FoodBanter.com

FoodBanter.com (https://www.foodbanter.com/)
-   Vegan (https://www.foodbanter.com/vegan/)
-   -   The 'vegan' shuffle (https://www.foodbanter.com/vegan/415944-vegan-shuffle.html)

George Plimpton 05-03-2012 05:48 AM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
On 3/4/2012 8:27 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 5, 4:40 am, George > wrote:
>> On 3/4/2012 12:10 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 4 Mrz., 18:05, George > wrote:
>>>> On 3/4/2012 4:29 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>> On 3 Mrz., 19:18, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/3/2012 4:00 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>> On Mar 3, 6:37 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 8:25 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mar 2, 8:06 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 10:38 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2 Mrz., 19:33, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 9:35 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2 Mrz., 16:43, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 3:43 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1 Mrz., 23:46, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:36:50 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "veganism" is not a reliable means

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> · 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.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You keep on making this claim over and over again, just as you have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for at least six years, but when challenged to provide actual evidence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for it you are unable to provide any.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit doesn't have any evidence, of course, but for certain there is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strong logical case to be made. What do you think the number of deaths
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused raising one grass-fed steer might be? How many deaths can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plausibly be attributed to the farming of one hectare of rice in a wet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paddy?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't have any idea about the answers to either of those questions,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I was talking about soya-based products, not rice.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But you certainly ought to be able to think in terms of what's plausible
>>>>>>>>>>>> and seems to make sense, can't you? Oh, wait - maybe not.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't really have any feel for what's "plausible" or "seems to make
>>>>>>>>>>> sense" in this area.

>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's obviously a lie, but even telling it shows that you don't care to
>>>>>>>>>> know.

>>
>>>>>>>>> I would be interested in knowing if I thought that it was feasible to
>>>>>>>>> find out.

>>
>>>>>>>> You don't care about the feasibility of finding out. You don't care
>>>>>>>> about knowing the answer, period.

>>
>>>>>>> False.

>>
>>>>>> Nope - true.

>>
>>>>>>>> You don't care to know *which*
>>>>>>>> "vegan" diet is the least-harm diet, so that you might really validly
>>>>>>>> claim to be "minimizing". You don't care about any of it. You just
>>>>>>>> want to pat yourself on the back and act superior.

>>
>>>>>>> You're a fool.

>>
>>>>>> Concession noted and accepted.

>>
>>>>> You appear to have lost touch with reality.

>>
>>>> Not in the least, and you don't believe that anyway. It's just the
>>>> sort of childish whining to which you've been reduced.

>>
>>> I see.

>>
>> We all see it.
>>

>
> You have all sorts of very interesting insights


These aren't exceptionally interesting, but they're still accurate.


>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you have some idea, then why don't you tell me how you arrived at
>>>>>>>>>>> this idea.

>>
>>>>>>>>>> I have done. I have elaborated that the production of any vegetable
>>>>>>>>>> crop plausibly causes many animal CDs, and the production of one 100%
>>>>>>>>>> grass-fed steer plausibly causes no CDs.

>>
>>>>>>>>> So how does that help me to arrive at a conclusion about the matter?

>>
>>>>>>>> Easily: if you want to follow a positively lower CD diet than
>>>>>>>> "veganism", eat grass fed beef plus some fruits and vegetables you pick
>>>>>>>> from wild plants or cultivate yourself in your home garden.

>>
>>>>>>> It does not follow from what you said above that this diet would
>>>>>>> involve less suffering and premature death.

>>
>>>>>> It does.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now I get the pleasure once again of telling you what you do and don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe, because I know: you do not believe that the rice causes fewer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CDs than the beef.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I don't. I lack a belief one way or the other, because I have no
>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence one way or the other.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, that's false. You do not lack any belief one way or another. We
>>>>>>>>>>>> know this because you have already said you know that vegetable
>>>>>>>>>>>> agriculture kills animals. You have *some* sense as to what might be a
>>>>>>>>>>>> plausible number of animals killed for different types of agriculture.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not enough to know how to compare calorically equivalent servings of
>>>>>>>>>>> rice and grass-fed beef.

>>
>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit. As previously established, a 100 gram serving of rice - or
>>>>>>>>>> soybeans or whatever - carries the weight of many animal CDs,

>>
>>>>>>>>> How many? Give me a range.

>>
>>>>>>>> According to diderot, many thousands.

>>
>>>>>>> So many tens of CDs per gram of rice?

>>
>>>>>>>>>> versus
>>>>>>>>>> *no* CDs for a 100 gram serving of 100% grass-fed beef. You can do the
>>>>>>>>>> comparison.

>>
>>>>>>>>> No I can't, I have no ranges of numbers on the basis of which to make
>>>>>>>>> the comparison.

>>
>>>>>>>> You *know* that plausibly, the steer causes no CDs, and the vegetable
>>>>>>>> products cause many.

>>
>>>>>>> "Many" doesn't mean anything. Specify a number range.

>>
>>>>>> All you need to know is that it exceeds the expected value of CDs for a
>>>>>> nutritionally equivalent amount of grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.

>>
>>>>> And how exactly do I know that?

>>
>>>> Cut it out, woopee. Just cut the shit, now.

>>
>>> It would appear that you do not wish to answer my question.

>>
>> It's an insincere and time-wasting question.

>
> So you appear to believe.


Because it is.

Rupert 05-03-2012 05:55 AM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
On Mar 5, 5:48*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/4/2012 8:27 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 5, 4:40 am, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/4/2012 12:10 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On 4 Mrz., 18:05, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 3/4/2012 4:29 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>> On 3 Mrz., 19:18, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 3/3/2012 4:00 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>> On Mar 3, 6:37 am, George > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 8:25 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>> On Mar 2, 8:06 pm, George > * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 10:38 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 2 Mrz., 19:33, George > * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 9:35 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2 Mrz., 16:43, George > * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 3:43 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1 Mrz., 23:46, dh@. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:36:50 -0800, Goo wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "veganism" is not a reliable means

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * * * * * · 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.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You keep on making this claim over and over again, just as you have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for at least six years, but when challenged to provide actual evidence
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for it you are unable to provide any.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit doesn't have any evidence, of course, but for certain there is a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> strong logical case to be made. *What do you think the number of deaths
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused raising one grass-fed steer might be? *How many deaths can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> plausibly be attributed to the farming of one hectare of rice in a wet
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> paddy?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't have any idea about the answers to either of those questions,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and I was talking about soya-based products, not rice.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> But you certainly ought to be able to think in terms of what's plausible
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and seems to make sense, can't you? *Oh, wait - maybe not.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I don't really have any feel for what's "plausible" or "seems to make
> >>>>>>>>>>> sense" in this area.

>
> >>>>>>>>>> That's obviously a lie, but even telling it shows that you don't care to
> >>>>>>>>>> know.

>
> >>>>>>>>> I would be interested in knowing if I thought that it was feasible to
> >>>>>>>>> find out.

>
> >>>>>>>> You don't care about the feasibility of finding out. *You don't care
> >>>>>>>> about knowing the answer, period.

>
> >>>>>>> False.

>
> >>>>>> Nope - true.

>
> >>>>>>>> * * *You don't care to know *which*
> >>>>>>>> "vegan" diet is the least-harm diet, so that you might really validly
> >>>>>>>> claim to be "minimizing". *You don't care about any of it. *You just
> >>>>>>>> want to pat yourself on the back and act superior.

>
> >>>>>>> You're a fool.

>
> >>>>>> Concession noted and accepted.

>
> >>>>> You appear to have lost touch with reality.

>
> >>>> Not in the least, and you don't believe that anyway. *It's just the
> >>>> sort of childish whining to which you've been reduced.

>
> >>> I see.

>
> >> We all see it.

>
> > You have all sorts of very interesting insights

>
> These aren't exceptionally interesting, but they're still accurate.
>


So when I say "You're a fool" and you say "Concession noted and
accepted", I don't really believe that you appear to have lost touch
with reality?

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>>>>> If you have some idea, then why don't you tell me how you arrived at
> >>>>>>>>>>> this idea.

>
> >>>>>>>>>> I have done. *I have elaborated that the production of any vegetable
> >>>>>>>>>> crop plausibly causes many animal CDs, and the production of one 100%
> >>>>>>>>>> grass-fed steer plausibly causes no CDs.

>
> >>>>>>>>> So how does that help me to arrive at a conclusion about the matter?

>
> >>>>>>>> Easily: *if you want to follow a positively lower CD diet than
> >>>>>>>> "veganism", eat grass fed beef plus some fruits and vegetables you pick
> >>>>>>>> from wild plants or cultivate yourself in your home garden.

>
> >>>>>>> It does not follow from what you said above that this diet would
> >>>>>>> involve less suffering and premature death.

>
> >>>>>> It does.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> * * * *Now I get the pleasure once again of telling you what you do and don't
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe, because I know: *you do not believe that the rice causes fewer
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CDs than the beef.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I don't. I lack a belief one way or the other, because I have no
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence one way or the other.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> No, that's false. *You do not lack any belief one way or another. *We
> >>>>>>>>>>>> know this because you have already said you know that vegetable
> >>>>>>>>>>>> agriculture kills animals. *You have *some* sense as to what might be a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> plausible number of animals killed for different types of agriculture.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Not enough to know how to compare calorically equivalent servings of
> >>>>>>>>>>> rice and grass-fed beef.

>
> >>>>>>>>>> Bullshit. *As previously established, a 100 gram serving of rice - or
> >>>>>>>>>> soybeans or whatever - carries the weight of many animal CDs,

>
> >>>>>>>>> How many? Give me a range.

>
> >>>>>>>> According to diderot, many thousands.

>
> >>>>>>> So many tens of CDs per gram of rice?

>
> >>>>>>>>>> versus
> >>>>>>>>>> *no* CDs for a 100 gram serving of 100% grass-fed beef. *You can do the
> >>>>>>>>>> comparison.

>
> >>>>>>>>> No I can't, I have no ranges of numbers on the basis of which to make
> >>>>>>>>> the comparison.

>
> >>>>>>>> You *know* that plausibly, the steer causes no CDs, and the vegetable
> >>>>>>>> products cause many.

>
> >>>>>>> "Many" doesn't mean anything. Specify a number range.

>
> >>>>>> All you need to know is that it exceeds the expected value of CDs for a
> >>>>>> nutritionally equivalent amount of grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.

>
> >>>>> And how exactly do I know that?

>
> >>>> Cut it out, woopee. *Just cut the shit, now.

>
> >>> It would appear that you do not wish to answer my question.

>
> >> It's an insincere and time-wasting question.

>
> > So you appear to believe.

>
> Because it is.


You reckon?

George Plimpton 05-03-2012 06:08 AM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
On 3/4/2012 8:55 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 5, 5:48 am, George > wrote:
>> On 3/4/2012 8:27 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 5, 4:40 am, George > wrote:
>>>> On 3/4/2012 12:10 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>> On 4 Mrz., 18:05, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/4/2012 4:29 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>> On 3 Mrz., 19:18, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2012 4:00 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mar 3, 6:37 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 8:25 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 2, 8:06 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 10:38 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2 Mrz., 19:33, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 9:35 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2 Mrz., 16:43, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 3:43 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1 Mrz., 23:46, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:36:50 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "veganism" is not a reliable means

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> · 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.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You keep on making this claim over and over again, just as you have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for at least six years, but when challenged to provide actual evidence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for it you are unable to provide any.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit doesn't have any evidence, of course, but for certain there is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strong logical case to be made. What do you think the number of deaths
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused raising one grass-fed steer might be? How many deaths can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plausibly be attributed to the farming of one hectare of rice in a wet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paddy?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't have any idea about the answers to either of those questions,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I was talking about soya-based products, not rice.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But you certainly ought to be able to think in terms of what's plausible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and seems to make sense, can't you? Oh, wait - maybe not.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't really have any feel for what's "plausible" or "seems to make
>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense" in this area.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's obviously a lie, but even telling it shows that you don't care to
>>>>>>>>>>>> know.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I would be interested in knowing if I thought that it was feasible to
>>>>>>>>>>> find out.

>>
>>>>>>>>>> You don't care about the feasibility of finding out. You don't care
>>>>>>>>>> about knowing the answer, period.

>>
>>>>>>>>> False.

>>
>>>>>>>> Nope - true.

>>
>>>>>>>>>> You don't care to know *which*
>>>>>>>>>> "vegan" diet is the least-harm diet, so that you might really validly
>>>>>>>>>> claim to be "minimizing". You don't care about any of it. You just
>>>>>>>>>> want to pat yourself on the back and act superior.

>>
>>>>>>>>> You're a fool.

>>
>>>>>>>> Concession noted and accepted.

>>
>>>>>>> You appear to have lost touch with reality.

>>
>>>>>> Not in the least, and you don't believe that anyway. It's just the
>>>>>> sort of childish whining to which you've been reduced.

>>
>>>>> I see.

>>
>>>> We all see it.

>>
>>> You have all sorts of very interesting insights

>>
>> These aren't exceptionally interesting, but they're still accurate.
>>

>
> So when I say "You're a fool" and you say "Concession noted and
> accepted", I don't really believe that you appear to have lost touch
> with reality?
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have some idea, then why don't you tell me how you arrived at
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this idea.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I have done. I have elaborated that the production of any vegetable
>>>>>>>>>>>> crop plausibly causes many animal CDs, and the production of one 100%
>>>>>>>>>>>> grass-fed steer plausibly causes no CDs.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So how does that help me to arrive at a conclusion about the matter?

>>
>>>>>>>>>> Easily: if you want to follow a positively lower CD diet than
>>>>>>>>>> "veganism", eat grass fed beef plus some fruits and vegetables you pick
>>>>>>>>>> from wild plants or cultivate yourself in your home garden.

>>
>>>>>>>>> It does not follow from what you said above that this diet would
>>>>>>>>> involve less suffering and premature death.

>>
>>>>>>>> It does.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now I get the pleasure once again of telling you what you do and don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe, because I know: you do not believe that the rice causes fewer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CDs than the beef.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I don't. I lack a belief one way or the other, because I have no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence one way or the other.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, that's false. You do not lack any belief one way or another. We
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know this because you have already said you know that vegetable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agriculture kills animals. You have *some* sense as to what might be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plausible number of animals killed for different types of agriculture.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not enough to know how to compare calorically equivalent servings of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> rice and grass-fed beef.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit. As previously established, a 100 gram serving of rice - or
>>>>>>>>>>>> soybeans or whatever - carries the weight of many animal CDs,

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> How many? Give me a range.

>>
>>>>>>>>>> According to diderot, many thousands.

>>
>>>>>>>>> So many tens of CDs per gram of rice?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> versus
>>>>>>>>>>>> *no* CDs for a 100 gram serving of 100% grass-fed beef. You can do the
>>>>>>>>>>>> comparison.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No I can't, I have no ranges of numbers on the basis of which to make
>>>>>>>>>>> the comparison.

>>
>>>>>>>>>> You *know* that plausibly, the steer causes no CDs, and the vegetable
>>>>>>>>>> products cause many.

>>
>>>>>>>>> "Many" doesn't mean anything. Specify a number range.

>>
>>>>>>>> All you need to know is that it exceeds the expected value of CDs for a
>>>>>>>> nutritionally equivalent amount of grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.

>>
>>>>>>> And how exactly do I know that?

>>
>>>>>> Cut it out, woopee. Just cut the shit, now.

>>
>>>>> It would appear that you do not wish to answer my question.

>>
>>>> It's an insincere and time-wasting question.

>>
>>> So you appear to believe.

>>
>> Because it is.

>
> You reckon?


Guaranteed.

Rupert 05-03-2012 06:10 AM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
On Mar 5, 6:08*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/4/2012 8:55 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 5, 5:48 am, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/4/2012 8:27 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On Mar 5, 4:40 am, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 3/4/2012 12:10 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>> On 4 Mrz., 18:05, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 3/4/2012 4:29 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>> On 3 Mrz., 19:18, George > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 3/3/2012 4:00 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>> On Mar 3, 6:37 am, George > * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 8:25 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 2, 8:06 pm, George > * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 10:38 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2 Mrz., 19:33, George > * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 9:35 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2 Mrz., 16:43, George > * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 3:43 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1 Mrz., 23:46, dh@. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:36:50 -0800, Goo wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "veganism" is not a reliable means

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * * * * * *· 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.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You keep on making this claim over and over again, just as you have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for at least six years, but when challenged to provide actual evidence
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for it you are unable to provide any.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit doesn't have any evidence, of course, but for certain there is a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strong logical case to be made. *What do you think the number of deaths
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused raising one grass-fed steer might be? *How many deaths can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plausibly be attributed to the farming of one hectare of rice in a wet
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paddy?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't have any idea about the answers to either of those questions,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I was talking about soya-based products, not rice.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> But you certainly ought to be able to think in terms of what's plausible
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and seems to make sense, can't you? *Oh, wait - maybe not.


George Plimpton 05-03-2012 06:21 AM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
On 3/4/2012 9:10 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 5, 6:08 am, George > wrote:
>> On 3/4/2012 8:55 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 5, 5:48 am, George > wrote:
>>>> On 3/4/2012 8:27 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>> On Mar 5, 4:40 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/4/2012 12:10 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>> On 4 Mrz., 18:05, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/4/2012 4:29 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>> On 3 Mrz., 19:18, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2012 4:00 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 3, 6:37 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 8:25 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 2, 8:06 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 10:38 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2 Mrz., 19:33, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 9:35 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2 Mrz., 16:43, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 3:43 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1 Mrz., 23:46, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:36:50 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "veganism" is not a reliable means

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> · 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.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You keep on making this claim over and over again, just as you have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for at least six years, but when challenged to provide actual evidence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for it you are unable to provide any.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit doesn't have any evidence, of course, but for certain there is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strong logical case to be made. What do you think the number of deaths
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused raising one grass-fed steer might be? How many deaths can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plausibly be attributed to the farming of one hectare of rice in a wet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paddy?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't have any idea about the answers to either of those questions,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I was talking about soya-based products, not rice.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But you certainly ought to be able to think in terms of what's plausible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and seems to make sense, can't you? Oh, wait - maybe not.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't really have any feel for what's "plausible" or "seems to make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense" in this area.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's obviously a lie, but even telling it shows that you don't care to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would be interested in knowing if I thought that it was feasible to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> find out.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't care about the feasibility of finding out. You don't care
>>>>>>>>>>>> about knowing the answer, period.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> False.

>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope - true.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't care to know *which*
>>>>>>>>>>>> "vegan" diet is the least-harm diet, so that you might really validly
>>>>>>>>>>>> claim to be "minimizing". You don't care about any of it. You just
>>>>>>>>>>>> want to pat yourself on the back and act superior.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You're a fool.

>>
>>>>>>>>>> Concession noted and accepted.

>>
>>>>>>>>> You appear to have lost touch with reality.

>>
>>>>>>>> Not in the least, and you don't believe that anyway. It's just the
>>>>>>>> sort of childish whining to which you've been reduced.

>>
>>>>>>> I see.

>>
>>>>>> We all see it.

>>
>>>>> You have all sorts of very interesting insights

>>
>>>> These aren't exceptionally interesting, but they're still accurate.

>>
>>> So when I say "You're a fool" and you say "Concession noted and
>>> accepted", I don't really believe that you appear to have lost touch
>>> with reality?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have some idea, then why don't you tell me how you arrived at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this idea.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have done. I have elaborated that the production of any vegetable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crop plausibly causes many animal CDs, and the production of one 100%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grass-fed steer plausibly causes no CDs.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So how does that help me to arrive at a conclusion about the matter?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Easily: if you want to follow a positively lower CD diet than
>>>>>>>>>>>> "veganism", eat grass fed beef plus some fruits and vegetables you pick
>>>>>>>>>>>> from wild plants or cultivate yourself in your home garden.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It does not follow from what you said above that this diet would
>>>>>>>>>>> involve less suffering and premature death.

>>
>>>>>>>>>> It does.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now I get the pleasure once again of telling you what you do and don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe, because I know: you do not believe that the rice causes fewer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CDs than the beef.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I don't. I lack a belief one way or the other, because I have no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence one way or the other.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, that's false. You do not lack any belief one way or another. We
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know this because you have already said you know that vegetable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agriculture kills animals. You have *some* sense as to what might be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plausible number of animals killed for different types of agriculture.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not enough to know how to compare calorically equivalent servings of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rice and grass-fed beef.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit. As previously established, a 100 gram serving of rice - or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soybeans or whatever - carries the weight of many animal CDs,

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many? Give me a range.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> According to diderot, many thousands.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So many tens of CDs per gram of rice?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *no* CDs for a 100 gram serving of 100% grass-fed beef. You can do the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comparison.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No I can't, I have no ranges of numbers on the basis of which to make
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the comparison.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You *know* that plausibly, the steer causes no CDs, and the vegetable
>>>>>>>>>>>> products cause many.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Many" doesn't mean anything. Specify a number range.

>>
>>>>>>>>>> All you need to know is that it exceeds the expected value of CDs for a
>>>>>>>>>> nutritionally equivalent amount of grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.

>>
>>>>>>>>> And how exactly do I know that?

>>
>>>>>>>> Cut it out, woopee. Just cut the shit, now.

>>
>>>>>>> It would appear that you do not wish to answer my question.

>>
>>>>>> It's an insincere and time-wasting question.

>>
>>>>> So you appear to believe.

>>
>>>> Because it is.

>>
>>> You reckon?

>>
>> Guaranteed.

>
> How do you know?


I have lots of experience with your insincerity and time-wasting efforts.

Mr.Smartypants[_4_] 05-03-2012 06:40 AM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
On Mar 4, 10:21*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/4/2012 9:10 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 5, 6:08 am, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/4/2012 8:55 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On Mar 5, 5:48 am, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 3/4/2012 8:27 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>> On Mar 5, 4:40 am, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 3/4/2012 12:10 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>> On 4 Mrz., 18:05, George > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 3/4/2012 4:29 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>> On 3 Mrz., 19:18, George > * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2012 4:00 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 3, 6:37 am, George > * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 8:25 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 2, 8:06 pm, George > * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 10:38 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2 Mrz., 19:33, George > * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 9:35 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2 Mrz., 16:43, George > * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 3:43 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1 Mrz., 23:46, dh@. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:36:50 -0800, Goo wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "veganism" is not a reliable means

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * * * * * * · 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.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You keep on making this claim over and over again, just as you have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for at least six years, but when challenged to provide actual evidence
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for it you are unable to provide any.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit doesn't have any evidence, of course, but for certain there is a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strong logical case to be made. *What do you think the number of deaths
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused raising one grass-fed steer might be? *How many deaths can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plausibly be attributed to the farming of one hectare of rice in a wet
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paddy?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't have any idea about the answers to either of those questions,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I was talking about soya-based products, not rice.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But you certainly ought to be able to think in terms of what's plausible
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and seems to make sense, can't you? *Oh, wait - maybe not.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't really have any feel for what's "plausible" or "seems to make
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense" in this area.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's obviously a lie, but even telling it shows that you don't care to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> know.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I would be interested in knowing if I thought that it was feasible to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> find out.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You don't care about the feasibility of finding out. *You don't care
> >>>>>>>>>>>> about knowing the answer, period.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> False.

>
> >>>>>>>>>> Nope - true.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> * * * *You don't care to know *which*
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "vegan" diet is the least-harm diet, so that you might really validly
> >>>>>>>>>>>> claim to be "minimizing". *You don't care about any of it. *You just
> >>>>>>>>>>>> want to pat yourself on the back and act superior.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> You're a fool.

>
> >>>>>>>>>> Concession noted and accepted.

>
> >>>>>>>>> You appear to have lost touch with reality.

>
> >>>>>>>> Not in the least, and you don't believe that anyway. *It's just the
> >>>>>>>> sort of childish whining to which you've been reduced.

>
> >>>>>>> I see.

>
> >>>>>> We all see it.

>
> >>>>> You have all sorts of very interesting insights

>
> >>>> These aren't exceptionally interesting, but they're still accurate.

>
> >>> So when I say "You're a fool" and you say "Concession noted and
> >>> accepted", I don't really believe that you appear to have lost touch
> >>> with reality?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have some idea, then why don't you tell me how you arrived at
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this idea.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have done. *I have elaborated that the production of any vegetable
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> crop plausibly causes many animal CDs, and the production of one 100%
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> grass-fed steer plausibly causes no CDs.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So how does that help me to arrive at a conclusion about the matter?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Easily: *if you want to follow a positively lower CD diet than
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "veganism", eat grass fed beef plus some fruits and vegetables you pick
> >>>>>>>>>>>> from wild plants or cultivate yourself in your home garden.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> It does not follow from what you said above that this diet would
> >>>>>>>>>>> involve less suffering and premature death.

>
> >>>>>>>>>> It does.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * * * * *Now I get the pleasure once again of telling you what you do and don't
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe, because I know: *you do not believe that the rice causes fewer
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CDs than the beef.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I don't. I lack a belief one way or the other, because I have no
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence one way or the other.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, that's false. *You do not lack any belief one way or another. *We
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know this because you have already said you know that vegetable
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agriculture kills animals. *You have *some* sense as to what might be a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plausible number of animals killed for different types of agriculture.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not enough to know how to compare calorically equivalent servings of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rice and grass-fed beef.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit. *As previously established, a 100 gram serving of rice - or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> soybeans or whatever - carries the weight of many animal CDs,

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> How many? Give me a range.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> According to diderot, many thousands.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> So many tens of CDs per gram of rice?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> versus
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *no* CDs for a 100 gram serving of 100% grass-fed beef. *You can do the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> comparison.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No I can't, I have no ranges of numbers on the basis of which to make
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the comparison.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You *know* that plausibly, the steer causes no CDs, and the vegetable
> >>>>>>>>>>>> products cause many.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Many" doesn't mean anything. Specify a number range.

>
> >>>>>>>>>> All you need to know is that it exceeds the expected value of CDs for a
> >>>>>>>>>> nutritionally equivalent amount of grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.

>
> >>>>>>>>> And how exactly do I know that?

>
> >>>>>>>> Cut it out, woopee. *Just cut the shit, now.

>
> >>>>>>> It would appear that you do not wish to answer my question.

>
> >>>>>> It's an insincere and time-wasting question.

>
> >>>>> So you appear to believe.

>
> >>>> Because it is.

>
> >>> You reckon?

>
> >> Guaranteed.

>
> > How do you know?

>
> I have lots of experience with your insincerity and time-wasting efforts.



Tell him what hogs eat, Goober.

Rupert 05-03-2012 06:43 AM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
On Mar 5, 6:21*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/4/2012 9:10 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 5, 6:08 am, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/4/2012 8:55 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>> On Mar 5, 5:48 am, George > * *wrote:
> >>>> On 3/4/2012 8:27 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>> On Mar 5, 4:40 am, George > * * *wrote:
> >>>>>> On 3/4/2012 12:10 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>> On 4 Mrz., 18:05, George > * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 3/4/2012 4:29 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>> On 3 Mrz., 19:18, George > * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2012 4:00 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 3, 6:37 am, George > * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 8:25 PM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 2, 8:06 pm, George > * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 10:38 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2 Mrz., 19:33, George > * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 9:35 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2 Mrz., 16:43, George > * * * * * * * * *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 3:43 AM, Rupert wrote:

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1 Mrz., 23:46, dh@. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:36:50 -0800, Goo wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "veganism" is not a reliable means

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * * * * * * · 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.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You keep on making this claim over and over again, just as you have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for at least six years, but when challenged to provide actual evidence
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for it you are unable to provide any.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit doesn't have any evidence, of course, but for certain there is a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strong logical case to be made. *What do you think the number of deaths
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused raising one grass-fed steer might be? *How many deaths can
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plausibly be attributed to the farming of one hectare of rice in a wet
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paddy?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't have any idea about the answers to either of those questions,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I was talking about soya-based products, not rice.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But you certainly ought to be able to think in terms of what's plausible
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and seems to make sense, can't you? *Oh, wait - maybe not.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't really have any feel for what's "plausible" or "seems to make
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense" in this area.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's obviously a lie, but even telling it shows that you don't care to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> know.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I would be interested in knowing if I thought that it was feasible to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> find out.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You don't care about the feasibility of finding out. *You don't care
> >>>>>>>>>>>> about knowing the answer, period.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> False.

>
> >>>>>>>>>> Nope - true.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> * * * *You don't care to know *which*
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "vegan" diet is the least-harm diet, so that you might really validly
> >>>>>>>>>>>> claim to be "minimizing". *You don't care about any of it. *You just
> >>>>>>>>>>>> want to pat yourself on the back and act superior.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> You're a fool.

>
> >>>>>>>>>> Concession noted and accepted.

>
> >>>>>>>>> You appear to have lost touch with reality.

>
> >>>>>>>> Not in the least, and you don't believe that anyway. *It's just the
> >>>>>>>> sort of childish whining to which you've been reduced.

>
> >>>>>>> I see.

>
> >>>>>> We all see it.

>
> >>>>> You have all sorts of very interesting insights

>
> >>>> These aren't exceptionally interesting, but they're still accurate.

>
> >>> So when I say "You're a fool" and you say "Concession noted and
> >>> accepted", I don't really believe that you appear to have lost touch
> >>> with reality?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have some idea, then why don't you tell me how you arrived at
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this idea.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have done. *I have elaborated that the production of any vegetable
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> crop plausibly causes many animal CDs, and the production of one 100%
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> grass-fed steer plausibly causes no CDs.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So how does that help me to arrive at a conclusion about the matter?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Easily: *if you want to follow a positively lower CD diet than
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "veganism", eat grass fed beef plus some fruits and vegetables you pick
> >>>>>>>>>>>> from wild plants or cultivate yourself in your home garden.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> It does not follow from what you said above that this diet would
> >>>>>>>>>>> involve less suffering and premature death.

>
> >>>>>>>>>> It does.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * * * * *Now I get the pleasure once again of telling you what you do and don't
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe, because I know: *you do not believe that the rice causes fewer
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CDs than the beef.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I don't. I lack a belief one way or the other, because I have no
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence one way or the other.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, that's false. *You do not lack any belief one way or another. *We
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know this because you have already said you know that vegetable
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agriculture kills animals. *You have *some* sense as to what might be a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plausible number of animals killed for different types of agriculture.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not enough to know how to compare calorically equivalent servings of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rice and grass-fed beef.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit. *As previously established, a 100 gram serving of rice - or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> soybeans or whatever - carries the weight of many animal CDs,

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> How many? Give me a range.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> According to diderot, many thousands.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> So many tens of CDs per gram of rice?

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> versus
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *no* CDs for a 100 gram serving of 100% grass-fed beef. *You can do the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> comparison.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No I can't, I have no ranges of numbers on the basis of which to make
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the comparison.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You *know* that plausibly, the steer causes no CDs, and the vegetable
> >>>>>>>>>>>> products cause many.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> "Many" doesn't mean anything. Specify a number range.

>
> >>>>>>>>>> All you need to know is that it exceeds the expected value of CDs for a
> >>>>>>>>>> nutritionally equivalent amount of grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.

>
> >>>>>>>>> And how exactly do I know that?

>
> >>>>>>>> Cut it out, woopee. *Just cut the shit, now.

>
> >>>>>>> It would appear that you do not wish to answer my question.

>
> >>>>>> It's an insincere and time-wasting question.

>
> >>>>> So you appear to believe.

>
> >>>> Because it is.

>
> >>> You reckon?

>
> >> Guaranteed.

>
> > How do you know?

>
> I have lots of experience with your insincerity and time-wasting efforts.


I don't believe that I have any way of knowing how the number of
premature deaths caused per calorically equivalent serving of tofu
compares with that for grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish. If you
think I have some way of knowing I am happy to listen, but you
obviously do not wish to offer any arguments. I don't know why you
think you have any resaon to believe that I am not sincere in asking
you to offer arguments.

George Plimpton 05-03-2012 04:42 PM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
On 3/4/2012 9:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 5, 6:21 am, George > wrote:
>> On 3/4/2012 9:10 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 5, 6:08 am, George > wrote:
>>>> On 3/4/2012 8:55 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>> On Mar 5, 5:48 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/4/2012 8:27 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>> On Mar 5, 4:40 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/4/2012 12:10 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>> On 4 Mrz., 18:05, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/4/2012 4:29 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3 Mrz., 19:18, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/3/2012 4:00 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 3, 6:37 am, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 8:25 PM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 2, 8:06 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 10:38 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2 Mrz., 19:33, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 9:35 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2 Mrz., 16:43, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 3:43 AM, Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1 Mrz., 23:46, dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:36:50 -0800, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "veganism" is not a reliable means

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> · 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.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You keep on making this claim over and over again, just as you have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for at least six years, but when challenged to provide actual evidence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for it you are unable to provide any.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit doesn't have any evidence, of course, but for certain there is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strong logical case to be made. What do you think the number of deaths
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused raising one grass-fed steer might be? How many deaths can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plausibly be attributed to the farming of one hectare of rice in a wet
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paddy?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't have any idea about the answers to either of those questions,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I was talking about soya-based products, not rice.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But you certainly ought to be able to think in terms of what's plausible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and seems to make sense, can't you? Oh, wait - maybe not.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't really have any feel for what's "plausible" or "seems to make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sense" in this area.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's obviously a lie, but even telling it shows that you don't care to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would be interested in knowing if I thought that it was feasible to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> find out.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't care about the feasibility of finding out. You don't care
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about knowing the answer, period.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> False.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope - true.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You don't care to know *which*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "vegan" diet is the least-harm diet, so that you might really validly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim to be "minimizing". You don't care about any of it. You just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to pat yourself on the back and act superior.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're a fool.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Concession noted and accepted.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You appear to have lost touch with reality.

>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not in the least, and you don't believe that anyway. It's just the
>>>>>>>>>> sort of childish whining to which you've been reduced.

>>
>>>>>>>>> I see.

>>
>>>>>>>> We all see it.

>>
>>>>>>> You have all sorts of very interesting insights

>>
>>>>>> These aren't exceptionally interesting, but they're still accurate.

>>
>>>>> So when I say "You're a fool" and you say "Concession noted and
>>>>> accepted", I don't really believe that you appear to have lost touch
>>>>> with reality?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you have some idea, then why don't you tell me how you arrived at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this idea.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have done. I have elaborated that the production of any vegetable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> crop plausibly causes many animal CDs, and the production of one 100%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> grass-fed steer plausibly causes no CDs.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So how does that help me to arrive at a conclusion about the matter?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Easily: if you want to follow a positively lower CD diet than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "veganism", eat grass fed beef plus some fruits and vegetables you pick
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from wild plants or cultivate yourself in your home garden.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It does not follow from what you said above that this diet would
>>>>>>>>>>>>> involve less suffering and premature death.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It does.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now I get the pleasure once again of telling you what you do and don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe, because I know: you do not believe that the rice causes fewer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CDs than the beef.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, I don't. I lack a belief one way or the other, because I have no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence one way or the other.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, that's false. You do not lack any belief one way or another. We
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know this because you have already said you know that vegetable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agriculture kills animals. You have *some* sense as to what might be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plausible number of animals killed for different types of agriculture.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not enough to know how to compare calorically equivalent servings of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rice and grass-fed beef.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bullshit. As previously established, a 100 gram serving of rice - or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soybeans or whatever - carries the weight of many animal CDs,

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many? Give me a range.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to diderot, many thousands.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So many tens of CDs per gram of rice?

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> versus
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *no* CDs for a 100 gram serving of 100% grass-fed beef. You can do the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comparison.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No I can't, I have no ranges of numbers on the basis of which to make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the comparison.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You *know* that plausibly, the steer causes no CDs, and the vegetable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> products cause many.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Many" doesn't mean anything. Specify a number range.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> All you need to know is that it exceeds the expected value of CDs for a
>>>>>>>>>>>> nutritionally equivalent amount of grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And how exactly do I know that?

>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cut it out, woopee. Just cut the shit, now.

>>
>>>>>>>>> It would appear that you do not wish to answer my question.

>>
>>>>>>>> It's an insincere and time-wasting question.

>>
>>>>>>> So you appear to believe.

>>
>>>>>> Because it is.

>>
>>>>> You reckon?

>>
>>>> Guaranteed.

>>
>>> How do you know?

>>
>> I have lots of experience with your insincerity and time-wasting efforts.

>
> I don't believe that I have any way of knowing how the number of
> premature deaths caused per calorically equivalent serving of tofu
> compares with that for grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.


You know, intuitively and based on plausibility, that raising the
vegetable crops you would have to substitute in order to get equivalent
nutrition causes multiple CDs, and that 100% grass-fed beef or
wild-caught fish causes none.

Glen 05-03-2012 06:36 PM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
On 05/03/2012 15:42, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 3/4/2012 9:43 PM, Rupert wrote:

snip
>>
>> I don't believe that I have any way of knowing how the number of
>> premature deaths caused per calorically equivalent serving of tofu
>> compares with that for grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.

>
> You know, intuitively and based on plausibility, that raising the
> vegetable crops you would have to substitute in order to get equivalent
> nutrition causes multiple CDs,and that 100% grass-fed beef or
> wild-caught fish causes none.


Eating meat causes the death of animals. There's no getting away
from that fact until you stop eating meat and go vegan. There's
only a small chance that animals were killed to produce my food.
You don't want to acknowledge the huge difference between fact
and plausibility because you want to make vegans feel as guilty
as you do for all the pain, misery and death on your plate.

George Plimpton 05-03-2012 06:49 PM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
On 3/5/2012 9:36 AM, Glen wrote:
> On 05/03/2012 15:42, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 3/4/2012 9:43 PM, Rupert wrote:

> snip
>>>
>>> I don't believe that I have any way of knowing how the number of
>>> premature deaths caused per calorically equivalent serving of tofu
>>> compares with that for grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.

>>
>> You know, intuitively and based on plausibility, that raising the
>> vegetable crops you would have to substitute in order to get equivalent
>> nutrition causes multiple CDs,and that 100% grass-fed beef or
>> wild-caught fish causes none.

>
> Eating meat causes the death of animals.


Cultivating, harvesting and distributing vegetables and fruits causes
the deaths of animals, too.


> There's no getting away
> from that fact until you stop eating meat and go vegan.


"Going 'vegan'" doesn't mean causing no deaths of animals. Furthermore,
organic or "sustainable" farming absolutely depends on animal manure,
and that manure only exists because of animal husbandry.

So, vegetable production unquestionably causes animal suffering and
death, and organic or "sustainable" vegetable production depends on the
manure from animals that exist in order to be exploited for human use.
"vegan" are fully implicated in animal suffering and death.


> There's only a small chance that animals were killed to produce my food.


There is a 100% certainty that animals were harmed, including being
killed, in order to produce your food.


> You don't want to acknowledge the huge difference between fact


You have presented no "fact" that warrants any examination.


> and plausibility because you want to make vegans feel as guilty
> as you do for all the pain, misery and death on your plate.


No, I want "vegans" to acknowledge that their belief system is flawed
beyond salvage. "veganism" is predicated on illogical nonsense.

dh@. 05-03-2012 08:07 PM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 03:43:46 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
wrote:

>On 1 Mrz., 23:46, dh@. wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:36:50 -0800, Goo wrote:
>> >"veganism" is not a reliable means

>>
>> * · 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.

>
>You keep on making this claim over and over again, just as you have
>for at least six years, but when challenged to provide actual evidence
>for it you are unable to provide any.
>
>If you were able to provide evidence for it, you would. One can only
>conclude that you are making the claim in the absence of any real
>evidence.


If we factor in all by-products and divide the deaths among them TOO it
comes out to a much smaller number than if we don't. If we don't but only factor
in servings of human quality food as we SHOULD, then the number per serving goes
up for food and becomes N/A for things made from byproducts, but the number per
serving still stays at probably around 100 times less. How many deaths per
serving of tofu did you estimate, do you remember?

>> Grass raised animal products
>> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
>> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·


Glen 05-03-2012 08:16 PM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
On 05/03/2012 17:49, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 3/5/2012 9:36 AM, Glen wrote:
>> On 05/03/2012 15:42, George Plimpton wrote:
>>> On 3/4/2012 9:43 PM, Rupert wrote:

>> snip
>>>>
>>>> I don't believe that I have any way of knowing how the number of
>>>> premature deaths caused per calorically equivalent serving of tofu
>>>> compares with that for grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.
>>>
>>> You know, intuitively and based on plausibility, that raising the
>>> vegetable crops you would have to substitute in order to get equivalent
>>> nutrition causes multiple CDs,and that 100% grass-fed beef or
>>> wild-caught fish causes none.

>>
>> Eating meat causes the death of animals.

>
> Cultivating, harvesting and distributing vegetables and fruits causes
> the deaths of animals, too.


That isn't true. It /may/ cause some deaths but it isn't a fact that
it *WILL* cause them. Eating meat *WILL* cause them.

>> There's no getting away
>> from that fact until you stop eating meat and go vegan.

>
> "Going 'vegan'" doesn't mean causing no deaths of animals.


It will mean causing no deaths to farm animals. That's a fact.

>> There's only a small chance that animals were killed to produce my food.

>
> There is a 100% certainty that animals were harmed, including being
> killed, in order to produce your food.


No. I don't believe you. You're only saying that because you
want me to feel as guilty as you obviously do about the cruelty
and death on your plate.

>> You don't want to acknowledge the huge difference between fact

>
> You have presented no "fact" that warrants any examination.


It's a fact that eating meat causes the death of animals. It's not
a fact that eating vegetables and fruit causes the death of animals.

>> and plausibility because you want to make vegans feel as guilty
>> as you do for all the pain, misery and death on your plate.

>
> No


Yes. I've seen this argument before from corpse eaters trying to
defend their cruelty by saying, "We're all killers, so leave me alone."
The deaths you cause are a necessary fact and unavoidable. The
deaths I /might/ cause are, by your own word, only "plausible" and
not a fact at all.

If driving my car always caused misery and death I wouldn't
drive. If driving my car held only the plausible chance of misery
and death, like it does, I would still drive. The difference between
doing something which always causes death and something which
only plausibly causes death is huge. You know it is but you'll never
admit to it because your guilt stops you.


dh@. 05-03-2012 08:22 PM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 09:35:17 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
wrote:

>On 2 Mrz., 16:43, Goo wrote:
>>
>> Forget about ****wit's lack of hard evidence. *You have to make a wholly
>> implausible case to try to suggest that calorically equivalent servings
>> of beef and rice have a collateral death toll that favors the rice.

>
>I never said anything about rice.


We were discussing soy because I am overly generous, just as I also was with
the estimate of 5 deaths related to a type of animal that is often likely to
produce none.

>But I also don't have any idea about what could be said about
>calorically equivalent servings of beef and rice, either.


Rice would necessarily involve even more than soy. If you figure up the
difference between grass raised milk and rice milk the difference would be even
more huge in favor of the cow milk. HUGE!!!

>> *Now
>> I get the pleasure once again of telling you what you do and don't
>> believe, because I know: *you do not believe that the rice causes fewer
>> CDs than the beef.

>
>No, I don't. I lack a belief one way or the other, because I have no
>evidence one way or the other.


In some cases soy causes more and in some beef causes more. Can you get that
far along with it, doctor?

>(I assume you're talking about fully grass-fed beef, by the way, the
>cattle are put out to pasture the whole year round. Yes?)


Start with that.

>In any case I never said anything about rice. I was talking about
>tofu.


It looks like we're on rice too now. Rice is worse then either. It's
probably the worst of all. What could be worse? How?

>> *You just don't believe it, and we all know you don't
>> believe it.

>
>I don't have any opinion one way or the other, because I don't have
>sufficient information.


Sometimes beef will involve more and sometimes the soy will.

>Suppose I wanted to go about buying some beef which had a smaller CD
>count per serving than a typical calorically equivalent serving of
>rice. How exactly would you suggest I go about doing that, given that
>I live in the European Union at the moment? How would I be sure that
>the beef was not partially grain-fed?


Go inquire from some cattle farmers in the area. If they don't have any to
sell you, or know anyone who does, they could still help you move in the
direction of finding someone who does know. While you're around the cattle see
if the farmer will let you observe them a little bit, and if so see if you can
appreciate that some or all of them appear to have lives of positive value, or
if you see some you feel do and some you feel don't maybe then you could learn
to appreciate the distinction. That is if you want to see it first hand as you
SHOULD! If there are any grass raised dairys in the area you would almost
certainly do better to begin with that, and it's better than beef anyway
ethically. So a great opportunity for you is to drop by a dairy farm probably in
the evening around 4 or 5 or in the morning when there are people around
milking, and ask them if any dairies in the area are grass raised. Also if there
is some sort of agricultural department in your area or someplace not too far
away you should call them and they might be able to tell you where to get grass
raised animal products and free range eggs too. If you could go to a battery
farm and ask them where to get cage free eggs, and see if they would let you
look at the birds to see what you think, then go to the cage free place or a
place where they raise the parents of either broilers or layers (because the
parents are kept cage free for better breeding) and see what you think. If you
do that successfully even you might learn to appreciate a distinction you as yet
claim to be unable to.

Dutch 05-03-2012 09:18 PM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
"Glen" > wrote in message ...
> On 05/03/2012 17:49, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 3/5/2012 9:36 AM, Glen wrote:
>>> On 05/03/2012 15:42, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 3/4/2012 9:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>> snip
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't believe that I have any way of knowing how the number of
>>>>> premature deaths caused per calorically equivalent serving of tofu
>>>>> compares with that for grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.
>>>>
>>>> You know, intuitively and based on plausibility, that raising the
>>>> vegetable crops you would have to substitute in order to get equivalent
>>>> nutrition causes multiple CDs,and that 100% grass-fed beef or
>>>> wild-caught fish causes none.
>>>
>>> Eating meat causes the death of animals.

>>
>> Cultivating, harvesting and distributing vegetables and fruits causes
>> the deaths of animals, too.

>
> That isn't true. It /may/ cause some deaths but it isn't a fact that
> it *WILL* cause them. Eating meat *WILL* cause them.
>
>>> There's no getting away
>>> from that fact until you stop eating meat and go vegan.

>>
>> "Going 'vegan'" doesn't mean causing no deaths of animals.

>
> It will mean causing no deaths to farm animals. That's a fact.


So what? Does the life of a cow have more value than the life of a mouse?

>>> There's only a small chance that animals were killed to produce my food.

>>
>> There is a 100% certainty that animals were harmed, including being
>> killed, in order to produce your food.

>
> No. I don't believe you. You're only saying that because you
> want me to feel as guilty as you obviously do about the cruelty
> and death on your plate.


That's false, he feels no guilt about the deaths caused to bring him his
food. The truth is that vegans, you, derive a perverse kick from trying to
make non-vegans feel guilty. It doesn't work by the way, it just makes you
look like a huge idiot.

>>> You don't want to acknowledge the huge difference between fact

>>
>> You have presented no "fact" that warrants any examination.

>
> It's a fact that eating meat causes the death of animals. It's not
> a fact that eating vegetables and fruit causes the death of animals.


It is a fact. Fruit orchards are heavily sprayed with pesticides. Crop
fields are sprayed with herbicides. Those are deadly chemicals. Machines
used to till, spray and harvest also kill small animals, there have been
studies done on that.

>>> and plausibility because you want to make vegans feel as guilty
>>> as you do for all the pain, misery and death on your plate.

>>
>> No

>
> Yes. I've seen this argument before from corpse eaters


How did it make you feel when you used that term? Do you think it made me
feel guilty?

> trying to
> defend their cruelty by saying, "We're all killers,


We are all killers of animals, full stop. I'm not saying that defend any
cruelty, I'm saying it to try and wake you out of your sleepwalking.

> so leave me alone."
> The deaths you cause are a necessary fact and unavoidable. The
> deaths I /might/ cause are, by your own word, only "plausible" and
> not a fact at all.


They are a fact.

> If driving my car always caused misery and death I wouldn't
> drive. If driving my car held only the plausible chance of misery
> and death, like it does, I would still drive.


You are misconstruing "plausible", it doesn't mean a slim possibility.
Driving your car through a busy schoolyard is analogous to driving a
harvester through a field of grain or rice.

The difference between
> doing something which always causes death and something which
> only plausibly causes death is huge. You know it is but you'll never
> admit to it because your guilt stops you.


The food you eat always causes misery and death to animals. Grow up and deal
with it and stop trying to shift the burden of guilt onto others.





George Plimpton 05-03-2012 09:45 PM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
On 3/5/2012 11:16 AM, Glen wrote:
> On 05/03/2012 17:49, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 3/5/2012 9:36 AM, Glen wrote:
>>> On 05/03/2012 15:42, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 3/4/2012 9:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>> snip
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't believe that I have any way of knowing how the number of
>>>>> premature deaths caused per calorically equivalent serving of tofu
>>>>> compares with that for grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.
>>>>
>>>> You know, intuitively and based on plausibility, that raising the
>>>> vegetable crops you would have to substitute in order to get equivalent
>>>> nutrition causes multiple CDs,and that 100% grass-fed beef or
>>>> wild-caught fish causes none.
>>>
>>> Eating meat causes the death of animals.

>>
>> Cultivating, harvesting and distributing vegetables and fruits causes
>> the deaths of animals, too.

>
> That isn't true.


It *is* true.


> It /may/ cause some deaths


It does.


> but it isn't a fact that it *WILL* cause them.


It is a fact. Of course, you have made *no* effort to verify.


> Eating meat *WILL* cause them.


As many? You haven't attempted to verify that, either.


>>> There's no getting away
>>> from that fact until you stop eating meat and go vegan.

>>
>> "Going 'vegan'" doesn't mean causing no deaths of animals.

>
> It will mean causing no deaths to farm animals. That's a fact.


So, it's ethical for the food you eat to cause countless deaths of small
field animals, but not ethical to slaughter meat animals? How could
that be?


>>> There's only a small chance that animals were killed to produce my food.

>>
>> There is a 100% certainty that animals were harmed, including being
>> killed, in order to produce your food.

>
> No. I don't believe you.


You just don't *want* to believe it. Pretty interesting - Woopert has
been arguing for years that "vegans" are fully aware that animals are
slaughtered in the course of producing vegetables, as a matter of
course, and here you are to prove him wrong.


> You're only saying that because you
> want me to feel as guilty as you obviously do about the cruelty
> and death on your plate.


No, I don't want you to feel guilty about that at all. What I want is
for you to abandon the disgusting pretense that you pursue a "cruelty
free 'lifestyle'." "veganism is all about sanctimonious
self-congratulation, and that alone makes it loathsome and immoral.


>>> You don't want to acknowledge the huge difference between fact

>>
>> You have presented no "fact" that warrants any examination.

>
> It's a fact that eating meat causes the death of animals. It's not
> a fact that eating vegetables and fruit causes the death of animals.


It *is* a fact that farming vegetables and fruit causes the death of
animals.

By the way, "eating" meat doesn't cause any deaths of animals - the meat
is already dead.


>
>>> and plausibility because you want to make vegans feel as guilty
>>> as you do for all the pain, misery and death on your plate.

>>
>> No

>
> Yes. I've seen this argument before from corpse eaters trying to
> defend their cruelty by saying, "We're all killers, so leave me alone."


I'm not trying to defend anything, although I can. What I'm doing is
showing that your position is repulsive because it is a lie.


> The deaths you cause are a necessary fact and unavoidable. The
> deaths I /might/ cause are, by your own word, only "plausible" and
> not a fact at all.


No, the deaths you cause are a fact. When I have written of
plausibility, I have meant that it is plausible that a carefully chosen
meat-including diet causes fewer deaths than the typical, and perhaps
even *every*, "vegan" diet.


>
> If driving my car always caused misery and death I wouldn't
> drive.


Driving your car *does* always cause misery and death, but you keep
right on driving. Or, does the carbon emitted from *your* car somehow
not contribute to global warming, which is killing polar bears this very
minute?


> If driving my car held only the plausible chance of misery
> and death, like it does, I would still drive.


Driving your car causes misery and death. You simply close your eyes to
it. You're a filthy hypocrite.

Glen 06-03-2012 12:47 AM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
On 05/03/2012 20:45, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 3/5/2012 11:16 AM, Glen wrote:
>> On 05/03/2012 17:49, George Plimpton wrote:
>>> On 3/5/2012 9:36 AM, Glen wrote:
>>>> On 05/03/2012 15:42, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>> On 3/4/2012 9:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>>> snip
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't believe that I have any way of knowing how the number of
>>>>>> premature deaths caused per calorically equivalent serving of tofu
>>>>>> compares with that for grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.
>>>>>
>>>>> You know, intuitively and based on plausibility, that raising the
>>>>> vegetable crops you would have to substitute in order to get equivalent
>>>>> nutrition causes multiple CDs,and that 100% grass-fed beef or
>>>>> wild-caught fish causes none.
>>>>
>>>> Eating meat causes the death of animals.
>>>
>>> Cultivating, harvesting and distributing vegetables and fruits causes
>>> the deaths of animals, too.

>>
>> That isn't true.

>
> It *is* true.


No it isn't. Not in every case. It's a plausible effect but it isn't a
certain fact that vegetarian food causes animal deaths. You want
to make it a fact to make your guilt go away.

>> It /may/ cause some deaths

>
> It does.


No it doesn't. Evidence please.

>> but it isn't a fact that it *WILL* cause them.

>
> It is a fact.


It's *your* fact. A /fact/ that needs evidence to support it.

>Of course, you have made *no* effort to verify.


It's your claim and you haven't supported it with evidence.
Do your own work and don't blame anyone but yourself when
you come back empty handed.
>
>> Eating meat *WILL* cause them.

>
> As many?


Numbers are irrelevant. Kill one man and you're a murderer.
Kill a whole battalion and you're a hero. Kill every man and
you're a god.

>You haven't attempted to verify that, either.


I have no need to verify your irrelevancies. You do.

>>>> There's no getting away
>>>> from that fact until you stop eating meat and go vegan.
>>>
>>> "Going 'vegan'" doesn't mean causing no deaths of animals.

>>
>> It will mean causing no deaths to farm animals. That's a fact.

>
> So, it's ethical for the food you eat to cause countless deaths of small
> field animals, but not ethical to slaughter meat animals? How could
> that be?


Intent. Look it up.

>>>> There's only a small chance that animals were killed to produce my food.
>>>
>>> There is a 100% certainty that animals were harmed, including being
>>> killed, in order to produce your food.

>>
>> No. I don't believe you.

>
> You just don't *want* to believe it.


I know as a fact that no animals were killed or harmed in
order to produce the vegetarian meal I ate this evening. I
also know as a fact that at least one animal was harmed and
killed mercilessly to produce the rotting corpse you ate today.


Pretty interesting - Woopert has
> been arguing for years that "vegans" are fully aware that animals are
> slaughtered in the course of producing vegetables, as a matter of
> course, and here you are to prove him wrong.
>

I don't deny that some animals are occasionally killed to produce
vegetables and fruit. What I reject is your claim that all vegetable
production causes it. I don't deny that some people are occasionally
killed in road incidents. What I would reject would be the claim that
all road trips kill people.
>
>> You're only saying that because you
>> want me to feel as guilty as you obviously do about the cruelty
>> and death on your plate.

>
> No, I don't want you to feel guilty about that at all. What I want is
> for you to abandon the disgusting pretense that you pursue a "cruelty
> free 'lifestyle'."


But it *IS* cruelty free on my part. If any animals are killed they
aren't killed because of my cruelty. You can't say the same.


"veganism is all about sanctimonious
> self-congratulation, and that alone makes it loathsome and immoral.


I do congratulate myself for having the strength to stand by my
convictions if that's what you mean. Yes. Meat eating is all about
greed and not having the strength to admit it, and that alone makes
it loathsome and immoral.

>
>>>> You don't want to acknowledge the huge difference between fact
>>>
>>> You have presented no "fact" that warrants any examination.

>>
>> It's a fact that eating meat causes the death of animals. It's not
>> a fact that eating vegetables and fruit causes the death of animals.

>
> It *is* a fact that farming vegetables and fruit causes the death of
> animals.


Then it should be easy for you to present your evidence to support
this /fact/ shouldn't it. I'm not just going to take your word on it. I
want facts supported by evidence.

> By the way, "eating" meat doesn't cause any deaths of animals - the meat
> is already dead.


You killed it. You want to pretend you didn't because your guilt
would suffocating you if you admitted it. You live in a delusion.

>>>> and plausibility because you want to make vegans feel as guilty
>>>> as you do for all the pain, misery and death on your plate.
>>>
>>> No

>>
>> Yes. I've seen this argument before from corpse eaters trying to
>> defend their cruelty by saying, "We're all killers, so leave me alone."

>
> I'm not trying to defend anything, although I can. What I'm doing is
> showing that your position is repulsive because it is a lie.


No but yours is. You don't believe you're responsible for the deaths
you cause and yet you want vegans to believe they're responsible
for the deaths they don't cause. Your position is repulsive because
it's a lie.

>> The deaths you cause are a necessary fact and unavoidable. The
>> deaths I /might/ cause are, by your own word, only "plausible" and
>> not a fact at all.

>
> No, the deaths you cause are a fact.


Evidence. You need evidence to support a fact. If you don't produce
evidence to support it I cannot accept it as fact.

>When I have written of
> plausibility, I have meant that it is plausible that a carefully chosen
> meat-including diet causes fewer deaths than the typical, and perhaps
> even *every*, "vegan" diet.


I know what you wrote, and that wasn't it.

>> If driving my car always caused misery and death I wouldn't
>> drive.

>
> Driving your car *does* always cause misery and death, but you keep
> right on driving. Or, does the carbon emitted from *your* car somehow
> not contribute to global warming, which is killing polar bears this very
> minute?


I don't believe that. You obviously do. So how does it feel to be
a murderer George? Why are you still emitting carbon while under
the understanding that it kills animals and no doubt people?

>
>> If driving my car held only the plausible chance of misery
>> and death, like it does, I would still drive.

>
> Driving your car causes misery and death. You simply close your eyes to
> it. You're a filthy hypocrite.


You're a murderer. Admit that you're a murderer. Denounce human
rights from the highest rooftop, you filthy hypocrite.

Glen 06-03-2012 01:20 AM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
On 05/03/2012 20:18, Dutch wrote:
> > wrote in message ...
>> On 05/03/2012 17:49, George Plimpton wrote:
>>> On 3/5/2012 9:36 AM, Glen wrote:
>>>> On 05/03/2012 15:42, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>> On 3/4/2012 9:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>>> snip
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't believe that I have any way of knowing how the number of
>>>>>> premature deaths caused per calorically equivalent serving of tofu
>>>>>> compares with that for grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.
>>>>>
>>>>> You know, intuitively and based on plausibility, that raising the
>>>>> vegetable crops you would have to substitute in order to get equivalent
>>>>> nutrition causes multiple CDs,and that 100% grass-fed beef or
>>>>> wild-caught fish causes none.
>>>>
>>>> Eating meat causes the death of animals.
>>>
>>> Cultivating, harvesting and distributing vegetables and fruits causes
>>> the deaths of animals, too.

>>
>> That isn't true. It /may/ cause some deaths but it isn't a fact that
>> it *WILL* cause them. Eating meat *WILL* cause them.
>>
>>>> There's no getting away
>>>> from that fact until you stop eating meat and go vegan.
>>>
>>> "Going 'vegan'" doesn't mean causing no deaths of animals.

>>
>> It will mean causing no deaths to farm animals. That's a fact.

>
> So what?


So that means a lot to me. I don't want to kill farm animals. The
surest way to stop killing them is to stop eating them.

>Does the life of a cow have more value than the life of a mouse?


No.

>>>> There's only a small chance that animals were killed to produce my food.
>>>
>>> There is a 100% certainty that animals were harmed, including being
>>> killed, in order to produce your food.

>>
>> No. I don't believe you. You're only saying that because you
>> want me to feel as guilty as you obviously do about the cruelty
>> and death on your plate.

>
> That's false, he feels no guilt about the deaths caused to bring him his
> food.


Yes he does but he won't admit it. He won't admit anything. He even
refuses to admit the deaths of the animals he eats.

"By the way, "eating" meat doesn't cause any deaths of
animals - the meat is already dead." - George

>The truth is that vegans, you, derive a perverse kick from trying to
> make non-vegans feel guilty.


But you *ARE* guilty. You can't escape that guilt.

> It doesn't work by the way


I think it does.

>>>> You don't want to acknowledge the huge difference between fact
>>>
>>> You have presented no "fact" that warrants any examination.

>>
>> It's a fact that eating meat causes the death of animals. It's not
>> a fact that eating vegetables and fruit causes the death of animals.

>
> It is a fact.


No it isn't.

>Fruit orchards are heavily sprayed with pesticides. Crop
> fields are sprayed with herbicides. Those are deadly chemicals. Machines
> used to till, spray and harvest also kill small animals, there have been
> studies done on that.


There's a plausible chance that some animals die in crop fields.
It's not a fact that all vegetable production kills animals.

>>>> and plausibility because you want to make vegans feel as guilty
>>>> as you do for all the pain, misery and death on your plate.
>>>
>>> No

>>
>> Yes. I've seen this argument before from corpse eaters

>
> How did it make you feel when you used that term? Do you think it made me
> feel guilty?


Yes but you're already racked with it anyway. You deserve it.

>> trying to
>> defend their cruelty by saying, "We're all killers,

>
> We are all killers of animals, full stop.


That proves my point. But my response is no, we are not all killers.

>I'm not saying that defend any
> cruelty,


Yes you are. Of course you are. You feed off the misery, pain,
blood and death of peaceful animals. You do it because you've
told yourself it's alright to do it because the animal can never
criticise you. You're now trying to get away from my criticism
by telling me I'm not in a position to criticise you because I'm
a killer as well. Well tough shit. I'm not a dumb animal and
I *DO* criticise you.

>> so leave me alone."
>> The deaths you cause are a necessary fact and unavoidable. The
>> deaths I /might/ cause are, by your own word, only "plausible" and
>> not a fact at all.

>
> They are a fact.


Not until it's supported by evidence.

>> If driving my car always caused misery and death I wouldn't
>> drive. If driving my car held only the plausible chance of misery
>> and death, like it does, I would still drive.

>
> You are misconstruing "plausible"


No I'm not.
plausible
1. having an appearance of truth or reason; seemingly worthy
of approval or acceptance
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/plausible

> The difference between
>> doing something which always causes death and something which
>> only plausibly causes death is huge. You know it is but you'll never
>> admit to it because your guilt stops you.

>
> The food you eat always causes misery and death to animals.


I don't believe you.

George Plimpton 06-03-2012 04:35 AM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
On 3/5/2012 3:47 PM, Glen wrote:
> On 05/03/2012 20:45, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 3/5/2012 11:16 AM, Glen wrote:
>>> On 05/03/2012 17:49, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 3/5/2012 9:36 AM, Glen wrote:
>>>>> On 05/03/2012 15:42, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/4/2012 9:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>> snip
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't believe that I have any way of knowing how the number of
>>>>>>> premature deaths caused per calorically equivalent serving of tofu
>>>>>>> compares with that for grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You know, intuitively and based on plausibility, that raising the
>>>>>> vegetable crops you would have to substitute in order to get
>>>>>> equivalent
>>>>>> nutrition causes multiple CDs,and that 100% grass-fed beef or
>>>>>> wild-caught fish causes none.
>>>>>
>>>>> Eating meat causes the death of animals.
>>>>
>>>> Cultivating, harvesting and distributing vegetables and fruits causes
>>>> the deaths of animals, too.
>>>
>>> That isn't true.

>>
>> It *is* true.

>
> No it isn't.


It is.


> Not in every case. It's a plausible effect but it isn't a
> certain fact that vegetarian food causes animal deaths. You want
> to make it a fact to make your guilt go away.


No, that's not the reason. I've told you the reason: to get you off
your phony moral pedestal.


>>> It /may/ cause some deaths

>>
>> It does.

>
> No it doesn't.


It does.


>>> but it isn't a fact that it *WILL* cause them.

>>
>> It is a fact.

>
> It's *your* fact.


It's a fact. It's a fact that is conceded by any "vegan" who has
seriously looked at it.


>> Of course, you have made *no* effort to verify.

>
> It's your claim and you haven't supported it with evidence.


You have made no serious effort to verify that the foods you eat cause
no death. You go to absurd, obscene lengths to ensure there isn't one
molecule of animal bits in your food - why won't you do *ANYTHING* to
ensure that your vegetables don't cause any death? You've done
*nothing* to ensure that.


>>> Eating meat *WILL* cause them.

>>
>> As many?

>
> Numbers are irrelevant.


They are? So, if you admit that *some* of your vegetables cause animal
death - and they do - then you're a murderer, right?

You didn't even read the article I linked to start the thread, did you?
You should read it:
http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/11419...-fails-and-one



>> You haven't attempted to verify that, either.

>
> I have no need to verify your irrelevancies.


You absolutely have a requirement to verify your claims. You claim your
diet doesn't cause any animal death. Prove it.


>>>>> There's no getting away
>>>>> from that fact until you stop eating meat and go vegan.
>>>>
>>>> "Going 'vegan'" doesn't mean causing no deaths of animals.
>>>
>>> It will mean causing no deaths to farm animals. That's a fact.

>>
>> So, it's ethical for the food you eat to cause countless deaths of small
>> field animals, but not ethical to slaughter meat animals? How could
>> that be?

>
> Intent.


Even involuntary manslaughter is a crime. Injuring or killing people
due to reckless endangerment and willful disregard for safety is a
crime. That's exactly what happens when farmers slaughter animals of
the field in the course of vegetable farming.

"vegans" claim they cause no harm to animals through their diets.
That's false.


>>>>> There's only a small chance that animals were killed to produce my
>>>>> food.
>>>>
>>>> There is a 100% certainty that animals were harmed, including being
>>>> killed, in order to produce your food.
>>>
>>> No. I don't believe you.

>>
>> You just don't *want* to believe it.

>
> I know as a fact that no animals were killed or harmed in
> order to produce the vegetarian meal I ate this evening.


You do *not* know that. Saying that you do is a lie.


>> Pretty interesting - Woopert has
>> been arguing for years that "vegans" are fully aware that animals are
>> slaughtered in the course of producing vegetables, as a matter of
>> course, and here you are to prove him wrong.
>>

> I don't deny that some animals are occasionally killed to produce
> vegetables and fruit. What I reject is your claim that all vegetable
> production causes it.


*Some* animals are killed by all vegetable production, including the
vegetables you eat. You don't even have any idea within the broad
category of vegetables which ones cause a lot of death and which ones
cause not so much. You can't be bothered. It isn't about the animals
at all - it's about you and your convenience and your casual,
unwarranted assumption of ethical superiority. In fact, your ethics is
shit.


>>> You're only saying that because you
>>> want me to feel as guilty as you obviously do about the cruelty
>>> and death on your plate.

>>
>> No, I don't want you to feel guilty about that at all. What I want is
>> for you to abandon the disgusting pretense that you pursue a "cruelty
>> free 'lifestyle'."

>
> But it *IS* cruelty free on my part.


No, it isn't. The fact you don't personally kill any animals is
irrelevant. Animals die to put food on your plate. *I* don't kill the
animals I eat, either, so I'm no more "cruel" than you are.


> If any animals are killed they
> aren't killed because of my cruelty. You can't say the same.


Of course I can. I don't kill any animals.

The simple fact is, you commission the deaths of animals. You willingly
and cheerfully buy food from farmers who kill animals with no concern at
all.


>
>
>> "veganism is all about sanctimonious
>> self-congratulation, and that alone makes it loathsome and immoral.

>
> I do congratulate myself for having the strength to stand by my
> convictions


You don't have any convictions. You are congratulating yourself for
following a morally empty rule. It's as morally empty as "chew 12 times
before swallowing." It's just a rule - no ethics behind it.


>>>>> You don't want to acknowledge the huge difference between fact
>>>>
>>>> You have presented no "fact" that warrants any examination.
>>>
>>> It's a fact that eating meat causes the death of animals. It's not
>>> a fact that eating vegetables and fruit causes the death of animals.

>>
>> It *is* a fact that farming vegetables and fruit causes the death of
>> animals.

>
> Then it should be easy for you to present your evidence to support
> this /fact/ shouldn't it.


http://web.archive.org/web/200411070...ood/vegan.html

From a former rice farmer:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt....o/GOmWEfsbmhAJ


>> By the way, "eating" meat doesn't cause any deaths of animals - the meat
>> is already dead.

>
> You killed it.


I didn't. Someone in a slaughterhouse did it.


> You want to pretend you didn't because your guilt
> would suffocating you if you admitted it.


Nope, no guilt. I've told you several times: I'm not trying to make
you feel guilty for the animal deaths you cause, and I'm not trying to
expiate any guilt of my own. I'm showing you that your absurd and
sanctimonious self-exaltation isn't warranted.


>
>>>>> and plausibility because you want to make vegans feel as guilty
>>>>> as you do for all the pain, misery and death on your plate.
>>>>
>>>> No, I want "vegans" to acknowledge that their belief system is flawed
>>>> beyond salvage. "veganism" is predicated on illogical nonsense.
>>>
>>> Yes. I've seen this argument before from corpse eaters trying to
>>> defend their cruelty by saying, "We're all killers, so leave me alone."

>>
>> I'm not trying to defend anything, although I can. What I'm doing is
>> showing that your position is repulsive because it is a lie.

>
> No but yours is.


It isn't. I don't lie about or try to conceal the deaths my diet
causes, but you do.


> You don't believe you're responsible for the deaths
> you cause


False. I cheerfully acknowledge them (can you guess why?)


> and yet you want vegans to believe they're responsible
> for the deaths they don't cause.


You *do* cause animal deaths. This is not in rational dispute.


>>> The deaths you cause are a necessary fact and unavoidable. The
>>> deaths I /might/ cause are, by your own word, only "plausible" and
>>> not a fact at all.

>>
>> No, the deaths you cause are a fact.

>
> Evidence.


http://www.tndeer.com/tndeertalk/ubb...156&page=32 0

See earlier citations. Steven Davis, the professor at Oregon State,
gave reliable estimates for field animal deaths.


>> When I have written of
>> plausibility, I have meant that it is plausible that a carefully chosen
>> meat-including diet causes fewer deaths than the typical, and perhaps
>> even *every*, "vegan" diet.

>
> I know what you wrote, and that wasn't it.


It was.


>>> If driving my car always caused misery and death I wouldn't
>>> drive.

>>
>> Driving your car *does* always cause misery and death, but you keep
>> right on driving. Or, does the carbon emitted from *your* car somehow
>> not contribute to global warming, which is killing polar bears this very
>> minute?

>
> I don't believe that.


What don't you believe - that driving your car contributes to global
warming? Don't be an idiot - of course it does!


>>
>>> If driving my car held only the plausible chance of misery
>>> and death, like it does, I would still drive.

>>
>> Driving your car causes misery and death. You simply close your eyes to
>> it. You're a filthy hypocrite.

>
> You're a murderer.


No, I'm a killer. So are you. But I admit it, while you frantically
and shrilly deny it.

George Plimpton 06-03-2012 05:01 AM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
On 3/5/2012 4:20 PM, Glen wrote:
> On 05/03/2012 20:18, Dutch wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 05/03/2012 17:49, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 3/5/2012 9:36 AM, Glen wrote:
>>>>> On 05/03/2012 15:42, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/4/2012 9:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>> snip
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't believe that I have any way of knowing how the number of
>>>>>>> premature deaths caused per calorically equivalent serving of tofu
>>>>>>> compares with that for grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You know, intuitively and based on plausibility, that raising the
>>>>>> vegetable crops you would have to substitute in order to get
>>>>>> equivalent
>>>>>> nutrition causes multiple CDs,and that 100% grass-fed beef or
>>>>>> wild-caught fish causes none.
>>>>>
>>>>> Eating meat causes the death of animals.
>>>>
>>>> Cultivating, harvesting and distributing vegetables and fruits causes
>>>> the deaths of animals, too.
>>>
>>> That isn't true. It /may/ cause some deaths but it isn't a fact that
>>> it *WILL* cause them. Eating meat *WILL* cause them.
>>>
>>>>> There's no getting away
>>>>> from that fact until you stop eating meat and go vegan.
>>>>
>>>> "Going 'vegan'" doesn't mean causing no deaths of animals.
>>>
>>> It will mean causing no deaths to farm animals. That's a fact.

>>
>> So what?

>
> So that means a lot to me. I don't want to kill farm animals. The
> surest way to stop killing them is to stop eating them.


So, if you kill animals and leave the corpses in the field to rot,
that's okay, but eating them is immoral? How does that work?


>
>> Does the life of a cow have more value than the life of a mouse?

>
> No.


So, why do you keep killing mice?


>>>>> There's only a small chance that animals were killed to produce my
>>>>> food.
>>>>
>>>> There is a 100% certainty that animals were harmed, including being
>>>> killed, in order to produce your food.
>>>
>>> No. I don't believe you. You're only saying that because you
>>> want me to feel as guilty as you obviously do about the cruelty
>>> and death on your plate.

>>
>> That's false, he feels no guilt about the deaths caused to bring him his
>> food.

>
> Yes he does but he won't admit it.


I do admit it.


> He even refuses to admit the deaths of the animals he eats.


Bullshit. Of course I admit them. What about it?


>
> "By the way, "eating" meat doesn't cause any deaths of
> animals - the meat is already dead." - George


That's correct: the *eating* doesn't cause the deaths. The meat is
already dead long before I buy it.


>> The truth is that vegans, you, derive a perverse kick from trying to
>> make non-vegans feel guilty.

>
> But you *ARE* guilty.


So are you.


> You can't escape that guilt.


Neither can you. The difference is, omnivores admit theirs. "vegans"
fatuously try to deny theirs, so they can continue to propagate the
fiction that they lead "cruelty-free" lives.


>
>> It doesn't work by the way

>
> I think it does.


It doesn't. Animals die so that you can eat. This is not in rational
dispute.


>>>>> You don't want to acknowledge the huge difference between fact
>>>>
>>>> You have presented no "fact" that warrants any examination.
>>>
>>> It's a fact that eating meat causes the death of animals. It's not
>>> a fact that eating vegetables and fruit causes the death of animals.

>>
>> It is a fact.

>
> No it isn't.


It is. Animals die in vegetable production.

http://www.tndeer.com/tndeertalk/ubb...156&page=32 0


>> Fruit orchards are heavily sprayed with pesticides. Crop
>> fields are sprayed with herbicides. Those are deadly chemicals. Machines
>> used to till, spray and harvest also kill small animals, there have been
>> studies done on that.

>
> There's a plausible chance that some animals die in crop fields.


It is a certainty.


> It's not a fact that all vegetable production kills animals.


It is a fact that vegetable production kills animals, and *you* don't
care to know which vegetables cause differing amounts of animal death.
You don't eat any animals, and that's good enough for you, but your
conclusion - that your diet doesn't cause any animals to die - is a lie.


>>>>> and plausibility because you want to make vegans feel as guilty
>>>>> as you do for all the pain, misery and death on your plate.
>>>>
>>>> No
>>>
>>> Yes. I've seen this argument before from corpse eaters

>>
>> How did it make you feel when you used that term? Do you think it made me
>> feel guilty?

>
> Yes but you're already racked with it anyway. You deserve it.


It didn't make him feel guilty at all.

What your use of the term did was prove your sanctimony, your view of
yourself as morally superior because you don't put animal parts in your
mouth - you leave them to rot in the field.


>>> trying to
>>> defend their cruelty by saying, "We're all killers,

>>
>> We are all killers of animals, full stop.

>
> That proves my point. But my response is no, we are not all killers.


Yes, "we" are, and that includes you. Your diet causes animal death -
not in rational dispute.


>> I'm not saying that defend any
>> cruelty,

>
> Yes you are.


He's not.


>>> so leave me alone."
>>> The deaths you cause are a necessary fact and unavoidable. The
>>> deaths I /might/ cause are, by your own word, only "plausible" and
>>> not a fact at all.

>>
>> They are a fact.

>
> Not until it's supported by evidence.


http://www.tndeer.com/tndeertalk/ubb...156&page=32 0
http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/pow...d-combine.html


>>> If driving my car always caused misery and death I wouldn't
>>> drive. If driving my car held only the plausible chance of misery
>>> and death, like it does, I would still drive.

>>
>> You are misconstruing "plausible"

>
> No I'm not.


You are.

What is plausible is that a meat-including diet could cause fewer animal
deaths that a typical "vegan" diet. What is a *fact* is that vegetable
agriculture causes animal death.


>> The difference between
>>> doing something which always causes death and something which
>>> only plausibly causes death is huge. You know it is but you'll never
>>> admit to it because your guilt stops you.

>>
>> The food you eat always causes misery and death to animals.

>
> I don't believe you.


You are closing your eyes to it, in order to try to sustain the myth of
your moral superiority, but it is nonetheless true.

George Plimpton 06-03-2012 05:08 AM

Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The'vegan' shuffle)
 
Woopert, "glen" here is a "vegan" who claims his diet doesn't kill *any*
animals. What do you have to say to him, Woopert?


On 3/5/2012 3:47 PM, Glen wrote:
> On 05/03/2012 20:45, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 3/5/2012 11:16 AM, Glen wrote:
>>> On 05/03/2012 17:49, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 3/5/2012 9:36 AM, Glen wrote:
>>>>> On 05/03/2012 15:42, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/4/2012 9:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>> snip
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't believe that I have any way of knowing how the number of
>>>>>>> premature deaths caused per calorically equivalent serving of tofu
>>>>>>> compares with that for grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You know, intuitively and based on plausibility, that raising the
>>>>>> vegetable crops you would have to substitute in order to get
>>>>>> equivalent
>>>>>> nutrition causes multiple CDs,and that 100% grass-fed beef or
>>>>>> wild-caught fish causes none.
>>>>>
>>>>> Eating meat causes the death of animals.
>>>>
>>>> Cultivating, harvesting and distributing vegetables and fruits causes
>>>> the deaths of animals, too.
>>>
>>> That isn't true.

>>
>> It *is* true.

>
> No it isn't. Not in every case. It's a plausible effect but it isn't a
> certain fact that vegetarian food causes animal deaths. You want
> to make it a fact to make your guilt go away.
>
>>> It /may/ cause some deaths

>>
>> It does.

>
> No it doesn't. Evidence please.
>
>>> but it isn't a fact that it *WILL* cause them.

>>
>> It is a fact.

>
> It's *your* fact. A /fact/ that needs evidence to support it.
>
>> Of course, you have made *no* effort to verify.

>
> It's your claim and you haven't supported it with evidence.
> Do your own work and don't blame anyone but yourself when
> you come back empty handed.
>>
>>> Eating meat *WILL* cause them.

>>
>> As many?

>
> Numbers are irrelevant. Kill one man and you're a murderer.
> Kill a whole battalion and you're a hero. Kill every man and
> you're a god.
>
>> You haven't attempted to verify that, either.

>
> I have no need to verify your irrelevancies. You do.
>
>>>>> There's no getting away
>>>>> from that fact until you stop eating meat and go vegan.
>>>>
>>>> "Going 'vegan'" doesn't mean causing no deaths of animals.
>>>
>>> It will mean causing no deaths to farm animals. That's a fact.

>>
>> So, it's ethical for the food you eat to cause countless deaths of small
>> field animals, but not ethical to slaughter meat animals? How could
>> that be?

>
> Intent. Look it up.
>
>>>>> There's only a small chance that animals were killed to produce my
>>>>> food.
>>>>
>>>> There is a 100% certainty that animals were harmed, including being
>>>> killed, in order to produce your food.
>>>
>>> No. I don't believe you.

>>
>> You just don't *want* to believe it.

>
> I know as a fact that no animals were killed or harmed in
> order to produce the vegetarian meal I ate this evening. I
> also know as a fact that at least one animal was harmed and
> killed mercilessly to produce the rotting corpse you ate today.
>
>
> Pretty interesting - Woopert has
>> been arguing for years that "vegans" are fully aware that animals are
>> slaughtered in the course of producing vegetables, as a matter of
>> course, and here you are to prove him wrong.
>>

> I don't deny that some animals are occasionally killed to produce
> vegetables and fruit. What I reject is your claim that all vegetable
> production causes it. I don't deny that some people are occasionally
> killed in road incidents. What I would reject would be the claim that
> all road trips kill people.
>>
>>> You're only saying that because you
>>> want me to feel as guilty as you obviously do about the cruelty
>>> and death on your plate.

>>
>> No, I don't want you to feel guilty about that at all. What I want is
>> for you to abandon the disgusting pretense that you pursue a "cruelty
>> free 'lifestyle'."

>
> But it *IS* cruelty free on my part. If any animals are killed they
> aren't killed because of my cruelty. You can't say the same.
>
>
> "veganism is all about sanctimonious
>> self-congratulation, and that alone makes it loathsome and immoral.

>
> I do congratulate myself for having the strength to stand by my
> convictions if that's what you mean. Yes. Meat eating is all about
> greed and not having the strength to admit it, and that alone makes
> it loathsome and immoral.
>
>>
>>>>> You don't want to acknowledge the huge difference between fact
>>>>
>>>> You have presented no "fact" that warrants any examination.
>>>
>>> It's a fact that eating meat causes the death of animals. It's not
>>> a fact that eating vegetables and fruit causes the death of animals.

>>
>> It *is* a fact that farming vegetables and fruit causes the death of
>> animals.

>
> Then it should be easy for you to present your evidence to support
> this /fact/ shouldn't it. I'm not just going to take your word on it. I
> want facts supported by evidence.
>
>> By the way, "eating" meat doesn't cause any deaths of animals - the meat
>> is already dead.

>
> You killed it. You want to pretend you didn't because your guilt
> would suffocating you if you admitted it. You live in a delusion.
>
>>>>> and plausibility because you want to make vegans feel as guilty
>>>>> as you do for all the pain, misery and death on your plate.
>>>>
>>>> No
>>>
>>> Yes. I've seen this argument before from corpse eaters trying to
>>> defend their cruelty by saying, "We're all killers, so leave me alone."

>>
>> I'm not trying to defend anything, although I can. What I'm doing is
>> showing that your position is repulsive because it is a lie.

>
> No but yours is. You don't believe you're responsible for the deaths
> you cause and yet you want vegans to believe they're responsible
> for the deaths they don't cause. Your position is repulsive because
> it's a lie.
>
>>> The deaths you cause are a necessary fact and unavoidable. The
>>> deaths I /might/ cause are, by your own word, only "plausible" and
>>> not a fact at all.

>>
>> No, the deaths you cause are a fact.

>
> Evidence. You need evidence to support a fact. If you don't produce
> evidence to support it I cannot accept it as fact.
>
>> When I have written of
>> plausibility, I have meant that it is plausible that a carefully chosen
>> meat-including diet causes fewer deaths than the typical, and perhaps
>> even *every*, "vegan" diet.

>
> I know what you wrote, and that wasn't it.
>
>>> If driving my car always caused misery and death I wouldn't
>>> drive.

>>
>> Driving your car *does* always cause misery and death, but you keep
>> right on driving. Or, does the carbon emitted from *your* car somehow
>> not contribute to global warming, which is killing polar bears this very
>> minute?

>
> I don't believe that. You obviously do. So how does it feel to be
> a murderer George? Why are you still emitting carbon while under
> the understanding that it kills animals and no doubt people?
>
>>
>>> If driving my car held only the plausible chance of misery
>>> and death, like it does, I would still drive.

>>
>> Driving your car causes misery and death. You simply close your eyes to
>> it. You're a filthy hypocrite.

>
> You're a murderer. Admit that you're a murderer. Denounce human
> rights from the highest rooftop, you filthy hypocrite.



George Plimpton 06-03-2012 06:23 AM

Farmers kill animals while harvesting - not in dispute
 
http://www.okrangelandswest.okstate..../NREM-5006.pdf

Rupert 06-03-2012 09:46 AM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
On Mar 5, 4:42*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:

> >>>>>>>> It's an insincere and time-wasting question.

>
> >>>>>>> So you appear to believe.

>
> >>>>>> Because it is.

>
> >>>>> You reckon?

>
> >>>> Guaranteed.

>
> >>> How do you know?

>
> >> I have lots of experience with your insincerity and time-wasting efforts.

>
> > I don't believe that I have any way of knowing how the number of
> > premature deaths caused per calorically equivalent serving of tofu
> > compares with that for grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.

>
> You know, intuitively and based on plausibility, that raising the
> vegetable crops you would have to substitute in order to get equivalent
> nutrition causes multiple CDs, and that 100% grass-fed beef or
> wild-caught fish causes none.


No. I don't know that my expected contribution to collateral deaths by
buying one serving of tofu is greater than one.

Rupert 06-03-2012 09:54 AM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
On Mar 5, 9:45*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/5/2012 11:16 AM, Glen wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 05/03/2012 17:49, George Plimpton wrote:
> >> On 3/5/2012 9:36 AM, Glen wrote:
> >>> On 05/03/2012 15:42, George Plimpton wrote:
> >>>> On 3/4/2012 9:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
> >>> snip

>
> >>>>> I don't believe that I have any way of knowing how the number of
> >>>>> premature deaths caused per calorically equivalent serving of tofu
> >>>>> compares with that for grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.

>
> >>>> You know, intuitively and based on plausibility, that raising the
> >>>> vegetable crops you would have to substitute in order to get equivalent
> >>>> nutrition causes multiple CDs,and that 100% grass-fed beef or
> >>>> wild-caught fish causes none.

>
> >>> Eating meat causes the death of animals.

>
> >> Cultivating, harvesting and distributing vegetables and fruits causes
> >> the deaths of animals, too.

>
> > That isn't true.

>
> It *is* true.
>
> > It /may/ cause some deaths

>
> It does.
>
> > but it isn't a fact that it *WILL* cause them.

>
> It is a fact. *Of course, you have made *no* effort to verify.
>
> > Eating meat *WILL* cause them.

>
> As many? *You haven't attempted to verify that, either.
>
> >>> There's no getting away
> >>> from that fact until you stop eating meat and go vegan.

>
> >> "Going 'vegan'" doesn't mean causing no deaths of animals.

>
> > It will mean causing no deaths to farm animals. That's a fact.

>
> So, it's ethical for the food you eat to cause countless deaths of small
> field animals, but not ethical to slaughter meat animals? *How could
> that be?
>
> >>> There's only a small chance that animals were killed to produce my food.

>
> >> There is a 100% certainty that animals were harmed, including being
> >> killed, in order to produce your food.

>
> > No. I don't believe you.

>
> You just don't *want* to believe it. *Pretty interesting - Woopert has
> been arguing for years that "vegans" are fully aware that animals are
> slaughtered in the course of producing vegetables, as a matter of
> course, and here you are to prove him wrong.
>


I never made that claim about all vegans. I do not claim to know what
proportion of vegans are aware of the collateral deaths issue. However
Derek, at least three of my friends, myself, Peter Singer, Gary
Francione, Joan Dunayer, are examples of vegans who are fully aware of
it. That is all I ever said.

> > You're only saying that because you
> > want me to feel as guilty as you obviously do about the cruelty
> > and death on your plate.

>
> No, I don't want you to feel guilty about that at all. *What I want is
> for you to abandon the disgusting pretense that you pursue a "cruelty
> free 'lifestyle'." *"veganism is all about sanctimonious
> self-congratulation, and that alone makes it loathsome and immoral.
>
> >>> You don't want to acknowledge the huge difference between fact

>
> >> You have presented no "fact" that warrants any examination.

>
> > It's a fact that eating meat causes the death of animals. It's not
> > a fact that eating vegetables and fruit causes the death of animals.

>
> It *is* a fact that farming vegetables and fruit causes the death of
> animals.
>
> By the way, "eating" meat doesn't cause any deaths of animals - the meat
> is already dead.
>
>
>
> >>> and plausibility because you want to make vegans feel as guilty
> >>> as you do for all the pain, misery and death on your plate.

>
> >> No

>
> > Yes. I've seen this argument before from corpse eaters trying to
> > defend their cruelty by saying, "We're all killers, so leave me alone."

>
> I'm not trying to defend anything, although I can. *What I'm doing is
> showing that your position is repulsive because it is a lie.
>
> > The deaths you cause are a necessary fact and unavoidable. The
> > deaths I /might/ cause are, by your own word, only "plausible" and
> > not a fact at all.

>
> No, the deaths you cause are a fact. *When I have written of
> plausibility, I have meant that it is plausible that a carefully chosen
> meat-including diet causes fewer deaths than the typical, and perhaps
> even *every*, "vegan" diet.
>
>
>
> > If driving my car always caused misery and death I wouldn't
> > drive.

>
> Driving your car *does* always cause misery and death, but you keep
> right on driving. *Or, does the carbon emitted from *your* car somehow
> not contribute to global warming, which is killing polar bears this very
> minute?
>


One of the interesting things about this is that if you accept driving
a car as an example of causing harm to animals, then you must also
acknowledge that carbon emissions will inevitably cause serious harm
to humans in the future. It's pretty plausible that you drive a car,
and if that's the case then you can't claim not to be engaging in
activity that causes harm to humans, if you wanted to make that claim.

> > If driving my car held only the plausible chance of misery
> > and death, like it does, I would still drive.

>
> Driving your car causes misery and death. *You simply close your eyes to
> it. *You're a filthy hypocrite.



Rupert 06-03-2012 09:57 AM

Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The'vegan' shuffle)
 
On Mar 6, 5:08*am, George Plimpton > 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.

Rupert 06-03-2012 10:01 AM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
On Mar 5, 8:22*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 09:35:17 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
> >On 2 Mrz., 16:43, Goo wrote:

>
> >> Forget about ****wit's lack of hard evidence. *You have to make a wholly
> >> implausible case to try to suggest that calorically equivalent servings
> >> of beef and rice have a collateral death toll that favors the rice.

>
> >I never said anything about rice.

>
> * * We were discussing soy because I am overly generous, just as I also was with
> the estimate of 5 deaths related to a type of animal that is often likely to
> produce none.
>
> >But I also don't have any idea about what could be said about
> >calorically equivalent servings of beef and rice, either.

>
> * * Rice would necessarily involve even more than soy. If you figure up the
> difference between grass raised milk and rice milk the difference would be even
> more huge in favor of the cow milk. HUGE!!!
>
> >> *Now
> >> I get the pleasure once again of telling you what you do and don't
> >> believe, because I know: *you do not believe that the rice causes fewer
> >> CDs than the beef.

>
> >No, I don't. I lack a belief one way or the other, because I have no
> >evidence one way or the other.

>
> * * In some cases soy causes more and in some beef causes more. Can you get that
> far along with it, doctor?
>


If that is the case, then it seems unlikely that, as you claimed, one
serving of soy product is likely to involve hundreds of times as many
death as a calorically equivalent serving of grass-fed beef. So you
should stop making that claim.

> >(I assume you're talking about fully grass-fed beef, by the way, the
> >cattle are put out to pasture the whole year round. Yes?)

>
> * * Start with that.
>
> >In any case I never said anything about rice. I was talking about
> >tofu.

>
> * * It looks like we're on rice too now. Rice is *worse then either.. It's
> probably the worst of all. What could be worse? How?
>
> >> *You just don't believe it, and we all know you don't
> >> believe it.

>
> >I don't have any opinion one way or the other, because I don't have
> >sufficient information.

>
> * * Sometimes beef will involve more and sometimes the soy will.
>
> >Suppose I wanted to go about buying some beef which had a smaller CD
> >count per serving than a typical calorically equivalent serving of
> >rice. How exactly would you suggest I go about doing that, given that
> >I live in the European Union at the moment? How would I be sure that
> >the beef was not partially grain-fed?

>
> * * Go inquire from some cattle farmers in the area. If they don't have any to
> sell you, or know anyone who does, they could still help you move in the
> direction of finding someone who does know. While you're around the cattle see
> if the farmer will let you observe them a little bit, and if so see if you can
> appreciate that some or all of them appear to have lives of positive value, or
> if you see some you feel do and some you feel don't maybe then you could learn
> to appreciate the distinction. That is if you want to see it first hand as you
> SHOULD! If there are any grass raised dairys in the area you would almost
> certainly do better to begin with that, and it's better than beef anyway
> ethically. So a great opportunity for you is to drop by a dairy farm probably in
> the evening around 4 or 5 or in the morning when there are people around
> milking, and ask them if any dairies in the area are grass raised. Also if there
> is some sort of agricultural department in your area or someplace not too far
> away you should call them and they might be able to tell you where to get grass
> raised animal products and free range eggs too. If you could go to a battery
> farm and ask them where to get cage free eggs, and see if they would let you
> look at the birds to see what you think, then go to the cage free place or a
> place where they raise the parents of either broilers or layers (because the
> parents are kept cage free for better breeding) and see what you think. If you
> do that successfully even you might learn to appreciate a distinction you as yet
> claim to be unable to.



Rupert 06-03-2012 10:01 AM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
On Mar 5, 8:07*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 03:43:46 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 1 Mrz., 23:46, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:36:50 -0800, Goo wrote:
> >> >"veganism" is not a reliable means

>
> >> * · 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.

>
> >You keep on making this claim over and over again, just as you have
> >for at least six years, but when challenged to provide actual evidence
> >for it you are unable to provide any.

>
> >If you were able to provide evidence for it, you would. One can only
> >conclude that you are making the claim in the absence of any real
> >evidence.

>
> * * If we factor in all by-products and divide the deaths among them TOO it
> comes out to a much smaller number than if we don't.


This is false; you obviously lack the capacity to understand why.

> If we don't but only factor
> in servings of human quality food as we SHOULD, then the number per serving goes
> up for food and becomes N/A for things made from byproducts, but the number per
> serving still stays at probably *around 100 times less. How many deaths per
> serving of tofu did you estimate, do you remember?
>


I never gave an estimate for that.

>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Grass raised animal products
> >> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
> >> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·



Glen 06-03-2012 01:35 PM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
On 06/03/2012 03:35, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 3/5/2012 3:47 PM, Glen wrote:
>> On 05/03/2012 20:45, George Plimpton wrote:
>>> On 3/5/2012 11:16 AM, Glen wrote:
>>>> On 05/03/2012 17:49, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>> On 3/5/2012 9:36 AM, Glen wrote:
>>>>>> On 05/03/2012 15:42, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/4/2012 9:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>> snip
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't believe that I have any way of knowing how the number of
>>>>>>>> premature deaths caused per calorically equivalent serving of tofu
>>>>>>>> compares with that for grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You know, intuitively and based on plausibility, that raising the
>>>>>>> vegetable crops you would have to substitute in order to get
>>>>>>> equivalent
>>>>>>> nutrition causes multiple CDs,and that 100% grass-fed beef or
>>>>>>> wild-caught fish causes none.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Eating meat causes the death of animals.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cultivating, harvesting and distributing vegetables and fruits causes
>>>>> the deaths of animals, too.
>>>>
>>>> That isn't true.
>>>
>>> It *is* true.

>>
>> No it isn't.

>
> It is.
>
>
>> Not in every case. It's a plausible effect but it isn't a
>> certain fact that vegetarian food causes animal deaths. You want
>> to make it a fact to make your guilt go away.

>
> No, that's not the reason.


Yes it is. You're racked with guilt.

>>>> It /may/ cause some deaths
>>>
>>> It does.

>>
>> No it doesn't.

>
> It does.
>
>
>>>> but it isn't a fact that it *WILL* cause them.
>>>
>>> It is a fact.

>>
>> It's *your* fact.

>
> It's a fact.


No it's only your baseless fact.


It's a fact that is conceded by any "vegan" who has
> seriously looked at it.
>
>
>>> Of course, you have made *no* effort to verify.

>>
>> It's your claim and you haven't supported it with evidence.

>
> You have made no serious effort to verify that the foods you eat cause
> no death.


It's your claim that every food I eat causes animal deaths in crop
production. You haven't supported that claim. It's baseless and it's
not my job to support your baseless claims. Do your own work.

>>>> Eating meat *WILL* cause them.
>>>
>>> As many?

>>
>> Numbers are irrelevant.

>
> They are? So, if you admit that *some* of your vegetables cause animal
> death - and they do - then you're a murderer, right?


No. If I personally killed them or paid a food producer to kill them
on my behalf then yes I would be a murderer like you. I or rather
Derek explained this to you last time I was here.
__________________________________________________ ____
Meat eaters who fail to justify the deaths accrued during the
production of their food often try to head off any criticism from
vegans by demanding that they too must accept liability for the deaths
accrued during the production of their food. Farmers, they say, who
kill animals collaterally while producing vegetables, are under the
employ of vegetarians, just as farmers who kill animals to produce
meat are under the employ of meat eaters. The liability for these
animal deaths in both food groups is identical, they say, and the
vegan therefore has no grounds for criticising the meat eater. But
this is a dishonest argument which relies on ignoring the relationship
between the consumer (employer) and the farmer (employee). Unlike the
servant or agent who acts directly under his employer's dictates, the
farmer is an independent contractor who carries out his job according
to his own method. From Wiki;

[Historical tests centered around finding control between a supposed
employer and an employee, in a form of master and servant
relationship. The roots for such a test can be found in Yewens v
Noakes, where Bramwell LJ stated that:

"...a servant is a person who is subject to the command of his
master as to the manner in which he shall do his work."

The control test effectively imposed liability where an employer
dictated both what work was to be done, and how it was to be done.
This is aptly suited for situations where precise instructions are
given by an employer; it can clearly be seen that the employer is the
causal link for any harm which follows. If on the other hand an
employer does not determine how an act should be carried out, then the
relationship would instead be one of employer and independent
contractor. This distinction was explained by Slesser LJ:
"It is well established as a general rule of English law that an
employer is not liable for the acts of his independent contractor in
the same way as he is for the acts of his servants or agents, even
though these acts are done in carrying out the work for his benefit
under the contract. The determination whether the actual wrongdoer is
a servant or agent on the one hand or an independent contractor on the
other depends on whether or not the employer not only determines what
is to be done, but retains the control of the actual performance, in
which case the doer is a servant or agent; but if the employer, while
prescribing the work to be done, leaves the manner of doing it to the
control of the doer, the latter is an independent contractor."]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicario...in_English_law

Unlike the meat eater who demands the death of animals for his food,
vegans do not command their employers to kill animals during the
production of their vegetables. The farmers they employ are not their
agents or servants subject to their commands as to the manner in which
they shall do their work. The relationship between the farmer and the
consumer is merely one of employer and independent contractor. Unlike
the vegan, meat eaters cannot escape criticism for the deaths accrued
during the production of their food, and trying to foist liability for
collateral deaths accrued during vegetable production onto vegans to
head off that criticism is a dishonest tactic long made plain by me
many years ago here on these animal-related forums.
__________________________________________________ ___

> You didn't even read the article I linked to start the thread, did you?
> You should read it:
> http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/11419...-fails-and-one


That's the position of a broken vegan. Not a genuine one.

>>> You haven't attempted to verify that, either.

>>
>> I have no need to verify your irrelevancies.

>
> You absolutely have a requirement to verify your claims. You claim your
> diet doesn't cause any animal death. Prove it.


I never made that claim. I don't deny that /some/ animals die. You claim
that animals die during the production of everything I eat. That's what I
deny and I'll keep denying it until you provide evidence to support your
baseless claim. Are we clear on that now?
>
>>>>>> There's no getting away
>>>>>> from that fact until you stop eating meat and go vegan.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Going 'vegan'" doesn't mean causing no deaths of animals.
>>>>
>>>> It will mean causing no deaths to farm animals. That's a fact.
>>>
>>> So, it's ethical for the food you eat to cause countless deaths of small
>>> field animals, but not ethical to slaughter meat animals? How could
>>> that be?

>>
>> Intent.

>
> Even involuntary manslaughter is a crime.


I'm not even guilty of that. Read Derek's post.

>>>>>> There's only a small chance that animals were killed to produce my
>>>>>> food.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a 100% certainty that animals were harmed, including being
>>>>> killed, in order to produce your food.
>>>>
>>>> No. I don't believe you.
>>>
>>> You just don't *want* to believe it.

>>
>> I know as a fact that no animals were killed or harmed in
>> order to produce the vegetarian meal I ate this evening.

>
> You do *not* know that. Saying that you do is a lie.


I live on a farm in the middle of a very large farming community.
It's my father's farm and his father's before him. It's not a proper
working farm any more because he had a stroke about 2 years ago.
My sister and her husband keep some of it going but it's nothing
like it was. We've sold all the machinery and will sell the farm
when he dies. When I say no animals died during the production
of my food it's a fact.

>>> Pretty interesting - Woopert has
>>> been arguing for years that "vegans" are fully aware that animals are
>>> slaughtered in the course of producing vegetables, as a matter of
>>> course, and here you are to prove him wrong.
>>>

>> I don't deny that some animals are occasionally killed to produce
>> vegetables and fruit. What I reject is your claim that all vegetable
>> production causes it.

>
> *Some* animals are killed by all vegetable production,


Yes, *some* sometimes but not all times.


flushed

>> If any animals are killed they
>> aren't killed because of my cruelty. You can't say the same.

>
> Of course I can. I don't kill any animals.


Yes you do. I don't though. You can't say the same.

> The simple fact is, you commission the deaths of animals.


No you do. I don't.


>>> "veganism is all about sanctimonious
>>> self-congratulation, and that alone makes it loathsome and immoral.

>>
>> I do congratulate myself for having the strength to stand by my
>> convictions

>
> You don't have any convictions.


Yes I do and I live by them.

You are congratulating yourself for
> following a morally empty rule. It's as morally empty as "chew 12 times
> before swallowing." It's just a rule - no ethics behind it.
>
>
>>>>>> You don't want to acknowledge the huge difference between fact
>>>>>
>>>>> You have presented no "fact" that warrants any examination.
>>>>
>>>> It's a fact that eating meat causes the death of animals. It's not
>>>> a fact that eating vegetables and fruit causes the death of animals.
>>>
>>> It *is* a fact that farming vegetables and fruit causes the death of
>>> animals.

>>
>> Then it should be easy for you to present your evidence to support
>> this /fact/ shouldn't it.

>
> http://web.archive.org/web/200411070...ood/vegan.html


Davis' guesswork was debunked years ago. http://jgmatheny.org/matheny%202003.pdf

> From a former rice farmer:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt....o/GOmWEfsbmhAJ


I read that /story/ and then read the comments underneath it.
__________________________________________________ __________
This is seven year old uncorroborated hearsay, from a hunter, come book
seller called Robert (Bob) A Sykes. - It has no validity.
__________________________________________________ ______________
"There is an "article" circulating on the Internet that describes how
thousands of frogs and other animals are killed in the mechanized
harvesting of grain crops. This "collateral animal deaths" story is an
elaborate hoax. The author, a "Texas organic rice farmer" is a gifted
writer, but he should use his talents elsewhere.

The author's numbers describe a plague of frogs of biblical
proportions. However, it is questionable if he has even been on a rice
farm. The major point that our author has missed is that rice fields
are harvested dry. The irrigation water is drained, and the ground is
left to dry before the harvesters go out in the field (otherwise, they'd
sink in the mud). There just aren't that many amphibians in the field.

Regrettably, there probably are some small animal deaths. However,
the number of deaths in a mile of rice harvesting pales in comparison to
the road kill on a mile of highway. Harvesters move slowly, and they
are not the high speed machines described in this article.

At Lundberg Family Farms, we care deeply for the animals that we share
our fields with. For example, every spring before field work begins, we
search the fields for nests, rescuing eggs for a local incubation
centers (mature pairs re-nest when the nests are disturbed like this).
After hatching, the fledglings are raised and released back into the
wild. Last year, we rescued over 3,000 duck eggs. After harvest, we
flood our fields to provide habitat for winter migratory birds and
waterfowl. They eat the rice that is left in the fields and contribute
fertilizer for next spring. There are autumn days when the sky is
blackened by canadian geese (and the sound is beautiful)! We see ducks,
geese, cranes, rails, pheasants, egrets, herons, swans, and even bald
eagles resting in our fields.

We are committed to sustainable and organic farming techniques. We
see our farming operation as a "partnership with nature," and would
not continue if rice harvesting resulted in the "death toll" that this hoax
suggests.

--> Kent Lundberg.

Kent Lundberg
Lundberg Family Farms
http://www.lundberg.com
__________________________________________________ ________

An elaborate hoax.

<flushed>

Glen 06-03-2012 01:47 PM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
On 06/03/2012 04:01, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 3/5/2012 4:20 PM, Glen wrote:
>> On 05/03/2012 20:18, Dutch wrote:
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 05/03/2012 17:49, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>> On 3/5/2012 9:36 AM, Glen wrote:
>>>>>> On 05/03/2012 15:42, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/4/2012 9:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>> snip
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't believe that I have any way of knowing how the number of
>>>>>>>> premature deaths caused per calorically equivalent serving of tofu
>>>>>>>> compares with that for grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You know, intuitively and based on plausibility, that raising the
>>>>>>> vegetable crops you would have to substitute in order to get
>>>>>>> equivalent
>>>>>>> nutrition causes multiple CDs,and that 100% grass-fed beef or
>>>>>>> wild-caught fish causes none.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Eating meat causes the death of animals.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cultivating, harvesting and distributing vegetables and fruits causes
>>>>> the deaths of animals, too.
>>>>
>>>> That isn't true. It /may/ cause some deaths but it isn't a fact that
>>>> it *WILL* cause them. Eating meat *WILL* cause them.
>>>>
>>>>>> There's no getting away
>>>>>> from that fact until you stop eating meat and go vegan.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Going 'vegan'" doesn't mean causing no deaths of animals.
>>>>
>>>> It will mean causing no deaths to farm animals. That's a fact.
>>>
>>> So what?

>>
>> So that means a lot to me. I don't want to kill farm animals. The
>> surest way to stop killing them is to stop eating them.

>
> So, if you kill animals and leave the corpses in the field to rot,


I don't kill them.

>>> Does the life of a cow have more value than the life of a mouse?

>>
>> No.

>
> So, why do you keep killing mice?


I don't.

>>>>>> There's only a small chance that animals were killed to produce my
>>>>>> food.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is a 100% certainty that animals were harmed, including being
>>>>> killed, in order to produce your food.
>>>>
>>>> No. I don't believe you. You're only saying that because you
>>>> want me to feel as guilty as you obviously do about the cruelty
>>>> and death on your plate.
>>>
>>> That's false, he feels no guilt about the deaths caused to bring him his
>>> food.

>>
>> Yes he does but he won't admit it.

>
> I do admit it.


No you don't. You said that meat eating doesn't cause them
because they're dead already - killed by someone else.
>
>> He even refuses to admit the deaths of the animals he eats.

>
> Bullshit. Of course I admit them. What about it?


They're dead before you eat them and you believe that
takes away your guilt. You won't admit that you killed
them and that you're to blame.

>> "By the way, "eating" meat doesn't cause any deaths of
>> animals - the meat is already dead." - George

>
> That's correct: the *eating* doesn't cause the deaths. The meat is
> already dead long before I buy it.


Then the eating of vegetables doesn't cause any deaths. The
animals are already dead long before I buy my food. You said
it.

>>> The truth is that vegans, you, derive a perverse kick from trying to
>>> make non-vegans feel guilty.

>>
>> But you *ARE* guilty.

>
> So are you.


No. You are.

>> You can't escape that guilt.

>
> Neither can you.


I don't have any guilt to escape from.

>The difference is, omnivores admit theirs.


No they/you say that the animals are dead already before they eat
them. That's not admitting your death count.

> "vegans"
> fatuously try to deny theirs, so they can continue to propagate the
> fiction that they lead "cruelty-free" lives.


There's nothing to deny. Vegans don't kill them.

>>>>>> You don't want to acknowledge the huge difference between fact
>>>>>
>>>>> You have presented no "fact" that warrants any examination.
>>>>
>>>> It's a fact that eating meat causes the death of animals. It's not
>>>> a fact that eating vegetables and fruit causes the death of animals.
>>>
>>> It is a fact.

>>
>> No it isn't.

>
> It is. Animals die in vegetable production.
>
> http://www.tndeer.com/tndeertalk/ubb...156&page=32 0


Yes they do occasionally die but not in the numbers I've seen
reported here.

>>> Fruit orchards are heavily sprayed with pesticides. Crop
>>> fields are sprayed with herbicides. Those are deadly chemicals. Machines
>>> used to till, spray and harvest also kill small animals, there have been
>>> studies done on that.

>>
>> There's a plausible chance that some animals die in crop fields.

>
> It is a certainty.


No that's not true. I don't believe that. The deaths you're talking
about are merely /plausible./ (having an appearance of truth or
reason; seemingly worthy of approval or acceptance) You said
it yourself. You admitted it.

>> It's not a fact that all vegetable production kills animals.

>
> It is a fact that vegetable production kills animals,


I've never denied that they occasionally die. What I deny is
your baseless assertion that animal deaths are involved in
every vegetarian meal I eat.There's a very good chance that
the food I eat has no deaths attached to it at all. You can't
say the same. You *demand* animal deaths at every meal
unless it's a vegetarian one.

<flush>

Glen 06-03-2012 01:55 PM

Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The'vegan' shuffle)
 
On 06/03/2012 08:57, 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.


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

Rupert 06-03-2012 02:54 PM

Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The'vegan' shuffle)
 
On Mar 6, 1:55*pm, Glen > wrote:
> On 06/03/2012 08:57, 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.

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


Well, suffering and death have to take place to produce your food, as
long as you acknowledge that that's fine.

Glen 06-03-2012 03:07 PM

Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The'vegan' shuffle)
 
On 06/03/2012 13:54, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 6, 1:55 pm, > wrote:
>> On 06/03/2012 08:57, 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.

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

>
> Well, suffering and death have to take place to produce your food, as
> long as you acknowledge that that's fine.


It may be the case that some animals die but I don't believe
they /have/ to die. I live on a farm and since my father's stroke
about two years ago my sister and her husband keep a relatively
small part of it going without killing animals to produce vegetables
and fruits all year round. If they can do it so can others. I'm not
interested in keeping it going. I just want to get rid of it.

Rupert 06-03-2012 04:18 PM

Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The'vegan' shuffle)
 
On Mar 6, 3:07*pm, Glen > wrote:
> On 06/03/2012 13:54, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On Mar 6, 1:55 pm, > *wrote:
> >> On 06/03/2012 08:57, 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.

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

>
> > Well, suffering and death have to take place to produce your food, as
> > long as you acknowledge that that's fine.

>
> It may be the case that some animals die but I don't believe
> they /have/ to die. I live on a farm and since my father's stroke
> about two years ago my sister and her husband keep a relatively
> small part of it going without killing animals to produce vegetables
> and fruits all year round. If they can do it so can others. I'm not
> interested in keeping it going. I just want to get rid of it.


It's not very realistic to think that food that you buy at the
supermarket would have been produced without causing suffering and
death.

George Plimpton 06-03-2012 04:52 PM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
On 3/6/2012 12:46 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 5, 4:42 pm, George > wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>> It's an insincere and time-wasting question.

>>
>>>>>>>>> So you appear to believe.

>>
>>>>>>>> Because it is.

>>
>>>>>>> You reckon?

>>
>>>>>> Guaranteed.

>>
>>>>> How do you know?

>>
>>>> I have lots of experience with your insincerity and time-wasting efforts.

>>
>>> I don't believe that I have any way of knowing how the number of
>>> premature deaths caused per calorically equivalent serving of tofu
>>> compares with that for grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.

>>
>> You know, intuitively and based on plausibility, that raising the
>> vegetable crops you would have to substitute in order to get equivalent
>> nutrition causes multiple CDs, and that 100% grass-fed beef or
>> wild-caught fish causes none.

>
> No. I don't know that my expected contribution to collateral deaths by
> buying one serving of tofu is greater than one.


Of course you do. You can't *NOT* know it.


George Plimpton 06-03-2012 04:54 PM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
On 3/6/2012 12:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 5, 9:45 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 3/5/2012 11:16 AM, Glen wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 05/03/2012 17:49, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 3/5/2012 9:36 AM, Glen wrote:
>>>>> On 05/03/2012 15:42, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/4/2012 9:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>> snip

>>
>>>>>>> I don't believe that I have any way of knowing how the number of
>>>>>>> premature deaths caused per calorically equivalent serving of tofu
>>>>>>> compares with that for grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.

>>
>>>>>> You know, intuitively and based on plausibility, that raising the
>>>>>> vegetable crops you would have to substitute in order to get equivalent
>>>>>> nutrition causes multiple CDs,and that 100% grass-fed beef or
>>>>>> wild-caught fish causes none.

>>
>>>>> Eating meat causes the death of animals.

>>
>>>> Cultivating, harvesting and distributing vegetables and fruits causes
>>>> the deaths of animals, too.

>>
>>> That isn't true.

>>
>> It *is* true.
>>
>>> It /may/ cause some deaths

>>
>> It does.
>>
>>> but it isn't a fact that it *WILL* cause them.

>>
>> It is a fact. Of course, you have made *no* effort to verify.
>>
>>> Eating meat *WILL* cause them.

>>
>> As many? You haven't attempted to verify that, either.
>>
>>>>> There's no getting away
>>>>> from that fact until you stop eating meat and go vegan.

>>
>>>> "Going 'vegan'" doesn't mean causing no deaths of animals.

>>
>>> It will mean causing no deaths to farm animals. That's a fact.

>>
>> So, it's ethical for the food you eat to cause countless deaths of small
>> field animals, but not ethical to slaughter meat animals? How could
>> that be?
>>
>>>>> There's only a small chance that animals were killed to produce my food.

>>
>>>> There is a 100% certainty that animals were harmed, including being
>>>> killed, in order to produce your food.

>>
>>> No. I don't believe you.

>>
>> You just don't *want* to believe it. Pretty interesting - Woopert has
>> been arguing for years that "vegans" are fully aware that animals are
>> slaughtered in the course of producing vegetables, as a matter of
>> course, and here you are to prove him wrong.
>>

>
> I never made that claim about all vegans.


You have said that "vegans" - always put that word in quotes - generally
are aware of and do not dispute the fact that farming causes collateral
animal deaths. "glen" is an example of a "vegan" in raging denial.
Correct him, please.


>>> You're only saying that because you
>>> want me to feel as guilty as you obviously do about the cruelty
>>> and death on your plate.

>>
>> No, I don't want you to feel guilty about that at all. What I want is
>> for you to abandon the disgusting pretense that you pursue a "cruelty
>> free 'lifestyle'." "veganism is all about sanctimonious
>> self-congratulation, and that alone makes it loathsome and immoral.
>>
>>>>> You don't want to acknowledge the huge difference between fact

>>
>>>> You have presented no "fact" that warrants any examination.

>>
>>> It's a fact that eating meat causes the death of animals. It's not
>>> a fact that eating vegetables and fruit causes the death of animals.

>>
>> It *is* a fact that farming vegetables and fruit causes the death of
>> animals.
>>
>> By the way, "eating" meat doesn't cause any deaths of animals - the meat
>> is already dead.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> and plausibility because you want to make vegans feel as guilty
>>>>> as you do for all the pain, misery and death on your plate.

>>
>>>> No

>>
>>> Yes. I've seen this argument before from corpse eaters trying to
>>> defend their cruelty by saying, "We're all killers, so leave me alone."

>>
>> I'm not trying to defend anything, although I can. What I'm doing is
>> showing that your position is repulsive because it is a lie.
>>
>>> The deaths you cause are a necessary fact and unavoidable. The
>>> deaths I /might/ cause are, by your own word, only "plausible" and
>>> not a fact at all.

>>
>> No, the deaths you cause are a fact. When I have written of
>> plausibility, I have meant that it is plausible that a carefully chosen
>> meat-including diet causes fewer deaths than the typical, and perhaps
>> even *every*, "vegan" diet.
>>
>>
>>
>>> If driving my car always caused misery and death I wouldn't
>>> drive.

>>
>> Driving your car *does* always cause misery and death, but you keep
>> right on driving. Or, does the carbon emitted from *your* car somehow
>> not contribute to global warming, which is killing polar bears this very
>> minute?
>>

>
> One of the interesting things about this is that if you accept driving
> a car as an example of causing harm to animals, then you must also
> acknowledge that carbon emissions will inevitably cause serious harm
> to humans in the future.


More likely than not, yes.


> It's pretty plausible that you drive a car,
> and if that's the case then you can't claim not to be engaging in
> activity that causes harm to humans, if you wanted to make that claim.


I never made such a claim.


>>> If driving my car held only the plausible chance of misery
>>> and death, like it does, I would still drive.

>>
>> Driving your car causes misery and death. You simply close your eyes to
>> it. You're a filthy hypocrite.

>



George Plimpton 06-03-2012 04:56 PM

Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The'vegan' shuffle)
 
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?

Well, "glen", there you go. Rupert McCallum, the "smartest 'vegan' in
Usenet" - he has a Ph.D. in mathematics, you know - is telling you that
your "vegan 'lifestyle'" does indeed cause harm to animals; no doubt
about it. You do not live a "cruelty-free 'lifestyle'" by any stretch
of the imagination.

George Plimpton 06-03-2012 05:27 PM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
On 3/6/2012 4:35 AM, Glen wrote:
> On 06/03/2012 03:35, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 3/5/2012 3:47 PM, Glen wrote:
>>> On 05/03/2012 20:45, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 3/5/2012 11:16 AM, Glen wrote:
>>>>> On 05/03/2012 17:49, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/5/2012 9:36 AM, Glen wrote:
>>>>>>> On 05/03/2012 15:42, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/4/2012 9:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> snip
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't believe that I have any way of knowing how the number of
>>>>>>>>> premature deaths caused per calorically equivalent serving of tofu
>>>>>>>>> compares with that for grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You know, intuitively and based on plausibility, that raising the
>>>>>>>> vegetable crops you would have to substitute in order to get
>>>>>>>> equivalent
>>>>>>>> nutrition causes multiple CDs,and that 100% grass-fed beef or
>>>>>>>> wild-caught fish causes none.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Eating meat causes the death of animals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cultivating, harvesting and distributing vegetables and fruits causes
>>>>>> the deaths of animals, too.
>>>>>
>>>>> That isn't true.
>>>>
>>>> It *is* true.
>>>
>>> No it isn't.

>>
>> It is.
>>
>>
>>> Not in every case. It's a plausible effect but it isn't a
>>> certain fact that vegetarian food causes animal deaths. You want
>>> to make it a fact to make your guilt go away.

>>
>> No, that's not the reason.

>
> Yes it is.


No. You are wrong, again.


>>>>> It /may/ cause some deaths
>>>>
>>>> It does.
>>>
>>> No it doesn't.

>>
>> It does.
>>
>>
>>>>> but it isn't a fact that it *WILL* cause them.
>>>>
>>>> It is a fact.
>>>
>>> It's *your* fact.

>>
>> It's a fact.

>
> No it's only


It's a fact, "glen". Rupert has confirmed it for you. Listen to him.


>> It's a fact that is conceded by any "vegan" who has
>> seriously looked at it.


Ask Rupert, "glen".


>>>> Of course, you have made *no* effort to verify.
>>>
>>> It's your claim and you haven't supported it with evidence.

>>
>> You have made no serious effort to verify that the foods you eat cause
>> no death.

>
> It's your claim that every food I eat causes animal deaths in crop
> production.


It is *your* claim that they don't. Prove it.


>>>>> Eating meat *WILL* cause them.
>>>>
>>>> As many?
>>>
>>> Numbers are irrelevant.

>>
>> They are? So, if you admit that *some* of your vegetables cause animal
>> death - and they do - then you're a murderer, right?

>
> No. If I personally killed them or paid a food producer to kill them
> on my behalf then yes I would be a murderer like you.


Sorry, you commission the deaths. Not in dispute.


>
>> You didn't even read the article I linked to start the thread, did you?
>> You should read it:
>> http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/11419...-fails-and-one
>>

>
> That's the position of a broken vegan. Not a genuine one.


It's the untenable and fake moral position of *every* "vegan", "glen".
The *fact* of animal collateral deaths in agriculture - CDs - means that
"vegans" are not living a "cruelty free 'lifestyle'", as they all begin
by claiming, so they are *not* respecting so-called "animal rights".
The fact that a well-chosen meat-including diet can cause fewer CDs than
most "vegan" diets means they aren't minimizing their harm, so they are
not doing the best they could from a utilitarian perspective.

"glen", my boy, the problem here is that you have been caught out in the
worst possible hypocrisy, and your palpable anger and terror over this
is evidence of crippling cognitive dissonance. You just can't come to
grips with the fact - it is a *FACT*, "glen", my boy - that the easy,
*LAZY* claim you thought you established to moral superiority is deader
than a Texas salad bar.


>>>> You haven't attempted to verify that, either.
>>>
>>> I have no need to verify your irrelevancies.

>>
>> You absolutely have a requirement to verify your claims. You claim your
>> diet doesn't cause any animal death. Prove it.

>
> I never made that claim.


You did, you ****ing shit-4-braincell liar. You claimed to have eaten a
specific meal that caused no animal death or suffering:

"I know as a fact that no animals were killed or harmed in
order to produce the vegetarian meal I ate this evening."

You do *NOT* know that as a fact, you ****ing liar. You bought
commercially produced vegetables and whatever else you ate last night,
and you have no idea how it was produced. You lied.


>>>>>>> There's no getting away
>>>>>>> from that fact until you stop eating meat and go vegan.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Going 'vegan'" doesn't mean causing no deaths of animals.
>>>>>
>>>>> It will mean causing no deaths to farm animals. That's a fact.
>>>>
>>>> So, it's ethical for the food you eat to cause countless deaths of
>>>> small
>>>> field animals, but not ethical to slaughter meat animals? How could
>>>> that be?
>>>
>>> Intent.

>>
>> Even involuntary manslaughter is a crime.

>
> I'm not even guilty of that.


You are complicit in it. As much as I like Derek, and I do, he is wrong
about this denial of shared responsibility.

Anyway, why did you bring up "intent" if you're not worried about
vicarious moral responsibility? This has been discussed to death here,
and there has never been a credible refutation of it; "vegans" just deny
it even as they accuse others of it. Of *course* you share moral
responsibility for the CDs caused by your diet, because you *could*
avoid them if you really wanted to do so. You *choose* to incur that
responsibility.


>>>>>>> There's only a small chance that animals were killed to produce my
>>>>>>> food.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is a 100% certainty that animals were harmed, including being
>>>>>> killed, in order to produce your food.
>>>>>
>>>>> No. I don't believe you.
>>>>
>>>> You just don't *want* to believe it.
>>>
>>> I know as a fact that no animals were killed or harmed in
>>> order to produce the vegetarian meal I ate this evening.

>>
>> You do *not* know that. Saying that you do is a lie.

>
> I live on a farm in the middle of a very large farming community.


Good for you. You don't grow all your own food. You don't even grow a
major portion of it.


>>>> Pretty interesting - Woopert has
>>>> been arguing for years that "vegans" are fully aware that animals are
>>>> slaughtered in the course of producing vegetables, as a matter of
>>>> course, and here you are to prove him wrong.
>>>>
>>> I don't deny that some animals are occasionally killed to produce
>>> vegetables and fruit. What I reject is your claim that all vegetable
>>> production causes it.

>>
>> *Some* animals are killed by all vegetable production,

>
> Yes, *some* sometimes but not all times.


Some *ALL* the time.


> flushed


Restored, you sniveling little bitch:

*Some* animals are killed by all vegetable production, including
the vegetables you eat. You don't even have any idea within the
broad category of vegetables which ones cause a lot of death and
which ones cause not so much. You can't be bothered. It isn't
about the animals at all - it's about you and your convenience and
your casual, unwarranted assumption of ethical superiority. In
fact, your ethics is shit.

You *really* don't want to address that, do you, "glen" my boy? You
make *NO* effort to choose, within all "vegan" diets, that which causes
the least harm. No, your smug, sanctimonious self-congratulation for
making the ethically meaningless and purely symbolic gesture of
refraining from putting animal parts in your mouth is all you do. You
start by lying that you are causing no animal deaths, then you retreat
to saying or implying you are "minimizing", and in the end you are
reduced to saying "I'm doing better than you", and *NONE* of them is
true simply based on the fact that you refrain from putting animal bits
in your mouth. You're a ****ing sanctimonious liar, "glen" my boy.


>
>>> If any animals are killed they
>>> aren't killed because of my cruelty. You can't say the same.

>>
>> Of course I can. I don't kill any animals.

>
> Yes you do.


I don't. I don't kill a single one.


>> The simple fact is, you commission the deaths of animals.

>
> No you do. I don't.


Sorry, "glen" my boy. If you don't, then I do; if I do, then you do.
We both have *exactly* the same relationship with the unknown farmers
and ranchers who produce our food. It is impersonal, they are unknown
to us, we don't "ask" them to do any specific thing, but we both know
full well what they do, and we both know full well that it includes -
*always* - the killing of animals.

Sorry, "glen" my boy, but you bear moral responsibility for the deaths
of animals, exactly the same as I do, and by exactly the same mechanism.
The difference, "glen" my boy, is that I don't deny it; you, a
dishonest sanctimonious lying shitbag, do. That means I'm better than you.


>
>
>>>> "veganism is all about sanctimonious
>>>> self-congratulation, and that alone makes it loathsome and immoral.
>>>
>>> I do congratulate myself for having the strength to stand by my
>>> convictions

>>
>> You don't have any convictions.

>
> Yes I do and I live by them.


You don't. You merely follow a silly rule that is not based on any
valid ethics at all.


>> You are congratulating yourself for
>> following a morally empty rule. It's as morally empty as "chew 12 times
>> before swallowing." It's just a rule - no ethics behind it.


*NO* ethics, "glen" my boy. It's ethically empty.


>>>>>>> You don't want to acknowledge the huge difference between fact
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have presented no "fact" that warrants any examination.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a fact that eating meat causes the death of animals. It's not
>>>>> a fact that eating vegetables and fruit causes the death of animals.
>>>>
>>>> It *is* a fact that farming vegetables and fruit causes the death of
>>>> animals.
>>>
>>> Then it should be easy for you to present your evidence to support
>>> this /fact/ shouldn't it.

>>
>> http://web.archive.org/web/200411070...ood/vegan.html
>>

>
> Davis' guesswork was debunked years ago.
> http://jgmatheny.org/matheny%202003.pdf


Davis may not have proved that a meat-including diet will always cause
fewer CDs than a "vegan" diet, but he *DID* establish that animals of
the field die in the course of vegetable agriculture, and that sniveling
shitworm Matheny did *not* refute that, nor did he even attempt to
refute it.

You ****ed up, "glen" my boy - yet again.


>
>> From a former rice farmer:
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt....o/GOmWEfsbmhAJ
>>

>
> I read that /story/ and then read the comments underneath it.
> __________________________________________________ __________
> This is seven year old uncorroborated hearsay, from a hunter, come book
> seller called Robert (Bob) A Sykes. - It has no validity.


That's an empty claim by another sanctimonious, lying "vegan".


> __________________________________________________ ______________
> "There is an "article" circulating on the Internet that describes how
> thousands of frogs and other animals are killed in the mechanized
> harvesting of grain crops. This "collateral animal deaths" story is an
> elaborate hoax. The author, a "Texas organic rice farmer" is a gifted
> writer, but he should use his talents elsewhere.
>
> The author's numbers describe a plague of frogs of biblical
> proportions. However, it is questionable if he has even been on a rice
> farm. The major point that our author has missed is that rice fields
> are harvested dry. The irrigation water is drained, and the ground is
> left to dry before the harvesters go out in the field (otherwise, they'd
> sink in the mud). There just aren't that many amphibians in the field.
>
> Regrettably, there probably are some small animal deaths. However,
> the number of deaths in a mile of rice harvesting pales in comparison to
> the road kill on a mile of highway. Harvesters move slowly, and they
> are not the high speed machines described in this article.
>
> At Lundberg Family Farms, we care deeply for the animals that we share
> our fields with. For example, every spring before field work begins, we
> search the fields for nests, rescuing eggs for a local incubation
> centers (mature pairs re-nest when the nests are disturbed like this).
> After hatching, the fledglings are raised and released back into the
> wild. Last year, we rescued over 3,000 duck eggs. After harvest, we
> flood our fields to provide habitat for winter migratory birds and
> waterfowl. They eat the rice that is left in the fields and contribute
> fertilizer for next spring. There are autumn days when the sky is
> blackened by canadian geese (and the sound is beautiful)! We see ducks,
> geese, cranes, rails, pheasants, egrets, herons, swans, and even bald
> eagles resting in our fields.
>
> We are committed to sustainable and organic farming techniques. We
> see our farming operation as a "partnership with nature," and would
> not continue if rice harvesting resulted in the "death toll" that this hoax
> suggests.
>
> --> Kent Lundberg.


A self-serving *dry* rice farmer whose business depends crucially on
hoodwinking ecotopian "vegans" like you. In no way does he *guarantee*
that no animals are killed. He talks a lot of blabber about saving
wildfowl, but makes no mention of rodents or amphibians or reptiles.


> An elaborate hoax.


No, "glen" my boy.

Yes, of course you had to erase desperately the testimony of a Tennessee
farmer who talked about killing *eleven* fawns in a four acre patch of land:
http://www.tndeer.com/tndeertalk/ubb...156&page=32 0


Note that that farmer wasn't even discussing it in the context of trying
to debunk the absurd "vegan" claim to a "cruelty free 'lifestyle'" - he
was inquiring of other farmers how me might avoid killing them.

You're doomed, "glen" my boy - flushed out as a fulsome and
sanctimonious liar.

George Plimpton 06-03-2012 05:37 PM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
On 3/6/2012 4:47 AM, Glen wrote:
> On 06/03/2012 04:01, George Plimpton wrote:
>> On 3/5/2012 4:20 PM, Glen wrote:
>>> On 05/03/2012 20:18, Dutch wrote:
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On 05/03/2012 17:49, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/5/2012 9:36 AM, Glen wrote:
>>>>>>> On 05/03/2012 15:42, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/4/2012 9:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>> snip
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't believe that I have any way of knowing how the number of
>>>>>>>>> premature deaths caused per calorically equivalent serving of tofu
>>>>>>>>> compares with that for grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You know, intuitively and based on plausibility, that raising the
>>>>>>>> vegetable crops you would have to substitute in order to get
>>>>>>>> equivalent
>>>>>>>> nutrition causes multiple CDs,and that 100% grass-fed beef or
>>>>>>>> wild-caught fish causes none.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Eating meat causes the death of animals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cultivating, harvesting and distributing vegetables and fruits causes
>>>>>> the deaths of animals, too.
>>>>>
>>>>> That isn't true. It /may/ cause some deaths but it isn't a fact that
>>>>> it *WILL* cause them. Eating meat *WILL* cause them.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's no getting away
>>>>>>> from that fact until you stop eating meat and go vegan.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Going 'vegan'" doesn't mean causing no deaths of animals.
>>>>>
>>>>> It will mean causing no deaths to farm animals. That's a fact.
>>>>
>>>> So what?
>>>
>>> So that means a lot to me. I don't want to kill farm animals. The
>>> surest way to stop killing them is to stop eating them.

>>
>> So, if you kill animals and leave the corpses in the field to rot,

>
> I don't kill them.


You share moral responsibility for the deaths. You are complicit. You
are guilty - not in rational dispute.


>>>> Does the life of a cow have more value than the life of a mouse?
>>>
>>> No.

>>
>> So, why do you keep killing mice?

>
> I don't.


You do, "glen" my boy. See above.


>
>>>>>>> There's only a small chance that animals were killed to produce my
>>>>>>> food.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is a 100% certainty that animals were harmed, including being
>>>>>> killed, in order to produce your food.
>>>>>
>>>>> No. I don't believe you. You're only saying that because you
>>>>> want me to feel as guilty as you obviously do about the cruelty
>>>>> and death on your plate.
>>>>
>>>> That's false, he feels no guilt about the deaths caused to bring him
>>>> his
>>>> food.
>>>
>>> Yes he does but he won't admit it.

>>
>> I do admit it.

>
> No you don't.


I do.


> You said that meat eating doesn't cause them
> because they're dead already - killed by someone else.


I was ****ing with your tiny brain, "glen" my boy. I was engaging, for
rhetorical effect, in the same bullshit sophistry you do.

The reality, "glen" my boy, is that *everyone* causes harm to animals -
and humans - merely by existing and consuming.


>>
>>> He even refuses to admit the deaths of the animals he eats.

>>
>> Bullshit. Of course I admit them. What about it?

>
> They're dead before you eat them and you believe that
> takes away your guilt. You won't admit that you killed
> them and that you're to blame.


I do admit it, of course. I was using your own illogic on you to
illustrate a point. The animals killed in the course of producing your
vegetables are just as dead as the animals I eat. The only difference
is in the disposition of the corpses.


>
>>> "By the way, "eating" meat doesn't cause any deaths of
>>> animals - the meat is already dead." - George

>>
>> That's correct: the *eating* doesn't cause the deaths. The meat is
>> already dead long before I buy it.

>
> Then the eating of vegetables doesn't cause any deaths. The
> animals are already dead long before I buy my food. You said
> it.


It was a rhetorical stunt, "glen" my boy, employed to illustrate the
absurdity of your claim.

It is a *fact*, "glen" my boy: we both cause the deaths of animals by
our consumption choices, you every bit as much as I.


>>>> The truth is that vegans, you, derive a perverse kick from trying to
>>>> make non-vegans feel guilty.
>>>
>>> But you *ARE* guilty.

>>
>> So are you.

>
> No. You are.


So are you, "glen" my boy.


>>> You can't escape that guilt.

>>
>> Neither can you.

>
> I don't have any guilt to escape from.


Of course you have, "glen" my boy.


>> The difference is, omnivores admit theirs.

>
> No they/you say that the animals are dead already before they eat
> them.


See above, "glen" my boy.


>> "vegans" fatuously try to deny theirs, so they can continue to propagate the
>> fiction that they lead "cruelty-free" lives.

>
> There's nothing to deny. Vegans don't kill them.


You share in the moral responsibility for their deaths, "glen" my boy.


>>>>>>> You don't want to acknowledge the huge difference between fact
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have presented no "fact" that warrants any examination.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a fact that eating meat causes the death of animals. It's not
>>>>> a fact that eating vegetables and fruit causes the death of animals.
>>>>
>>>> It is a fact.
>>>
>>> No it isn't.

>>
>> It is. Animals die in vegetable production.
>>
>> http://www.tndeer.com/tndeertalk/ubb...156&page=32 0
>>

>
> Yes they do occasionally die but not in the numbers I've seen
> reported here.


Oooooohhhhhhh! So, animals *do* die in the course of producing the
foods you eat! What took you so long, "glen" my boy?


>>>> Fruit orchards are heavily sprayed with pesticides. Crop
>>>> fields are sprayed with herbicides. Those are deadly chemicals.
>>>> Machines
>>>> used to till, spray and harvest also kill small animals, there have
>>>> been
>>>> studies done on that.
>>>
>>> There's a plausible chance that some animals die in crop fields.

>>
>> It is a certainty.

>
> No that's not true.


It is true, "glen" my boy.


>>> It's not a fact that all vegetable production kills animals.

>>
>> It is a fact that vegetable production kills animals,

>
> I've never denied that they occasionally die.


Yes, you did, "glen" my boy. It was a lie.

You're done, and you know it. You know that your moral pose is
destroyed. You can't maintain it. You know it's bullshit, "glen" my boy.

George Plimpton 06-03-2012 05:38 PM

Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The'vegan' shuffle)
 
On 3/6/2012 4:55 AM, Glen wrote:
> On 06/03/2012 08:57, 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.

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


It is, and soon you'll have to acknowledge it.

George Plimpton 06-03-2012 05:39 PM

Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The'vegan' shuffle)
 
On 3/6/2012 5:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 6, 1:55 pm, > wrote:
>> On 06/03/2012 08:57, 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.

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

>
> Well, suffering and death have to take place to produce your food, as
> long as you acknowledge that that's fine.


It's *not* fine, because he still denies any moral responsibility for it.

George Plimpton 06-03-2012 05:42 PM

Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The'vegan' shuffle)
 
On 3/6/2012 6:07 AM, Glen wrote:
> On 06/03/2012 13:54, Rupert wrote:
>> On Mar 6, 1:55 pm, > wrote:
>>> On 06/03/2012 08:57, 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.
>>>
>>> I have never denied that animals die during crop production. What I
>>> deny is George's baseless claim that all the food I eat is
>>> /contaminated/
>>> with it.

>>
>> Well, suffering and death have to take place to produce your food, as
>> long as you acknowledge that that's fine.

>
> It may be the case that some animals die but I don't believe
> they /have/ to die.


They *do* die, and you're doing nothing to prevent it. You just keep
trying to cling to the fiction that because you're not the hands-on
killer, you don't have any moral responsibility for the deaths. That
position is false - you *do* have moral responsibility.


> I live on a farm and since my father's stroke
> about two years ago my sister and her husband keep a relatively
> small part of it going without killing animals


Bullshit. They kill animals.


> to produce vegetables and fruits all year round.


*NOT* enough for all of you to live on year round. It isn't even the
majority of what you eat.

Your moral pedestal is destroyed. You don't cause zero deaths, you
don't cause the lowest possible number of deaths, and you don't cause
fewer than *all* omnivores. You have nothing left.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:17 PM.

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