whatever other animal friendly products deliberately
>>>>>> contribute to lives of positive value for livestock animals, but it also puts
>>>>>> you in the position of deliberately contributing to a more considerate type of
>>>>>> society and thinking in general. Notice that it's a level of consideration and
>>>>>> participation that eliminationists do NOT want other people to intentionally
>>>>>> rise to because it works AGAINST their selfish and lowly elimination objective.

>>
>>>>>>> OK! The solution seems simple: vegetarianism.

>>
>>>>>> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
>>>>>> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
>>>>>> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.

>>
>>>>> Which gives her absolutely no reason why she shouldn't go vegetarian.

>>
>>>> Other things which you snipped suggest why it would be ethically equivalent
>>>> or superior if she becomes a conscientious consumer of both plant AND animal
>>>> products.

>>
>>> But, as we saw elsewhere, your case for this claim is not actually
>>> grounded in any evidence.

>>
>>> Most animal products require more collateral deaths than plant-based
>>> products, because grain needs to be grown and fed to the animals and
>>> it is a less efficient means of producing protein than directly
>>> feeding the grain to humans. Grass-fed beef may possibly be an
>>> exception, but you have demonstrated yourself unable to substantiate
>>> the assertion, which you nevertheless keep making, that one serving of
>>> soy products is likely to involve hundreds of times as many deaths as
>>> one serving of grass-fed beef.

>>
>>> I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility that there might be some
>>> dietary choices she might make which are not vegetarian and yet are
>>> nevertheless just as good as a vegetarian diet, but you haven't given
>>> her practical guidance about any specific such choice. In the absence
>>> of specific practical advice going vegetarian is a good strategy for
>>> her to reduce her contribution to animal suffering. It's also better
>>> for her health to be vegetarian than not.

>>
>> Rupert, you've just put forth the most lucid argument I've seen here
>> in a decade.

>
> Thanks.


It was shit. When an idiot - truly a works-to-be-stupid idiot - like
Douchebag Hamilton is praising you for saying something stupid, the best
thing to do is just keep your stupid ****ing mouth shut.

Rupert 02-03-2012 06:52 PM

What to eat
 
On 2 Mrz., 17:44, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/2/2012 6:08 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 2, 2:36 pm, > *wrote:
> >> On Mar 2, 5:03 am, > *wrote:

>
> >>> On 1 Mrz., 23:37, dh@. wrote:

>
> >>>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:37:37 -0800 (PST), >
> >>>> wrote:

>
> >>>>> On Feb 27, 6:22 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >>>>>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:39:12 -0500, >
> >>>>>> wrote:

>
> >>>>>>> My favorite food used to be chicken. *recently, while I was preparing
> >>>>>>> chicken for my family, I had an epiphany.

>
> >>>>>>> I was handling the chicken parts with great caution. *I had vinyl gloves
> >>>>>>> on, and I was working hard to keep the process sanitary. *I am aware of
> >>>>>>> how unclean chicken meat generally is.

>
> >>>>>>> It suddenly struck me: *"If I believe this has to be handled like toxic
> >>>>>>> waste, why am I feeding it to my family!?"

>
> >>>>>> * * *It's not that way with "meat". It's that way with *some* meat. Notice that
> >>>>>> it's that way with meat from omnivores, which we are. So it makes sense that
> >>>>>> there is a danger of exchanging microbes that can thrive in the bodies of
> >>>>>> omnivores if you eat the bodies of omnivores without doing something to kill
> >>>>>> those particular microbes. Notice that it's a danger in pork and chicken which
> >>>>>> are both omnivores, and not in beef and fish because their systems are too
> >>>>>> different. But the good part is that if you kill the microbes which is simple
> >>>>>> enough, then the meat is good for you and your family.

>
> >>>>>>> It hit me like a bolt of lightning: *I believe that meat is unwholesome,
> >>>>>>> so why am I still eating it, and serving it to others!?

>
> >>>>>> * * *Just make sure you kill the microbes which also results in better tasting
> >>>>>> meat. No one likes rare chicken, and though rare pork tastes awesome it can make
> >>>>>> a person horribly sick. So cook it.

>
> >>>>>>> I have always hated the cruelty that "food animals" were subjected to.
> >>>>>>> I had to not think about it, to be able to eat meat at all. *Well, I am
> >>>>>>> thinking about it now, and it makes the thought of meat even more repugnant.

>
> >>>>>> * * *Broiler chickens and their parents are not kept in little cages and the vast
> >>>>>> majority of them get to enjoy lives of positive value, imo. The same is true of
> >>>>>> cage free laying hens in general so if you buy cage free eggs you are supporting
> >>>>>> a system which deliberately tries to provide lives of positive value for laying
> >>>>>> hens. There's reason to feel good about doing that, not reason to feel bad about
> >>>>>> it. There's reason to feel bad about buying battery cage eggs though especially
> >>>>>> if you could get cage free simply by spending more money. Not only does buying
> >>>>>> cage free eggs and whatever other animal friendly products deliberately
> >>>>>> contribute to lives of positive value for livestock animals, but it also puts
> >>>>>> you in the position of deliberately contributing to a more considerate type of
> >>>>>> society and thinking in general. Notice that it's a level of consideration and
> >>>>>> participation that eliminationists do NOT want other people to intentionally
> >>>>>> rise to because it works AGAINST their selfish and lowly elimination objective.

>
> >>>>>>> OK! *The solution seems simple: *vegetarianism.

>
> >>>>>> * *· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
> >>>>>> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
> >>>>>> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.

>
> >>>>> Which gives her absolutely no reason why she shouldn't go vegetarian.


Rupert 02-03-2012 06:58 PM

What to eat
 
On 2 Mrz., 17:43, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/2/2012 4:03 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 1 Mrz., 23:37, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:37:37 -0800 (PST), >
> >> wrote:

>
> >>> On Feb 27, 6:22 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:39:12 -0500, >
> >>>> wrote:

>
> >>>>> My favorite food used to be chicken. *recently, while I was preparing
> >>>>> chicken for my family, I had an epiphany.

>
> >>>>> I was handling the chicken parts with great caution. *I had vinyl gloves
> >>>>> on, and I was working hard to keep the process sanitary. *I am aware of
> >>>>> how unclean chicken meat generally is.

>
> >>>>> It suddenly struck me: *"If I believe this has to be handled like toxic
> >>>>> waste, why am I feeding it to my family!?"

>
> >>>> * * *It's not that way with "meat". It's that way with *some* meat. Notice that
> >>>> it's that way with meat from omnivores, which we are. So it makes sense that
> >>>> there is a danger of exchanging microbes that can thrive in the bodies of
> >>>> omnivores if you eat the bodies of omnivores without doing something to kill
> >>>> those particular microbes. Notice that it's a danger in pork and chicken which
> >>>> are both omnivores, and not in beef and fish because their systems are too
> >>>> different. But the good part is that if you kill the microbes which is simple
> >>>> enough, then the meat is good for you and your family.

>
> >>>>> It hit me like a bolt of lightning: *I believe that meat is unwholesome,
> >>>>> so why am I still eating it, and serving it to others!?

>
> >>>> * * *Just make sure you kill the microbes which also results in better tasting
> >>>> meat. No one likes rare chicken, and though rare pork tastes awesome it can make
> >>>> a person horribly sick. So cook it.

>
> >>>>> I have always hated the cruelty that "food animals" were subjected to.
> >>>>> I had to not think about it, to be able to eat meat at all. *Well, I am
> >>>>> thinking about it now, and it makes the thought of meat even more repugnant.

>
> >>>> * * *Broiler chickens and their parents are not kept in little cages and the vast
> >>>> majority of them get to enjoy lives of positive value, imo. The same is true of
> >>>> cage free laying hens in general so if you buy cage free eggs you are supporting
> >>>> a system which deliberately tries to provide lives of positive value for laying
> >>>> hens. There's reason to feel good about doing that, not reason to feel bad about
> >>>> it. There's reason to feel bad about buying battery cage eggs though especially
> >>>> if you could get cage free simply by spending more money. Not only does buying
> >>>> cage free eggs and whatever other animal friendly products deliberately
> >>>> contribute to lives of positive value for livestock animals, but it also puts
> >>>> you in the position of deliberately contributing to a more considerate type of
> >>>> society and thinking in general. Notice that it's a level of consideration and
> >>>> participation that eliminationists do NOT want other people to intentionally
> >>>> rise to because it works AGAINST their selfish and lowly elimination objective.

>
> >>>>> OK! *The solution seems simple: *vegetarianism.

>
> >>>> * *· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
> >>>> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
> >>>> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.

>
> >>> Which gives her absolutely no reason why she shouldn't go vegetarian.

>
> >> * * *Other things which you snipped suggest why it would be ethically equivalent
> >> or superior if she becomes a conscientious consumer of both plant AND animal
> >> products.

>
> > But, as we saw elsewhere, your case for this claim is not actually
> > grounded in any evidence.

>
> Correct, it isn't grounded in evidence. *It is grounded in logical
> consideration of plausible and likely true propositions.
>


If they are plausible and likely to be true, they must be grounded in
some evidence. You have contradicted yourself, you silly clown.

> > Most animal products require more collateral deaths than plant-based
> > products, because grain needs to be grown and fed to the animals and
> > it is a less efficient means of producing protein than directly
> > feeding the grain to humans. Grass-fed beef may possibly be an
> > exception, but you have demonstrated yourself unable to substantiate
> > the assertion, which you nevertheless keep making, that one serving of
> > soy products is likely to involve hundreds of times as many deaths as
> > one serving of grass-fed beef.

>
> We aren't talking about "most animal products". *100% grass-fed beef
> exists, and plausibly, it causes no additional animal deaths at all.
> You might wish to speculate idly about a beef steer putting its foot
> into a rodent burrow and crushing some rodents to death, but in fact
> cattle try to avoid stepping in holes.
>
> It is entirely *implausible* to think that mechanized vegetable
> agriculture does *not* kill significant numbers of field animals -
> certainly far more than grazing animals.
>


I'm not aware of any compelling reason to think it causes more deaths
per calorically equivalent serving. In order to demonstrate that you
would need to have the slightest idea about how many deaths are needed
to grow one hectare of soybeans, and how many servings of tofu that
gives you. No-one has produced any evidence to suggest that they have
the least idea about these questions.

In any case it's a bit of a moot point whether you can actually buy
beef at the supermarket and really be sure that it is 100% grass-fed.

> > I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility that there might be some
> > dietary choices she might make which are not vegetarian and yet are
> > nevertheless just as good as a vegetarian diet, but you haven't given
> > her practical guidance about any specific such choice.

>
> Not his job.
>


No. It's not his job. But my point that he has given her no especially
good reason to rethink her decision to go vegetarian stands.

> What I have done is show that the easy, casual and fatuously
> ego-gratifying assumption that refraining from consuming animal bits
> *necessarily* shows one is pursuing the least-harm consumption pattern
> is false.


Oh, good for you.

Obviously it is conceivable that there might be some other consumption
patterns that wouldn't involve substantial sacrifice which cause no
more harm. Showing that this might be the case is really not any
extraordinary achievement.

If you could actually come up with solid evidence about any specific
one of these I would be interested to hear about it, because I care
about trying to reduce the harm my diet causes. But you've never done
that.

George Plimpton 02-03-2012 07:51 PM

What to eat
 
On 3/2/2012 9:52 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 2 Mrz., 17:44, George > wrote:
>> On 3/2/2012 6:08 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 2, 2:36 pm, > wrote:
>>>> On Mar 2, 5:03 am, > wrote:

>>
>>>>> On 1 Mrz., 23:37, dh@. wrote:

>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:37:37 -0800 (PST), >
>>>>>> wrote:

>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 27, 6:22 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:39:12 -0500, >
>>>>>>>> wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>> My favorite food used to be chicken. recently, while I was preparing
>>>>>>>>> chicken for my family, I had an epiphany.

>>
>>>>>>>>> I was handling the chicken parts with great caution. I had vinyl gloves
>>>>>>>>> on, and I was working hard to keep the process sanitary. I am aware of
>>>>>>>>> how unclean chicken meat generally is.

>>
>>>>>>>>> It suddenly struck me: "If I believe this has to be handled like toxic
>>>>>>>>> waste, why am I feeding it to my family!?"

>>
>>>>>>>> It's not that way with "meat". It's that way with *some* meat. Notice that
>>>>>>>> it's that way with meat from omnivores, which we are. So it makes sense that
>>>>>>>> there is a danger of exchanging microbes that can thrive in the bodies of
>>>>>>>> omnivores if you eat the bodies of omnivores without doing something to kill
>>>>>>>> those particular microbes. Notice that it's a danger in pork and chicken which
>>>>>>>> are both omnivores, and not in beef and fish because their systems are too
>>>>>>>> different. But the good part is that if you kill the microbes which is simple
>>>>>>>> enough, then the meat is good for you and your family.

>>
>>>>>>>>> It hit me like a bolt of lightning: I believe that meat is unwholesome,
>>>>>>>>> so why am I still eating it, and serving it to others!?

>>
>>>>>>>> Just make sure you kill the microbes which also results in better tasting
>>>>>>>> meat. No one likes rare chicken, and though rare pork tastes awesome it can make
>>>>>>>> a person horribly sick. So cook it.

>>
>>>>>>>>> I have always hated the cruelty that "food animals" were subjected to.
>>>>>>>>> I had to not think about it, to be able to eat meat at all. Well, I am
>>>>>>>>> thinking about it now, and it makes the thought of meat even more repugnant.

>>
>>>>>>>> Broiler chickens and their parents are not kept in little cages and the vast
>>>>>>>> majority of them get to enjoy lives of positive value, imo. The same is true of
>>>>>>>> cage free laying hens in general so if you buy cage free eggs you are supporting
>>>>>>>> a system which deliberately tries to provide lives of positive value for laying
>>>>>>>> hens. There's reason to feel good about doing that, not reason to feel bad about
>>>>>>>> it. There's reason to feel bad about buying battery cage eggs though especially
>>>>>>>> if you could get cage free simply by spending more money. Not only does buying
>>>>>>>> cage free eggs and whatever other animal friendly products deliberately
>>>>>>>> contribute to lives of positive value for livestock animals, but it also puts
>>>>>>>> you in the position of deliberately contributing to a more considerate type of
>>>>>>>> society and thinking in general. Notice that it's a level of consideration and
>>>>>>>> participation that eliminationists do NOT want other people to intentionally
>>>>>>>> rise to because it works AGAINST their selfish and lowly elimination objective.

>>
>>>>>>>>> OK! The solution seems simple: vegetarianism.

>>
>>>>>>>> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
>>>>>>>> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
>>>>>>>> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.

>>
>>>>>>> Which gives her absolutely no reason why she shouldn't go vegetarian.

>>
>>>>>> Other things which you snipped suggest why it would be ethically equivalent
>>>>>> or superior if she becomes a conscientious consumer of both plant AND animal
>>>>>> products.

>>
>>>>> But, as we saw elsewhere, your case for this claim is not actually
>>>>> grounded in any evidence.

>>
>>>>> Most animal products require more collateral deaths than plant-based
>>>>> products, because grain needs to be grown and fed to the animals and
>>>>> it is a less efficient means of producing protein than directly
>>>>> feeding the grain to humans. Grass-fed beef may possibly be an
>>>>> exception, but you have demonstrated yourself unable to substantiate
>>>>> the assertion, which you nevertheless keep making, that one serving of
>>>>> soy products is likely to involve hundreds of times as many deaths as
>>>>> one serving of grass-fed beef.

>>
>>>>> I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility that there might be some
>>>>> dietary choices she might make which are not vegetarian and yet are
>>>>> nevertheless just as good as a vegetarian diet, but you haven't given
>>>>> her practical guidance about any specific such choice. In the absence
>>>>> of specific practical advice going vegetarian is a good strategy for
>>>>> her to reduce her contribution to animal suffering. It's also better
>>>>> for her health to be vegetarian than not.

>>
>>>> Rupert, you've just put forth the most lucid argument I've seen here
>>>> in a decade.

>>
>>> Thanks.

>>
>> It was shit. When an idiot - truly a works-to-be-stupid idiot - like
>> Douchebag Hamilton is praising you for saying something stupid, the best
>> thing to do is just keep your stupid ****ing mouth shut.

>
> Your opinion is not especially well-informed or important.


Uh-huh - that's why you spend such an inordinate amount of time
responding to me.

Mr.Smartypants[_4_] 02-03-2012 07:54 PM

What to eat
 
On Mar 2, 11:51*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/2/2012 9:52 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2 Mrz., 17:44, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/2/2012 6:08 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On Mar 2, 2:36 pm, > * *wrote:
> >>>> On Mar 2, 5:03 am, > * *wrote:

>
> >>>>> On 1 Mrz., 23:37, dh@. wrote:

>
> >>>>>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:37:37 -0800 (PST), >
> >>>>>> wrote:

>
> >>>>>>> On Feb 27, 6:22 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:39:12 -0500, >
> >>>>>>>> wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>> My favorite food used to be chicken. *recently, while I was preparing
> >>>>>>>>> chicken for my family, I had an epiphany.

>
> >>>>>>>>> I was handling the chicken parts with great caution. *I had vinyl gloves
> >>>>>>>>> on, and I was working hard to keep the process sanitary. *I am aware of
> >>>>>>>>> how unclean chicken meat generally is.

>
> >>>>>>>>> It suddenly struck me: *"If I believe this has to be handled like toxic
> >>>>>>>>> waste, why am I feeding it to my family!?"

>
> >>>>>>>> * * * It's not that way with "meat". It's that way with *some* meat. Notice that
> >>>>>>>> it's that way with meat from omnivores, which we are. So it makes sense that
> >>>>>>>> there is a danger of exchanging microbes that can thrive in the bodies of
> >>>>>>>> omnivores if you eat the bodies of omnivores without doing something to kill
> >>>>>>>> those particular microbes. Notice that it's a danger in pork and chicken which
> >>>>>>>> are both omnivores, and not in beef and fish because their systems are too
> >>>>>>>> different. But the good part is that if you kill the microbes which is simple
> >>>>>>>> enough, then the meat is good for you and your family.

>
> >>>>>>>>> It hit me like a bolt of lightning: *I believe that meat is unwholesome,
> >>>>>>>>> so why am I still eating it, and serving it to others!?

>
> >>>>>>>> * * * Just make sure you kill the microbes which also results in better tasting
> >>>>>>>> meat. No one likes rare chicken, and though rare pork tastes awesome it can make
> >>>>>>>> a person horribly sick. So cook it.

>
> >>>>>>>>> I have always hated the cruelty that "food animals" were subjected to.
> >>>>>>>>> I had to not think about it, to be able to eat meat at all. *Well, I am
> >>>>>>>>> thinking about it now, and it makes the thought of meat even more repugnant.

>
> >>>>>>>> * * * Broiler chickens and their parents are not kept in little cages and the vast
> >>>>>>>> majority of them get to enjoy lives of positive value, imo. The same is true of
> >>>>>>>> cage free laying hens in general so if you buy cage free eggs you are supporting
> >>>>>>>> a system which deliberately tries to provide lives of positive value for laying
> >>>>>>>> hens. There's reason to feel good about doing that, not reason to feel bad about
> >>>>>>>> it. There's reason to feel bad about buying battery cage eggs though especially
> >>>>>>>> if you could get cage free simply by spending more money. Not only does buying
> >>>>>>>> cage free eggs and whatever other animal friendly products deliberately
> >>>>>>>> contribute to lives of positive value for livestock animals, but it also puts
> >>>>>>>> you in the position of deliberately contributing to a more considerate type of
> >>>>>>>> society and thinking in general. Notice that it's a level of consideration and
> >>>>>>>> participation that eliminationists do NOT want other people to intentionally
> >>>>>>>> rise to because it works AGAINST their selfish and lowly elimination objective.

>
> >>>>>>>>> OK! *The solution seems simple: *vegetarianism.

>
> >>>>>>>> * * � Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
> >>>>>>>> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
> >>>>>>>> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.

>
> >>>>>>> Which gives her absolutely no reason why she shouldn't go vegetarian.

>
> >>>>>> * * * Other things which you snipped suggest why it would be ethically equivalent
> >>>>>> or superior if she becomes a conscientious consumer of both plant AND animal
> >>>>>> products.

>
> >>>>> But, as we saw elsewhere, your case for this claim is not actually
> >>>>> grounded in any evidence.

>
> >>>>> Most animal products require more collateral deaths than plant-based
> >>>>> products, because grain needs to be grown and fed to the animals and
> >>>>> it is a less efficient means of producing protein than directly
> >>>>> feeding the grain to humans. Grass-fed beef may possibly be an
> >>>>> exception, but you have demonstrated yourself unable to substantiate
> >>>>> the assertion, which you nevertheless keep making, that one serving of
> >>>>> soy products is likely to involve hundreds of times as many deaths as
> >>>>> one serving of grass-fed beef.

>
> >>>>> I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility that there might be some
> >>>>> dietary choices she might make which are not vegetarian and yet are
> >>>>> nevertheless just as good as a vegetarian diet, but you haven't given
> >>>>> her practical guidance about any specific such choice. In the absence
> >>>>> of specific practical advice going vegetarian is a good strategy for
> >>>>> her to reduce her contribution to animal suffering. It's also better
> >>>>> for her health to be vegetarian than not.

>
> >>>> Rupert, you've just put forth the most lucid argument I've seen here
> >>>> in a decade.

>
> >>> Thanks.

>
> >> It was shit. *When an idiot - truly a works-to-be-stupid idiot - like
> >> Douchebag Hamilton is praising you for saying something stupid, the best
> >> thing to do is just keep your stupid ****ing mouth shut.

>
> > Your opinion is not especially well-informed or important.

>
> Uh-huh - that's why you spend such an inordinate amount of time
> responding to me.



I think Rupert is using you for an amusing diversion in his spare time
like the rest of us do.

George Plimpton 02-03-2012 07:57 PM

What to eat
 
On 3/2/2012 9:58 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 2 Mrz., 17:43, George > wrote:
>> On 3/2/2012 4:03 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 1 Mrz., 23:37, dh@. wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:37:37 -0800 (PST), >
>>>> wrote:

>>
>>>>> On Feb 27, 6:22 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:39:12 -0500, >
>>>>>> wrote:

>>
>>>>>>> My favorite food used to be chicken. recently, while I was preparing
>>>>>>> chicken for my family, I had an epiphany.

>>
>>>>>>> I was handling the chicken parts with great caution. I had vinyl gloves
>>>>>>> on, and I was working hard to keep the process sanitary. I am aware of
>>>>>>> how unclean chicken meat generally is.

>>
>>>>>>> It suddenly struck me: "If I believe this has to be handled like toxic
>>>>>>> waste, why am I feeding it to my family!?"

>>
>>>>>> It's not that way with "meat". It's that way with *some* meat. Notice that
>>>>>> it's that way with meat from omnivores, which we are. So it makes sense that
>>>>>> there is a danger of exchanging microbes that can thrive in the bodies of
>>>>>> omnivores if you eat the bodies of omnivores without doing something to kill
>>>>>> those particular microbes. Notice that it's a danger in pork and chicken which
>>>>>> are both omnivores, and not in beef and fish because their systems are too
>>>>>> different. But the good part is that if you kill the microbes which is simple
>>>>>> enough, then the meat is good for you and your family.

>>
>>>>>>> It hit me like a bolt of lightning: I believe that meat is unwholesome,
>>>>>>> so why am I still eating it, and serving it to others!?

>>
>>>>>> Just make sure you kill the microbes which also results in better tasting
>>>>>> meat. No one likes rare chicken, and though rare pork tastes awesome it can make
>>>>>> a person horribly sick. So cook it.

>>
>>>>>>> I have always hated the cruelty that "food animals" were subjected to.
>>>>>>> I had to not think about it, to be able to eat meat at all. Well, I am
>>>>>>> thinking about it now, and it makes the thought of meat even more repugnant.

>>
>>>>>> Broiler chickens and their parents are not kept in little cages and the vast
>>>>>> majority of them get to enjoy lives of positive value, imo. The same is true of
>>>>>> cage free laying hens in general so if you buy cage free eggs you are supporting
>>>>>> a system which deliberately tries to provide lives of positive value for laying
>>>>>> hens. There's reason to feel good about doing that, not reason to feel bad about
>>>>>> it. There's reason to feel bad about buying battery cage eggs though especially
>>>>>> if you could get cage free simply by spending more money. Not only does buying
>>>>>> cage free eggs and whatever other animal friendly products deliberately
>>>>>> contribute to lives of positive value for livestock animals, but it also puts
>>>>>> you in the position of deliberately contributing to a more considerate type of
>>>>>> society and thinking in general. Notice that it's a level of consideration and
>>>>>> participation that eliminationists do NOT want other people to intentionally
>>>>>> rise to because it works AGAINST their selfish and lowly elimination objective.

>>
>>>>>>> OK! The solution seems simple: vegetarianism.

>>
>>>>>> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
>>>>>> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
>>>>>> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.

>>
>>>>> Which gives her absolutely no reason why she shouldn't go vegetarian.

>>
>>>> Other things which you snipped suggest why it would be ethically equivalent
>>>> or superior if she becomes a conscientious consumer of both plant AND animal
>>>> products.

>>
>>> But, as we saw elsewhere, your case for this claim is not actually
>>> grounded in any evidence.

>>
>> Correct, it isn't grounded in evidence. It is grounded in logical
>> consideration of plausible and likely true propositions.
>>

>
> If they are plausible and likely to be true, they must be grounded in
> some evidence.


No, that's false. The plausibility has to do with the conceptual
knowledge, not with any empirical investigation. Plenty of things that
are plausible based on reasonably well conceived ideas turn out to be
wrong upon empirical investigation, which usually leads to the discovery
of some error in the initial conception. However, even if you give a
little more thought to the concepts involved here, you aren't going to
hit upon something that would reasonably lead you to conclude that the
initial assumption of plausibility was unwarranted.


>>> Most animal products require more collateral deaths than plant-based
>>> products, because grain needs to be grown and fed to the animals and
>>> it is a less efficient means of producing protein than directly
>>> feeding the grain to humans. Grass-fed beef may possibly be an
>>> exception, but you have demonstrated yourself unable to substantiate
>>> the assertion, which you nevertheless keep making, that one serving of
>>> soy products is likely to involve hundreds of times as many deaths as
>>> one serving of grass-fed beef.

>>
>> We aren't talking about "most animal products". 100% grass-fed beef
>> exists, and plausibly, it causes no additional animal deaths at all.
>> You might wish to speculate idly about a beef steer putting its foot
>> into a rodent burrow and crushing some rodents to death, but in fact
>> cattle try to avoid stepping in holes.
>>
>> It is entirely *implausible* to think that mechanized vegetable
>> agriculture does *not* kill significant numbers of field animals -
>> certainly far more than grazing animals.
>>

>
> I'm not aware of any compelling reason to think it causes more deaths
> per calorically equivalent serving.


Of *course* you are aware of that.


>>> I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility that there might be some
>>> dietary choices she might make which are not vegetarian and yet are
>>> nevertheless just as good as a vegetarian diet, but you haven't given
>>> her practical guidance about any specific such choice.

>>
>> Not his job.
>>

>
> No. It's not his job. But my point that he has given her no especially
> good reason to rethink her decision to go vegetarian stands.


I already did. First, her health concerns are unwarranted, and in fact
are almost certainly just a smokescreen anyway. The whole way her post
was written reeked with insincerity. She was striving for a particular
literary "feel", rather than simply to state her concerns. It reeked of
dishonesty and insincerity from the first paragraph.

Second, her typically naive "vegan" concerns about animal cruelty were
obviously those of a neophyte, one who has not given one bit of thought
to the harm caused by what she does consume.


>> What I have done is show that the easy, casual and fatuously
>> ego-gratifying assumption that refraining from consuming animal bits
>> *necessarily* shows one is pursuing the least-harm consumption pattern
>> is false.

>
> Oh, good for you.


Yes.


> Obviously it is conceivable that there might be some other consumption
> patterns that wouldn't involve substantial sacrifice which cause no
> more harm. Showing that this might be the case is really not any
> extraordinary achievement.


It's enough to gut the entire "vegan" proposition.

Dutch 02-03-2012 10:34 PM

What to eat
 
"Rupert" > wrote

> I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility that there might be some
> dietary choices she might make which are not vegetarian and yet are
> nevertheless just as good as a vegetarian diet


Or better, with respect to health AND negative impact on animals.

> but you haven't given
> her practical guidance about any specific such choice.


Buy local, buy organic. A free range organic chicken from a local farmer
arguably supplies more nutrition per calorie at a lower environmental cost
than an equivalent amount of imported and/or processed plant-based product,
vegetables or fruit.

> In the absence
> of specific practical advice going vegetarian is a good strategy for
> her to reduce her contribution to animal suffering.


Its one strategy, however it carries the risk of nutritional deficiencies in
some people, and it tends to lead to the dreaded "holier than thou"
syndrome. If those pitfalls can be avoided then it has advantages.

> It's also better
> for her health to be vegetarian than not.


Clearly categorically false.



Dutch 02-03-2012 10:35 PM

What to eat
 
"Mr.Smartypants" > wrote in message
...
> On Mar 2, 5:03 am, Rupert > wrote:
>> On 1 Mrz., 23:37, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:37:37 -0800 (PST), Rupert
>> > >
>> > wrote:

>>
>> > >On Feb 27, 6:22 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> > >> On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:39:12 -0500, ToolPackinMama
>> > >> >
>> > >> wrote:

>>
>> > >> >My favorite food used to be chicken. recently, while I was
>> > >> >preparing
>> > >> >chicken for my family, I had an epiphany.

>>
>> > >> >I was handling the chicken parts with great caution. I had vinyl
>> > >> >gloves
>> > >> >on, and I was working hard to keep the process sanitary. I am
>> > >> >aware of
>> > >> >how unclean chicken meat generally is.

>>
>> > >> >It suddenly struck me: "If I believe this has to be handled like
>> > >> >toxic
>> > >> >waste, why am I feeding it to my family!?"

>>
>> > >> It's not that way with "meat". It's that way with *some* meat.
>> > >> Notice that
>> > >> it's that way with meat from omnivores, which we are. So it makes
>> > >> sense that
>> > >> there is a danger of exchanging microbes that can thrive in the
>> > >> bodies of
>> > >> omnivores if you eat the bodies of omnivores without doing something
>> > >> to kill
>> > >> those particular microbes. Notice that it's a danger in pork and
>> > >> chicken which
>> > >> are both omnivores, and not in beef and fish because their systems
>> > >> are too
>> > >> different. But the good part is that if you kill the microbes which
>> > >> is simple
>> > >> enough, then the meat is good for you and your family.

>>
>> > >> >It hit me like a bolt of lightning: I believe that meat is
>> > >> >unwholesome,
>> > >> >so why am I still eating it, and serving it to others!?

>>
>> > >> Just make sure you kill the microbes which also results in
>> > >> better tasting
>> > >> meat. No one likes rare chicken, and though rare pork tastes awesome
>> > >> it can make
>> > >> a person horribly sick. So cook it.

>>
>> > >> >I have always hated the cruelty that "food animals" were subjected
>> > >> >to.
>> > >> >I had to not think about it, to be able to eat meat at all. Well,
>> > >> >I am
>> > >> >thinking about it now, and it makes the thought of meat even more
>> > >> >repugnant.

>>
>> > >> Broiler chickens and their parents are not kept in little cages
>> > >> and the vast
>> > >> majority of them get to enjoy lives of positive value, imo. The same
>> > >> is true of
>> > >> cage free laying hens in general so if you buy cage free eggs you
>> > >> are supporting
>> > >> a system which deliberately tries to provide lives of positive value
>> > >> for laying
>> > >> hens. There's reason to feel good about doing that, not reason to
>> > >> feel bad about
>> > >> it. There's reason to feel bad about buying battery cage eggs though
>> > >> especially
>> > >> if you could get cage free simply by spending more money. Not only
>> > >> does buying
>> > >> cage free eggs and whatever other animal friendly products
>> > >> deliberately
>> > >> contribute to lives of positive value for livestock animals, but it
>> > >> also puts
>> > >> you in the position of deliberately contributing to a more
>> > >> considerate type of
>> > >> society and thinking in general. Notice that it's a level of
>> > >> consideration and
>> > >> participation that eliminationists do NOT want other people to
>> > >> intentionally
>> > >> rise to because it works AGAINST their selfish and lowly elimination
>> > >> objective.

>>
>> > >> >OK! The solution seems simple: vegetarianism.

>>
>> > >> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
>> > >> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
>> > >> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.

>>
>> > >Which gives her absolutely no reason why she shouldn't go vegetarian.

>>
>> > Other things which you snipped suggest why it would be ethically
>> > equivalent
>> > or superior if she becomes a conscientious consumer of both plant AND
>> > animal
>> > products.

>>
>> But, as we saw elsewhere, your case for this claim is not actually
>> grounded in any evidence.
>>
>> Most animal products require more collateral deaths than plant-based
>> products, because grain needs to be grown and fed to the animals and
>> it is a less efficient means of producing protein than directly
>> feeding the grain to humans. Grass-fed beef may possibly be an
>> exception, but you have demonstrated yourself unable to substantiate
>> the assertion, which you nevertheless keep making, that one serving of
>> soy products is likely to involve hundreds of times as many deaths as
>> one serving of grass-fed beef.
>>
>> I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility that there might be some
>> dietary choices she might make which are not vegetarian and yet are
>> nevertheless just as good as a vegetarian diet, but you haven't given
>> her practical guidance about any specific such choice. In the absence
>> of specific practical advice going vegetarian is a good strategy for
>> her to reduce her contribution to animal suffering. It's also better
>> for her health to be vegetarian than not.

>
> Rupert, you've just put forth the most lucid argument I've seen here
> in a decade.


Translation: He just repeated the same bullshit that you believe.



Rupert 03-03-2012 05:46 AM

What to eat
 
On Mar 2, 7:54*pm, "Mr.Smartypants" > wrote:
> On Mar 2, 11:51*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 3/2/2012 9:52 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> > > On 2 Mrz., 17:44, George > *wrote:
> > >> On 3/2/2012 6:08 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> > >>> On Mar 2, 2:36 pm, > * *wrote:
> > >>>> On Mar 2, 5:03 am, > * *wrote:

>
> > >>>>> On 1 Mrz., 23:37, dh@. wrote:

>
> > >>>>>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:37:37 -0800 (PST), >
> > >>>>>> wrote:

>
> > >>>>>>> On Feb 27, 6:22 pm, dh@. wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:39:12 -0500, >
> > >>>>>>>> wrote:

>
> > >>>>>>>>> My favorite food used to be chicken. *recently, while I was preparing
> > >>>>>>>>> chicken for my family, I had an epiphany.

>
> > >>>>>>>>> I was handling the chicken parts with great caution. *I had vinyl gloves
> > >>>>>>>>> on, and I was working hard to keep the process sanitary. *I am aware of
> > >>>>>>>>> how unclean chicken meat generally is.

>
> > >>>>>>>>> It suddenly struck me: *"If I believe this has to be handled like toxic
> > >>>>>>>>> waste, why am I feeding it to my family!?"

>
> > >>>>>>>> * * * It's not that way with "meat". It's that way with *some* meat. Notice that
> > >>>>>>>> it's that way with meat from omnivores, which we are. So it makes sense that
> > >>>>>>>> there is a danger of exchanging microbes that can thrive in the bodies of
> > >>>>>>>> omnivores if you eat the bodies of omnivores without doing something to kill
> > >>>>>>>> those particular microbes. Notice that it's a danger in pork and chicken which
> > >>>>>>>> are both omnivores, and not in beef and fish because their systems are too
> > >>>>>>>> different. But the good part is that if you kill the microbes which is simple
> > >>>>>>>> enough, then the meat is good for you and your family.

>
> > >>>>>>>>> It hit me like a bolt of lightning: *I believe that meat is unwholesome,
> > >>>>>>>>> so why am I still eating it, and serving it to others!?

>
> > >>>>>>>> * * * Just make sure you kill the microbes which also results in better tasting
> > >>>>>>>> meat. No one likes rare chicken, and though rare pork tastes awesome it can make
> > >>>>>>>> a person horribly sick. So cook it.

>
> > >>>>>>>>> I have always hated the cruelty that "food animals" were subjected to.
> > >>>>>>>>> I had to not think about it, to be able to eat meat at all. *Well, I am
> > >>>>>>>>> thinking about it now, and it makes the thought of meat even more repugnant.

>
> > >>>>>>>> * * * Broiler chickens and their parents are not kept in little cages and the vast
> > >>>>>>>> majority of them get to enjoy lives of positive value, imo. The same is true of
> > >>>>>>>> cage free laying hens in general so if you buy cage free eggs you are supporting
> > >>>>>>>> a system which deliberately tries to provide lives of positive value for laying
> > >>>>>>>> hens. There's reason to feel good about doing that, not reason to feel bad about
> > >>>>>>>> it. There's reason to feel bad about buying battery cage eggs though especially
> > >>>>>>>> if you could get cage free simply by spending more money. Not only does buying
> > >>>>>>>> cage free eggs and whatever other animal friendly products deliberately
> > >>>>>>>> contribute to lives of positive value for livestock animals, but it also puts
> > >>>>>>>> you in the position of deliberately contributing to a more considerate type of
> > >>>>>>>> society and thinking in general. Notice that it's a level of consideration and
> > >>>>>>>> participation that eliminationists do NOT want other people to intentionally
> > >>>>>>>> rise to because it works AGAINST their selfish and lowly elimination objective.

>
> > >>>>>>>>> OK! *The solution seems simple: *vegetarianism.

>
> > >>>>>>>> * * � Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
> > >>>>>>>> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
> > >>>>>>>> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.

>
> > >>>>>>> Which gives her absolutely no reason why she shouldn't go vegetarian.

>
> > >>>>>> * * * Other things which you snipped suggest why it would be ethically equivalent
> > >>>>>> or superior if she becomes a conscientious consumer of both plant AND animal
> > >>>>>> products.

>
> > >>>>> But, as we saw elsewhere, your case for this claim is not actually
> > >>>>> grounded in any evidence.

>
> > >>>>> Most animal products require more collateral deaths than plant-based
> > >>>>> products, because grain needs to be grown and fed to the animals and
> > >>>>> it is a less efficient means of producing protein than directly
> > >>>>> feeding the grain to humans. Grass-fed beef may possibly be an
> > >>>>> exception, but you have demonstrated yourself unable to substantiate
> > >>>>> the assertion, which you nevertheless keep making, that one serving of
> > >>>>> soy products is likely to involve hundreds of times as many deaths as
> > >>>>> one serving of grass-fed beef.

>
> > >>>>> I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility that there might be some
> > >>>>> dietary choices she might make which are not vegetarian and yet are
> > >>>>> nevertheless just as good as a vegetarian diet, but you haven't given
> > >>>>> her practical guidance about any specific such choice. In the absence
> > >>>>> of specific practical advice going vegetarian is a good strategy for
> > >>>>> her to reduce her contribution to animal suffering. It's also better
> > >>>>> for her health to be vegetarian than not.

>
> > >>>> Rupert, you've just put forth the most lucid argument I've seen here
> > >>>> in a decade.

>
> > >>> Thanks.

>
> > >> It was shit. *When an idiot - truly a works-to-be-stupid idiot - like
> > >> Douchebag Hamilton is praising you for saying something stupid, the best
> > >> thing to do is just keep your stupid ****ing mouth shut.

>
> > > Your opinion is not especially well-informed or important.

>
> > Uh-huh - that's why you spend such an inordinate amount of time
> > responding to me.

>
> I think Rupert is using you for an amusing diversion in his spare time
> like the rest of us do.


Yes, that is correct.

Ball actually does have a point here; it is a silly habit.

Rupert 03-03-2012 05:51 AM

What to eat
 
On Mar 2, 7:57*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/2/2012 9:58 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2 Mrz., 17:43, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/2/2012 4:03 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On 1 Mrz., 23:37, dh@. wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:37:37 -0800 (PST), >
> >>>> wrote:

>
> >>>>> On Feb 27, 6:22 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >>>>>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:39:12 -0500, >
> >>>>>> wrote:

>
> >>>>>>> My favorite food used to be chicken. *recently, while I was preparing
> >>>>>>> chicken for my family, I had an epiphany.

>
> >>>>>>> I was handling the chicken parts with great caution. *I had vinyl gloves
> >>>>>>> on, and I was working hard to keep the process sanitary. *I am aware of
> >>>>>>> how unclean chicken meat generally is.

>
> >>>>>>> It suddenly struck me: *"If I believe this has to be handled like toxic
> >>>>>>> waste, why am I feeding it to my family!?"

>
> >>>>>> * * * It's not that way with "meat". It's that way with *some* meat. Notice that
> >>>>>> it's that way with meat from omnivores, which we are. So it makes sense that
> >>>>>> there is a danger of exchanging microbes that can thrive in the bodies of
> >>>>>> omnivores if you eat the bodies of omnivores without doing something to kill
> >>>>>> those particular microbes. Notice that it's a danger in pork and chicken which
> >>>>>> are both omnivores, and not in beef and fish because their systems are too
> >>>>>> different. But the good part is that if you kill the microbes which is simple
> >>>>>> enough, then the meat is good for you and your family.

>
> >>>>>>> It hit me like a bolt of lightning: *I believe that meat is unwholesome,
> >>>>>>> so why am I still eating it, and serving it to others!?

>
> >>>>>> * * * Just make sure you kill the microbes which also results in better tasting
> >>>>>> meat. No one likes rare chicken, and though rare pork tastes awesome it can make
> >>>>>> a person horribly sick. So cook it.

>
> >>>>>>> I have always hated the cruelty that "food animals" were subjected to.
> >>>>>>> I had to not think about it, to be able to eat meat at all. *Well, I am
> >>>>>>> thinking about it now, and it makes the thought of meat even more repugnant.

>
> >>>>>> * * * Broiler chickens and their parents are not kept in little cages and the vast
> >>>>>> majority of them get to enjoy lives of positive value, imo. The same is true of
> >>>>>> cage free laying hens in general so if you buy cage free eggs you are supporting
> >>>>>> a system which deliberately tries to provide lives of positive value for laying
> >>>>>> hens. There's reason to feel good about doing that, not reason to feel bad about
> >>>>>> it. There's reason to feel bad about buying battery cage eggs though especially
> >>>>>> if you could get cage free simply by spending more money. Not only does buying
> >>>>>> cage free eggs and whatever other animal friendly products deliberately
> >>>>>> contribute to lives of positive value for livestock animals, but it also puts
> >>>>>> you in the position of deliberately contributing to a more considerate type of
> >>>>>> society and thinking in general. Notice that it's a level of consideration and
> >>>>>> participation that eliminationists do NOT want other people to intentionally
> >>>>>> rise to because it works AGAINST their selfish and lowly elimination objective.

>
> >>>>>>> OK! *The solution seems simple: *vegetarianism.

>
> >>>>>> * * · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
> >>>>>> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
> >>>>>> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.

>
> >>>>> Which gives her absolutely no reason why she shouldn't go vegetarian.


Rupert 03-03-2012 05:53 AM

What to eat
 
On Mar 2, 10:34*pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> > I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility that there might be some
> > dietary choices she might make which are not vegetarian and yet are
> > nevertheless just as good as a vegetarian diet

>
> Or better, with respect to health AND negative impact on animals.
>
> > but you haven't given
> > her practical guidance about any specific such choice.

>
> Buy local, buy organic. A free range organic chicken from a local farmer
> arguably supplies more nutrition per calorie at a lower environmental cost
> than an equivalent amount of imported and/or processed plant-based product,
> vegetables or fruit.
>


You think a local free range organic chicken involves less harm than
plant foods?

> > In the absence
> > of specific practical advice going vegetarian is a good strategy for
> > her to reduce her contribution to animal suffering.

>
> Its one strategy, however it carries the risk of nutritional deficiencies in
> some people, and it tends to lead to the dreaded "holier than thou"
> syndrome. If those pitfalls can be avoided then it has advantages.
>
> > It's also better
> > for her health to be vegetarian than not.

>
> Clearly categorically false.


Wrong. Two doctors have told me that being a vegetarian is an
excellent choice for my health.

George Plimpton 03-03-2012 07:14 AM

What to eat
 
On 3/2/2012 8:51 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 2, 7:57 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 3/2/2012 9:58 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 2 Mrz., 17:43, George > wrote:
>>>> On 3/2/2012 4:03 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>> On 1 Mrz., 23:37, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:37:37 -0800 (PST), >
>>>>>> wrote:

>>
>>>>>>> On Feb 27, 6:22 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:39:12 -0500, >
>>>>>>>> wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>> My favorite food used to be chicken. recently, while I was preparing
>>>>>>>>> chicken for my family, I had an epiphany.

>>
>>>>>>>>> I was handling the chicken parts with great caution. I had vinyl gloves
>>>>>>>>> on, and I was working hard to keep the process sanitary. I am aware of
>>>>>>>>> how unclean chicken meat generally is.

>>
>>>>>>>>> It suddenly struck me: "If I believe this has to be handled like toxic
>>>>>>>>> waste, why am I feeding it to my family!?"

>>
>>>>>>>> It's not that way with "meat". It's that way with *some* meat. Notice that
>>>>>>>> it's that way with meat from omnivores, which we are. So it makes sense that
>>>>>>>> there is a danger of exchanging microbes that can thrive in the bodies of
>>>>>>>> omnivores if you eat the bodies of omnivores without doing something to kill
>>>>>>>> those particular microbes. Notice that it's a danger in pork and chicken which
>>>>>>>> are both omnivores, and not in beef and fish because their systems are too
>>>>>>>> different. But the good part is that if you kill the microbes which is simple
>>>>>>>> enough, then the meat is good for you and your family.

>>
>>>>>>>>> It hit me like a bolt of lightning: I believe that meat is unwholesome,
>>>>>>>>> so why am I still eating it, and serving it to others!?

>>
>>>>>>>> Just make sure you kill the microbes which also results in better tasting
>>>>>>>> meat. No one likes rare chicken, and though rare pork tastes awesome it can make
>>>>>>>> a person horribly sick. So cook it.

>>
>>>>>>>>> I have always hated the cruelty that "food animals" were subjected to.
>>>>>>>>> I had to not think about it, to be able to eat meat at all. Well, I am
>>>>>>>>> thinking about it now, and it makes the thought of meat even more repugnant.

>>
>>>>>>>> Broiler chickens and their parents are not kept in little cages and the vast
>>>>>>>> majority of them get to enjoy lives of positive value, imo. The same is true of
>>>>>>>> cage free laying hens in general so if you buy cage free eggs you are supporting
>>>>>>>> a system which deliberately tries to provide lives of positive value for laying
>>>>>>>> hens. There's reason to feel good about doing that, not reason to feel bad about
>>>>>>>> it. There's reason to feel bad about buying battery cage eggs though especially
>>>>>>>> if you could get cage free simply by spending more money. Not only does buying
>>>>>>>> cage free eggs and whatever other animal friendly products deliberately
>>>>>>>> contribute to lives of positive value for livestock animals, but it also puts
>>>>>>>> you in the position of deliberately contributing to a more considerate type of
>>>>>>>> society and thinking in general. Notice that it's a level of consideration and
>>>>>>>> participation that eliminationists do NOT want other people to intentionally
>>>>>>>> rise to because it works AGAINST their selfish and lowly elimination objective.

>>
>>>>>>>>> OK! The solution seems simple: vegetarianism.

>>
>>>>>>>> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
>>>>>>>> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
>>>>>>>> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.

>>
>>>>>>> Which gives her absolutely no reason why she shouldn't go vegetarian.

>>
>>>>>> Other things which you snipped suggest why it would be ethically equivalent
>>>>>> or superior if she becomes a conscientious consumer of both plant AND animal
>>>>>> products.

>>
>>>>> But, as we saw elsewhere, your case for this claim is not actually
>>>>> grounded in any evidence.

>>
>>>> Correct, it isn't grounded in evidence. It is grounded in logical
>>>> consideration of plausible and likely true propositions.

>>
>>> If they are plausible and likely to be true, they must be grounded in
>>> some evidence.

>>
>> No, that's false. The plausibility has to do with the conceptual
>> knowledge, not with any empirical investigation. Plenty of things that
>> are plausible based on reasonably well conceived ideas turn out to be
>> wrong upon empirical investigation, which usually leads to the discovery
>> of some error in the initial conception. However, even if you give a
>> little more thought to the concepts involved here, you aren't going to
>> hit upon something that would reasonably lead you to conclude that the
>> initial assumption of plausibility was unwarranted.
>>

>
> I don't believe that an empirical claim about the world can be
> "plausible based on reasonably well-conceived ideas", except insofar
> as the judgement of plausibility is in some way related to facts about
> the world that have in some way been established through empirical
> investigation.


They have been.


>>>>> Most animal products require more collateral deaths than plant-based
>>>>> products, because grain needs to be grown and fed to the animals and
>>>>> it is a less efficient means of producing protein than directly
>>>>> feeding the grain to humans. Grass-fed beef may possibly be an
>>>>> exception, but you have demonstrated yourself unable to substantiate
>>>>> the assertion, which you nevertheless keep making, that one serving of
>>>>> soy products is likely to involve hundreds of times as many deaths as
>>>>> one serving of grass-fed beef.

>>
>>>> We aren't talking about "most animal products". 100% grass-fed beef
>>>> exists, and plausibly, it causes no additional animal deaths at all.
>>>> You might wish to speculate idly about a beef steer putting its foot
>>>> into a rodent burrow and crushing some rodents to death, but in fact
>>>> cattle try to avoid stepping in holes.

>>
>>>> It is entirely *implausible* to think that mechanized vegetable
>>>> agriculture does *not* kill significant numbers of field animals -
>>>> certainly far more than grazing animals.

>>
>>> I'm not aware of any compelling reason to think it causes more deaths
>>> per calorically equivalent serving.

>>
>> Of *course* you are aware of that.
>>
>>>>> I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility that there might be some
>>>>> dietary choices she might make which are not vegetarian and yet are
>>>>> nevertheless just as good as a vegetarian diet, but you haven't given
>>>>> her practical guidance about any specific such choice.

>>
>>>> Not his job.

>>
>>> No. It's not his job. But my point that he has given her no especially
>>> good reason to rethink her decision to go vegetarian stands.

>>
>> I already did.

>
> You already did what? I was talking about David Harrison.


But *I* have pointed out that she didn't adequately think through her
decision to go vegetarian.


>> First, her health concerns are unwarranted,

>
> There are legitimate health concerns associated with eating meat.


*NOT* any concerns that can't be addressed by proper food handling that
does not involve extreme measures.

Anyway, she was talking about chicken specifically, which, due to
commercial chicken slaughter and packaging practices, has a relatively
high risk of salmonella contamination (but that contamination can be
safely addressed quite easily.) Other kinds of meat, such as beef and
pork and lamb, don't pose anything close to the risk that commercially
processed poultry does, and poultry does not pose a hard-to-handle risk.


>> and in fact
>> are almost certainly just a smokescreen anyway. The whole way her post
>> was written reeked with insincerity. She was striving for a particular
>> literary "feel", rather than simply to state her concerns. It reeked of
>> dishonesty and insincerity from the first paragraph.
>>
>> Second, her typically naive "vegan" concerns about animal cruelty were
>> obviously those of a neophyte, one who has not given one bit of thought
>> to the harm caused by what she does consume.
>>

>
> You have no basis for that assertion.


Of course I have. The entire tone of her post suggests it.


>>>> What I have done is show that the easy, casual and fatuously
>>>> ego-gratifying assumption that refraining from consuming animal bits
>>>> *necessarily* shows one is pursuing the least-harm consumption pattern
>>>> is false.

>>
>>> Oh, good for you.

>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>> Obviously it is conceivable that there might be some other consumption
>>> patterns that wouldn't involve substantial sacrifice which cause no
>>> more harm. Showing that this might be the case is really not any
>>> extraordinary achievement.

>>
>> It's enough to gut the entire "vegan" proposition.

>
> Wrong.


No, I'm right, as usual.

Dutch 03-03-2012 10:05 AM

What to eat
 


"Rupert" > wrote in message
...
> On Mar 2, 10:34 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote
>>
>> > I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility that there might be some
>> > dietary choices she might make which are not vegetarian and yet are
>> > nevertheless just as good as a vegetarian diet

>>
>> Or better, with respect to health AND negative impact on animals.
>>
>> > but you haven't given
>> > her practical guidance about any specific such choice.

>>
>> Buy local, buy organic. A free range organic chicken from a local farmer
>> arguably supplies more nutrition per calorie at a lower environmental
>> cost
>> than an equivalent amount of imported and/or processed plant-based
>> product,
>> vegetables or fruit.
>>

>
> You think a local free range organic chicken involves less harm than
> plant foods?


Which plant foods?

>
>> > In the absence
>> > of specific practical advice going vegetarian is a good strategy for
>> > her to reduce her contribution to animal suffering.

>>
>> Its one strategy, however it carries the risk of nutritional deficiencies
>> in
>> some people, and it tends to lead to the dreaded "holier than thou"
>> syndrome. If those pitfalls can be avoided then it has advantages.
>>
>> > It's also better
>> > for her health to be vegetarian than not.

>>
>> Clearly categorically false.

>
> Wrong. Two doctors have told me that being a vegetarian is an
> excellent choice for my health.


That's not what you said.



Rupert 03-03-2012 01:19 PM

What to eat
 
On Mar 3, 7:14*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/2/2012 8:51 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 2, 7:57 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/2/2012 9:58 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On 2 Mrz., 17:43, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 3/2/2012 4:03 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>> On 1 Mrz., 23:37, dh@. wrote:
> >>>>>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:37:37 -0800 (PST), >
> >>>>>> wrote:

>
> >>>>>>> On Feb 27, 6:22 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 19:39:12 -0500, >
> >>>>>>>> wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>> My favorite food used to be chicken. *recently, while I was preparing
> >>>>>>>>> chicken for my family, I had an epiphany.

>
> >>>>>>>>> I was handling the chicken parts with great caution. *I had vinyl gloves
> >>>>>>>>> on, and I was working hard to keep the process sanitary. *I am aware of
> >>>>>>>>> how unclean chicken meat generally is.

>
> >>>>>>>>> It suddenly struck me: *"If I believe this has to be handled like toxic
> >>>>>>>>> waste, why am I feeding it to my family!?"

>
> >>>>>>>> * * * *It's not that way with "meat". It's that way with *some* meat. Notice that
> >>>>>>>> it's that way with meat from omnivores, which we are. So it makes sense that
> >>>>>>>> there is a danger of exchanging microbes that can thrive in the bodies of
> >>>>>>>> omnivores if you eat the bodies of omnivores without doing something to kill
> >>>>>>>> those particular microbes. Notice that it's a danger in pork and chicken which
> >>>>>>>> are both omnivores, and not in beef and fish because their systems are too
> >>>>>>>> different. But the good part is that if you kill the microbes which is simple
> >>>>>>>> enough, then the meat is good for you and your family.

>
> >>>>>>>>> It hit me like a bolt of lightning: *I believe that meat is unwholesome,
> >>>>>>>>> so why am I still eating it, and serving it to others!?

>
> >>>>>>>> * * * *Just make sure you kill the microbes which also results in better tasting
> >>>>>>>> meat. No one likes rare chicken, and though rare pork tastes awesome it can make
> >>>>>>>> a person horribly sick. So cook it.

>
> >>>>>>>>> I have always hated the cruelty that "food animals" were subjected to.
> >>>>>>>>> I had to not think about it, to be able to eat meat at all. *Well, I am
> >>>>>>>>> thinking about it now, and it makes the thought of meat even more repugnant.

>
> >>>>>>>> * * * *Broiler chickens and their parents are not kept in little cages and the vast
> >>>>>>>> majority of them get to enjoy lives of positive value, imo. The same is true of
> >>>>>>>> cage free laying hens in general so if you buy cage free eggs you are supporting
> >>>>>>>> a system which deliberately tries to provide lives of positive value for laying
> >>>>>>>> hens. There's reason to feel good about doing that, not reason to feel bad about
> >>>>>>>> it. There's reason to feel bad about buying battery cage eggs though especially
> >>>>>>>> if you could get cage free simply by spending more money. Not only does buying
> >>>>>>>> cage free eggs and whatever other animal friendly products deliberately
> >>>>>>>> contribute to lives of positive value for livestock animals, but it also puts
> >>>>>>>> you in the position of deliberately contributing to a more considerate type of
> >>>>>>>> society and thinking in general. Notice that it's a level of consideration and
> >>>>>>>> participation that eliminationists do NOT want other people to intentionally
> >>>>>>>> rise to because it works AGAINST their selfish and lowly elimination objective.

>
> >>>>>>>>> OK! *The solution seems simple: *vegetarianism.

>
> >>>>>>>> * * *· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
> >>>>>>>> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
> >>>>>>>> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.

>
> >>>>>>> Which gives her absolutely no reason why she shouldn't go vegetarian.

>
> >>>>>> * * * *Other things which you snipped suggest why it would be ethically equivalent
> >>>>>> or superior if she becomes a conscientious consumer of both plant AND animal
> >>>>>> products.

>
> >>>>> But, as we saw elsewhere, your case for this claim is not actually
> >>>>> grounded in any evidence.

>
> >>>> Correct, it isn't grounded in evidence. *It is grounded in logical
> >>>> consideration of plausible and likely true propositions.

>
> >>> If they are plausible and likely to be true, they must be grounded in
> >>> some evidence.

>
> >> No, that's false. *The plausibility has to do with the conceptual
> >> knowledge, not with any empirical investigation. *Plenty of things that
> >> are plausible based on reasonably well conceived ideas turn out to be
> >> wrong upon empirical investigation, which usually leads to the discovery
> >> of some error in the initial conception. *However, even if you give a
> >> little more thought to the concepts involved here, you aren't going to
> >> hit upon something that would reasonably lead you to conclude that the
> >> initial assumption of plausibility was unwarranted.

>
> > I don't believe that an empirical claim about the world can be
> > "plausible based on reasonably well-conceived ideas", except insofar
> > as the judgement of plausibility is in some way related to facts about
> > the world that have in some way been established through empirical
> > investigation.

>
> They have been.
>


Good, so you can tell me what the evidence is, as I requested before.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>> Most animal products require more collateral deaths than plant-based
> >>>>> products, because grain needs to be grown and fed to the animals and
> >>>>> it is a less efficient means of producing protein than directly
> >>>>> feeding the grain to humans. Grass-fed beef may possibly be an
> >>>>> exception, but you have demonstrated yourself unable to substantiate
> >>>>> the assertion, which you nevertheless keep making, that one serving of
> >>>>> soy products is likely to involve hundreds of times as many deaths as
> >>>>> one serving of grass-fed beef.

>
> >>>> We aren't talking about "most animal products". *100% grass-fed beef
> >>>> exists, and plausibly, it causes no additional animal deaths at all.
> >>>> You might wish to speculate idly about a beef steer putting its foot
> >>>> into a rodent burrow and crushing some rodents to death, but in fact
> >>>> cattle try to avoid stepping in holes.

>
> >>>> It is entirely *implausible* to think that mechanized vegetable
> >>>> agriculture does *not* kill significant numbers of field animals -
> >>>> certainly far more than grazing animals.

>
> >>> I'm not aware of any compelling reason to think it causes more deaths
> >>> per calorically equivalent serving.

>
> >> Of *course* you are aware of that.

>
> >>>>> I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility that there might be some
> >>>>> dietary choices she might make which are not vegetarian and yet are
> >>>>> nevertheless just as good as a vegetarian diet, but you haven't given
> >>>>> her practical guidance about any specific such choice.

>
> >>>> Not his job.

>
> >>> No. It's not his job. But my point that he has given her no especially
> >>> good reason to rethink her decision to go vegetarian stands.

>
> >> I already did.

>
> > You already did what? I was talking about David Harrison.

>
> But *I* have pointed out that she didn't adequately think through her
> decision to go vegetarian.
>


On the basis of no good reasons to think so.

> >> * First, her health concerns are unwarranted,

>
> > There are legitimate health concerns associated with eating meat.

>
> *NOT* any concerns that can't be addressed by proper food handling that
> does not involve extreme measures.
>


Yes. Other concerns apart from that. Eating meat at the levels typical
in modern Western societies increases your risk for various serious
health problems such as heart disease and cancer.


> Anyway, she was talking about chicken specifically, which, due to
> commercial chicken slaughter and packaging practices, has a relatively
> high risk of salmonella contamination (but that contamination can be
> safely addressed quite easily.) *Other kinds of meat, such as beef and
> pork and lamb, don't pose anything close to the risk that commercially
> processed poultry does, and poultry does not pose a hard-to-handle risk.
>
> >> and in fact
> >> are almost certainly just a smokescreen anyway. *The whole way her post
> >> was written reeked with insincerity. *She was striving for a particular
> >> literary "feel", rather than simply to state her concerns. *It reeked of
> >> dishonesty and insincerity from the first paragraph.

>
> >> Second, her typically naive "vegan" concerns about animal cruelty were
> >> obviously those of a neophyte, one who has not given one bit of thought
> >> to the harm caused by what she does consume.

>
> > You have no basis for that assertion.

>
> Of course I have. *The entire tone of her post suggests it.
>


It's always good to hear about your mind-reading skills.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>> What I have done is show that the easy, casual and fatuously
> >>>> ego-gratifying assumption that refraining from consuming animal bits
> >>>> *necessarily* shows one is pursuing the least-harm consumption pattern
> >>>> is false.

>
> >>> Oh, good for you.

>
> >> Yes.

>
> >>> Obviously it is conceivable that there might be some other consumption
> >>> patterns that wouldn't involve substantial sacrifice which cause no
> >>> more harm. Showing that this might be the case is really not any
> >>> extraordinary achievement.

>
> >> It's enough to gut the entire "vegan" proposition.

>
> > Wrong.

>
> No, I'm right, as usual.


What do you think the "vegan" proposition is?

Rupert 03-03-2012 01:20 PM

What to eat
 
On Mar 3, 10:05*am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 2, 10:34 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote

>
> >> > I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility that there might be some
> >> > dietary choices she might make which are not vegetarian and yet are
> >> > nevertheless just as good as a vegetarian diet

>
> >> Or better, with respect to health AND negative impact on animals.

>
> >> > but you haven't given
> >> > her practical guidance about any specific such choice.

>
> >> Buy local, buy organic. A free range organic chicken from a local farmer
> >> arguably supplies more nutrition per calorie at a lower environmental
> >> cost
> >> than an equivalent amount of imported and/or processed plant-based
> >> product,
> >> vegetables or fruit.

>
> > You think a local free range organic chicken involves less harm than
> > plant foods?

>
> Which plant foods?
>


Well, I ate potato gnocchi with tofu and lentils and carrots the other
night, are you suggesting that I would have been better off with a
local free-range organic chicken, from the point of view of animal
suffering?

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> > In the absence
> >> > of specific practical advice going vegetarian is a good strategy for
> >> > her to reduce her contribution to animal suffering.

>
> >> Its one strategy, however it carries the risk of nutritional deficiencies
> >> in
> >> some people, and it tends to lead to the dreaded "holier than thou"
> >> syndrome. If those pitfalls can be avoided then it has advantages.

>
> >> > It's also better
> >> > for her health to be vegetarian than not.

>
> >> Clearly categorically false.

>
> > Wrong. Two doctors have told me that being a vegetarian is an
> > excellent choice for my health.

>
> That's not what you said.


The distinction is lost on me, I'm sorry.

Dutch 03-03-2012 09:37 PM

What to eat
 


"Rupert" > wrote in message
...
> On Mar 3, 10:05 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 2, 10:34 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> "Rupert" > wrote

>>
>> >> > I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility that there might be some
>> >> > dietary choices she might make which are not vegetarian and yet are
>> >> > nevertheless just as good as a vegetarian diet

>>
>> >> Or better, with respect to health AND negative impact on animals.

>>
>> >> > but you haven't given
>> >> > her practical guidance about any specific such choice.

>>
>> >> Buy local, buy organic. A free range organic chicken from a local
>> >> farmer
>> >> arguably supplies more nutrition per calorie at a lower environmental
>> >> cost
>> >> than an equivalent amount of imported and/or processed plant-based
>> >> product,
>> >> vegetables or fruit.

>>
>> > You think a local free range organic chicken involves less harm than
>> > plant foods?

>>
>> Which plant foods?
>>

>
> Well, I ate potato gnocchi with tofu and lentils and carrots the other
> night, are you suggesting that I would have been better off with a
> local free-range organic chicken, from the point of view of animal
> suffering?


I am suggesting that it is completely plausible that substituting some of
the calories in your meal with some free range organic chicken presents a
meal that falls within a range of environmental impacts that any reasonable
person would call acceptable.

>> >> > In the absence
>> >> > of specific practical advice going vegetarian is a good strategy for
>> >> > her to reduce her contribution to animal suffering.

>>
>> >> Its one strategy, however it carries the risk of nutritional
>> >> deficiencies
>> >> in
>> >> some people, and it tends to lead to the dreaded "holier than thou"
>> >> syndrome. If those pitfalls can be avoided then it has advantages.

>>
>> >> > It's also better
>> >> > for her health to be vegetarian than not.

>>
>> >> Clearly categorically false.

>>
>> > Wrong. Two doctors have told me that being a vegetarian is an
>> > excellent choice for my health.

>>
>> That's not what you said.

>
> The distinction is lost on me, I'm sorry.


You said that is is better for her health to be a vegetarian. That is not
the same as saying that a vegetarian diet as selected by your doctor is an
excellent choice for your health.

The second second statement is, with some conditions, supportable, the first
is not, it is too categorical, broad and poorly defined to be correct.





Rupert 04-03-2012 01:32 PM

What to eat
 
On 3 Mrz., 21:37, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 3, 10:05 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message

>
> ...

>
> >> > On Mar 2, 10:34 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote

>
> >> >> > I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility that there might be some
> >> >> > dietary choices she might make which are not vegetarian and yet are
> >> >> > nevertheless just as good as a vegetarian diet

>
> >> >> Or better, with respect to health AND negative impact on animals.

>
> >> >> > but you haven't given
> >> >> > her practical guidance about any specific such choice.

>
> >> >> Buy local, buy organic. A free range organic chicken from a local
> >> >> farmer
> >> >> arguably supplies more nutrition per calorie at a lower environmental
> >> >> cost
> >> >> than an equivalent amount of imported and/or processed plant-based
> >> >> product,
> >> >> vegetables or fruit.

>
> >> > You think a local free range organic chicken involves less harm than
> >> > plant foods?

>
> >> Which plant foods?

>
> > Well, I ate potato gnocchi with tofu and lentils and carrots the other
> > night, are you suggesting that I would have been better off with a
> > local free-range organic chicken, from the point of view of animal
> > suffering?

>
> I am suggesting that it is completely plausible that substituting some of
> the calories in your meal with some free range organic chicken presents a
> meal that falls within a range of environmental impacts that any reasonable
> person would call acceptable.
>


So, presumably, the answer to my question is no.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> > In the absence
> >> >> > of specific practical advice going vegetarian is a good strategy for
> >> >> > her to reduce her contribution to animal suffering.

>
> >> >> Its one strategy, however it carries the risk of nutritional
> >> >> deficiencies
> >> >> in
> >> >> some people, and it tends to lead to the dreaded "holier than thou"
> >> >> syndrome. If those pitfalls can be avoided then it has advantages.

>
> >> >> > It's also better
> >> >> > for her health to be vegetarian than not.

>
> >> >> Clearly categorically false.

>
> >> > Wrong. Two doctors have told me that being a vegetarian is an
> >> > excellent choice for my health.

>
> >> That's not what you said.

>
> > The distinction is lost on me, I'm sorry.

>
> You said that is is better for her health to be a vegetarian. That is not
> the same as saying that a vegetarian diet as selected by your doctor is an
> excellent choice for your health.
>


My doctor doesn't give me any dietary advice. She just says "It is
good for your health that you are vegan." All she knows is that I am
vegan.

> The second second statement is, with some conditions, supportable, the first
> is not, it is too categorical, broad and poorly defined to be correct.


I don't agree.

Dutch 04-03-2012 08:31 PM

What to eat
 

"Rupert" > wrote in message
...
> On 3 Mrz., 21:37, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 3, 10:05 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message

>>
>> ...

>>
>> >> > On Mar 2, 10:34 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote

>>
>> >> >> > I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility that there might be
>> >> >> > some
>> >> >> > dietary choices she might make which are not vegetarian and yet
>> >> >> > are
>> >> >> > nevertheless just as good as a vegetarian diet

>>
>> >> >> Or better, with respect to health AND negative impact on animals.

>>
>> >> >> > but you haven't given
>> >> >> > her practical guidance about any specific such choice.

>>
>> >> >> Buy local, buy organic. A free range organic chicken from a local
>> >> >> farmer
>> >> >> arguably supplies more nutrition per calorie at a lower
>> >> >> environmental
>> >> >> cost
>> >> >> than an equivalent amount of imported and/or processed plant-based
>> >> >> product,
>> >> >> vegetables or fruit.

>>
>> >> > You think a local free range organic chicken involves less harm than
>> >> > plant foods?

>>
>> >> Which plant foods?

>>
>> > Well, I ate potato gnocchi with tofu and lentils and carrots the other
>> > night, are you suggesting that I would have been better off with a
>> > local free-range organic chicken, from the point of view of animal
>> > suffering?

>>
>> I am suggesting that it is completely plausible that substituting some of
>> the calories in your meal with some free range organic chicken presents a
>> meal that falls within a range of environmental impacts that any
>> reasonable
>> person would call acceptable.
>>

>
> So, presumably, the answer to my question is no.


The answer is that it is unknown, but entirely plausible, depending on a
number of factors, that by replacing some of the food in a vegetarian meal
with an equivalent number of calories of free range organic chicken that you
would not only reduce the total amount of animal suffering but also make the
meal more healthy and enjoyable.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> > In the absence
>> >> >> > of specific practical advice going vegetarian is a good strategy
>> >> >> > for
>> >> >> > her to reduce her contribution to animal suffering.

>>
>> >> >> Its one strategy, however it carries the risk of nutritional
>> >> >> deficiencies
>> >> >> in
>> >> >> some people, and it tends to lead to the dreaded "holier than thou"
>> >> >> syndrome. If those pitfalls can be avoided then it has advantages.

>>
>> >> >> > It's also better
>> >> >> > for her health to be vegetarian than not.

>>
>> >> >> Clearly categorically false.

>>
>> >> > Wrong. Two doctors have told me that being a vegetarian is an
>> >> > excellent choice for my health.

>>
>> >> That's not what you said.

>>
>> > The distinction is lost on me, I'm sorry.

>>
>> You said that is is better for her health to be a vegetarian. That is not
>> the same as saying that a vegetarian diet as selected by your doctor is
>> an
>> excellent choice for your health.
>>

>
> My doctor doesn't give me any dietary advice. She just says "It is
> good for your health that you are vegan." All she knows is that I am
> vegan.
>
>> The second second statement is, with some conditions, supportable, the
>> first
>> is not, it is too categorical, broad and poorly defined to be correct.

>
> I don't agree.


So if you eat nothing but potato chips and donuts that is better for your
health than a balanced diet including some meat? Being a vegan simply means
you AVOID certain products, it doesn't dictate what you DO eat.







Rupert 04-03-2012 09:12 PM

What to eat
 
On 4 Mrz., 20:31, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 3 Mrz., 21:37, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message

>
> ...

>
> >> > On Mar 3, 10:05 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message

>
> >> ...

>
> >> >> > On Mar 2, 10:34 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote

>
> >> >> >> > I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility that there might be
> >> >> >> > some
> >> >> >> > dietary choices she might make which are not vegetarian and yet
> >> >> >> > are
> >> >> >> > nevertheless just as good as a vegetarian diet

>
> >> >> >> Or better, with respect to health AND negative impact on animals.

>
> >> >> >> > but you haven't given
> >> >> >> > her practical guidance about any specific such choice.

>
> >> >> >> Buy local, buy organic. A free range organic chicken from a local
> >> >> >> farmer
> >> >> >> arguably supplies more nutrition per calorie at a lower
> >> >> >> environmental
> >> >> >> cost
> >> >> >> than an equivalent amount of imported and/or processed plant-based
> >> >> >> product,
> >> >> >> vegetables or fruit.

>
> >> >> > You think a local free range organic chicken involves less harm than
> >> >> > plant foods?

>
> >> >> Which plant foods?

>
> >> > Well, I ate potato gnocchi with tofu and lentils and carrots the other
> >> > night, are you suggesting that I would have been better off with a
> >> > local free-range organic chicken, from the point of view of animal
> >> > suffering?

>
> >> I am suggesting that it is completely plausible that substituting some of
> >> the calories in your meal with some free range organic chicken presents a
> >> meal that falls within a range of environmental impacts that any
> >> reasonable
> >> person would call acceptable.

>
> > So, presumably, the answer to my question is no.

>
> The answer is that it is unknown, but entirely plausible, depending on a
> number of factors, that by replacing some of the food in a vegetarian meal
> with an equivalent number of calories of free range organic chicken that you
> would not only reduce the total amount of animal suffering but also make the
> meal more healthy and enjoyable.
>


And what's the evidence for that proposition?

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> >> > In the absence
> >> >> >> > of specific practical advice going vegetarian is a good strategy
> >> >> >> > for
> >> >> >> > her to reduce her contribution to animal suffering.

>
> >> >> >> Its one strategy, however it carries the risk of nutritional
> >> >> >> deficiencies
> >> >> >> in
> >> >> >> some people, and it tends to lead to the dreaded "holier than thou"
> >> >> >> syndrome. If those pitfalls can be avoided then it has advantages.

>
> >> >> >> > It's also better
> >> >> >> > for her health to be vegetarian than not.

>
> >> >> >> Clearly categorically false.

>
> >> >> > Wrong. Two doctors have told me that being a vegetarian is an
> >> >> > excellent choice for my health.

>
> >> >> That's not what you said.

>
> >> > The distinction is lost on me, I'm sorry.

>
> >> You said that is is better for her health to be a vegetarian. That is not
> >> the same as saying that a vegetarian diet as selected by your doctor is
> >> an
> >> excellent choice for your health.

>
> > My doctor doesn't give me any dietary advice. She just says "It is
> > good for your health that you are vegan." All she knows is that I am
> > vegan.

>
> >> The second second statement is, with some conditions, supportable, the
> >> first
> >> is not, it is too categorical, broad and poorly defined to be correct.

>
> > I don't agree.

>
> So if you eat nothing but potato chips and donuts that is better for your
> health than a balanced diet including some meat? Being a vegan simply means
> you AVOID certain products, it doesn't dictate what you DO eat.


That's a silly interpretation of my claim. Obviously my claim was that
if you eat a reasonably sensible vegetarian diet then it's likely to
be healthier than a typical meat-based diet, and that's obviously what
my doctor believes too.

dh@. 05-03-2012 08:29 PM

What to eat
 
On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 04:03:58 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
wrote:

>Most animal products require more collateral deaths than plant-based
>products, because grain needs to be grown and fed to the animals and
>it is a less efficient means of producing protein than directly
>feeding the grain to humans. Grass-fed beef may possibly be an
>exception,


In some case it is, but you can't accept that much so you can't even get to
the starting line. IF you're ever able to be honest enough to admit that
sometimes it is, then what?

>but you have demonstrated yourself unable to substantiate
>the assertion, which you nevertheless keep making, that one serving of
>soy products is likely to involve hundreds of times as many deaths as
>one serving of grass-fed beef.


So far it looks like about a hundred if we DON'T figure byproducts into the
count. If we do figure byproducts into the count then the number for servings of
food goes way down and the estimate of hundreds becomes again overly generous on
my part, since if we include items made with byproducts the soy would propably
jump to thousands or millions of times more. Try it for not only however many
servings of beef, but also now include however many items made from the 600
pounds of leather, and whatever other byproduct made items you want to account
for. How about just doing it for the entire thousand pounds of animal material
and however manty items...food...leather...animal food...fertilizer...... If you
want to go at it that way, but I still suggest we stick with human grade food
items only and not even pet food. Remember it's you eliminationists who want to
include the byproduct stuff too, not me. But since you do, then you need to go
ahead and do it. Go:

Dutch 05-03-2012 08:58 PM

What to eat
 


"Rupert" > wrote in message
...
> On 4 Mrz., 20:31, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 3 Mrz., 21:37, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message

>>
>> ...

>>
>> >> > On Mar 3, 10:05 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message

>>
>> >> ...

>>
>> >> >> > On Mar 2, 10:34 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote

>>
>> >> >> >> > I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility that there might
>> >> >> >> > be
>> >> >> >> > some
>> >> >> >> > dietary choices she might make which are not vegetarian and
>> >> >> >> > yet
>> >> >> >> > are
>> >> >> >> > nevertheless just as good as a vegetarian diet

>>
>> >> >> >> Or better, with respect to health AND negative impact on
>> >> >> >> animals.

>>
>> >> >> >> > but you haven't given
>> >> >> >> > her practical guidance about any specific such choice.

>>
>> >> >> >> Buy local, buy organic. A free range organic chicken from a
>> >> >> >> local
>> >> >> >> farmer
>> >> >> >> arguably supplies more nutrition per calorie at a lower
>> >> >> >> environmental
>> >> >> >> cost
>> >> >> >> than an equivalent amount of imported and/or processed
>> >> >> >> plant-based
>> >> >> >> product,
>> >> >> >> vegetables or fruit.

>>
>> >> >> > You think a local free range organic chicken involves less harm
>> >> >> > than
>> >> >> > plant foods?

>>
>> >> >> Which plant foods?

>>
>> >> > Well, I ate potato gnocchi with tofu and lentils and carrots the
>> >> > other
>> >> > night, are you suggesting that I would have been better off with a
>> >> > local free-range organic chicken, from the point of view of animal
>> >> > suffering?

>>
>> >> I am suggesting that it is completely plausible that substituting some
>> >> of
>> >> the calories in your meal with some free range organic chicken
>> >> presents a
>> >> meal that falls within a range of environmental impacts that any
>> >> reasonable
>> >> person would call acceptable.

>>
>> > So, presumably, the answer to my question is no.

>>
>> The answer is that it is unknown, but entirely plausible, depending on a
>> number of factors, that by replacing some of the food in a vegetarian
>> meal
>> with an equivalent number of calories of free range organic chicken that
>> you
>> would not only reduce the total amount of animal suffering but also make
>> the
>> meal more healthy and enjoyable.
>>

>
> And what's the evidence for that proposition?


Logic. Propositions are built on logic.


>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> >> >> > In the absence
>> >> >> >> > of specific practical advice going vegetarian is a good
>> >> >> >> > strategy
>> >> >> >> > for
>> >> >> >> > her to reduce her contribution to animal suffering.

>>
>> >> >> >> Its one strategy, however it carries the risk of nutritional
>> >> >> >> deficiencies
>> >> >> >> in
>> >> >> >> some people, and it tends to lead to the dreaded "holier than
>> >> >> >> thou"
>> >> >> >> syndrome. If those pitfalls can be avoided then it has
>> >> >> >> advantages.

>>
>> >> >> >> > It's also better
>> >> >> >> > for her health to be vegetarian than not.

>>
>> >> >> >> Clearly categorically false.

>>
>> >> >> > Wrong. Two doctors have told me that being a vegetarian is an
>> >> >> > excellent choice for my health.

>>
>> >> >> That's not what you said.

>>
>> >> > The distinction is lost on me, I'm sorry.

>>
>> >> You said that is is better for her health to be a vegetarian. That is
>> >> not
>> >> the same as saying that a vegetarian diet as selected by your doctor
>> >> is
>> >> an
>> >> excellent choice for your health.

>>
>> > My doctor doesn't give me any dietary advice. She just says "It is
>> > good for your health that you are vegan." All she knows is that I am
>> > vegan.

>>
>> >> The second second statement is, with some conditions, supportable, the
>> >> first
>> >> is not, it is too categorical, broad and poorly defined to be correct.

>>
>> > I don't agree.

>>
>> So if you eat nothing but potato chips and donuts that is better for your
>> health than a balanced diet including some meat? Being a vegan simply
>> means
>> you AVOID certain products, it doesn't dictate what you DO eat.

>
> That's a silly interpretation of my claim.


No it's not, it is a literal interpretation. We don't all share your
assumptions. All you said was that you were a vegan, period. That does NOT
necessarily mean you are eating a healthy diet.

> Obviously my claim was that
> if you eat a reasonably sensible vegetarian diet then it's likely to
> be healthier than a typical meat-based diet


If that's what you are claiming then that's what you should say. I have no
way of knowing that your vegan diet is "reasonably sensible" nor that you
are comparing it with a "typical" meat based diet, whatever that is. Why
don't you compare a crappy vegan diet with a sensible balanced diet that
includes some low fat meat?

> and that's obviously what
> my doctor believes too.


That may be obvious to you, but you said that all your doctor knows is that
your diet is vegan. Based on that she should not be telling you that your
diet is healthy, you may have a severe B-12 deficiency for example.






Rupert 06-03-2012 11:18 AM

What to eat
 
On Mar 5, 8:58*pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 4 Mrz., 20:31, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message

>
> ....

>
> >> > On 3 Mrz., 21:37, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message

>
> >> ...

>
> >> >> > On Mar 3, 10:05 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message

>
> >> >> ...

>
> >> >> >> > On Mar 2, 10:34 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote

>
> >> >> >> >> > I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility that there might
> >> >> >> >> > be
> >> >> >> >> > some
> >> >> >> >> > dietary choices she might make which are not vegetarian and
> >> >> >> >> > yet
> >> >> >> >> > are
> >> >> >> >> > nevertheless just as good as a vegetarian diet

>
> >> >> >> >> Or better, with respect to health AND negative impact on
> >> >> >> >> animals.

>
> >> >> >> >> > but you haven't given
> >> >> >> >> > her practical guidance about any specific such choice.

>
> >> >> >> >> Buy local, buy organic. A free range organic chicken from a
> >> >> >> >> local
> >> >> >> >> farmer
> >> >> >> >> arguably supplies more nutrition per calorie at a lower
> >> >> >> >> environmental
> >> >> >> >> cost
> >> >> >> >> than an equivalent amount of imported and/or processed
> >> >> >> >> plant-based
> >> >> >> >> product,
> >> >> >> >> vegetables or fruit.

>
> >> >> >> > You think a local free range organic chicken involves less harm
> >> >> >> > than
> >> >> >> > plant foods?

>
> >> >> >> Which plant foods?

>
> >> >> > Well, I ate potato gnocchi with tofu and lentils and carrots the
> >> >> > other
> >> >> > night, are you suggesting that I would have been better off with a
> >> >> > local free-range organic chicken, from the point of view of animal
> >> >> > suffering?

>
> >> >> I am suggesting that it is completely plausible that substituting some
> >> >> of
> >> >> the calories in your meal with some free range organic chicken
> >> >> presents a
> >> >> meal that falls within a range of environmental impacts that any
> >> >> reasonable
> >> >> person would call acceptable.

>
> >> > So, presumably, the answer to my question is no.

>
> >> The answer is that it is unknown, but entirely plausible, depending on a
> >> number of factors, that by replacing some of the food in a vegetarian
> >> meal
> >> with an equivalent number of calories of free range organic chicken that
> >> you
> >> would not only reduce the total amount of animal suffering but also make
> >> the
> >> meal more healthy and enjoyable.

>
> > And what's the evidence for that proposition?

>
> Logic. Propositions are built on logic.
>


No, empirical propositions don't come from logic alone, they are
grounded in factual evidence.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> >> >> > In the absence
> >> >> >> >> > of specific practical advice going vegetarian is a good
> >> >> >> >> > strategy
> >> >> >> >> > for
> >> >> >> >> > her to reduce her contribution to animal suffering.

>
> >> >> >> >> Its one strategy, however it carries the risk of nutritional
> >> >> >> >> deficiencies
> >> >> >> >> in
> >> >> >> >> some people, and it tends to lead to the dreaded "holier than
> >> >> >> >> thou"
> >> >> >> >> syndrome. If those pitfalls can be avoided then it has
> >> >> >> >> advantages.

>
> >> >> >> >> > It's also better
> >> >> >> >> > for her health to be vegetarian than not.

>
> >> >> >> >> Clearly categorically false.

>
> >> >> >> > Wrong. Two doctors have told me that being a vegetarian is an
> >> >> >> > excellent choice for my health.

>
> >> >> >> That's not what you said.

>
> >> >> > The distinction is lost on me, I'm sorry.

>
> >> >> You said that is is better for her health to be a vegetarian. That is
> >> >> not
> >> >> the same as saying that a vegetarian diet as selected by your doctor
> >> >> is
> >> >> an
> >> >> excellent choice for your health.

>
> >> > My doctor doesn't give me any dietary advice. She just says "It is
> >> > good for your health that you are vegan." All she knows is that I am
> >> > vegan.

>
> >> >> The second second statement is, with some conditions, supportable, the
> >> >> first
> >> >> is not, it is too categorical, broad and poorly defined to be correct.

>
> >> > I don't agree.

>
> >> So if you eat nothing but potato chips and donuts that is better for your
> >> health than a balanced diet including some meat? Being a vegan simply
> >> means
> >> you AVOID certain products, it doesn't dictate what you DO eat.

>
> > That's a silly interpretation of my claim.

>
> No it's not, it is a literal interpretation. We don't all share your
> assumptions. All you said was that you were a vegan, period. That does NOT
> necessarily mean you are eating a healthy diet.
>


But it makes it quite likely, if the diet is reasonably sensible.

> > Obviously my claim was that
> > if you eat a reasonably sensible vegetarian diet then it's likely to
> > be healthier than a typical meat-based diet

>
> If that's what you are claiming then that's what you should say. *I have no
> way of knowing that your vegan diet is "reasonably sensible" nor that you
> are comparing it with a "typical" meat based diet, whatever that is. Why
> don't you compare a crappy vegan diet with a sensible balanced diet that
> includes some low fat meat?
>
> > and that's obviously what
> > my doctor believes too.

>
> That may be obvious to you, but you said that all your doctor knows is that
> your diet is vegan. Based on that she should not be telling you that your
> diet is healthy, you may have a severe B-12 deficiency for example.


I have regular blood tests to check for side-effects of my meds, and
we check my iron and B-12 levels when we do those.

Rupert 06-03-2012 11:20 AM

What to eat
 
On Mar 5, 8:29*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 04:03:58 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
> >Most animal products require more collateral deaths than plant-based
> >products, because grain needs to be grown and fed to the animals and
> >it is a less efficient means of producing protein than directly
> >feeding the grain to humans. Grass-fed beef may possibly be an
> >exception,

>
> * * In some case it is, but you can't accept that much so you can't even get to
> the starting line. IF you're ever able to be honest enough to admit that
> sometimes it is, then what?
>


Then having a diet which includes some grass-fed beef may be a good
approach to reducing animal suffering too, as well as a vegan diet.

> >but you have demonstrated yourself unable to substantiate
> >the assertion, which you nevertheless keep making, that one serving of
> >soy products is likely to involve hundreds of times as many deaths as
> >one serving of grass-fed beef.

>
> * * So far it looks like about a hundred if we DON'T figure byproducts into the
> count.


Nonsense. We have absolutely no grounds for making an estimate of what
the factor is.

> If we do figure byproducts into the count then the number for servings of
> food goes way down


Wrong.

> and the estimate of hundreds becomes again overly generous on
> my part, since if we include items made with byproducts the soy would propably
> jump to thousands or millions of times more. Try it for not only however many
> servings of beef, but also now include however many items made from the 600
> pounds of leather, and whatever other byproduct made items you want to account
> for. How about just doing it for the entire thousand pounds of animal material
> and however manty items...food...leather...animal food...fertilizer...... If you
> want to go at it that way, but I still suggest we stick with human grade food
> items only and not even pet food. Remember it's you eliminationists who want to
> include the byproduct stuff too, not me. But since you do, then you need to go
> ahead and do it. Go:


I did.

Dutch 06-03-2012 07:31 PM

What to eat
 


"Rupert" > wrote in message
...
> On Mar 5, 8:58 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On 4 Mrz., 20:31, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message

>>
>> ...

>>
>> >> > On 3 Mrz., 21:37, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message

>>
>> >> ...

>>
>> >> >> > On Mar 3, 10:05 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message

>>
>> >> >> ...

>>
>> >> >> >> > On Mar 2, 10:34 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote

>>
>> >> >> >> >> > I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility that there
>> >> >> >> >> > might
>> >> >> >> >> > be
>> >> >> >> >> > some
>> >> >> >> >> > dietary choices she might make which are not vegetarian and
>> >> >> >> >> > yet
>> >> >> >> >> > are
>> >> >> >> >> > nevertheless just as good as a vegetarian diet

>>
>> >> >> >> >> Or better, with respect to health AND negative impact on
>> >> >> >> >> animals.

>>
>> >> >> >> >> > but you haven't given
>> >> >> >> >> > her practical guidance about any specific such choice.

>>
>> >> >> >> >> Buy local, buy organic. A free range organic chicken from a
>> >> >> >> >> local
>> >> >> >> >> farmer
>> >> >> >> >> arguably supplies more nutrition per calorie at a lower
>> >> >> >> >> environmental
>> >> >> >> >> cost
>> >> >> >> >> than an equivalent amount of imported and/or processed
>> >> >> >> >> plant-based
>> >> >> >> >> product,
>> >> >> >> >> vegetables or fruit.

>>
>> >> >> >> > You think a local free range organic chicken involves less
>> >> >> >> > harm
>> >> >> >> > than
>> >> >> >> > plant foods?

>>
>> >> >> >> Which plant foods?

>>
>> >> >> > Well, I ate potato gnocchi with tofu and lentils and carrots the
>> >> >> > other
>> >> >> > night, are you suggesting that I would have been better off with
>> >> >> > a
>> >> >> > local free-range organic chicken, from the point of view of
>> >> >> > animal
>> >> >> > suffering?

>>
>> >> >> I am suggesting that it is completely plausible that substituting
>> >> >> some
>> >> >> of
>> >> >> the calories in your meal with some free range organic chicken
>> >> >> presents a
>> >> >> meal that falls within a range of environmental impacts that any
>> >> >> reasonable
>> >> >> person would call acceptable.

>>
>> >> > So, presumably, the answer to my question is no.

>>
>> >> The answer is that it is unknown, but entirely plausible, depending on
>> >> a
>> >> number of factors, that by replacing some of the food in a vegetarian
>> >> meal
>> >> with an equivalent number of calories of free range organic chicken
>> >> that
>> >> you
>> >> would not only reduce the total amount of animal suffering but also
>> >> make
>> >> the
>> >> meal more healthy and enjoyable.

>>
>> > And what's the evidence for that proposition?

>>
>> Logic. Propositions are built on logic.
>>

>
> No, empirical propositions don't come from logic alone, they are
> grounded in factual evidence.


You have already conceded the basic premise that modern mechanized
agriculture kills animals. Based on that premise it is not unreasonable to
conclude that some vegan food costs more animal lives than some non-vegan
food. Further, it is not unreasonable to conclude that a fairly wide
selection of both types fall within a range that would be considered
acceptable to most people. I would add that the practice of some vegans to
examine content labels and reject with disgust any food that might have the
slightest trace of animal DNA is absurd given that most outdoor grown food
likely has some trace of animal DNA.



>> >> >> >> >> > In the absence
>> >> >> >> >> > of specific practical advice going vegetarian is a good
>> >> >> >> >> > strategy
>> >> >> >> >> > for
>> >> >> >> >> > her to reduce her contribution to animal suffering.

>>
>> >> >> >> >> Its one strategy, however it carries the risk of nutritional
>> >> >> >> >> deficiencies
>> >> >> >> >> in
>> >> >> >> >> some people, and it tends to lead to the dreaded "holier than
>> >> >> >> >> thou"
>> >> >> >> >> syndrome. If those pitfalls can be avoided then it has
>> >> >> >> >> advantages.

>>
>> >> >> >> >> > It's also better
>> >> >> >> >> > for her health to be vegetarian than not.

>>
>> >> >> >> >> Clearly categorically false.

>>
>> >> >> >> > Wrong. Two doctors have told me that being a vegetarian is an
>> >> >> >> > excellent choice for my health.

>>
>> >> >> >> That's not what you said.

>>
>> >> >> > The distinction is lost on me, I'm sorry.

>>
>> >> >> You said that is is better for her health to be a vegetarian. That
>> >> >> is
>> >> >> not
>> >> >> the same as saying that a vegetarian diet as selected by your
>> >> >> doctor
>> >> >> is
>> >> >> an
>> >> >> excellent choice for your health.

>>
>> >> > My doctor doesn't give me any dietary advice. She just says "It is
>> >> > good for your health that you are vegan." All she knows is that I am
>> >> > vegan.

>>
>> >> >> The second second statement is, with some conditions, supportable,
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> first
>> >> >> is not, it is too categorical, broad and poorly defined to be
>> >> >> correct.

>>
>> >> > I don't agree.

>>
>> >> So if you eat nothing but potato chips and donuts that is better for
>> >> your
>> >> health than a balanced diet including some meat? Being a vegan simply
>> >> means
>> >> you AVOID certain products, it doesn't dictate what you DO eat.

>>
>> > That's a silly interpretation of my claim.

>>
>> No it's not, it is a literal interpretation. We don't all share your
>> assumptions. All you said was that you were a vegan, period. That does
>> NOT
>> necessarily mean you are eating a healthy diet.
>>

>
> But it makes it quite likely, if the diet is reasonably sensible.


Perhaps, but I would suggest that in the name of truth in advertising let's
be precise in our wording.

>> > Obviously my claim was that
>> > if you eat a reasonably sensible vegetarian diet then it's likely to
>> > be healthier than a typical meat-based diet

>>
>> If that's what you are claiming then that's what you should say. I have
>> no
>> way of knowing that your vegan diet is "reasonably sensible" nor that you
>> are comparing it with a "typical" meat based diet, whatever that is. Why
>> don't you compare a crappy vegan diet with a sensible balanced diet that
>> includes some low fat meat?
>>
>> > and that's obviously what
>> > my doctor believes too.

>>
>> That may be obvious to you, but you said that all your doctor knows is
>> that
>> your diet is vegan. Based on that she should not be telling you that your
>> diet is healthy, you may have a severe B-12 deficiency for example.

>
> I have regular blood tests to check for side-effects of my meds, and
> we check my iron and B-12 levels when we do those.


That's not the point. You're comparing a presumed sensible vegan diet with a
"typical" western diet (You still haven't defined that), but if you mean one
that includes quite a bit of fast food and fatty meat and over-eating then
of course your diet wins any competition easily, nobody would deny that. The
relevant comparisons for the purpose of showing that many of these
categorical claims are wrong are the less than sensible vegan diets such as
ones heavy on refined pasta which are not that healthy and ones that depend
on imported and/or heavily processed meat substitutes which are not
necessarily better than free range meat with respect to animal impact.

I would never argue that a well planned vegan or vegetarian diet is bad, my
point is that a well planned non-vegan diet can be just as good, based on
all the same criteria, except one, that is the issue of animal
*exploitation*.




Rupert 07-03-2012 08:23 AM

What to eat
 
On Mar 6, 7:31*pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 5, 8:58 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message

>
> ....

>
> >> > On 4 Mrz., 20:31, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message

>
> >> ...

>
> >> >> > On 3 Mrz., 21:37, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message

>
> >> >> ...

>
> >> >> >> > On Mar 3, 10:05 am, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote in message

>
> >> >> >> ...

>
> >> >> >> >> > On Mar 2, 10:34 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote

>
> >> >> >> >> >> > I wouldn't want to rule out the possibility that there
> >> >> >> >> >> > might
> >> >> >> >> >> > be
> >> >> >> >> >> > some
> >> >> >> >> >> > dietary choices she might make which are not vegetarian and
> >> >> >> >> >> > yet
> >> >> >> >> >> > are
> >> >> >> >> >> > nevertheless just as good as a vegetarian diet

>
> >> >> >> >> >> Or better, with respect to health AND negative impact on
> >> >> >> >> >> animals.

>
> >> >> >> >> >> > but you haven't given
> >> >> >> >> >> > her practical guidance about any specific such choice.

>
> >> >> >> >> >> Buy local, buy organic. A free range organic chicken from a
> >> >> >> >> >> local
> >> >> >> >> >> farmer
> >> >> >> >> >> arguably supplies more nutrition per calorie at a lower
> >> >> >> >> >> environmental
> >> >> >> >> >> cost
> >> >> >> >> >> than an equivalent amount of imported and/or processed
> >> >> >> >> >> plant-based
> >> >> >> >> >> product,
> >> >> >> >> >> vegetables or fruit.

>
> >> >> >> >> > You think a local free range organic chicken involves less
> >> >> >> >> > harm
> >> >> >> >> > than
> >> >> >> >> > plant foods?

>
> >> >> >> >> Which plant foods?

>
> >> >> >> > Well, I ate potato gnocchi with tofu and lentils and carrots the
> >> >> >> > other
> >> >> >> > night, are you suggesting that I would have been better off with
> >> >> >> > a
> >> >> >> > local free-range organic chicken, from the point of view of
> >> >> >> > animal
> >> >> >> > suffering?

>
> >> >> >> I am suggesting that it is completely plausible that substituting
> >> >> >> some
> >> >> >> of
> >> >> >> the calories in your meal with some free range organic chicken
> >> >> >> presents a
> >> >> >> meal that falls within a range of environmental impacts that any
> >> >> >> reasonable
> >> >> >> person would call acceptable.

>
> >> >> > So, presumably, the answer to my question is no.

>
> >> >> The answer is that it is unknown, but entirely plausible, depending on
> >> >> a
> >> >> number of factors, that by replacing some of the food in a vegetarian
> >> >> meal
> >> >> with an equivalent number of calories of free range organic chicken
> >> >> that
> >> >> you
> >> >> would not only reduce the total amount of animal suffering but also
> >> >> make
> >> >> the
> >> >> meal more healthy and enjoyable.

>
> >> > And what's the evidence for that proposition?

>
> >> Logic. Propositions are built on logic.

>
> > No, empirical propositions don't come from logic alone, they are
> > grounded in factual evidence.

>
> You have already conceded the basic premise that modern mechanized
> agriculture kills animals. Based on that premise it is not unreasonable to
> conclude that some vegan food costs more animal lives than some non-vegan
> food. Further, it is not unreasonable to conclude that a fairly wide
> selection of both types fall within a range that would be considered
> acceptable to most people. I would add that the practice of some vegans to
> examine content labels and reject with disgust any food that might have the
> slightest trace of animal DNA is absurd given that most outdoor grown food
> likely has some trace of animal DNA.
>


Yes, all right, fine, but I am not especially convinced that free-
range organic chicken is likely to involve less animal suffering than
a calorically equivalent serving of vegan food, because chickens need
to be fed by grains that involve animal CDs, and it's a less efficient
use of grains to nourish humans than is the case with directly buying
the plant-based food.

I gave a specific example of a meal I ate and asked you if I would
have been better off with free-range organic chicken. It looks as
though the answer to that is no, or at least you are not confidently
answering yes.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> >> >> >> > In the absence
> >> >> >> >> >> > of specific practical advice going vegetarian is a good
> >> >> >> >> >> > strategy
> >> >> >> >> >> > for
> >> >> >> >> >> > her to reduce her contribution to animal suffering.

>
> >> >> >> >> >> Its one strategy, however it carries the risk of nutritional
> >> >> >> >> >> deficiencies
> >> >> >> >> >> in
> >> >> >> >> >> some people, and it tends to lead to the dreaded "holier than
> >> >> >> >> >> thou"
> >> >> >> >> >> syndrome. If those pitfalls can be avoided then it has
> >> >> >> >> >> advantages.

>
> >> >> >> >> >> > It's also better
> >> >> >> >> >> > for her health to be vegetarian than not.

>
> >> >> >> >> >> Clearly categorically false.

>
> >> >> >> >> > Wrong. Two doctors have told me that being a vegetarian is an
> >> >> >> >> > excellent choice for my health.

>
> >> >> >> >> That's not what you said.

>
> >> >> >> > The distinction is lost on me, I'm sorry.

>
> >> >> >> You said that is is better for her health to be a vegetarian. That
> >> >> >> is
> >> >> >> not
> >> >> >> the same as saying that a vegetarian diet as selected by your
> >> >> >> doctor
> >> >> >> is
> >> >> >> an
> >> >> >> excellent choice for your health.

>
> >> >> > My doctor doesn't give me any dietary advice. She just says "It is
> >> >> > good for your health that you are vegan." All she knows is that I am
> >> >> > vegan.

>
> >> >> >> The second second statement is, with some conditions, supportable,
> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> first
> >> >> >> is not, it is too categorical, broad and poorly defined to be
> >> >> >> correct.

>
> >> >> > I don't agree.

>
> >> >> So if you eat nothing but potato chips and donuts that is better for
> >> >> your
> >> >> health than a balanced diet including some meat? Being a vegan simply
> >> >> means
> >> >> you AVOID certain products, it doesn't dictate what you DO eat.

>
> >> > That's a silly interpretation of my claim.

>
> >> No it's not, it is a literal interpretation. We don't all share your
> >> assumptions. All you said was that you were a vegan, period. That does
> >> NOT
> >> necessarily mean you are eating a healthy diet.

>
> > But it makes it quite likely, if the diet is reasonably sensible.

>
> Perhaps, but I would suggest that in the name of truth in advertising let's
> be precise in our wording.
>


I will do my best to be more precise in my wording in the future.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> > Obviously my claim was that
> >> > if you eat a reasonably sensible vegetarian diet then it's likely to
> >> > be healthier than a typical meat-based diet

>
> >> If that's what you are claiming then that's what you should say. *I have
> >> no
> >> way of knowing that your vegan diet is "reasonably sensible" nor that you
> >> are comparing it with a "typical" meat based diet, whatever that is. Why
> >> don't you compare a crappy vegan diet with a sensible balanced diet that
> >> includes some low fat meat?

>
> >> > and that's obviously what
> >> > my doctor believes too.

>
> >> That may be obvious to you, but you said that all your doctor knows is
> >> that
> >> your diet is vegan. Based on that she should not be telling you that your
> >> diet is healthy, you may have a severe B-12 deficiency for example.

>
> > I have regular blood tests to check for side-effects of my meds, and
> > we check my iron and B-12 levels when we do those.

>
> That's not the point. You're comparing a presumed sensible vegan diet with a
> "typical" western diet (You still haven't defined that), but if you mean one
> that includes quite a bit of fast food and fatty meat and over-eating then
> of course your diet wins any competition easily, nobody would deny that. The
> relevant comparisons for the purpose of showing that many of these
> categorical claims are wrong are the less than sensible vegan diets such as
> ones heavy on refined pasta which are not that healthy and ones that depend
> on imported and/or heavily processed meat substitutes which are not
> necessarily better than free range meat with respect to animal impact.
>
> I would never argue that a well planned vegan or vegetarian diet is bad, my
> point is that a well planned non-vegan diet can be just as good, based on
> all the same criteria, except one, that is the issue of animal
> *exploitation*.


I am skeptical that it is likely to be just as good on the issue of
animal suffering if grains need to be grown to feed the animals.

Dutch 07-03-2012 10:54 PM

What to eat
 

"Rupert" > wrote
> On Mar 6, 7:31 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:


[..]

>> You have already conceded the basic premise that modern mechanized
>> agriculture kills animals. Based on that premise it is not unreasonable
>> to
>> conclude that some vegan food costs more animal lives than some non-vegan
>> food. Further, it is not unreasonable to conclude that a fairly wide
>> selection of both types fall within a range that would be considered
>> acceptable to most people. I would add that the practice of some vegans
>> to
>> examine content labels and reject with disgust any food that might have
>> the
>> slightest trace of animal DNA is absurd given that most outdoor grown
>> food
>> likely has some trace of animal DNA.
>>

>
> Yes, all right, fine, but I am not especially convinced that free-
> range organic chicken is likely to involve less animal suffering than
> a calorically equivalent serving of vegan food, because chickens need
> to be fed by grains that involve animal CDs, and it's a less efficient
> use of grains to nourish humans than is the case with directly buying
> the plant-based food.


Food is not chosen on a strict efficiency basis, not even by vegans, if that
were the case many vegan foods would be eliminated. You can't say that
efficiency is an argument when comparing chicken vs corn then ignore it when
comparing rice and potatoes.

My fundamental point is that if we were comparing foods that required the
death of animals against foods that did not, as many vegans believe, then
the vegan moral position would be much more compelling. The fact is that is
not the case, we are comparing foods which all cause some amount of animal
death and suffering. Then it comes down to how much we are prepared to
accept and to what degree we can honestly quantify it.

> I gave a specific example of a meal I ate and asked you if I would
> have been better off with free-range organic chicken. It looks as
> though the answer to that is no, or at least you are not confidently
> answering yes.


You probably caused some amount less animal suffering by eating whatever you
ate in place of chicken, that's fine if that's what you want to do, but my
point is that you did not go from one moral realm into another based on
compassion by doing that, as many vegans believe, because the difference is
merely one of degree.

[..]

>> I would never argue that a well planned vegan or vegetarian diet is bad,
>> my
>> point is that a well planned non-vegan diet can be just as good, based on
>> all the same criteria, except one, that is the issue of animal
>> *exploitation*.

>
> I am skeptical that it is likely to be just as good on the issue of
> animal suffering if grains need to be grown to feed the animals.


As I said earlier, efficiency is not an absolute criterion for choosing how
we live our lives, much less our choice of foods. If it were we would never
take vacations or drive cars.

It is a precipitous fall from the sanctimonious claims of people like Glen
to attempting to measure food efficiency.




Rupert 08-03-2012 09:32 AM

What to eat
 
On Mar 7, 10:54*pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> > On Mar 6, 7:31 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
> [..]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> You have already conceded the basic premise that modern mechanized
> >> agriculture kills animals. Based on that premise it is not unreasonable
> >> to
> >> conclude that some vegan food costs more animal lives than some non-vegan
> >> food. Further, it is not unreasonable to conclude that a fairly wide
> >> selection of both types fall within a range that would be considered
> >> acceptable to most people. I would add that the practice of some vegans
> >> to
> >> examine content labels and reject with disgust any food that might have
> >> the
> >> slightest trace of animal DNA is absurd given that most outdoor grown
> >> food
> >> likely has some trace of animal DNA.

>
> > Yes, all right, fine, but I am not especially convinced that free-
> > range organic chicken is likely to involve less animal suffering than
> > a calorically equivalent serving of vegan food, because chickens need
> > to be fed by grains that involve animal CDs, and it's a less efficient
> > use of grains to nourish humans than is the case with directly buying
> > the plant-based food.

>
> Food is not chosen on a strict efficiency basis, not even by vegans, if that
> were the case many vegan foods would be eliminated. You can't say that
> efficiency is an argument when comparing chicken vs corn then ignore it when
> comparing rice and potatoes.
>


I'm talking about the total amount of suffering and premature death
required to produce the food. I think I put a reasonable amount of
effort into eating a diet which causes as little suffering and
premature death as possible, given the difficulties there are with
obtaining reliable information about how much harm the different foods
cause and the constraints on my time, and I think avoiding chicken is
a reasonable rule of thumb for that. If there is a significant
difference between rice and potatoes then that is relevant too. I
don't eat rice especially often. It is true that I eat it occasionally
when I don't have to and I don't really know how much additional
suffering that is causing. Perhaps avoiding rice would be a reasonable
rule of thumb to adopt as well, as well as avoiding chicken, but I
would prefer to see more detailed evidence about how much harm rice
causes before coming to that conclusion.

As I say I am always happy to listen to constructive suggestions for
how I could further reduce the harm caused by my diet, and I'm open to
the idea that maybe I should give up rice. But you seemed to be
claiming that I could do it by including some free-range organic
chicken in my diet, as opposed to potato gnocchi, tofu, lentils, and
carrots which is what I've been eating a fair bit of lately, and the
challenge was for you to demonstrate this. It looks as though you
can't.

> My fundamental point is that if we were comparing foods that required the
> death of animals against foods that did not, as many vegans believe, then
> the vegan moral position would be much more compelling. The fact is that is
> not the case, we are comparing foods which all cause some amount of animal
> death and suffering. Then it comes down to how much we are prepared to
> accept and to what degree we can honestly quantify it.
>


Well, that's quite correct.

> > I gave a specific example of a meal I ate and asked you if I would
> > have been better off with free-range organic chicken. It looks as
> > though the answer to that is no, or at least you are not confidently
> > answering yes.

>
> You probably caused some amount less animal suffering by eating whatever you
> ate in place of chicken, that's fine if that's what you want to do, but my
> point is that you did not go from one moral realm into another based on
> compassion by doing that, as many vegans believe, because the difference is
> merely one of degree.
>


Sounds like we agree, then.

> [..]
>
> >> I would never argue that a well planned vegan or vegetarian diet is bad,
> >> my
> >> point is that a well planned non-vegan diet can be just as good, based on
> >> all the same criteria, except one, that is the issue of animal
> >> *exploitation*.

>
> > I am skeptical that it is likely to be just as good on the issue of
> > animal suffering if grains need to be grown to feed the animals.

>
> As I said earlier, efficiency is not an absolute criterion for choosing how
> we live our lives, much less our choice of foods. If it were we would never
> take vacations or drive cars.
>
> It is a precipitous fall from the sanctimonious claims of people like Glen
> to attempting to measure food efficiency.


I never made any claims similar to the ones Glen is making. I have
always taken the position that I am just trying to do the best I
reasonably can to reduce the amount of suffering and premature death
required to produce my diet. I've made various remarks about what I
believe about "rights" over the years, and my position on that might
have changed a bit over the years. I've just been re-reading Sec. 9.1
of "The Case for Animal Rights", "Why Vegetarianism is Obligatory",
and I believe that everything Tom Regan says there is consistent with
my views, so I could adopt a view like Tom Regan's if I felt like it,
but I don't necessarily want to do that. I believe in nonhuman animals
having some rights in the sense of there being enforceable constraints
on how we may treat them even over and above what comes from their
being someone's property.

Dutch 08-03-2012 08:19 PM

What to eat
 
"Rupert" > wrote in message
...
> On Mar 7, 10:54 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote
>>
>> > On Mar 6, 7:31 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:

>>
>> [..]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> You have already conceded the basic premise that modern mechanized
>> >> agriculture kills animals. Based on that premise it is not
>> >> unreasonable
>> >> to
>> >> conclude that some vegan food costs more animal lives than some
>> >> non-vegan
>> >> food. Further, it is not unreasonable to conclude that a fairly wide
>> >> selection of both types fall within a range that would be considered
>> >> acceptable to most people. I would add that the practice of some
>> >> vegans
>> >> to
>> >> examine content labels and reject with disgust any food that might
>> >> have
>> >> the
>> >> slightest trace of animal DNA is absurd given that most outdoor grown
>> >> food
>> >> likely has some trace of animal DNA.

>>
>> > Yes, all right, fine, but I am not especially convinced that free-
>> > range organic chicken is likely to involve less animal suffering than
>> > a calorically equivalent serving of vegan food, because chickens need
>> > to be fed by grains that involve animal CDs, and it's a less efficient
>> > use of grains to nourish humans than is the case with directly buying
>> > the plant-based food.

>>
>> Food is not chosen on a strict efficiency basis, not even by vegans, if
>> that
>> were the case many vegan foods would be eliminated. You can't say that
>> efficiency is an argument when comparing chicken vs corn then ignore it
>> when
>> comparing rice and potatoes.
>>

>
> I'm talking about the total amount of suffering and premature death
> required to produce the food. I think I put a reasonable amount of
> effort into eating a diet which causes as little suffering and
> premature death as possible, given the difficulties there are with
> obtaining reliable information about how much harm the different foods
> cause and the constraints on my time, and I think avoiding chicken is
> a reasonable rule of thumb for that. If there is a significant
> difference between rice and potatoes then that is relevant too. I
> don't eat rice especially often. It is true that I eat it occasionally
> when I don't have to and I don't really know how much additional
> suffering that is causing. Perhaps avoiding rice would be a reasonable
> rule of thumb to adopt as well, as well as avoiding chicken, but I
> would prefer to see more detailed evidence about how much harm rice
> causes before coming to that conclusion.
>
> As I say I am always happy to listen to constructive suggestions for
> how I could further reduce the harm caused by my diet, and I'm open to
> the idea that maybe I should give up rice. But you seemed to be
> claiming that I could do it by including some free-range organic
> chicken in my diet, as opposed to potato gnocchi, tofu, lentils, and
> carrots which is what I've been eating a fair bit of lately, and the
> challenge was for you to demonstrate this. It looks as though you
> can't.


My claim is that you have no reliable way of measuring whether or not
substituting some free range chicken in a diet such as the one you describe
would substantially increase or decrease the amount of animal suffering, so
it's left for you to guess, or better yet, don't worry about it quite so
much.

>
>> My fundamental point is that if we were comparing foods that required the
>> death of animals against foods that did not, as many vegans believe, then
>> the vegan moral position would be much more compelling. The fact is that
>> is
>> not the case, we are comparing foods which all cause some amount of
>> animal
>> death and suffering. Then it comes down to how much we are prepared to
>> accept and to what degree we can honestly quantify it.
>>

>
> Well, that's quite correct.
>
>> > I gave a specific example of a meal I ate and asked you if I would
>> > have been better off with free-range organic chicken. It looks as
>> > though the answer to that is no, or at least you are not confidently
>> > answering yes.

>>
>> You probably caused some amount less animal suffering by eating whatever
>> you
>> ate in place of chicken, that's fine if that's what you want to do, but
>> my
>> point is that you did not go from one moral realm into another based on
>> compassion by doing that, as many vegans believe, because the difference
>> is
>> merely one of degree.
>>

>
> Sounds like we agree, then.
>
>> [..]
>>
>> >> I would never argue that a well planned vegan or vegetarian diet is
>> >> bad,
>> >> my
>> >> point is that a well planned non-vegan diet can be just as good, based
>> >> on
>> >> all the same criteria, except one, that is the issue of animal
>> >> *exploitation*.

>>
>> > I am skeptical that it is likely to be just as good on the issue of
>> > animal suffering if grains need to be grown to feed the animals.

>>
>> As I said earlier, efficiency is not an absolute criterion for choosing
>> how
>> we live our lives, much less our choice of foods. If it were we would
>> never
>> take vacations or drive cars.
>>
>> It is a precipitous fall from the sanctimonious claims of people like
>> Glen
>> to attempting to measure food efficiency.

>
> I never made any claims similar to the ones Glen is making. I have
> always taken the position that I am just trying to do the best I
> reasonably can to reduce the amount of suffering and premature death
> required to produce my diet. I've made various remarks about what I
> believe about "rights" over the years, and my position on that might
> have changed a bit over the years. I've just been re-reading Sec. 9.1
> of "The Case for Animal Rights", "Why Vegetarianism is Obligatory",
> and I believe that everything Tom Regan says there is consistent with
> my views, so I could adopt a view like Tom Regan's if I felt like it,
> but I don't necessarily want to do that. I believe in nonhuman animals
> having some rights in the sense of there being enforceable constraints
> on how we may treat them even over and above what comes from their
> being someone's property.


I would suggest that if you are looking to increase the level of objectivity
in your point of view then read something that challenges your existing
biases, not something that reinforces them.




George Plimpton 08-03-2012 08:58 PM

What to eat
 
On 3/8/2012 12:32 AM, Rupert, in his lazy passivity, wrote:

>
> As I say I am always happy to listen to constructive suggestions for
> how I could further reduce the harm caused by my diet,


But you're not willing to spend one minute doing the research yourself.
As with all "animal rights passivists", you expect someone else to try
to salvage your bankrupt belief system for you.


And:

>
> I never made any claims similar to the ones Glen is making. I have
> always taken the position that I am just trying to do the best I
> reasonably can to reduce the amount of suffering and premature death
> required to produce my diet.


But you don't. "Doing the best you can" implies *doing* something, but
the only thing you have blabbered about is what you're *not* doing:
putting animal bits in your mouth.

What you /could/ do is spend a little time trying to research the
numbers of animals killed per unit of yield for various types of
vegetable produce. But you just throw up your hands and shriek,
"There's no data", and that's the end of it.

In science, those credited with spectacular breakthroughs often talk
about standing on the shoulders of giants who did earlier, often unsung
work. If some "vegan" ever does come up with an extensive set of
numbers, it will be no thanks to the efforts of any midgets like you.

Rupert 09-03-2012 08:09 AM

What to eat
 
On Mar 8, 8:58*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/8/2012 12:32 AM, Rupert, in his lazy passivity, wrote:
>
>
>
> > As I say I am always happy to listen to constructive suggestions for
> > how I could further reduce the harm caused by my diet,

>
> But you're not willing to spend one minute doing the research yourself.


Yes. I have spent more than one minute trying to do research on the
matter. The outcome of my search was the reliable information on the
amount of harm caused by different plant foods is hard to come by.

I have spent time doing research into how cost-effective the different
blindness-curing charities are, as well, on a volunteer basis for the
philanthropy organisation I am involved with called "Giving What We
Can". That was probably a wiser investment of time and energy from the
point of view of reducing suffering.

I put some time and effort into doing research into how I can reduce
suffering, because it's a topic that I'm interested in. Obviously
there is a limit to what I can do, because I have a job doing research
in pure maths. I also spend time doing other things that interest me.

I don't believe that anyone who knew the facts about what I do could
plausibly claim that I'm not interested in trying to find out how I
can reduce suffering. You may wish to make that claim. If you want to
make the claim it's no skin off my nose. The claim doesn't strike me
as especially plausible, and I don't think most people who knew the
facts about me would find it especially plausible, but more to the
point I don't think most people would care very much one way or the
another. That raises the question of why it is so important to you to
keep making this claim. Why is it so important to you to try to prove
that vegans "don't really care about suffering"? Is it perhaps because
you feel a little bit threatened by them in some way?

> * As with all "animal rights passivists", you expect someone else to try
> to salvage your bankrupt belief system for you.
>


I don't expect anyone else to do anything.

I'm happy with the amount of effort I'm putting in to trying to reduce
suffering. I'm not answerable to anyone else on how much effort I put
in, and I'm not interested in trying to compare myself with others.
There doesn't seem to be much point in trying to belittle the amount
of effort I put in unless you are actually able to offer constructive
suggestions for how I can improve. Of course, it may do something for
you to try to make yourself believe you've made a case that I don't
care about suffering, but maybe you should stop and think about that
for a while, ask yourself why you want to spend so much time trying to
make that case and whether it really is a worthwhile activity, and
what it says about you that you get something out of trying to do it.

> And:
>
>
>
> > I never made any claims similar to the ones Glen is making. I have
> > always taken the position that I am just trying to do the best I
> > reasonably can to reduce the amount of suffering and premature death
> > required to produce my diet.

>
> But you don't. *"Doing the best you can" implies *doing* something, but
> the only thing you have blabbered about is what you're *not* doing:
> putting animal bits in your mouth.
>


Reading information about how animals are treated on modern farms and
responding by making a change in your diet is doing something.

Donating 10% of your income towards charities that alleviate suffering
in the Third World is doing something.

Doing research on the internet about suffering reduction, and
discussing the matter with like-minded people on the internet, is
doing something.

You obviously don't have any way of knowing what I do, and in any case
I'm not answerable to you as to how much effort I'm putting into
trying to reduce suffering. I don't have any reason for trying to do
it other than that I want to. There is no rational reason why I would
care about your opinion about the efforts I make.

Which raises the question of why would *you* care? Why do you suppose
that it is of interest to make public comment about the matter?

> What you /could/ do is spend a little time trying to research the
> numbers of animals killed per unit of yield for various types of
> vegetable produce. *But you just throw up your hands and shriek,
> "There's no data", and that's the end of it.
>


Well, there *are* no data and that's a bit of a problem, isn't it? Are
you suggesting I should fund some kind of study?

I *do* spend time trying to get reliable information about this stuff,
and also discuss these matters with other like-minded people on the
Internet who are trying to figure out the best way of reducing
suffering. You don't have any way of knowing what I do. But as I say,
there is no good reason why I have to justify myself to you. I don't
think you have any reasonable way of evaluating how much effort I put
into suffering reduction and I don't see why I should find your
opinion about the matter of any interest.

> In science, those credited with spectacular breakthroughs often talk
> about standing on the shoulders of giants who did earlier, often unsung
> work. *If some "vegan" ever does come up with an extensive set of
> numbers, it will be no thanks to the efforts of any midgets like you.


You're saying I should do my own research project about the topic,
Ball? Is that it? Do a study on wildlife populations before and after
harvest?

Rupert 09-03-2012 08:12 AM

What to eat
 
On Mar 8, 8:19*pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 7, 10:54 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote

>
> >> > On Mar 6, 7:31 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
> >> [..]

>
> >> >> You have already conceded the basic premise that modern mechanized
> >> >> agriculture kills animals. Based on that premise it is not
> >> >> unreasonable
> >> >> to
> >> >> conclude that some vegan food costs more animal lives than some
> >> >> non-vegan
> >> >> food. Further, it is not unreasonable to conclude that a fairly wide
> >> >> selection of both types fall within a range that would be considered
> >> >> acceptable to most people. I would add that the practice of some
> >> >> vegans
> >> >> to
> >> >> examine content labels and reject with disgust any food that might
> >> >> have
> >> >> the
> >> >> slightest trace of animal DNA is absurd given that most outdoor grown
> >> >> food
> >> >> likely has some trace of animal DNA.

>
> >> > Yes, all right, fine, but I am not especially convinced that free-
> >> > range organic chicken is likely to involve less animal suffering than
> >> > a calorically equivalent serving of vegan food, because chickens need
> >> > to be fed by grains that involve animal CDs, and it's a less efficient
> >> > use of grains to nourish humans than is the case with directly buying
> >> > the plant-based food.

>
> >> Food is not chosen on a strict efficiency basis, not even by vegans, if
> >> that
> >> were the case many vegan foods would be eliminated. You can't say that
> >> efficiency is an argument when comparing chicken vs corn then ignore it
> >> when
> >> comparing rice and potatoes.

>
> > I'm talking about the total amount of suffering and premature death
> > required to produce the food. I think I put a reasonable amount of
> > effort into eating a diet which causes as little suffering and
> > premature death as possible, given the difficulties there are with
> > obtaining reliable information about how much harm the different foods
> > cause and the constraints on my time, and I think avoiding chicken is
> > a reasonable rule of thumb for that. If there is a significant
> > difference between rice and potatoes then that is relevant too. I
> > don't eat rice especially often. It is true that I eat it occasionally
> > when I don't have to and I don't really know how much additional
> > suffering that is causing. Perhaps avoiding rice would be a reasonable
> > rule of thumb to adopt as well, as well as avoiding chicken, but I
> > would prefer to see more detailed evidence about how much harm rice
> > causes before coming to that conclusion.

>
> > As I say I am always happy to listen to constructive suggestions for
> > how I could further reduce the harm caused by my diet, and I'm open to
> > the idea that maybe I should give up rice. But you seemed to be
> > claiming that I could do it by including some free-range organic
> > chicken in my diet, as opposed to potato gnocchi, tofu, lentils, and
> > carrots which is what I've been eating a fair bit of lately, and the
> > challenge was for you to demonstrate this. It looks as though you
> > can't.

>
> My claim is that you have no reliable way of measuring whether or not
> substituting some free range chicken in a diet such as the one you describe
> would substantially increase or decrease the amount of animal suffering, so
> it's left for you to guess, or better yet, don't worry about it quite so
> much.
>


You are right that the best I can do is make a (somewhat) educated
guess, and I have stated what my thoughts are about that topic. I
never suggested the topic did worry me all that much. I thought you
were trying to argue that there was some way I could make an
improvement in the amount of suffering caused by my diet, and if so I
was interested to hear what that was and what the evidence was. I
guess I was mistaken.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> My fundamental point is that if we were comparing foods that required the
> >> death of animals against foods that did not, as many vegans believe, then
> >> the vegan moral position would be much more compelling. The fact is that
> >> is
> >> not the case, we are comparing foods which all cause some amount of
> >> animal
> >> death and suffering. Then it comes down to how much we are prepared to
> >> accept and to what degree we can honestly quantify it.

>
> > Well, that's quite correct.

>
> >> > I gave a specific example of a meal I ate and asked you if I would
> >> > have been better off with free-range organic chicken. It looks as
> >> > though the answer to that is no, or at least you are not confidently
> >> > answering yes.

>
> >> You probably caused some amount less animal suffering by eating whatever
> >> you
> >> ate in place of chicken, that's fine if that's what you want to do, but
> >> my
> >> point is that you did not go from one moral realm into another based on
> >> compassion by doing that, as many vegans believe, because the difference
> >> is
> >> merely one of degree.

>
> > Sounds like we agree, then.

>
> >> [..]

>
> >> >> I would never argue that a well planned vegan or vegetarian diet is
> >> >> bad,
> >> >> my
> >> >> point is that a well planned non-vegan diet can be just as good, based
> >> >> on
> >> >> all the same criteria, except one, that is the issue of animal
> >> >> *exploitation*.

>
> >> > I am skeptical that it is likely to be just as good on the issue of
> >> > animal suffering if grains need to be grown to feed the animals.

>
> >> As I said earlier, efficiency is not an absolute criterion for choosing
> >> how
> >> we live our lives, much less our choice of foods. If it were we would
> >> never
> >> take vacations or drive cars.

>
> >> It is a precipitous fall from the sanctimonious claims of people like
> >> Glen
> >> to attempting to measure food efficiency.

>
> > I never made any claims similar to the ones Glen is making. I have
> > always taken the position that I am just trying to do the best I
> > reasonably can to reduce the amount of suffering and premature death
> > required to produce my diet. I've made various remarks about what I
> > believe about "rights" over the years, and my position on that might
> > have changed a bit over the years. I've just been re-reading Sec. 9.1
> > of "The Case for Animal Rights", "Why Vegetarianism is Obligatory",
> > and I believe that everything Tom Regan says there is consistent with
> > my views, so I could adopt a view like Tom Regan's if I felt like it,
> > but I don't necessarily want to do that. I believe in nonhuman animals
> > having some rights in the sense of there being enforceable constraints
> > on how we may treat them even over and above what comes from their
> > being someone's property.

>
> I would suggest that if you are looking to increase the level of objectivity
> in your point of view then read something that challenges your existing
> biases, not something that reinforces them.


Well, I've been reading Ball's links as well. If you have any
suggestions for books that should be on my reading list I will happily
consider them.

George Plimpton 09-03-2012 08:15 AM

What to eat
 
On 3/8/2012 11:09 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 8, 8:58 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 3/8/2012 12:32 AM, Rupert, in his lazy passivity, wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> As I say I am always happy to listen to constructive suggestions for
>>> how I could further reduce the harm caused by my diet,

>>
>> But you're not willing to spend one minute doing the research yourself.

>
> Yes. I have spent more than one minute trying to do research


No, you haven't. Cut the shit, Woopert.


>> As with all "animal rights passivists", you expect someone else to try
>> to salvage your bankrupt belief system for you.
>>

>
> I don't expect anyone else to do anything.


That's a lie. You expect "constructive suggestions".


>> And:
>>
>>
>>
>>> I never made any claims similar to the ones Glen is making. I have
>>> always taken the position that I am just trying to do the best I
>>> reasonably can to reduce the amount of suffering and premature death
>>> required to produce my diet.

>>
>> But you don't. "Doing the best you can" implies *doing* something, but
>> the only thing you have blabbered about is what you're *not* doing:
>> putting animal bits in your mouth.
>>

>
> Reading information about how animals are treated on modern farms


does nothing to reduce the death toll *you* cause with what you eat.

Rupert 09-03-2012 08:37 AM

What to eat
 
On Mar 9, 8:15*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/8/2012 11:09 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On Mar 8, 8:58 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/8/2012 12:32 AM, Rupert, in his lazy passivity, wrote:

>
> >>> As I say I am always happy to listen to constructive suggestions for
> >>> how I could further reduce the harm caused by my diet,

>
> >> But you're not willing to spend one minute doing the research yourself..

>
> > Yes. I have spent more than one minute trying to do research

>
> No, you haven't. *Cut the shit, Woopert.
>


As usual, Ball thinks he is in a position to know something which he
obviously isn't.

> >> * *As with all "animal rights passivists", you expect someone else to try
> >> to salvage your bankrupt belief system for you.

>
> > I don't expect anyone else to do anything.

>
> That's a lie. *You expect "constructive suggestions".
>


No, I don't expect anything. I have indicated that if anyone has any
constructive suggestions I would be interested to hear about them.

I have done something directed towards the goal of trying to reduce
the amount of suffering required to produce my diet. I have read
information about how animals are treated on modern farms and changed
my diet, and I have sought out further information about the negative
impact of farming on animals, and discussed the matter with other
people on the Internet. That is something. You are entitled to think
it's not very much if you wish, but it's a bit weird why you would put
so much effort into trying to make the case when you yourself have
presumably done nothing at all. There is no reason why I should take
an interest in your opinion about the matter unless you have some
specific constructive suggestion for what more I can do.

> >> And:

>
> >>> I never made any claims similar to the ones Glen is making. I have
> >>> always taken the position that I am just trying to do the best I
> >>> reasonably can to reduce the amount of suffering and premature death
> >>> required to produce my diet.

>
> >> But you don't. *"Doing the best you can" implies *doing* something, but
> >> the only thing you have blabbered about is what you're *not* doing:
> >> putting animal bits in your mouth.

>
> > Reading information about how animals are treated on modern farms

>
> does nothing to reduce the death toll *you* cause with what you eat.


At the time I originally read the information I was not yet vegan.
After reading the information I went vegan. It is reasonable to
suppose that that reduced the suffering and death associated with the
production of the food that I eat. I would gladly take further steps
to reduce the suffering and death associated with the production of
the food that I eat if I was aware of something specific I could
usefully do.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:19 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter