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
  #46 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-03-2012, 05:40 AM 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 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, [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.


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.

  #47 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-03-2012, 05:43 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 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, [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.


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.
  #48 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-03-2012, 03:42 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 3/4/2012 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, [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.


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.
  #49 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-03-2012, 05:36 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 32
Default 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.
  #50 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-03-2012, 05:49 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 3/5/2012 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.


  #51 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-03-2012, 07:07 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 03:43:46 -0800 (PST), 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.

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.

  #52 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-03-2012, 07:16 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 32
Default 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.

  #53 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-03-2012, 07:22 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default 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.
  #54 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-03-2012, 08:18 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,027
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

"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.




  #55 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-03-2012, 08:45 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 3/5/2012 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.


  #56 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 05-03-2012, 11:47 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 32
Default 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.
  #57 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-03-2012, 12:20 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 32
Default 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.
  #58 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-03-2012, 03:35 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 3/5/2012 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.
  #59 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-03-2012, 04:01 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 3/5/2012 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.
  #60 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-03-2012, 04:08 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 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.




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 10:57 PM.

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

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017