Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-02-2012, 05:22 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default 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.

  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-02-2012, 05:37 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default What to eat

On Feb 27, 6:22*pm, [email protected] 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.
  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-03-2012, 10:37 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default What to eat

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

On Feb 27, 6:22*pm, [email protected] 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.
  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-03-2012, 12:03 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default What to eat

On 1 Mrz., 23:37, [email protected] wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:37:37 -0800 (PST), Rupert
wrote:









On Feb 27, 6:22*pm, [email protected] 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.
  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-03-2012, 01:36 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 107
Default What to eat

On Mar 2, 5:03*am, Rupert wrote:
On 1 Mrz., 23:37, [email protected] wrote:





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


On Feb 27, 6:22*pm, [email protected] 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.


  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-03-2012, 02:08 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default 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, [email protected] wrote:


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


On Feb 27, 6:22*pm, [email protected] 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.
  #7 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-03-2012, 04:43 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default What to eat

On 3/2/2012 4:03 AM, Rupert wrote:
On 1 Mrz., 23:37, [email protected] wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:37:37 -0800 (PST),
wrote:









On Feb 27, 6:22 pm, [email protected] 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.
  #8 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-03-2012, 04:44 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default 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, [email protected] wrote:


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


On Feb 27, 6:22 pm, [email protected] 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.
  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-03-2012, 05:52 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default 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, [email protected] wrote:


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


On Feb 27, 6:22 pm, [email protected] 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.

  #10 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-03-2012, 05:58 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default 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, [email protected] wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:37:37 -0800 (PST),
wrote:


On Feb 27, 6:22 pm, [email protected] 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.


  #11 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-03-2012, 06:51 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default 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, [email protected] wrote:


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


On Feb 27, 6:22 pm, [email protected] 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.
  #12 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-03-2012, 06:54 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 107
Default 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, [email protected] wrote:


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


On Feb 27, 6:22 pm, [email protected] 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.
  #13 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-03-2012, 06:57 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default 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, [email protected] wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 09:37:37 -0800 (PST),
wrote:


On Feb 27, 6:22 pm, [email protected] 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.
  #14 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-03-2012, 09:34 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,026
Default 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.


  #15 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-03-2012, 09:35 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan,misc.rural
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,026
Default What to eat

"Mr.Smartypants" wrote in message
...
On Mar 2, 5:03 am, Rupert wrote:
On 1 Mrz., 23:37, [email protected] wrote:





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

wrote:


On Feb 27, 6:22 pm, [email protected] 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.




Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:22 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017