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
  #151 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 08:37 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 32
Default Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The'vegan' shuffle)

On 07/03/2012 16:45, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/7/2012 8:26 AM, Rupert wrote:
On 7 Mrz., 17:14, George wrote:
On 3/6/2012 11:14 PM, Rupert wrote:

On Mar 6, 4:56 pm, George wrote:
On 3/6/2012 12:57 AM, Rupert wrote:

On Mar 6, 5:08 am, George wrote:
Woopert, "glen" here is a "vegan" who claims his diet doesn't kill *any*
animals. What do you have to say to him, Woopert?

He is incorrect.

That's all??? That's the best you can manage?

Seems like an eminently reasonable and sensible statement to me, and
all that needs to be said.

It seems pretty weak and begrudging to me.


Well, you're a bit weird.


Nope.

You didn't expend a minute fraction as much effort trying to tell "glen"
that he's wrong as I did on ****wit Harrison.


Whatsamatter, Mr. I ain't got no PHD but I'm gonna try to impress everyone by braggin I've got one?
Can't you do your own dirty work any more? Looking for a bit of support eh? Man what a loser. No
wonder St. Derek makes such an easy meal of you every time he shows up. How long did it take him
this time? 5 posts? 6? Nah just a couple. *LOL*

  #152 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 08:39 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The'vegan' shuffle)

"glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" - friend of Lesley Simon, the
Whore of Ballaghaderreen, County Roscommon - bullshitted:

On 07/03/2012 16:45, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/7/2012 8:26 AM, Rupert wrote:
On 7 Mrz., 17:14, George wrote:
On 3/6/2012 11:14 PM, Rupert wrote:

On Mar 6, 4:56 pm, George wrote:
On 3/6/2012 12:57 AM, Rupert wrote:

On Mar 6, 5:08 am, George wrote:
Woopert, "glen" here is a "vegan" who claims his diet doesn't
kill *any*
animals. What do you have to say to him, Woopert?

He is incorrect.

That's all??? That's the best you can manage?

Seems like an eminently reasonable and sensible statement to me, and
all that needs to be said.

It seems pretty weak and begrudging to me.

Well, you're a bit weird.


Nope.

You didn't expend a minute fraction as much effort trying to tell "glen"
that he's wrong as I did on ****wit Harrison.


Whatsamatter,


Nothing. I've established you're a thorough hypocrite and liar. No,
nothing is the matter at all, "glen" or "mark" or "little cocksucker" or
whatever you're using this week.
  #153 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 09:12 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default The 'vegan' shuffle



"Derek" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 10:59:20 -0800, "Dutch" wrote:

"Derek" wrote
Don't pay any attention to the naysayers here.


That's bad advice.

Their only objective
is to make vegans feel that their efforts are worthless.


Some of their efforts have merit, for example a well designed vegan diet
can
be healthy,


You say that now, but you'll soon be back to saying,

"As I have mentioned here before, failure to thrive is
one of vegetarianism's dirty little secrets. I have
experienced it first- hand, my family returned to eating
meat after 18 years as vegetarians because of it."
Dutch Aug 5 2004 http://tinyurl.com/yd5u5a


That doesn't contradict what I said above.

Face it, Dutch, there's not a single issue that's been raised
here, or anywhere, that you haven't lied about. You even
lied about having kids to make that particular lie more
convincing.


No I didn't.



  #154 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 09:57 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The 'vegan' shuffle)

[email protected] wrote in message ...
On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 12:55:32 +0000, Glen wrote:

On 06/03/2012 08:57, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 6, 5:08 am, Goo wrote:


Woopert, "glen" here is a "vegan" who claims his diet doesn't kill
*any*
animals. What do you have to say to him, Woopert?

He is incorrect.


I have never denied that animals die during crop production. What I
deny is ... [Goo's] baseless claim that all the food I eat is
/contaminated/
with it.


Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals [...]


See George arguing against veganism.

See how he ALWAYS does.

See how you continue to insist that he a sic "eliminationist".

See how that shows what a fool you are.

  #155 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-03-2012, 08:17 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On Mar 7, 6:44*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/7/2012 9:36 AM, Rupert wrote:









On 7 Mrz., 18:30, George *wrote:
On 3/7/2012 9:24 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 7 Mrz., 18:17, George * *wrote:


Veganism is not predicated on a comparison.


Of course it is.


Wrong.


No, it's right. *It's unspoken in many cases, but it's always there.


You're a fool.


Gotcha!


I see.


Heh heh heh...no, I don't think you do, Woopert.


Yes, actually, I must confess I am a bit puzzled as to what your point
is.









You have just admitted that you engage in activities that cause harm
to humans even though you believe that humans have rights, but you say
that you are "trying to do the best you can".


Nope - I absolutely did *not* say I'm doing the best I can. *I also
didn't say that I try not to impose environmental harm on humans due to
their "rights"; it's because of their interests, and because of my wish
to benefit from their similar consideration.


If you don't think that your contribution to global warming violates
human rights, then how do you figure Glen is violating the polar
bears' rights?


When did I suggest he was violating the polar bears' *rights*? *I
didn't. *I said his driving is killing polar bears, you stupid ****.


By that logic you must also conclude that your driving will help to
kill humans in the future, and yet you don't think you're violating
human rights?


Not everything that shortens a human's lifespan is a violation of his
rights.


Here is a discussion of the potential effect of climate change on the
Pacific Islands.


http://www.unescap.org/mced2000/paci...nd/climate.htm


In your opinion, assuming this comes to pass, will rights violations
have occurred? Why or why not?


No, because they can be relocated.


Do you find it plausible that no premature deaths will take place? If
at least one premature death takes place, is that or is it not a
rights violation?









You haven't got any
grounds on which to criticise vegans who try to do the best they can
to reduce the harm they cause to animals.


1. *"vegans" are *NOT* "doing the best they can" - this has been
* * * * established beyond dispute in several ways, focusing on the
* * * * absolute *fact* that "vegans" don't even conduct any analysis
* * * * whatever on which vegetable crops are least-harm within the
* * * * universe of all vegetable crops, and also on the *fact* that
* * * * it is possible to follow a meat-including diet that is lower
* * * * harm than many "vegan" diets.


There is no reason to think that vegans would be able to achieve any
significant further reduction in harm by doing an analysis of which
vegetable crops are least-harm,


Bullshit.


partly because there is no reliable
information available about that anyway, the research has not been
done.


There's that disgusting "animal rights passivism" on display again - why
can't some ****ing idealistic "vegan" stop marching and participating in
PeTA stunts and *DO* the ****ing research, you ****ing idiot?


Why can't those two arrogant cocksuckers Gaverick Matheney and Nathan
Nobis do it, you stupid ****? *They went to a lot of effort to try to
refute Steven Davis; why can't they do a similar effort to determine
which vegetables are least-harm?


I don't know; you'll have to ask them.


You keep pretending that "vegans" *can't* do the comparison because
there's no research on which vegetables are least-harm. *"vegans" ****
away countless hours on other worthless defenses of "veganism" - why
can't *any* of them be bothered to try to make "veganism" a little more
internally coherent? *The fact that *no one* does is a crushing
indictment of the belief system, and a validation of my attacks on it.
They are not intellectually or morally entitled to make a single one of
their claims for it: *not "cruelty free", not "least harm", where that
second one includes both harm to animals and environmental degradation..


The entire thing is shit.


Have you got some evidence that veganism is not "least harm"?


You've never made the case that it is. *As noted, there is an infinite
number of "vegan" diets, and they can't *all* be least harm.


Actually, that is theoretically possible. They could all be within a
small margin of the least amount of harm that must be caused in order
to provide someone with adequate food given that his main source of
food is going to be commercial agriculture. Or the great majority
could be; the ones that don't include large amounts of rice, for
example. I don't know, granted. I don't believe it is within my power
to find out unless I abandoned my current job and did the research
myself. Some research has been done; Steven Davis' research on
reduction in field mouse populations after harvesting of an alfalfa
crop, for example. Gaverick Matheny did an estimate of the amount of
harm caused by a typical vegan diet on that basis, correcting Davis'
mathematical error. It came out at 0.3 of a death per year. That would
indicate that any further reduction is not going to be very great.









The simple fact, you mother****ing idiot, is that "vegans" don't care.
This has been established thoroughly: *they do NOT care. *The easy, lazy
and casual assumption that not putting animal parts in their mouths is
sufficient is just too convenient.


You're a fool.


Gotcha!


You have never given any practical suggestions for how to follow a
meat-including diet that is lower in harm than many vegan diets.


That's a lie.


So where have you given the suggestion, then?


See my many comments about 100% grass-fed beef, wild-caught fish,
gathered wild nuts and fruits, and even waste-fed pork.


What evidence do you have that these diets are lower in harm than many
vegan diets?


The grass-fed beef, wild-caught fish and gathered wild nuts and fruits
cause zero CDs.


The challenge was for you to name a diet containing animal flesh that
caused less harm than many vegan diets, so gathered wild nuts and
fruits don't count. It is not clear to me that grass-fed beef causes
zero CDs because I believe the farmers would still need to kill
predators to protect the cattle. In any event, death must still be
caused in order to produce the animal flesh itself. So the question is
what is the comparison of the total death count. We mentioned Gaverick
Matheny's estimate of 0.3 of a death per year for a typical vegan
diet. That would suggest that including grass-fed beef and wild-caught
fish would make the death count come out worse. Gaverick Matheny's
estimate might be dodgy but you've never suggested that you know of
any better estimate.


  #156 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-03-2012, 08:18 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On Mar 7, 8:21*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/7/2012 11:10 AM, Glen wrote:

On 07/03/2012 17:17, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/7/2012 8:56 AM, Rupert wrote:

flushed
If you don't think that your contribution to global warming violates
human rights, then how do you figure Glen is violating the polar
bears' rights?


When did I suggest he was violating the polar bears' *rights*?


You implied it asshole.


I didn't, you cocksucker.


If you didn't want to imply that, then what was the point of pointing
out that he was contributing to polar bears' deaths?

As we have observed, you are contributing towards human loss of life
in the future as well.
  #157 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-03-2012, 03:50 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 3/8/2012 12:17 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 7, 6:44 pm, George wrote:
On 3/7/2012 9:36 AM, Rupert wrote:









On 7 Mrz., 18:30, George wrote:
On 3/7/2012 9:24 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 7 Mrz., 18:17, George wrote:


Veganism is not predicated on a comparison.


Of course it is.


Wrong.


No, it's right. It's unspoken in many cases, but it's always there.


You're a fool.


Gotcha!


I see.


Heh heh heh...no, I don't think you do, Woopert.


Yes, actually, I must confess I am a bit puzzled as to what your point
is.


Then why did you write "I see", Woopert, when quite clearly and by your
own admission you *don't* see?

Uh-oh! You're not starting to have another "episode", are you, Woopert?



Here is a discussion of the potential effect of climate change on the
Pacific Islands.


http://www.unescap.org/mced2000/paci...nd/climate.htm


In your opinion, assuming this comes to pass, will rights violations
have occurred? Why or why not?


No, because they can be relocated.


Do you find it plausible that no premature deaths will take place?


Yes, eminently so.



Why can't those two arrogant cocksuckers Gaverick Matheney and Nathan
Nobis do it, you stupid ****? They went to a lot of effort to try to
refute Steven Davis; why can't they do a similar effort to determine
which vegetables are least-harm?


I don't know; you'll have to ask them.


Why do they have hundreds of hours to waste on trying to argue about how
many dead field animals can dance on the blades of a combine, Woopert,
but they can't spend *ONE ****ING MINUTE* trying to figure out how to
determine the least-harm "vegan" diet from among all such diets?



You keep pretending that "vegans" *can't* do the comparison because
there's no research on which vegetables are least-harm. "vegans" ****
away countless hours on other worthless defenses of "veganism" - why
can't *any* of them be bothered to try to make "veganism" a little more
internally coherent? The fact that *no one* does is a crushing
indictment of the belief system, and a validation of my attacks on it.
They are not intellectually or morally entitled to make a single one of
their claims for it: not "cruelty free", not "least harm", where that
second one includes both harm to animals and environmental degradation.


The entire thing is shit.


Have you got some evidence that veganism is not "least harm"?


You've never made the case that it is. As noted, there is an infinite
number of "vegan" diets, and they can't *all* be least harm.


Actually, that is theoretically possible


No. We know that different crops cause different numbers of animal
deaths per kcal, and so if two "vegan" diets are identical except that
one contains a higher CD food than the other, then by definition they
cause different amounts of harm.

You ****wit.



You have never given any practical suggestions for how to follow a
meat-including diet that is lower in harm than many vegan diets.


And you have never given any practical suggestions for how to determine
the least-harm "vegan" diet from among all such diets. It's because you
don't care about reducing animal harm - not really. *All* you care
about is assuming a sanctimonious moral pose by not putting animal bits
in your mouth.



That's a lie.


So where have you given the suggestion, then?


See my many comments about 100% grass-fed beef, wild-caught fish,
gathered wild nuts and fruits, and even waste-fed pork.


What evidence do you have that these diets are lower in harm than many
vegan diets?


The grass-fed beef, wild-caught fish and gathered wild nuts and fruits
cause zero CDs.


The challenge was for you to name a diet containing animal flesh that
caused less harm than many vegan diets, so gathered wild nuts and
fruits don't count.


Of course they count, you ****wit, because I never proposed a meat-only
diet.
  #158 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-03-2012, 03:50 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 3/8/2012 12:18 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 7, 8:21 pm, George wrote:
On 3/7/2012 11:10 AM, Glen wrote:

On 07/03/2012 17:17, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/7/2012 8:56 AM, Rupert wrote:
flushed
If you don't think that your contribution to global warming violates
human rights, then how do you figure Glen is violating the polar
bears' rights?


When did I suggest he was violating the polar bears' *rights*?


You implied it asshole.


I didn't, you cocksucker.


If you didn't want to imply that,


I didn't, and nothing I wrote suggested I did.
  #159 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-03-2012, 04:08 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On Mar 8, 4:50*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/8/2012 12:17 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 7, 6:44 pm, George *wrote:
On 3/7/2012 9:36 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 7 Mrz., 18:30, George * *wrote:
On 3/7/2012 9:24 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 7 Mrz., 18:17, George * * *wrote:


Veganism is not predicated on a comparison.


Of course it is.


Wrong.


No, it's right. *It's unspoken in many cases, but it's always there.


You're a fool.


Gotcha!


I see.


Heh heh heh...no, I don't think you do, Woopert.


Yes, actually, I must confess I am a bit puzzled as to what your point
is.


Then why did you write "I see", Woopert, when quite clearly and by your
own admission you *don't* see?

Uh-oh! *You're not starting to have another "episode", are you, Woopert?


No, I'm not.

I found what you wrote mildly amusing. Writing "I see" was an
expression of my amusement. It was ironic, writing "I see" was meant
to draw attention to the fact that the point of what you wrote is very
unclear.

Here is a discussion of the potential effect of climate change on the
Pacific Islands.


http://www.unescap.org/mced2000/paci...nd/climate.htm


In your opinion, assuming this comes to pass, will rights violations
have occurred? Why or why not?


No, because they can be relocated.


Do you find it plausible that no premature deaths will take place?


Yes, eminently so.


Well, there's not much one can say about that, is there.

Even if no premature deaths take place that is still not an especially
good reason to think that no rights violation has occurred. You
believe humans have property rights, don't you?

Why can't those two arrogant cocksuckers Gaverick Matheney and Nathan
Nobis do it, you stupid ****? *They went to a lot of effort to try to
refute Steven Davis; why can't they do a similar effort to determine
which vegetables are least-harm?


I don't know; you'll have to ask them.


Why do they have hundreds of hours to waste on trying to argue about how
many dead field animals can dance on the blades of a combine, Woopert,
but they can't spend *ONE ****ING MINUTE* trying to figure out how to
determine the least-harm "vegan" diet from among all such diets?


For all I know they have.

It's pretty difficult to get reliable information about how many
collateral deaths are actually occurring, and how many of them are
actually caused by human activity and not by predation. Gaverick
Matheny made use of Steven Davis' data to estimate that the production
of a vegan diet causes 0.3 of a death per year. If that's the average
then that would suggest you're not very likely to achieve substantial
reductions by putting enormous effort into doing research about how
much harm is caused by the production of the different kinds of crops.
Gaverick Matheny is a utilitarian; he may very well feel that he can
do more good by investing his time and energy in other ways, and I
would say he's probably right about that. I conjecture that is the
reason Gaverick Matheny has not embarked on the exercise. I don't know
the details of Nathan Nobis' ethical views, but he may very well have
a similar reason.











You keep pretending that "vegans" *can't* do the comparison because
there's no research on which vegetables are least-harm. *"vegans" ****
away countless hours on other worthless defenses of "veganism" - why
can't *any* of them be bothered to try to make "veganism" a little more
internally coherent? *The fact that *no one* does is a crushing
indictment of the belief system, and a validation of my attacks on it.

  #160 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-03-2012, 04:09 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On Mar 8, 4:50*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/8/2012 12:18 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 7, 8:21 pm, George *wrote:
On 3/7/2012 11:10 AM, Glen wrote:


On 07/03/2012 17:17, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/7/2012 8:56 AM, Rupert wrote:
flushed
If you don't think that your contribution to global warming violates
human rights, then how do you figure Glen is violating the polar
bears' rights?


When did I suggest he was violating the polar bears' *rights*?


You implied it asshole.


I didn't, you cocksucker.


If you didn't want to imply that,


I didn't, and nothing I wrote suggested I did.


Yes, the context of what you wrote suggested that you did indeed want
to imply that. You obviously wanted to criticise Glen for failing to
live up to his own views about animal rights. There would be no good
reason to mention the connection between his activities and harm to
polar bears unless you believed that this supported your case in some
way.


  #161 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-03-2012, 04:10 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 3/8/2012 8:09 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 8, 4:50 pm, George wrote:
On 3/8/2012 12:18 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 7, 8:21 pm, George wrote:
On 3/7/2012 11:10 AM, Glen wrote:


On 07/03/2012 17:17, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/7/2012 8:56 AM, Rupert wrote:
flushed
If you don't think that your contribution to global warming violates
human rights, then how do you figure Glen is violating the polar
bears' rights?


When did I suggest he was violating the polar bears' *rights*?


You implied it asshole.


I didn't, you cocksucker.


If you didn't want to imply that,


I didn't, and nothing I wrote suggested I did.


Yes, the context of what you wrote suggested that


No, I didn't suggest that at all.
  #162 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-03-2012, 04:22 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On Mar 8, 5:10*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/8/2012 8:09 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 8, 4:50 pm, George *wrote:
On 3/8/2012 12:18 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 7, 8:21 pm, George * *wrote:
On 3/7/2012 11:10 AM, Glen wrote:


On 07/03/2012 17:17, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/7/2012 8:56 AM, Rupert wrote:
flushed
If you don't think that your contribution to global warming violates
human rights, then how do you figure Glen is violating the polar
bears' rights?


When did I suggest he was violating the polar bears' *rights*?


You implied it asshole.


I didn't, you cocksucker.


If you didn't want to imply that,


I didn't, and nothing I wrote suggested I did.


Yes, the context of what you wrote suggested that


No, I didn't suggest that at all.


You yourself didn't suggest it, but the context of the exchange does
indeed strongly suggest just that.
  #163 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-03-2012, 04:45 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 3/8/2012 8:08 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 8, 4:50 pm, George wrote:
On 3/8/2012 12:17 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 7, 6:44 pm, George wrote:
On 3/7/2012 9:36 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 7 Mrz., 18:30, George wrote:
On 3/7/2012 9:24 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 7 Mrz., 18:17, George wrote:


Veganism is not predicated on a comparison.


Of course it is.


Wrong.


No, it's right. It's unspoken in many cases, but it's always there.


You're a fool.


Gotcha!


I see.


Heh heh heh...no, I don't think you do, Woopert.


Yes, actually, I must confess I am a bit puzzled as to what your point
is.


Then why did you write "I see", Woopert, when quite clearly and by your
own admission you *don't* see?

Uh-oh! You're not starting to have another "episode", are you, Woopert?


No, I'm not.

I found what you wrote mildly amusing. Writing "I see" was an
expression of my amusement. It was ironic, writing "I see" was meant
to draw attention to the fact that the point of what you wrote is very
unclear.

Here is a discussion of the potential effect of climate change on the
Pacific Islands.


http://www.unescap.org/mced2000/paci...nd/climate.htm


In your opinion, assuming this comes to pass, will rights violations
have occurred? Why or why not?


No, because they can be relocated.


Do you find it plausible that no premature deaths will take place?


Yes, eminently so.


Well, there's not much one can say about that, is there.

Even if no premature deaths take place that is still not an especially
good reason to think that no rights violation has occurred. You
believe humans have property rights, don't you?

Why can't those two arrogant cocksuckers Gaverick Matheney and Nathan
Nobis do it, you stupid ****? They went to a lot of effort to try to
refute Steven Davis; why can't they do a similar effort to determine
which vegetables are least-harm?


I don't know; you'll have to ask them.


Why do they have hundreds of hours to waste on trying to argue about how
many dead field animals can dance on the blades of a combine, Woopert,
but they can't spend *ONE ****ING MINUTE* trying to figure out how to
determine the least-harm "vegan" diet from among all such diets?


For all I know they have.

It's pretty difficult to get reliable information about how many
collateral deaths are actually occurring, and how many of them are
actually caused by human activity and not by predation. Gaverick
Matheny made use of Steven Davis' data to estimate that the production
of a vegan diet causes 0.3 of a death per year. If that's the average
then that would suggest you're not very likely to achieve substantial
reductions by putting enormous effort into doing research about how
much harm is caused by the production of the different kinds of crops.
Gaverick Matheny is a utilitarian; he may very well feel that he can
do more good by investing his time and energy in other ways, and I
would say he's probably right about that. I conjecture that is the
reason Gaverick Matheny has not embarked on the exercise. I don't know
the details of Nathan Nobis' ethical views, but he may very well have
a similar reason.











You keep pretending that "vegans" *can't* do the comparison because
there's no research on which vegetables are least-harm. "vegans" ****
away countless hours on other worthless defenses of "veganism" - why
can't *any* of them be bothered to try to make "veganism" a little more
internally coherent? The fact that *no one* does is a crushing
indictment of the belief system, and a validation of my attacks on it.
They are not intellectually or morally entitled to make a single one of
their claims for it: not "cruelty free", not "least harm", where that
second one includes both harm to animals and environmental degradation.


The entire thing is shit.


Have you got some evidence that veganism is not "least harm"?


You've never made the case that it is. As noted, there is an infinite
number of "vegan" diets, and they can't *all* be least harm.


Actually, that is theoretically possible


No. We know that different crops cause different numbers of animal
deaths per kcal,


How do you know that? For all you know the variation might be
negligible.

and so if two "vegan" diets are identical except that
one contains a higher CD food than the other, then by definition they
cause different amounts of harm.


Well, assuming that's right, you would want to weigh up how much
suffering you would be likely to prevent by obtaining the information,
and whether there are perhaps more efficient ways of investing your
time and energy to relieve suffering. For example I am involved with
an organisation called Giving What We Can which tries to determine the
interventions in the Third World which are most cost-effective at
relieving suffering, and I did offer to help with the research at one
stage. If suffering reduction is the goal, then it would be a question
of where your resources are best spent.

You ****wit.

You have never given any practical suggestions for how to follow a
meat-including diet that is lower in harm than many vegan diets.


And you have never given any practical suggestions for how to determine
the least-harm "vegan" diet from among all such diets. It's because you
don't care about reducing animal harm - not really. *All* you care
about is assuming a sanctimonious moral pose by not putting animal bits
in your mouth.


No, it's because at this stage I don't have any thoughts about how to
go about doing that which are especially useful. I could put aside
some time and energy into thinking of ways to try to find out, sure,
and I might possibly be able to achieve some suffering reduction that
way. But there might very well be more efficient ways for me to invest
my time and resources in order to achieve reduction in suffering.

If you wish to believe that I don't really care about reducing
suffering then that's no skin off my nose. I don't really know why you
find that belief especially plausible, and I think it might be
interesting for you to examine exactly why it is so important for you
to believe that.

I don't know what you think I would get out of following a vegan diet
if not the desire to reduce suffering.











That's a lie.


So where have you given the suggestion, then?


See my many comments about 100% grass-fed beef, wild-caught fish,
gathered wild nuts and fruits, and even waste-fed pork.


What evidence do you have that these diets are lower in harm than many
vegan diets?


The grass-fed beef, wild-caught fish and gathered wild nuts and fruits
cause zero CDs.


The challenge was for you to name a diet containing animal flesh that
caused less harm than many vegan diets, so gathered wild nuts and
fruits don't count.


Of course they count, you ****wit, because I never proposed a meat-only
diet.


It may be that you could achieve a reduction in suffering by replacing
some foods in a typical consumer vegan diet with gathered wild nuts
and fruits, but what you have claimed is that it would be rational in
some cases to replace some of the foods with meat.


Correct. Ditch the soybeans and eat 100% grass-fed beef instead in
order to obtain protein. Keep all other elements of your diet the same.
You will effect a harm reduction thereby.
  #164 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-03-2012, 04:47 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 3/8/2012 8:22 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 8, 5:10 pm, George wrote:
On 3/8/2012 8:09 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 8, 4:50 pm, George wrote:
On 3/8/2012 12:18 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 7, 8:21 pm, George wrote:
On 3/7/2012 11:10 AM, Glen wrote:


On 07/03/2012 17:17, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/7/2012 8:56 AM, Rupert wrote:
flushed
If you don't think that your contribution to global warming violates
human rights, then how do you figure Glen is violating the polar
bears' rights?


When did I suggest he was violating the polar bears' *rights*?


You implied it asshole.


I didn't, you cocksucker.


If you didn't want to imply that,


I didn't, and nothing I wrote suggested I did.


Yes, the context of what you wrote suggested that


No, I didn't suggest that at all.


You yourself didn't suggest it, but


So, that topic is finished.
  #165 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 08-03-2012, 05:41 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On Mar 8, 5:45*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/8/2012 8:08 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 8, 4:50 pm, George *wrote:
On 3/8/2012 12:17 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 7, 6:44 pm, George * *wrote:
On 3/7/2012 9:36 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 7 Mrz., 18:30, George * * *wrote:
On 3/7/2012 9:24 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 7 Mrz., 18:17, George * * * *wrote:


Veganism is not predicated on a comparison.


Of course it is.


Wrong.


No, it's right. *It's unspoken in many cases, but it's always there.


You're a fool.


Gotcha!


I see.


Heh heh heh...no, I don't think you do, Woopert.


Yes, actually, I must confess I am a bit puzzled as to what your point
is.


Then why did you write "I see", Woopert, when quite clearly and by your
own admission you *don't* see?


Uh-oh! *You're not starting to have another "episode", are you, Woopert?


No, I'm not.


I found what you wrote mildly amusing. Writing "I see" was an
expression of my amusement. It was ironic, writing "I see" was meant
to draw attention to the fact that the point of what you wrote is very
unclear.


Here is a discussion of the potential effect of climate change on the
Pacific Islands.


http://www.unescap.org/mced2000/paci...nd/climate.htm


In your opinion, assuming this comes to pass, will rights violations
have occurred? Why or why not?


No, because they can be relocated.


Do you find it plausible that no premature deaths will take place?


Yes, eminently so.


Well, there's not much one can say about that, is there.


Even if no premature deaths take place that is still not an especially
good reason to think that no rights violation has occurred. You
believe humans have property rights, don't you?


Why can't those two arrogant cocksuckers Gaverick Matheney and Nathan
Nobis do it, you stupid ****? *They went to a lot of effort to try to
refute Steven Davis; why can't they do a similar effort to determine
which vegetables are least-harm?


I don't know; you'll have to ask them.


Why do they have hundreds of hours to waste on trying to argue about how
many dead field animals can dance on the blades of a combine, Woopert,
but they can't spend *ONE ****ING MINUTE* trying to figure out how to
determine the least-harm "vegan" diet from among all such diets?


For all I know they have.


It's pretty difficult to get reliable information about how many
collateral deaths are actually occurring, and how many of them are
actually caused by human activity and not by predation. Gaverick
Matheny made use of Steven Davis' data to estimate that the production
of a vegan diet causes 0.3 of a death per year. If that's the average
then that would suggest you're not very likely to achieve substantial
reductions by putting enormous effort into doing research about how
much harm is caused by the production of the different kinds of crops.
Gaverick Matheny is a utilitarian; he may very well feel that he can
do more good by investing his time and energy in other ways, and I
would say he's probably right about that. I conjecture that is the
reason Gaverick Matheny has not embarked on the exercise. I don't know
the details of Nathan Nobis' ethical views, but he may very well have
a similar reason.


You keep pretending that "vegans" *can't* do the comparison because
there's no research on which vegetables are least-harm. *"vegans" ****
away countless hours on other worthless defenses of "veganism" - why
can't *any* of them be bothered to try to make "veganism" a little more
internally coherent? *The fact that *no one* does is a crushing
indictment of the belief system, and a validation of my attacks on it.
They are not intellectually or morally entitled to make a single one of
their claims for it: *not "cruelty free", not "least harm", where that
second one includes both harm to animals and environmental degradation.


The entire thing is shit.


Have you got some evidence that veganism is not "least harm"?


You've never made the case that it is. *As noted, there is an infinite
number of "vegan" diets, and they can't *all* be least harm.


Actually, that is theoretically possible


No. *We know that different crops cause different numbers of animal
deaths per kcal,


How do you know that? For all you know the variation might be
negligible.


and so if two "vegan" diets are identical except that
one contains a higher CD food than the other, then by definition they
cause different amounts of harm.


Well, assuming that's right, you would want to weigh up how much
suffering you would be likely to prevent by obtaining the information,
and whether there are perhaps more efficient ways of investing your
time and energy to relieve suffering. For example I am involved with
an organisation called Giving What We Can which tries to determine the
interventions in the Third World which are most cost-effective at
relieving suffering, and I did offer to help with the research at one
stage. If suffering reduction is the goal, then it would be a question
of where your resources are best spent.


You ****wit.


You have never given any practical suggestions for how to follow a
meat-including diet that is lower in harm than many vegan diets..


And you have never given any practical suggestions for how to determine
the least-harm "vegan" diet from among all such diets. *It's because you
don't care about reducing animal harm - not really. **All* you care
about is assuming a sanctimonious moral pose by not putting animal bits
in your mouth.


No, it's because at this stage I don't have any thoughts about how to
go about doing that which are especially useful. I could put aside
some time and energy into thinking of ways to try to find out, sure,
and I might possibly be able to achieve some suffering reduction that
way. But there might very well be more efficient ways for me to invest
my time and resources in order to achieve reduction in suffering.


If you wish to believe that I don't really care about reducing
suffering then that's no skin off my nose. I don't really know why you
find that belief especially plausible, and I think it might be
interesting for you to examine exactly why it is so important for you
to believe that.


I don't know what you think I would get out of following a vegan diet
if not the desire to reduce suffering.


That's a lie.


So where have you given the suggestion, then?


See my many comments about 100% grass-fed beef, wild-caught fish,
gathered wild nuts and fruits, and even waste-fed pork.


What evidence do you have that these diets are lower in harm than many
vegan diets?


The grass-fed beef, wild-caught fish and gathered wild nuts and fruits
cause zero CDs.


The challenge was for you to name a diet containing animal flesh that
caused less harm than many vegan diets, so gathered wild nuts and
fruits don't count.


Of course they count, you ****wit, because I never proposed a meat-only
diet.


It may be that you could achieve a reduction in suffering by replacing
some foods in a typical consumer vegan diet with gathered wild nuts
and fruits, but what you have claimed is that it would be rational in
some cases to replace some of the foods with meat.


Correct. *Ditch the soybeans and eat 100% grass-fed beef instead in
order to obtain protein. *Keep all other elements of your diet the same..
* You will effect a harm reduction thereby.


Okay, so how do you know that?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"The 'vegan' shuffle" George Plimpton Vegan 0 08-05-2013 06:58 AM
The dreaded supermarket shuffle Nancy Young General Cooking 25 23-08-2007 02:44 AM
Pan shuffle/toss technique!?! Andy General Cooking 9 31-10-2006 01:52 AM
A Challenge To The Vegan Bakers: Help Me Modify This Recipe :Vegan Pumpkin Flax Muffins Steve Vegan 2 27-05-2004 05:07 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:17 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