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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-03-2012, 06:33 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 3/2/2012 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, [email protected] 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.


Some assumptions have to be made concerning the distribution of the
products, such as pest extermination when storing the rice,
refrigeration when storing the beef, but we will ignore those and focus
solely on the process of raising and harvesting the initial product -
that is, up to the time when the product leaves the control of the
primary producers, i.e. the rancher and the rice farmer.

There can be no doubt that raising the rice kills many animals - you
have always conceded that vegetable agriculture kills animals. There
can be no doubt that raising a 100% grass-fed steer kills far fewer
animals - quite plausibly, *no* additional animals beyond the steer itself.

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.


**** off.


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


You ought to have. If you don't, you're trying not to have any idea.


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.



(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?)


Obviously.



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


Fine.


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.


That's false. You have information on what might be plausible numbers.

  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-03-2012, 06:38 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 2 Mrz., 19:33, George Plimpton 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, [email protected] 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. Probably a lot of deaths would be caused by
farming one hectare of rice, yes. But I don't know how many servings
of rice that would produce. You would need to do some calculations
before you had any real idea.

If you think you have some idea, then why don't you just tell me the
calculations you made? I don't see how you could have any idea unless
you've done some calculations.









Some assumptions have to be made concerning the distribution of the
products, such as pest extermination when storing the rice,
refrigeration when storing the beef, but we will ignore those and focus
solely on the process of raising and harvesting the initial product -
that is, up to the time when the product leaves the control of the
primary producers, i.e. the rancher and the rice farmer.


There can be no doubt that raising the rice kills many animals - you
have always conceded that vegetable agriculture kills animals. *There
can be no doubt that raising a 100% grass-fed steer kills far fewer
animals - quite plausibly, *no* additional animals beyond the steer itself.


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.


**** off.


You **** off, you pointless waste of space.

My remark was correct: I never said anything about rice.

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


You ought to have. *If you don't, you're trying not to have any idea.


Wrong.

If you have some idea, then why don't you tell me how you arrived at
this idea. You can't have just magically pulled it out of thin air,
there must have been some process of reasoning that led to it.

*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.

If you think you know, then just bring on the evidence.



(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?)


Obviously.



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


Fine.

* 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.


That's false. *You have information on what might be plausible numbers.


No, I don't.

If you do, then by all means tell me more.
  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-03-2012, 07:00 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 3/2/2012 10:13 AM, Rupert wrote:
On 2 Mrz., 19:07, George wrote:
On 3/2/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote:









On 2 Mrz., 16:28, George wrote:
On 3/2/2012 3:42 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 1 Mrz., 17:11, George wrote:
On 3/1/2012 12:16 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 7:36:50 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
I read this a while ago, and I had the devil of a time finding the site
again to share here.


http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/11419...al-argument-fo...


This is an excellent and thorough elaboration of why "veganism" fails as
a sound ethical approach to the human use of animals. I really like the
author's turn of phrase, "the vegan shuffle." By that, he means the
flip-flop back and forth between animal "rights" and the reduction of
animal suffering when "vegans" are confronted with the inescapable and
undeniable fact that "veganism" is not a reliable means for achieving
either one.


Why is veganism not a good means for reducing animal suffering?


Because refraining from consuming animal bits doesn't say anything about
the number of animals harmed by what you do consume.


Why not?


How would it?


Most animal products are produced on factory farms which cause a lot
of suffering.


Irrelevant. That says *nothing* about the harm caused by the non-animal
products you *do* eat.


I gave good reasons for thinking that less suffering and premature
death is caused in order to produce what I eat than is required in
order to produce a typical modern Western diet including animal
products.


We're not talking about a "typical" western diet, you ****wit. The
"vegan" diet is *already* a highly atypical diet. You must contrast it
with another atypical diet that has been proposed to you.


You know nothing about it.


That's not true.


It is true. You've already admitted not to know which of wheat or maize
causes more animal harm. You don't know anything about the amount of
harm caused by *any* non-animal produce.


Which causes more harm, a commercially farmed apple or a commercially
farmed orange? Don't think about it, don't blabber your usual wheeze,
just state it, right now.


Obviously I wouldn't have any idea.


Yes, obviously - my whole point. You don't know, and more to the point,
you don't care to know - you can't be bothered. It's all about your
self-image rather than about any real consideration for reducing animal
harm.
  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 02-03-2012, 07:06 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 3/2/2012 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, [email protected] 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.


Some assumptions have to be made concerning the distribution of the
products, such as pest extermination when storing the rice,
refrigeration when storing the beef, but we will ignore those and focus
solely on the process of raising and harvesting the initial product -
that is, up to the time when the product leaves the control of the
primary producers, i.e. the rancher and the rice farmer.


There can be no doubt that raising the rice kills many animals - you
have always conceded that vegetable agriculture kills animals. There
can be no doubt that raising a 100% grass-fed steer kills far fewer
animals - quite plausibly, *no* additional animals beyond the steer itself.


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.


**** off.


You **** off,


No, you **** off, you little prick.


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


You ought to have. If you don't, you're trying not to have any idea.


Wrong.


No - right.


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.


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, versus
*no* CDs for a 100 gram serving of 100% grass-fed beef. You can do the
comparison. Adjust the serving sizes to their caloric equivalents - the
comparison is still many-to-none.



(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?)


Obviously.



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


Fine.

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.


That's false. You have information on what might be plausible numbers.


No, I don't.


You do.


If you do, then by all means tell me more.


Already done.
  #20 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-03-2012, 04:18 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On Mar 2, 8:00*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/2/2012 10:13 AM, Rupert wrote:









On 2 Mrz., 19:07, George *wrote:
On 3/2/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 2 Mrz., 16:28, George * *wrote:
On 3/2/2012 3:42 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 1 Mrz., 17:11, George * * *wrote:
On 3/1/2012 12:16 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 7:36:50 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
I read this a while ago, and I had the devil of a time finding the site
again to share here.


http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/11419...al-argument-fo...


This is an excellent and thorough elaboration of why "veganism" fails as
a sound ethical approach to the human use of animals. *I really like the
author's turn of phrase, "the vegan shuffle." *By that, he means the
flip-flop back and forth between animal "rights" and the reduction of
animal suffering when "vegans" are confronted with the inescapable and
undeniable fact that "veganism" is not a reliable means for achieving
either one.


Why is veganism not a good means for reducing animal suffering?


Because refraining from consuming animal bits doesn't say anything about
the number of animals harmed by what you do consume.


Why not?


How would it?


Most animal products are produced on factory farms which cause a lot
of suffering.


Irrelevant. *That says *nothing* about the harm caused by the non-animal
products you *do* eat.


I gave good reasons for thinking that less suffering and premature
death is caused in order to produce what I eat than is required in
order to produce a typical modern Western diet including animal
products.


We're not talking about a "typical" western diet, you ****wit. *The
"vegan" diet is *already* a highly atypical diet. *You must contrast it
with another atypical diet that has been proposed to you.


I will gladly do so when you specify which atypical diet you want to
talk about.

* You know nothing about it.


That's not true.


It is true. *You've already admitted not to know which of wheat or maize
causes more animal harm. *You don't know anything about the amount of
harm caused by *any* non-animal produce.


I know something. Specifically, I know that less collateral deaths are
required to produce plant-based food than almost all animal products.
Also, almost all animal products involve additional suffering on
factory farms. So I have good reason to think that cutting out animal
products is a good rule of thumb if I want to reduce the amount of
suffering required in order to produce my diet.

It's difficult to get more detailed information than that. I have
already invested some time and energy into trying to acquire more
detailed information and found it unproductive. I have no reason to
think that investing further time and energy into trying to get more
detailed information would enable me to achieve a substantial further
reduction in the amount of suffering required to produce my diet. So,
from the point of view of minimising the amount of suffering required
to produce my diet (short of extreme measures such as committing
suicide or dropping out of technological civilisation and joining and
commune) it is rational for me to stick with the rule of thumb "be
vegan".

Which causes more harm, a commercially farmed apple or a commercially
farmed orange? *Don't think about it, don't blabber your usual wheeze,
just state it, right now.


Obviously I wouldn't have any idea.


Yes, obviously - my whole point. *You don't know, and more to the point,
you don't care to know - you can't be bothered.


I have no reason to think it is within my power to find out. If I had
good reason to think that I could find out easily enough and that it
would have a significant bearing on the amount of suffering required
in order to produce my food, then I would be motivated to find out.
But that is not the case, so I have no especially good reason to worry
about the issue.

*It's all about your
self-image rather than about any real consideration for reducing animal
harm.


Nonsense.


  #21 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-03-2012, 04:25 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On Mar 2, 8:06*pm, George Plimpton 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, [email protected] 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. That's why I asked David Harrison if he actually had any
evidence about the matter. I showed an interest. So it's nonsense to
say that I don't care to know. I would be interested in knowing. If
you think that you have reliable information about the matter then by
all means share it.

I don't have any gut feeling for how a serving of grass-fed beef
compares with a calorically equivalent serving of rice, and I don't
see how you could reasonably expect me to have an opinion about the
matter. If you think you can offer some kind of rational foundation
for having an opinion about the matter, then let's hear it.









Some assumptions have to be made concerning the distribution of the
products, such as pest extermination when storing the rice,
refrigeration when storing the beef, but we will ignore those and focus
solely on the process of raising and harvesting the initial product -
that is, up to the time when the product leaves the control of the
primary producers, i.e. the rancher and the rice farmer.


There can be no doubt that raising the rice kills many animals - you
have always conceded that vegetable agriculture kills animals. *There
can be no doubt that raising a 100% grass-fed steer kills far fewer
animals - quite plausibly, *no* additional animals beyond the steer itself.


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.


**** off.


You **** off,


No, you **** off, you little prick.


Go and stuff your head as far as it will go up a dead yak's anus.

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


You ought to have. *If you don't, you're trying not to have any idea..


Wrong.


No - right.


Actually, you were wrong again, Ball, sorry.

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?
What do you mean by "many" anyway? If you think you're in a position
to actually offer a range of numbers then why don't you just do it.

* 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.

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. If you think you have some reliable estimates for
ranges of numbers*then tell me what they are.

Adjust the serving sizes to their caloric equivalents - the
comparison is still many-to-none.


I am not sure I agree that 100% grass-fed beef has no CDs, anyway. The
farmers still need to kill predators to protect the cattle.











(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?)


Obviously.


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


Fine.


* *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.


That's false. *You have information on what might be plausible numbers.


No, I don't.


You do.


Where did I get this information from? From listening to you?

If you do, then by all means tell me more.


Already done.


Liar.
  #22 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-03-2012, 05:31 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 3/2/2012 8:18 PM, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 2, 8:00 pm, George wrote:
On 3/2/2012 10:13 AM, Rupert wrote:









On 2 Mrz., 19:07, George wrote:
On 3/2/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 2 Mrz., 16:28, George wrote:
On 3/2/2012 3:42 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 1 Mrz., 17:11, George wrote:
On 3/1/2012 12:16 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 7:36:50 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
I read this a while ago, and I had the devil of a time finding the site
again to share here.


http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/11419...al-argument-fo...


This is an excellent and thorough elaboration of why "veganism" fails as
a sound ethical approach to the human use of animals. I really like the
author's turn of phrase, "the vegan shuffle." By that, he means the
flip-flop back and forth between animal "rights" and the reduction of
animal suffering when "vegans" are confronted with the inescapable and
undeniable fact that "veganism" is not a reliable means for achieving
either one.


Why is veganism not a good means for reducing animal suffering?


Because refraining from consuming animal bits doesn't say anything about
the number of animals harmed by what you do consume.


Why not?


How would it?


Most animal products are produced on factory farms which cause a lot
of suffering.


Irrelevant. That says *nothing* about the harm caused by the non-animal
products you *do* eat.


I gave good reasons for thinking that less suffering and premature
death is caused in order to produce what I eat than is required in
order to produce a typical modern Western diet including animal
products.


We're not talking about a "typical" western diet, you ****wit. The
"vegan" diet is *already* a highly atypical diet. You must contrast it
with another atypical diet that has been proposed to you.


I will gladly do so when you specify which atypical diet you want to
talk about.


I have done, numerous times.


You know nothing about it.


That's not true.


It is true. You've already admitted not to know which of wheat or maize
causes more animal harm. You don't know anything about the amount of
harm caused by *any* non-animal produce.


I know something.


You don't know anything. You've already admitted to ****wit you have no
idea how many animal CDs are caused by the cultivation of soybeans, for
example.


Specifically, I know that less collateral deaths are
required to produce plant-based food than almost all animal products.


No, you don't know that, because you have no ****ing idea how many CDs
are incurred by either one.


Which causes more harm, a commercially farmed apple or a commercially
farmed orange? Don't think about it, don't blabber your usual wheeze,
just state it, right now.


Obviously I wouldn't have any idea.


Yes, obviously - my whole point. You don't know, and more to the point,
you don't care to know - you can't be bothered.


I have no reason to think it is within my power to find out.


You don't care. That's all we needed to know. Concession noted.
  #23 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-03-2012, 05:37 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 3/2/2012 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, [email protected] 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. 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.




Some assumptions have to be made concerning the distribution of the
products, such as pest extermination when storing the rice,
refrigeration when storing the beef, but we will ignore those and focus
solely on the process of raising and harvesting the initial product -
that is, up to the time when the product leaves the control of the
primary producers, i.e. the rancher and the rice farmer.


There can be no doubt that raising the rice kills many animals - you
have always conceded that vegetable agriculture kills animals. There
can be no doubt that raising a 100% grass-fed steer kills far fewer
animals - quite plausibly, *no* additional animals beyond the steer itself.


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.


**** off.


You **** off,


No, you **** off, you little prick.


Go and stuff your head as far as it will go up a dead yak's anus.


Go suck the green festering flesh of your mother's ****. Oh, wait - you
already did that, which is why you're psychotic.


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


You ought to have. If you don't, you're trying not to have any idea.


Wrong.


No - right.


Actually,


Actually, I was right, once again.


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.



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.



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.


Adjust the serving sizes to their caloric equivalents - the
comparison is still many-to-none.


I am not sure I agree that 100% grass-fed beef has no CDs, anyway.


Plausibly, it does. A steer wanders of rangeland feeding until it's old
enough and big enough to slaughter. How, plausibly, would that steer
cause any CDs by grazing?



(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?)


Obviously.


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


Fine.


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.


That's false. You have information on what might be plausible numbers.


No, I don't.


You do.


Where did I get this information from? From listening to you?


Why, yes, actually.
  #24 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-03-2012, 05:49 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On Mar 3, 6:31*am, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/2/2012 8:18 PM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 2, 8:00 pm, George *wrote:
On 3/2/2012 10:13 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 2 Mrz., 19:07, George * *wrote:
On 3/2/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 2 Mrz., 16:28, George * * *wrote:
On 3/2/2012 3:42 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 1 Mrz., 17:11, George * * * *wrote:
On 3/1/2012 12:16 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 7:36:50 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
I read this a while ago, and I had the devil of a time finding the site
again to share here.


http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/11419...al-argument-fo...


This is an excellent and thorough elaboration of why "veganism" fails as
a sound ethical approach to the human use of animals. *I really like the
author's turn of phrase, "the vegan shuffle." *By that, he means the
flip-flop back and forth between animal "rights" and the reduction of
animal suffering when "vegans" are confronted with the inescapable and
undeniable fact that "veganism" is not a reliable means for achieving
either one.


Why is veganism not a good means for reducing animal suffering?


Because refraining from consuming animal bits doesn't say anything about
the number of animals harmed by what you do consume.


Why not?


How would it?


Most animal products are produced on factory farms which cause a lot
of suffering.


Irrelevant. *That says *nothing* about the harm caused by the non-animal
products you *do* eat.


I gave good reasons for thinking that less suffering and premature
death is caused in order to produce what I eat than is required in
order to produce a typical modern Western diet including animal
products.


We're not talking about a "typical" western diet, you ****wit. *The
"vegan" diet is *already* a highly atypical diet. *You must contrast it
with another atypical diet that has been proposed to you.


I will gladly do so when you specify which atypical diet you want to
talk about.


I have done, numerous times.


Really?

* *You know nothing about it.


That's not true.


It is true. *You've already admitted not to know which of wheat or maize
causes more animal harm. *You don't know anything about the amount of
harm caused by *any* non-animal produce.


I know something.


You don't know anything.


Wrong.

*You've already admitted to ****wit you have no
idea how many animal CDs are caused by the cultivation of soybeans, for
example.


Yes, that is true.

Specifically, I know that less collateral deaths are
required to produce plant-based food than almost all animal products.


No, you don't know that, because you have no ****ing idea how many CDs
are incurred by either one.


Yes, I do know that. Because almost all animal products require *more*
plant food to be grown in order to produce a calorically equivalent
serving than plant food products.

Which causes more harm, a commercially farmed apple or a commercially
farmed orange? *Don't think about it, don't blabber your usual wheeze,
just state it, right now.


Obviously I wouldn't have any idea.


Yes, obviously - my whole point. *You don't know, and more to the point,
you don't care to know - you can't be bothered.


I have no reason to think it is within my power to find out.


You don't care. *That's all we needed to know. *Concession noted.


I didn't concede anything. You dishonestly snipped what I wrote.
  #25 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-03-2012, 06:32 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 3/2/2012 9:49 PM, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 3, 6:31 am, George wrote:
On 3/2/2012 8:18 PM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 2, 8:00 pm, George wrote:
On 3/2/2012 10:13 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 2 Mrz., 19:07, George wrote:
On 3/2/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 2 Mrz., 16:28, George wrote:
On 3/2/2012 3:42 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 1 Mrz., 17:11, George wrote:
On 3/1/2012 12:16 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 7:36:50 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
I read this a while ago, and I had the devil of a time finding the site
again to share here.


http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/11419...al-argument-fo...


This is an excellent and thorough elaboration of why "veganism" fails as
a sound ethical approach to the human use of animals. I really like the
author's turn of phrase, "the vegan shuffle." By that, he means the
flip-flop back and forth between animal "rights" and the reduction of
animal suffering when "vegans" are confronted with the inescapable and
undeniable fact that "veganism" is not a reliable means for achieving
either one.


Why is veganism not a good means for reducing animal suffering?


Because refraining from consuming animal bits doesn't say anything about
the number of animals harmed by what you do consume.


Why not?


How would it?


Most animal products are produced on factory farms which cause a lot
of suffering.


Irrelevant. That says *nothing* about the harm caused by the non-animal
products you *do* eat.


I gave good reasons for thinking that less suffering and premature
death is caused in order to produce what I eat than is required in
order to produce a typical modern Western diet including animal
products.


We're not talking about a "typical" western diet, you ****wit. The
"vegan" diet is *already* a highly atypical diet. You must contrast it
with another atypical diet that has been proposed to you.


I will gladly do so when you specify which atypical diet you want to
talk about.


I have done, numerous times.


Really?


Yes, and you know it already, too.


You know nothing about it.


That's not true.


It is true. You've already admitted not to know which of wheat or maize
causes more animal harm. You don't know anything about the amount of
harm caused by *any* non-animal produce.


I know something.


You don't know anything.


Wrong.


No, right.


You've already admitted to ****wit you have no
idea how many animal CDs are caused by the cultivation of soybeans, for
example.


Yes, that is true.


So, you have no valid comparison for anything, because you don't know
any numbers for anything, and the plausibility case works completely
against you. You have no empirical case at all, and the theoretical
case crushes you.


Specifically, I know that less collateral deaths are
required to produce plant-based food than almost all animal products.


No, you don't know that, because you have no ****ing idea how many CDs
are incurred by either one.


Yes, I do know that.


No, you don't.


Because almost all animal products require *more*
plant food to be grown


No. Monbiot wrote that hogs, for example, require virtually *no* plant
food to be grown.

Which causes more harm, a commercially farmed apple or a commercially
farmed orange? Don't think about it, don't blabber your usual wheeze,
just state it, right now.


Obviously I wouldn't have any idea.


Yes, obviously - my whole point. You don't know, and more to the point,
you don't care to know - you can't be bothered.


I have no reason to think it is within my power to find out.


You don't care. That's all we needed to know. Concession noted.


I didn't concede anything.


You sure did. You conceded that you don't know, and don't want to know.


  #26 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-03-2012, 11:56 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On Mar 3, 7:32*am, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/2/2012 9:49 PM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 3, 6:31 am, George *wrote:
On 3/2/2012 8:18 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 2, 8:00 pm, George * *wrote:
On 3/2/2012 10:13 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 2 Mrz., 19:07, George * * *wrote:
On 3/2/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 2 Mrz., 16:28, George * * * *wrote:
On 3/2/2012 3:42 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 1 Mrz., 17:11, George * * * * *wrote:
On 3/1/2012 12:16 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 7:36:50 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
I read this a while ago, and I had the devil of a time finding the site
again to share here.


http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/11419...al-argument-fo...


This is an excellent and thorough elaboration of why "veganism" fails as
a sound ethical approach to the human use of animals. *I really like the
author's turn of phrase, "the vegan shuffle." *By that, he means the
flip-flop back and forth between animal "rights" and the reduction of
animal suffering when "vegans" are confronted with the inescapable and
undeniable fact that "veganism" is not a reliable means for achieving
either one.


Why is veganism not a good means for reducing animal suffering?


Because refraining from consuming animal bits doesn't say anything about
the number of animals harmed by what you do consume.


Why not?


How would it?


Most animal products are produced on factory farms which cause a lot
of suffering.


Irrelevant. *That says *nothing* about the harm caused by the non-animal
products you *do* eat.


I gave good reasons for thinking that less suffering and premature
death is caused in order to produce what I eat than is required in
order to produce a typical modern Western diet including animal
products.


We're not talking about a "typical" western diet, you ****wit. *The
"vegan" diet is *already* a highly atypical diet. *You must contrast it
with another atypical diet that has been proposed to you.


I will gladly do so when you specify which atypical diet you want to
talk about.


I have done, numerous times.


Really?


Yes, and you know it already, too.


How interesting.

* * You know nothing about it.


That's not true.


It is true. *You've already admitted not to know which of wheat or maize
causes more animal harm. *You don't know anything about the amount of
harm caused by *any* non-animal produce.


I know something.


You don't know anything.


Wrong.


No, right.

* You've already admitted to ****wit you have no
idea how many animal CDs are caused by the cultivation of soybeans, for
example.


Yes, that is true.


So, you have no valid comparison for anything, because you don't know
any numbers for anything, and the plausibility case works completely
against you. *You have no empirical case at all, and the theoretical
case crushes you.


You have not made any "plausibility case". To do that you would have
to actually argue the point instead of just making assertions.

I can make a comparison between plant foods and most animal foods,
without knowing the collateral death rates for plant foods, for
obvious reasons which I have already given.

Specifically, I know that less collateral deaths are
required to produce plant-based food than almost all animal products.


No, you don't know that, because you have no ****ing idea how many CDs
are incurred by either one.


Yes, I do know that.


No, you don't.

Because almost all animal products require *more*
plant food to be grown


No. *Monbiot wrote that hogs, for example, require virtually *no* plant
food to be grown.


This is false. It takes 8 pounds of protein in hog feed to produce one
pound of pork.

Which causes more harm, a commercially farmed apple or a commercially
farmed orange? *Don't think about it, don't blabber your usual wheeze,
just state it, right now.


Obviously I wouldn't have any idea.


Yes, obviously - my whole point. *You don't know, and more to the point,
you don't care to know - you can't be bothered.


I have no reason to think it is within my power to find out.


You don't care. *That's all we needed to know. *Concession noted.


I didn't concede anything.


You sure did. *You conceded that you don't know, and don't want to know..


No, I didn't.
  #27 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-03-2012, 12:00 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On Mar 3, 6:37*am, George Plimpton 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, [email protected] 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.

*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.











Some assumptions have to be made concerning the distribution of the
products, such as pest extermination when storing the rice,
refrigeration when storing the beef, but we will ignore those and focus
solely on the process of raising and harvesting the initial product -
that is, up to the time when the product leaves the control of the
primary producers, i.e. the rancher and the rice farmer.


There can be no doubt that raising the rice kills many animals - you
have always conceded that vegetable agriculture kills animals. *There
can be no doubt that raising a 100% grass-fed steer kills far fewer
animals - quite plausibly, *no* additional animals beyond the steer itself.


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.


**** off.


You **** off,


No, you **** off, you little prick.


Go and stuff your head as far as it will go up a dead yak's anus.


Go suck the green festering flesh of your mother's ****. *Oh, wait - you
already did that, which is why you're psychotic.


You have a weird imagination.

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


You ought to have. *If you don't, you're trying not to have any idea.


Wrong.


No - right.


Actually,


Actually, I was right, once again.


Much joy may this belief bring you.

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.

Is it your opinion that I can buy beef that I can be sure is 100%
grass-fed in the European Union?









* *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.

Adjust the serving sizes to their caloric equivalents - the
comparison is still many-to-none.


I am not sure I agree that 100% grass-fed beef has no CDs, anyway.


Plausibly, it does. *A steer wanders of rangeland feeding until it's old
enough and big enough to slaughter. *How, plausibly, would that steer
cause any CDs by grazing?


You snipped a sentence which has a bearing on your question.











(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?)


Obviously.


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


Fine.


* * 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.


That's false. *You have information on what might be plausible numbers.


No, I don't.


You do.


Where did I get this information from? From listening to you?


Why, yes, actually.


So what are the plausible numbers?
  #28 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-03-2012, 06:16 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 3/3/2012 3:56 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 3, 7:32 am, George wrote:
On 3/2/2012 9:49 PM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 3, 6:31 am, George wrote:
On 3/2/2012 8:18 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 2, 8:00 pm, George wrote:
On 3/2/2012 10:13 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 2 Mrz., 19:07, George wrote:
On 3/2/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 2 Mrz., 16:28, George wrote:
On 3/2/2012 3:42 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 1 Mrz., 17:11, George wrote:
On 3/1/2012 12:16 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 7:36:50 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
I read this a while ago, and I had the devil of a time finding the site
again to share here.


http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/11419...al-argument-fo...


This is an excellent and thorough elaboration of why "veganism" fails as
a sound ethical approach to the human use of animals. I really like the
author's turn of phrase, "the vegan shuffle." By that, he means the
flip-flop back and forth between animal "rights" and the reduction of
animal suffering when "vegans" are confronted with the inescapable and
undeniable fact that "veganism" is not a reliable means for achieving
either one.


Why is veganism not a good means for reducing animal suffering?


Because refraining from consuming animal bits doesn't say anything about
the number of animals harmed by what you do consume.


Why not?


How would it?


Most animal products are produced on factory farms which cause a lot
of suffering.


Irrelevant. That says *nothing* about the harm caused by the non-animal
products you *do* eat.


I gave good reasons for thinking that less suffering and premature
death is caused in order to produce what I eat than is required in
order to produce a typical modern Western diet including animal
products.


We're not talking about a "typical" western diet, you ****wit. The
"vegan" diet is *already* a highly atypical diet. You must contrast it
with another atypical diet that has been proposed to you.


I will gladly do so when you specify which atypical diet you want to
talk about.


I have done, numerous times.


Really?


Yes, and you know it already, too.


How interesting.


No, it's actually quite basic.


You know nothing about it.


That's not true.


It is true. You've already admitted not to know which of wheat or maize
causes more animal harm. You don't know anything about the amount of
harm caused by *any* non-animal produce.


I know something.


You don't know anything.


Wrong.


No, right.

You've already admitted to ****wit you have no
idea how many animal CDs are caused by the cultivation of soybeans, for
example.


Yes, that is true.


So, you have no valid comparison for anything, because you don't know
any numbers for anything, and the plausibility case works completely
against you. You have no empirical case at all, and the theoretical
case crushes you.


You have not made any "plausibility case".


I have.


Specifically, I know that less collateral deaths are
required to produce plant-based food than almost all animal products.


No, you don't know that, because you have no ****ing idea how many CDs
are incurred by either one.


Yes, I do know that.


No, you don't.

Because almost all animal products require *more*
plant food to be grown


No. Monbiot wrote that hogs, for example, require virtually *no* plant
food to be grown.


This is false.


It's not false.


It takes 8 pounds of protein in hog feed to produce one
pound of pork.


Obviously you didn't read Monbiot's essay.

But these idiocies, Fairlie shows, are not arguments against all
meat eating, but arguments against the current farming model. He
demonstrates that we've been using the wrong comparison to judge
the efficiency of meat production. Instead of citing a simple
conversion rate of feed into meat, we should be comparing the
amount of land required to grow meat with the land needed to grow
plant products of the same nutritional value to humans. The
results are radically different.

If pigs are fed on residues and waste, and cattle on straw,
stovers and grass from fallows and rangelands food for which
humans don't compete meat becomes a very efficient means of food
production. Even though it is tilted by the profligate use of
grain in rich countries, the global average conversion ratio of
useful plant food to useful meat is not the 5:1 or 10:1 cited by
almost everyone, but less than 2:1. If we stopped feeding edible
grain to animals, we could still produce around half the current
global meat supply with no loss to human nutrition: in fact it's a
significant net gain.

Hogs do not require eight pounds of *protein* to produce a pound of
pork, liar. They don't require *any* amount of human-edible food.



Which causes more harm, a commercially farmed apple or a commercially
farmed orange? Don't think about it, don't blabber your usual wheeze,
just state it, right now.


Obviously I wouldn't have any idea.


Yes, obviously - my whole point. You don't know, and more to the point,
you don't care to know - you can't be bothered.


I have no reason to think it is within my power to find out.


You don't care. That's all we needed to know. Concession noted.


I didn't concede anything.


You sure did. You conceded that you don't know, and don't want to know.


No, I didn't.


You did, of course.
  #29 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-03-2012, 06:18 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 3/3/2012 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, [email protected] 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.


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.



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.


That's false. You have information on what might be plausible numbers.


No, I don't.


You do.


Where did I get this information from? From listening to you?


Why, yes, actually.

  #30 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-03-2012, 08:13 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 107
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On Mar 3, 11:16*am, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/3/2012 3:56 AM, Rupert wrote:





On Mar 3, 7:32 am, George *wrote:
On 3/2/2012 9:49 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 3, 6:31 am, George * *wrote:
On 3/2/2012 8:18 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 2, 8:00 pm, George * * *wrote:
On 3/2/2012 10:13 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 2 Mrz., 19:07, George * * * *wrote:
On 3/2/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 2 Mrz., 16:28, George * * * * *wrote:
On 3/2/2012 3:42 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 1 Mrz., 17:11, George * * * * * *wrote:
On 3/1/2012 12:16 AM, Rupert wrote:


On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 7:36:50 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote:
I read this a while ago, and I had the devil of a time finding the site
again to share here.


http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/11419...al-argument-fo...


This is an excellent and thorough elaboration of why "veganism" fails as
a sound ethical approach to the human use of animals. *I really like the
author's turn of phrase, "the vegan shuffle." *By that, he means the
flip-flop back and forth between animal "rights" and the reduction of
animal suffering when "vegans" are confronted with the inescapable and
undeniable fact that "veganism" is not a reliable means for achieving
either one.


Why is veganism not a good means for reducing animal suffering?


Because refraining from consuming animal bits doesn't say anything about
the number of animals harmed by what you do consume.


Why not?


How would it?


Most animal products are produced on factory farms which cause a lot
of suffering.


Irrelevant. *That says *nothing* about the harm caused by the non-animal
products you *do* eat.


I gave good reasons for thinking that less suffering and premature
death is caused in order to produce what I eat than is required in
order to produce a typical modern Western diet including animal
products.


We're not talking about a "typical" western diet, you ****wit. *The
"vegan" diet is *already* a highly atypical diet. *You must contrast it
with another atypical diet that has been proposed to you.


I will gladly do so when you specify which atypical diet you want to
talk about.


I have done, numerous times.


Really?


Yes, and you know it already, too.


How interesting.


No, it's actually quite basic.





* * *You know nothing about it.


That's not true.


It is true. *You've already admitted not to know which of wheat or maize
causes more animal harm. *You don't know anything about the amount of
harm caused by *any* non-animal produce.


I know something.


You don't know anything.


Wrong.


No, right.


* *You've already admitted to ****wit you have no
idea how many animal CDs are caused by the cultivation of soybeans, for
example.


Yes, that is true.


So, you have no valid comparison for anything, because you don't know
any numbers for anything, and the plausibility case works completely
against you. *You have no empirical case at all, and the theoretical
case crushes you.


You have not made any "plausibility case".


I have.





Specifically, I know that less collateral deaths are
required to produce plant-based food than almost all animal products.


No, you don't know that, because you have no ****ing idea how many CDs
are incurred by either one.


Yes, I do know that.


No, you don't.


Because almost all animal products require *more*
plant food to be grown


No. *Monbiot wrote that hogs, for example, require virtually *no* plant
food to be grown.


This is false.


It's not false.

It takes 8 pounds of protein in hog feed to produce one
pound of pork.


Obviously you didn't read Monbiot's essay.

* * * But these idiocies, Fairlie shows, are not arguments against all
* * * meat eating, but arguments against the current farming model. He
* * * demonstrates that we've been using the wrong comparison to judge
* * * the efficiency of meat production. Instead of citing a simple
* * * conversion rate of feed into meat, we should be comparing the
* * * amount of land required to grow meat with the land needed to grow
* * * plant products of the same nutritional value to humans. The
* * * results are radically different.

* * * If pigs are fed on residues and waste, and cattle on straw,
* * * stovers and grass from fallows and rangelands food for which
* * * humans don't compete meat becomes a very efficient means of food
* * * production. Even though it is tilted by the profligate use of
* * * grain in rich countries, the global average conversion ratio of
* * * useful plant food to useful meat is not the 5:1 or 10:1 cited by
* * * almost everyone, but less than 2:1. If we stopped feeding edible
* * * grain to animals, we could still produce around half the current
* * * global meat supply with no loss to human nutrition: in fact it's a
* * * significant net gain.

Hogs do not require eight pounds of *protein* to produce a pound of
pork, liar. *They don't require *any* amount of human-edible food.


What are they being fed, Gooberdoodle?









Which causes more harm, a commercially farmed apple or a commercially
farmed orange? *Don't think about it, don't blabber your usual wheeze,
just state it, right now.


Obviously I wouldn't have any idea.


Yes, obviously - my whole point. *You don't know, and more to the point,
you don't care to know - you can't be bothered.


I have no reason to think it is within my power to find out.


You don't care. *That's all we needed to know. *Concession noted..


I didn't concede anything.


You sure did. *You conceded that you don't know, and don't want to know.


No, I didn't.


You did, of course.




Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:32 AM.

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

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017