FoodBanter.com

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

George Plimpton 08-03-2012 05:10 PM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
On 3/8/2012 8:09 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 8, 4:50 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 3/8/2012 12:18 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 7, 8:21 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 3/7/2012 11:10 AM, Glen wrote:

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

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

>>
>>>>> You implied it asshole.

>>
>>>> I didn't, you cocksucker.

>>
>>> If you didn't want to imply that,

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

>
> Yes, the context of what you wrote suggested that


No, I didn't suggest that at all.

Rupert 08-03-2012 05:22 PM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
On Mar 8, 5:10*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/8/2012 8:09 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 8, 4:50 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/8/2012 12:18 AM, Rupert wrote:

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

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

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

>
> >>>>> You implied it asshole.

>
> >>>> I didn't, you cocksucker.

>
> >>> If you didn't want to imply that,

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

>
> > Yes, the context of what you wrote suggested that

>
> No, I didn't suggest that at all.


You yourself didn't suggest it, but the context of the exchange does
indeed strongly suggest just that.

George Plimpton 08-03-2012 05:45 PM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
On 3/8/2012 8:08 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 8, 4:50 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 3/8/2012 12:17 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 7, 6:44 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 3/7/2012 9:36 AM, Rupert wrote:

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

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

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Veganism is not predicated on a comparison.

>>
>>>>>>>>>> Of course it is.

>>
>>>>>>>>> Wrong.

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

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

>>
>>>>>> Gotcha!

>>
>>>>> I see.

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

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

>>
>> Then why did you write "I see", Woopert, when quite clearly and by your
>> own admission you *don't* see?
>>
>> Uh-oh! You're not starting to have another "episode", are you, Woopert?
>>

>
> No, I'm not.
>
> I found what you wrote mildly amusing. Writing "I see" was an
> expression of my amusement. It was ironic, writing "I see" was meant
> to draw attention to the fact that the point of what you wrote is very
> unclear.
>
>>>>> Here is a discussion of the potential effect of climate change on the
>>>>> Pacific Islands.

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

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

>>
>>>> No, because they can be relocated.

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

>>
>> Yes, eminently so.
>>

>
> Well, there's not much one can say about that, is there.
>
> Even if no premature deaths take place that is still not an especially
> good reason to think that no rights violation has occurred. You
> believe humans have property rights, don't you?
>
>>>>>>>> Why can't those two arrogant cocksuckers Gaverick Matheney and Nathan
>>>>>>>> Nobis do it, you stupid ****? They went to a lot of effort to try to
>>>>>>>> refute Steven Davis; why can't they do a similar effort to determine
>>>>>>>> which vegetables are least-harm?

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

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

>
> For all I know they have.
>
> It's pretty difficult to get reliable information about how many
> collateral deaths are actually occurring, and how many of them are
> actually caused by human activity and not by predation. Gaverick
> Matheny made use of Steven Davis' data to estimate that the production
> of a vegan diet causes 0.3 of a death per year. If that's the average
> then that would suggest you're not very likely to achieve substantial
> reductions by putting enormous effort into doing research about how
> much harm is caused by the production of the different kinds of crops.
> Gaverick Matheny is a utilitarian; he may very well feel that he can
> do more good by investing his time and energy in other ways, and I
> would say he's probably right about that. I conjecture that is the
> reason Gaverick Matheny has not embarked on the exercise. I don't know
> the details of Nathan Nobis' ethical views, but he may very well have
> a similar reason.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>> You keep pretending that "vegans" *can't* do the comparison because
>>>>>> there's no research on which vegetables are least-harm. "vegans" ****
>>>>>> away countless hours on other worthless defenses of "veganism" - why
>>>>>> can't *any* of them be bothered to try to make "veganism" a little more
>>>>>> internally coherent? The fact that *no one* does is a crushing
>>>>>> indictment of the belief system, and a validation of my attacks on it.
>>>>>> They are not intellectually or morally entitled to make a single one of
>>>>>> their claims for it: not "cruelty free", not "least harm", where that
>>>>>> second one includes both harm to animals and environmental degradation.

>>
>>>>>> The entire thing is shit.

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

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

>>
>>> Actually, that is theoretically possible

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

>
> How do you know that? For all you know the variation might be
> negligible.
>
>> and so if two "vegan" diets are identical except that
>> one contains a higher CD food than the other, then by definition they
>> cause different amounts of harm.
>>

>
> Well, assuming that's right, you would want to weigh up how much
> suffering you would be likely to prevent by obtaining the information,
> and whether there are perhaps more efficient ways of investing your
> time and energy to relieve suffering. For example I am involved with
> an organisation called Giving What We Can which tries to determine the
> interventions in the Third World which are most cost-effective at
> relieving suffering, and I did offer to help with the research at one
> stage. If suffering reduction is the goal, then it would be a question
> of where your resources are best spent.
>
>> You ****wit.
>>
>>>>>>>>> You have never given any practical suggestions for how to follow a
>>>>>>>>> meat-including diet that is lower in harm than many vegan diets.

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

>
> No, it's because at this stage I don't have any thoughts about how to
> go about doing that which are especially useful. I could put aside
> some time and energy into thinking of ways to try to find out, sure,
> and I might possibly be able to achieve some suffering reduction that
> way. But there might very well be more efficient ways for me to invest
> my time and resources in order to achieve reduction in suffering.
>
> If you wish to believe that I don't really care about reducing
> suffering then that's no skin off my nose. I don't really know why you
> find that belief especially plausible, and I think it might be
> interesting for you to examine exactly why it is so important for you
> to believe that.
>
> I don't know what you think I would get out of following a vegan diet
> if not the desire to reduce suffering.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>> That's a lie.

>>
>>>>>>> So where have you given the suggestion, then?

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

George Plimpton 08-03-2012 05:47 PM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
On 3/8/2012 8:22 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 8, 5:10 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 3/8/2012 8:09 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 8, 4:50 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 3/8/2012 12:18 AM, Rupert wrote:

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

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

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

>>
>>>>>>> You implied it asshole.

>>
>>>>>> I didn't, you cocksucker.

>>
>>>>> If you didn't want to imply that,

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

>>
>>> Yes, the context of what you wrote suggested that

>>
>> No, I didn't suggest that at all.

>
> You yourself didn't suggest it, but


So, that topic is finished.

Rupert 08-03-2012 06:41 PM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
On Mar 8, 5:45*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/8/2012 8:08 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 8, 4:50 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/8/2012 12:17 AM, Rupert wrote:

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

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

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

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Veganism is not predicated on a comparison.

>
> >>>>>>>>>> Of course it is.

>
> >>>>>>>>> Wrong.

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

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

>
> >>>>>> Gotcha!

>
> >>>>> I see.

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

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

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

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

>
> > No, I'm not.

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

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

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

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

>
> >>>> No, because they can be relocated.

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

>
> >> Yes, eminently so.

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

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

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

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

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

>
> > For all I know they have.

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

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

>
> >>>>>> The entire thing is shit.

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

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

>
> >>> Actually, that is theoretically possible

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

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

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

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

>
> >> You ****wit.

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

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

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

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

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

>
> >>>>>>>> That's a lie.

>
> >>>>>>> So where have you given the suggestion, then?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Okay, so how do you know that?

Rupert 08-03-2012 06:42 PM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
On Mar 8, 5:47*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/8/2012 8:22 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 8, 5:10 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/8/2012 8:09 AM, Rupert wrote:

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

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

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

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

>
> >>>>>>> You implied it asshole.

>
> >>>>>> I didn't, you cocksucker.

>
> >>>>> If you didn't want to imply that,

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

>
> >>> Yes, the context of what you wrote suggested that

>
> >> No, I didn't suggest that at all.

>
> > You yourself didn't suggest it, but

>
> So, that topic is finished.


Here is the original question which you snipped and refused to answer:

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

Maybe we could have an answer to the question.

George Plimpton 08-03-2012 07:02 PM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
On 3/8/2012 9:41 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 8, 5:45 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 3/8/2012 8:08 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 8, 4:50 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 3/8/2012 12:17 AM, Rupert wrote:

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

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

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

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Veganism is not predicated on a comparison.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course it is.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong.

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

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

>>
>>>>>>>> Gotcha!

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

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

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

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

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

>>
>>> No, I'm not.

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

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

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

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

>>
>>>>>> No, because they can be relocated.

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

>>
>>>> Yes, eminently so.

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

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

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

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

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

>>
>>> For all I know they have.

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

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

>>
>>>>>>>> The entire thing is shit.

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

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

>>
>>>>> Actually, that is theoretically possible

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

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

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

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

>>
>>>> You ****wit.

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

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

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

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

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

>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's a lie.

>>
>>>>>>>>> So where have you given the suggestion, then?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>
> Okay, so how do you know that?


Because a given number of kcals of 100% grass-fed beef causes fewer CDs
than the same kcals of soybeans.

George Plimpton 08-03-2012 07:05 PM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
On 3/8/2012 9:42 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 8, 5:47 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 3/8/2012 8:22 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 8, 5:10 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 3/8/2012 8:09 AM, Rupert wrote:

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

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

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

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

>>
>>>>>>>>> You implied it asshole.

>>
>>>>>>>> I didn't, you cocksucker.

>>
>>>>>>> If you didn't want to imply that,

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

>>
>>>>> Yes, the context of what you wrote suggested that

>>
>>>> No, I didn't suggest that at all.

>>
>>> You yourself didn't suggest it, but

>>
>> So, that topic is finished.

>
> Here is the original question which you snipped and refused to answer:
>
> If you didn't want to imply that, then what was the point of pointing
> out that he was contributing to polar bears' deaths?


Because it's not in their interest to die, and if we do something that
causes their death, or loss of habitat leading to a reduction in the
satisfaction of their interests, then we bear moral responsibility for
it. We may not decide to alter our course of action, but we can't
pretend we don't bear that moral responsibility. "mark" or "glen" or
"karen winter" or "lesley simon" or whoever that ****ing retard is
cannot claim not to be morally responsible.

dh@. 08-03-2012 10:22 PM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 23:18:44 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
wrote:

>On Mar 6, 11:55*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 01:01:06 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Mar 5, 8:22*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 09:35:17 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
>> >> wrote:

>>
>> >> >On 2 Mrz., 16:43, Goo wrote:

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

>>
>> >> >I never said anything about rice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>
>> * * You haven't thought this through enough to make such a claim, since you're
>> only now--IF you finally are now--beginning to accept the fact that beef
>> sometimes involves less.

>
>I don't have any way of knowing, do I?


It's easy to figure that sometimes beef causes fewer and sometimes soy does,
depending on the conditions. It's a safe enough bet that there are grass raised
cattle who kill little or no other animals, and also that there are situations
in which soy production results in many deaths. About the only time soy does not
involve many deaths is when there are not many animals in the area because
they've been killed off in the past.

>You refuse to give *any* estimate at all for the death rate associated
>with one serving of tofu.


So do you.

>If you do not have any idea of any range
>into which the number falls, then you're not in a position to make any
>comparisons.


Neither are you. That being the case it doesn't make sense for you to have
made your extreme dietary choice (veg*nism) based on something you don't know
anything about.
.. . .
>> * * When you go look into grass raised dairy while at the same time getting to
>> see some first hand examples of dairy cows on a farm, while you think about the
>> value of life to them also think about the fact that they contribute to less
>> deaths than soy, and WAY fewer deaths than rice. That *could* be a big learning
>> day for you, and it could lead to many many more if you find a place where you
>> can regularly get some grass raised dairy, and enjoy seeing cows enjoying lives
>> of positive value (most days, hopefully :-), and maybe you could finally learn
>> what that means too.
>> . . .
>> >> * * 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.


dh@. 08-03-2012 10:22 PM

Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The 'vegan' shuffle)
 
On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 13:57:21 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 12:55:32 +0000, Glen > wrote:
>>
>>>On 06/03/2012 08:57, Rupert wrote:

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

>>
>>>>> Woopert, "glen" here is a "vegan" who claims his diet doesn't kill
>>>>> *any*
>>>>> animals. What do you have to say to him, Woopert?
>>>>
>>>> He is incorrect.
>>>
>>>I have never denied that animals die during crop production. What I
>>>deny is ... [Goo's] baseless claim that all the food I eat is
>>>/contaminated/
>>>with it.

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

>
>See ...[Goo] arguing against veganism.


"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans".
"Vegans" aren't interested in contributing to lives of any
quality for farm animals: they don't want there to be farm
animals." - Goo

"Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing
you ever wrote." - Goo

"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo

"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
to experience life" - Goo

>See how he ALWAYS does.


""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
an influence, whether you like it or not." - Goo

""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
live in bad conditions." - Goo

""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - Goo

"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
consideration, and gets it." - Goo

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo

"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
(in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
killing them." - Goo

"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo

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


""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo

"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo

"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
experience life" deserves no consideration when asking
whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Goo

"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo

>See how that shows what a fool you are.


"you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not to raise the
animals as the only way to prevent the harm that results from
killing them." - Goo

"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo

"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo

Rupert 09-03-2012 08:39 AM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
On Mar 8, 7:02*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/8/2012 9:41 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 8, 5:45 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/8/2012 8:08 AM, Rupert wrote:

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

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

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

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

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Veganism is not predicated on a comparison.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Of course it is.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Wrong.

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

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

>
> >>>>>>>> Gotcha!

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

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

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

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

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

>
> >>> No, I'm not.

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

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

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

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

>
> >>>>>> No, because they can be relocated.

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

>
> >>>> Yes, eminently so.

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

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

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

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

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

>
> >>> For all I know they have.

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

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

>
> >>>>>>>> The entire thing is shit.

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

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

>
> >>>>> Actually, that is theoretically possible

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

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

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

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

>
> >>>> You ****wit.

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

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

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

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

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

>
> >>>>>>>>>> That's a lie.

>
> >>>>>>>>> So where have you given the suggestion, then?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>
> > Okay, so how do you know that?

>
> Because a given number of kcals of 100% grass-fed beef causes fewer CDs
> than the same kcals of soybeans.


But you need to factor in the death caused by slaughtering the cow,
and also any deaths the farmer has to cause to protect the cattle from
predators, and I don't know how the comparison would come out then.
You also need to take account of other harms the cow may suffer like
being dehorned and branded without anaesthetic.

Rupert 09-03-2012 08:40 AM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
On Mar 8, 7:05*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/8/2012 9:42 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 8, 5:47 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/8/2012 8:22 AM, Rupert wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

>
> >>>>>>>>> You implied it asshole.

>
> >>>>>>>> I didn't, you cocksucker.

>
> >>>>>>> If you didn't want to imply that,

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

>
> >>>>> Yes, the context of what you wrote suggested that

>
> >>>> No, I didn't suggest that at all.

>
> >>> You yourself didn't suggest it, but

>
> >> So, that topic is finished.

>
> > Here is the original question which you snipped and refused to answer:

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

>
> Because it's not in their interest to die, and if we do something that
> causes their death, or loss of habitat leading to a reduction in the
> satisfaction of their interests, then we bear moral responsibility for
> it. *We may not decide to alter our course of action, but we can't
> pretend we don't bear that moral responsibility. *"mark" or "glen" or
> "karen winter" or "lesley simon" or whoever that ****ing retard is
> cannot claim not to be morally responsible.


And if the Pacific Islands end up completely submerged so that many
people are turned into destitute environmental refugees (and it's also
not especially realistic to think that it wouldn't be the case that
some people would die), then you cannot claim not to have a share in
the moral responsibility for that.

Rupert 09-03-2012 08:50 AM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
On Mar 8, 10:22*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 23:18:44 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Mar 6, 11:55*pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 01:01:06 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
> >> wrote:

>
> >> >On Mar 5, 8:22*pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 09:35:17 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
> >> >> wrote:

>
> >> >> >On 2 Mrz., 16:43, Goo wrote:

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

>
> >> >> >I never said anything about rice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>
> >> * * You haven't thought this through enough to make such a claim, since you're
> >> only now--IF you finally are now--beginning to accept the fact that beef
> >> sometimes involves less.

>
> >I don't have any way of knowing, do I?

>
> * * It's easy to figure that sometimes beef causes fewer and sometimes soy does,
> depending on the conditions. It's a safe enough bet that there are grass raised
> cattle who kill little or no other animals, and also that there are situations
> in which soy production results in many deaths. About the only time soy does not
> involve many deaths is when there are not many animals in the area because
> they've been killed off in the past.
>
> >You refuse to give *any* estimate at all for the death rate associated
> >with one serving of tofu.

>
> * * So do you.
>


Yes, but I'm not making any claims which would require such an
estimate to back them up.

> >If you do not have any idea of any range
> >into which the number falls, then you're not in a position to make any
> >comparisons.

>
> * * Neither are you. That being the case it doesn't make sense for you to have
> made your extreme dietary choice (veg*nism) based on something you don't know
> anything about.
> . . .
>


Modern animal farming causes a lot of suffering. Also, most animal
food products require more crop production, and therefore more CDs, to
produce a given serving of food than to produce a calorically
equivalent serving of plant food. It is therefore reasonable for me to
believe that veganism is a good strategy for me to reduce the amount
of suffering and premature death associated with my diet. That is what
motivated me to become a vegan and from where I'm standing it makes
perfect sense.

I am not in a position to know what difference it would make if I
replaced some of the tofu in my diet with 100% grass-fed beef (and I
think it would take a bit of effort to make sure it really was 100%
grass-fed beef all year round) and I have never claimed to be in a
position to know. You, on the other hand, have claimed to be in a
position to know, but it looks like you actually aren't, so you should
stop making the claim.


George Plimpton 09-03-2012 05:04 PM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
On 3/8/2012 11:39 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 8, 7:02 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 3/8/2012 9:41 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 8, 5:45 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 3/8/2012 8:08 AM, Rupert wrote:

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

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

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

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

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Veganism is not predicated on a comparison.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course it is.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong.

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

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

>>
>>>>>>>>>> Gotcha!

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

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

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

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

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

>>
>>>>> No, I'm not.

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

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

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

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

>>
>>>>>>>> No, because they can be relocated.

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

>>
>>>>>> Yes, eminently so.

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

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

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

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

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

>>
>>>>> For all I know they have.

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

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

>>
>>>>>>>>>> The entire thing is shit.

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

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

>>
>>>>>>> Actually, that is theoretically possible

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

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

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

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

>>
>>>>>> You ****wit.

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

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

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

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

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

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a lie.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So where have you given the suggestion, then?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>
>>> Okay, so how do you know that?

>>
>> Because a given number of kcals of 100% grass-fed beef causes fewer CDs
>> than the same kcals of soybeans.

>
> But you need to factor in the death caused by slaughtering the cow,


One. Big ****ing deal. Meanwhile, if you eat a serving of soybeans
from a field that killed a couple of thousand animals, you bear moral
responsibility for all of them - we have established that everyone who
consumes the product bears responsibility for the entire population of
CDs, not some goofy pro rata share.

There is simply no getting around the fact that you ****wits are
assigning some vague, touchy-feely emotional value to livestock animals.
You don't want to eat them, and you can't really say why. You try,
but you fail. You come up with heavy volumes of turgid, leaden
gobbledygook to try to give it a patina of "scholarship", but in the end
it's nothing but your childish feelings.

It really is a head-in-the-sand belief system. You don't want to eat
meat because with each bite, you'd be thinking about the poor little
roly-poly piggy or the sad-eyed moo-cow that was killed, or the grieving
hen mommy who lost her eggs. But because your cooked vegetable mush
left the animals it caused to die in the fields, unseen, you - being
children - can easily ignore them. Out of sight, out of mind.

I don't think you idiots have any idea of the extent to which normal
people view you as emotional children.

Dutch 09-03-2012 10:07 PM

Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The 'vegan' shuffle)
 


<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 13:57:21 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 12:55:32 +0000, Glen > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 06/03/2012 08:57, Rupert wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On Mar 6, 5:08 am, Goo wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Woopert, "glen" here is a "vegan" who claims his diet doesn't kill
>>>>>> *any*
>>>>>> animals. What do you have to say to him, Woopert?
>>>>>
>>>>> He is incorrect.
>>>>
>>>>I have never denied that animals die during crop production. What I
>>>>deny is ... [Goo's] baseless claim that all the food I eat is
>>>>/contaminated/
>>>>with it.
>>>
>>> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals [...]

>>
>>See ...[Goo] arguing against veganism.

>
> "People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans".
> "Vegans" aren't interested in contributing to lives of any
> quality for farm animals: they don't want there to be farm
> animals." - Goo
>
> "Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing
> you ever wrote." - Goo
>
> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
>
> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>
> "There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
> to experience life" - Goo
>
>>See how he ALWAYS does.

>
> ""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
> ****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
> mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
> an influence, whether you like it or not." - Goo
>
> ""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
> And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
> live in bad conditions." - Goo
>
> ""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - Goo
>
> "the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
> consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
> of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
> consideration, and gets it." - Goo
>
> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
> their deaths" - Goo
>
> "Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
> (in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
> killing them." - Goo
>
> "When considering your food choices ethically, assign
> ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
> eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo
>
>>See how you continue to insist that he a <sic> "eliminationist".

>
> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
> their deaths" - Goo
>
> "the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
> ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
> moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo
>
> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
> than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
>
> "The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
> experience life" deserves no consideration when asking
> whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Goo
>
> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
> of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
>
>>See how that shows what a fool you are.

>
> "you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not to raise the
> animals as the only way to prevent the harm that results from
> killing them." - Goo
>
> "Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo
>
> "There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
> exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo


Thanks for such a clear demonstration of your blinding stupidity.




George Plimpton 09-03-2012 11:39 PM

Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The'vegan' shuffle)
 
On 3/8/2012 1:22 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 13:57:21 -0800, > wrote:
>
>> <dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 12:55:32 +0000, > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 06/03/2012 08:57, Rupert wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On Mar 6, 5:08 am, Goo wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Woopert, "glen" here is a "vegan" who claims his diet doesn't kill
>>>>>> *any*
>>>>>> animals. What do you have to say to him, Woopert?
>>>>>
>>>>> He is incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> I have never denied that animals die during crop production. What I
>>>> deny is ... [Goo's] baseless claim that all the food I eat is
>>>> /contaminated/
>>>> with it.
>>>
>>> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals [...]

>>
>> See ...Prof. Geo. Plimpton arguing against veganism.

>
> "People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans".
> "Vegans" aren't interested in contributing to lives of any
> quality for farm animals: they don't want there to be farm
> animals." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton


A true statement.


>
> "Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing
> you ever wrote." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton


Another true statement.


>
> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton


Another true statement.

>
> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton


Another true statement.

>
> "There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
> to experience life" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton


Another true statement.

>
>> See how he ALWAYS does.

>
> ""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
> ****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
> mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
> an influence, whether you like it or not." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton


Another true statement.

>
> ""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
> And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
> live in bad conditions." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton


Another true statement.

>
> ""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton


Another true statement.

>
> "the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
> consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
> of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
> consideration, and gets it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton


Another true statement.

>
> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness, if any,
> of their deaths" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton


Another true statement.

>
> "Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
> (in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
> killing them." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton


Another true statement.

They are all true statements.


>
> "When considering your food choices ethically, assign
> ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
> eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>
>> See how you continue to insist that he a<sic> "eliminationist".

>
> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
> their deaths" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>
> "the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
> ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
> moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>
> "the moral harm, if any, caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
> than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>
> "The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
> experience life" deserves no consideration when asking
> whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>
> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
> of the animals erases all of it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>
>> See how that shows what a fool you are.

>
> "you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not to raise the
> animals as the only way to prevent the harm that results from
> killing them." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>
> "Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>
> "There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
> exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton


All true.



Rupert 10-03-2012 10:03 AM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
On Mar 9, 5:04*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/8/2012 11:39 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> > On Mar 8, 7:02 pm, George > *wrote:
> >> On 3/8/2012 9:41 AM, Rupert wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Veganism is not predicated on a comparison.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course it is.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong.

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

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

>
> >>>>>>>>>> Gotcha!

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

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

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

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

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

>
> >>>>> No, I'm not.

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

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

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

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

>
> >>>>>>>> No, because they can be relocated.

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

>
> >>>>>> Yes, eminently so.

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

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

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

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

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

>
> >>>>> For all I know they have.

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

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

>
> >>>>>>>>>> The entire thing is shit.

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

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

>
> >>>>>>> Actually, that is theoretically possible

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

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

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

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

>
> >>>>>> You ****wit.

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

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

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

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

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

>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> That's a lie.

>
> >>>>>>>>>>> So where have you given the suggestion, then?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>
> >>> Okay, so how do you know that?

>
> >> Because a given number of kcals of 100% grass-fed beef causes fewer CDs
> >> than the same kcals of soybeans.

>
> > But you need to factor in the death caused by slaughtering the cow,

>
> One. *Big ****ing deal. *Meanwhile, if you eat a serving of soybeans
> from a field that killed a couple of thousand animals, you bear moral
> responsibility for all of them - we have established that everyone who
> consumes the product bears responsibility for the entire population of
> CDs, not some goofy pro rata share.
>


You didn't establish any such thing. You asserted it. I am not
interested in what I bear moral responsibility for according to your
idiosyncratic views. I am interested in my expected contribution to
the amount of suffering and premature death of conscious creatures
that actually takes place.

> There is simply no getting around the fact that you ****wits are
> assigning some vague, touchy-feely emotional value to livestock animals.
> * You don't want to eat them, and you can't really say why. *You try,
> but you fail. *You come up with heavy volumes of turgid, leaden
> gobbledygook to try to give it a patina of "scholarship", but in the end
> it's nothing but your childish feelings.
>
> It really is a head-in-the-sand belief system. *You don't want to eat
> meat because with each bite, you'd be thinking about the poor little
> roly-poly piggy or the sad-eyed moo-cow that was killed, or the grieving
> hen mommy who lost her eggs. *But because your cooked vegetable mush
> left the animals it caused to die in the fields, unseen, you - being
> children - can easily ignore them. *Out of sight, out of mind.
>
> I don't think you idiots have any idea of the extent to which normal
> people view you as emotional children.


You also think that I don't believe you're an idiot.

Rupert 10-03-2012 10:40 AM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
On Mar 5, 4:42*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> It's an insincere and time-wasting question.

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

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

>
> >>>>> You reckon?

>
> >>>> Guaranteed.

>
> >>> How do you know?

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

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

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


No. I don't know that the expected contribution to CDs caused by
buying and eating one serving of tofu is greater than or equal to one.

Rupert 10-03-2012 10:51 AM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
On Mar 7, 10:12*pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "Derek" > wrote in message
>
> news:davcl7dgen51h2oq7a69u3vr25ci1emro8@Derek...
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 10:59:20 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

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

>
> >>That's bad advice.

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

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

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

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

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

>
> No I didn't.


Did you or did you not have kids? Isn't it the case that you have
given inconsistent testimony about that on different occasions?

George Plimpton 10-03-2012 03:00 PM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
On 3/10/2012 1:03 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 9, 5:04 pm, George > wrote:
>> On 3/8/2012 11:39 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>> On Mar 8, 7:02 pm, George > wrote:
>>>> On 3/8/2012 9:41 AM, Rupert wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Veganism is not predicated on a comparison.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Of course it is.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong.

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

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

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Gotcha!

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

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

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

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

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

>>
>>>>>>> No, I'm not.

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

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

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

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

>>
>>>>>>>>>> No, because they can be relocated.

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

>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, eminently so.

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

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

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

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

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

>>
>>>>>>> For all I know they have.

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

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

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The entire thing is shit.

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

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

>>
>>>>>>>>> Actually, that is theoretically possible

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

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

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

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

>>
>>>>>>>> You ****wit.

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

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

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

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

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

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a lie.

>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So where have you given the suggestion, then?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>
>>>>> Okay, so how do you know that?

>>
>>>> Because a given number of kcals of 100% grass-fed beef causes fewer CDs
>>>> than the same kcals of soybeans.

>>
>>> But you need to factor in the death caused by slaughtering the cow,

>>
>> One. Big ****ing deal. Meanwhile, if you eat a serving of soybeans
>> from a field that killed a couple of thousand animals, you bear moral
>> responsibility for all of them - we have established that everyone who
>> consumes the product bears responsibility for the entire population of
>> CDs, not some goofy pro rata share.
>>

>
> You didn't establish any such thing.


It is established.


>> There is simply no getting around the fact that you ****wits are
>> assigning some vague, touchy-feely emotional value to livestock animals.
>> You don't want to eat them, and you can't really say why. You try,
>> but you fail. You come up with heavy volumes of turgid, leaden
>> gobbledygook to try to give it a patina of "scholarship", but in the end
>> it's nothing but your childish feelings.
>>
>> It really is a head-in-the-sand belief system. You don't want to eat
>> meat because with each bite, you'd be thinking about the poor little
>> roly-poly piggy or the sad-eyed moo-cow that was killed, or the grieving
>> hen mommy who lost her eggs. But because your cooked vegetable mush
>> left the animals it caused to die in the fields, unseen, you - being
>> children - can easily ignore them. Out of sight, out of mind.
>>
>> I don't think you idiots have any idea of the extent to which normal
>> people view you as emotional children.

>
> You also think that I don't believe you're an idiot.


You don't.

George Plimpton 10-03-2012 03:00 PM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
On 3/10/2012 1:40 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 5, 4:42 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> It's an insincere and time-wasting question.

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

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

>>
>>>>>>> You reckon?

>>
>>>>>> Guaranteed.

>>
>>>>> How do you know?

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

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

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

>
> No. I don't know that


You do know it.

Rupert 10-03-2012 03:40 PM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
On 10 Mrz., 15:00, George Plimpton > wrote:

>
> >> One. *Big ****ing deal. *Meanwhile, if you eat a serving of soybeans
> >> from a field that killed a couple of thousand animals, you bear moral
> >> responsibility for all of them - we have established that everyone who
> >> consumes the product bears responsibility for the entire population of
> >> CDs, not some goofy pro rata share.

>
> > You didn't establish any such thing.

>
> It is established.
>


Is it established by means of some argument, or by the fact that you
assert it?

> >> There is simply no getting around the fact that you ****wits are
> >> assigning some vague, touchy-feely emotional value to livestock animals.
> >> * *You don't want to eat them, and you can't really say why. *You try,
> >> but you fail. *You come up with heavy volumes of turgid, leaden
> >> gobbledygook to try to give it a patina of "scholarship", but in the end
> >> it's nothing but your childish feelings.

>
> >> It really is a head-in-the-sand belief system. *You don't want to eat
> >> meat because with each bite, you'd be thinking about the poor little
> >> roly-poly piggy or the sad-eyed moo-cow that was killed, or the grieving
> >> hen mommy who lost her eggs. *But because your cooked vegetable mush
> >> left the animals it caused to die in the fields, unseen, you - being
> >> children - can easily ignore them. *Out of sight, out of mind.

>
> >> I don't think you idiots have any idea of the extent to which normal
> >> people view you as emotional children.

>
> > You also think that I don't believe you're an idiot.

>
> You don't.


And that I have a "head-in-the-sand" belief system. :)

George Plimpton 10-03-2012 03:43 PM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
On 3/10/2012 3:06 AM, father of the bride wrote:

I *like* that nym!


> On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 01:51:42 -0800 (PST), > wrote:
>> On Mar 7, 10:12 pm, > wrote:
>>> > wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 10:59:20 -0800, > wrote:
>>>>> > wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't pay any attention to the naysayers here.
>>>
>>>>> That's bad advice.
>>>
>>>>>> Their only objective
>>>>>> is to make vegans feel that their efforts are worthless.
>>>
>>>>> Some of their efforts have merit, for example a well
>>>>> designed vegan diet can be healthy,
>>>
>>>> You say that now, but you'll soon be back to saying,
>>>
>>>> "As I have mentioned here before, failure to thrive is
>>>> one of vegetarianism's dirty little secrets. I have
>>>> experienced it first- hand, my family returned to eating
>>>> meat after 18 years as vegetarians because of it."
>>>> Dutch Aug 5 2004 http://tinyurl.com/yd5u5a
>>>
>>> That doesn't contradict what I said above.

>
> Yes, it does. You said that "a well-designed vegan diet can
> be healthy" above, but you've often said that it isn't, and that
> a failure to thrive on it is one of vegetarianism's dirty little
> secrets. The only dirty little secret I can see is yours. You
> haven't had any kids. You don't have a family. They and you
> didn't fail to thrive on a vegetarian diet. Your anecdotal
> evidence used to support your arguments is a lie.
>
>>>> Face it, Dutch, there's not a single issue that's been raised
>>>> here, or anywhere, that you haven't lied about. You even
>>>> lied about having kids to make that particular lie more
>>>> convincing.
>>>
>>> No I didn't.

>>
>> Did you or did you not have kids? Isn't it the case that you have
>> given inconsistent testimony about that on different occasions?

>
> Yes, it's true that he has lied about having and not having
> kids to help support his arguments here on animal-related
> newsgroups and on alt.abortion.
>
> "The land goes back in my wife's family quite a few
> generations and making something like this out of it
> would be grand, **we have no kids** to leave it to."
> Dutch Oct 22 2001 http://tinyurl.com/yk8qoh
>
> "My wife and I had two kids .. "
> Dutch Jun 30 2003 http://tinyurl.com/ssm99
>
> "As I have mentioned here before, failure to thrive is
> one of vegetarianism's dirty little secrets. I have
> experienced it first- hand, my family returned to eating
> meat after 18 years as vegetarians because of it."
> Dutch Aug 5 2004 http://tinyurl.com/yd5u5a
>
> "During my wife's pregnancies *I* ended up doing
> most of the housework ..."
> Dutch Jan 19 2006 http://tinyurl.com/yz4dsw
>
> "No child is born into ideal circumstances. Were you?
> I sure wasn't. My wife wasn't, neither were my kids."
> Dutch Feb 20 2006 http://tinyurl.com/yb4dhz
>
> "I don't want my kids seeing cancer surgery or videos
> of assaults or anything that might cause them undue
> emotional distress. They're children."
> Dutch Jun 30 2006 http://tinyurl.com/ybu8kq
>
> "I never forced my kids to be vegetarians, and they
> weren't, [because I never had kids].
> Dutch Oct 17 2006 http://tinyurl.com/y9trhd
>
> In alt.abortion he argued,
>
> "In fact I have been a pro-choice activist, my former
> wife was a nurse in an abortion clinic for a time with
> Henry Morgentaler prior to Roe v Wade. She faced
> charges for it. My current wife has had an abortion."
> Dutch 7 May 2006 http://tinyurl.com/28oxdg
>
> But
>
> [start - A.M. to Dutch]
> > Does your wife agree with your principles? What if
> > she didn't? Would you divorce her if she aborted your
> > child? If your wife mistakenly got pregnant and simply
> > did not want to committ to the full term and subsequent
> > child bearing, would you leave her?

> [Dutch]
> My wife would never kill a member of our family, not
> before birth, not after. The idea is unthinkable.
> [end]
> Dutch 4 Dec 2002 http://tinyurl.com/3dz22p



Rupert 10-03-2012 03:44 PM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
On 10 Mrz., 15:00, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/10/2012 1:40 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 5, 4:42 pm, George > *wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> It's an insincere and time-wasting question.

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

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

>
> >>>>>>> You reckon?

>
> >>>>>> Guaranteed.

>
> >>>>> How do you know?

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

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

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

>
> > No. I don't know that

>
> You do know it.


You referred to Steven Davis' estimates of the death toll associated
with crop production as "reliable" when discussing the matter with
Glen, yes? That estimate was 15 collateral deaths per hectare, yes?

And do you wish to quarrel with Gaverick Matheny's assertion that "In
one year, 1,000 kilograms of protein can be produced on as few as 1.0
hectares planted with soy and corn"? And that 20 kilograms of protein
per year is recommended for adults?


George Plimpton 10-03-2012 04:16 PM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
On 3/10/2012 6:40 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 10 Mrz., 15:00, George > wrote:
>
>>
>>>> One. Big ****ing deal. Meanwhile, if you eat a serving of soybeans
>>>> from a field that killed a couple of thousand animals, you bear moral
>>>> responsibility for all of them - we have established that everyone who
>>>> consumes the product bears responsibility for the entire population of
>>>> CDs, not some goofy pro rata share.

>>
>>> You didn't establish any such thing.

>>
>> It is established.
>>

>
> Is it established by means of some argument, or by the fact that you
> assert it?


It's established. You know it is.


>>>> There is simply no getting around the fact that you ****wits are
>>>> assigning some vague, touchy-feely emotional value to livestock animals.
>>>> You don't want to eat them, and you can't really say why. You try,
>>>> but you fail. You come up with heavy volumes of turgid, leaden
>>>> gobbledygook to try to give it a patina of "scholarship", but in the end
>>>> it's nothing but your childish feelings.

>>
>>>> It really is a head-in-the-sand belief system. You don't want to eat
>>>> meat because with each bite, you'd be thinking about the poor little
>>>> roly-poly piggy or the sad-eyed moo-cow that was killed, or the grieving
>>>> hen mommy who lost her eggs. But because your cooked vegetable mush
>>>> left the animals it caused to die in the fields, unseen, you - being
>>>> children - can easily ignore them. Out of sight, out of mind.

>>
>>>> I don't think you idiots have any idea of the extent to which normal
>>>> people view you as emotional children.

>>
>>> You also think that I don't believe you're an idiot.

>>
>> You don't.

>
> And that I have a "head-in-the-sand" belief system.


You do.

George Plimpton 10-03-2012 04:18 PM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
On 3/10/2012 6:44 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 10 Mrz., 15:00, George > wrote:
>> On 3/10/2012 1:40 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mar 5, 4:42 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's an insincere and time-wasting question.

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

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

>>
>>>>>>>>> You reckon?

>>
>>>>>>>> Guaranteed.

>>
>>>>>>> How do you know?

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

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

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

>>
>>> No. I don't know that

>>
>> You do know it.

>
> You referred to Steven Davis' estimates of the death toll associated
> with crop production as "reliable" when discussing the matter with
> Glen, yes? That estimate was 15 collateral deaths per hectare, yes?
>
> And do you wish to quarrel with Gaverick Matheny's assertion that "In
> one year, 1,000 kilograms of protein can be produced on as few as 1.0
> hectares planted with soy and corn"? And that 20 kilograms of protein
> per year is recommended for adults?


Everyone who eats some part - *any* part - of the produce coming from a
15 CDs hectare "owns" all 15 CDs. So, if a person eats some corn and
some soy, he "owns" 30 CDs right there.

Want to keep going?

George Plimpton 10-03-2012 04:19 PM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
On 3/10/2012 7:18 AM, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 3/10/2012 6:44 AM, Rupert wrote:
>> On 10 Mrz., 15:00, George > wrote:
>>> On 3/10/2012 1:40 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Mar 5, 4:42 pm, George > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's an insincere and time-wasting question.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So you appear to believe.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Because it is.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You reckon?
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Guaranteed.
>>>
>>>>>>>> How do you know?
>>>
>>>>>>> I have lots of experience with your insincerity and time-wasting
>>>>>>> efforts.
>>>
>>>>>> I don't believe that I have any way of knowing how the number of
>>>>>> premature deaths caused per calorically equivalent serving of tofu
>>>>>> compares with that for grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish.
>>>
>>>>> You know, intuitively and based on plausibility, that raising the
>>>>> vegetable crops you would have to substitute in order to get
>>>>> equivalent
>>>>> nutrition causes multiple CDs, and that 100% grass-fed beef or
>>>>> wild-caught fish causes none.
>>>
>>>> No. I don't know that
>>>
>>> You do know it.

>>
>> You referred to Steven Davis' estimates of the death toll associated
>> with crop production as "reliable" when discussing the matter with
>> Glen, yes? That estimate was 15 collateral deaths per hectare, yes?
>>
>> And do you wish to quarrel with Gaverick Matheny's assertion that "In
>> one year, 1,000 kilograms of protein can be produced on as few as 1.0
>> hectares planted with soy and corn"? And that 20 kilograms of protein
>> per year is recommended for adults?

>
> Everyone who eats some part - *any* part - of the produce coming from a
> 15 CDs hectare "owns" all 15 CDs. So, if a person eats some corn and
> some soy, he "owns" 30 CDs right there.
>
> Want to keep going?


I forgot to add...it is obvious that smug cocksucker Matheny is figuring
there is a pro rata share of CDs for which one incurs responsibility,
but that's false.


Dutch 10-03-2012 08:27 PM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 


"Rupert" > wrote in message
...
> On Mar 7, 10:12 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>> "Derek" > wrote in message
>>
>> news:davcl7dgen51h2oq7a69u3vr25ci1emro8@Derek...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 10:59:20 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

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

>>
>> >>That's bad advice.

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

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

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

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

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

>>
>> No I didn't.

>
> Did you or did you not have kids? Isn't it the case that you have
> given inconsistent testimony about that on different occasions?


None of your business and no, I haven't.




Dutch 10-03-2012 08:51 PM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
"father of the bride" > wrote in message
news:cacml79sd92idg3ebhq5i9fl77g91hdh4g@father_of_ the_bride...
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 01:51:42 -0800 (PST), Rupert
> > wrote:
>>On Mar 7, 10:12 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>> "Derek" > wrote:
>>> > On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 10:59:20 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>> >>"Derek" > wrote
>>> >>
>>> >>> Don't pay any attention to the naysayers here.
>>>
>>> >>That's bad advice.
>>>
>>> >>> Their only objective
>>> >>> is to make vegans feel that their efforts are worthless.
>>>
>>> >>Some of their efforts have merit, for example a well
>>> >>designed vegan diet can be healthy,
>>>
>>> > You say that now, but you'll soon be back to saying,
>>>
>>> > "As I have mentioned here before, failure to thrive is
>>> > one of vegetarianism's dirty little secrets. I have
>>> > experienced it first- hand, my family returned to eating
>>> > meat after 18 years as vegetarians because of it."
>>> > Dutch Aug 5 2004 http://tinyurl.com/yd5u5a
>>>
>>> That doesn't contradict what I said above.

>
> Yes, it does.


No, it doesn't.

>You said that "a well-designed vegan diet can
> be healthy" above,


It can.

> but you've often said that it isn't


Sometimes it isn't.

> and that
> a failure to thrive on it is one of vegetarianism's dirty little
> secrets.


It is. http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w...b-scen1b.shtml

> The only dirty little secret I can see is yours. You
> haven't had any kids.


Whether I actually have kids or I prefer to refer to 'my kids' in the
hypothetical should be none of your concern.

> You don't have a family.


Yes I do.

> They and you
> didn't fail to thrive on a vegetarian diet. Your anecdotal
> evidence used to support your arguments is a lie.


Yes we did, but if you don't believe me just read this
http://www.beyondveg.com/nicholson-w...b-scen1b.shtml



Dutch 10-03-2012 10:51 PM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 


"father of the bride" > wrote in message
news:skcnl71rh3gpkeo79njgchogaa3hg9juki@father_of_ the_bride...
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 11:51:24 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>"father of the bride" > wrote in message
>>news:cacml79sd92idg3ebhq5i9fl77g91hdh4g@father_o f_the_bride...
>>> On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 01:51:42 -0800 (PST), Rupert
>>> > wrote:
>>>>On Mar 7, 10:12 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>> "Derek" > wrote:
>>>>> > On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 10:59:20 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>> >>"Derek" > wrote
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>> Don't pay any attention to the naysayers here.
>>>>>
>>>>> >>That's bad advice.
>>>>>
>>>>> >>> Their only objective
>>>>> >>> is to make vegans feel that their efforts are worthless.
>>>>>
>>>>> >>Some of their efforts have merit, for example a well
>>>>> >>designed vegan diet can be healthy,
>>>>>
>>>>> > You say that now, but you'll soon be back to saying,
>>>>>
>>>>> > "As I have mentioned here before, failure to thrive is
>>>>> > one of vegetarianism's dirty little secrets. I have
>>>>> > experienced it first- hand, my family returned to eating
>>>>> > meat after 18 years as vegetarians because of it."
>>>>> > Dutch Aug 5 2004 http://tinyurl.com/yd5u5a
>>>>>
>>>>> That doesn't contradict what I said above.
>>>
>>> Yes, it does.

>>
>>No, it doesn't.

>
> It does.
>
>>>You said that "a well-designed vegan diet can
>>> be healthy" above, but you've often said that it isn't and that
>>> a failure to thrive on it is one of vegetarianism's dirty little
>>> secrets. The only dirty little secret I can see is yours. You
>>> haven't had any kids.

>>
>>Whether I actually have kids or I prefer to refer to 'my kids' in the
>>hypothetical should be none of your concern.

>
> It is my concern when you invent children to use as anecdotal
> evidence a failure to thrive on a vegetarian diet.


I never did that.

> Your kids
> didn't .suffer on a vegetarian diet


I never said I had kids that suffered on a vegetarian diet.

> And what was all that ********
> about having to do all the hoovering while she was pregnant; another
> hypothetical reference, or just another lie to reinforce the first one?


Context ****wit.

>>> You don't have a family.

>>
>>Yes I do.

>
> I don't believe a word you say about your family, if in fact you
> actually have one.
>
>> > They and you
>>> didn't fail to thrive on a vegetarian diet. Your anecdotal
>>> evidence used to support your arguments is a lie.

>>
>>Yes we did

>
> No, you didn't. You lied about having kids.


I've referred in the past to kids as if I had them rather than say what I
would do *if* I had kids. I have never said that I had kids who suffered
from FTT.

> You lied about your
> family's failure to survive on a vegetarian diet.


That was true.

Pearl got you to
> admit you'd lied:
>
> [start - Pearl to Dutch]
> > Of course I DON'T believe you. No one does. How could we.
> > You LIED about having CHILDREN, for heaven's sake. GLL!

> [Dutch replied]
> Nobody tells the whole truth all the time, and I advise strongly not to
> try
> to claim otherwise.
> [end]
> Dutch Oct 23 2006 http://tinyurl.com/6psp6h7


That's good advice, depending on the situation, people lie all the time,
most many times a day.

>
> You lied about your child status in alt.abortion, too, and used
> personal anecdotes to bolster your arguments there.


This is usenet Derek, not a court of law. Being creative about your
personal life and experiences is perfectly normal. Implying that you never
lie is itself not credible.

You can choose to believe that since I referred to children that I don't
have that discredits everything I have said, but I have have given other
evidence about FTT in vegetarianism, and besides it's a fallacy.




Dutch 10-03-2012 10:53 PM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
"father of the bride" > wrote in message
news:mkbnl7h1peobehrdccbs06ge77i2guog2u@father_of_ the_bride...
> On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 11:27:43 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Rupert" > wrote in message
...
>>> On Mar 7, 10:12 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>> "Derek" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> news:davcl7dgen51h2oq7a69u3vr25ci1emro8@Derek...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 10:59:20 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >>"Derek" > wrote
>>>> >>> Don't pay any attention to the naysayers here.
>>>>
>>>> >>That's bad advice.
>>>>
>>>> >>> Their only objective
>>>> >>> is to make vegans feel that their efforts are worthless.
>>>>
>>>> >>Some of their efforts have merit, for example a well designed vegan
>>>> >>diet
>>>> >>can
>>>> >>be healthy,
>>>>
>>>> > You say that now, but you'll soon be back to saying,
>>>>
>>>> > "As I have mentioned here before, failure to thrive is
>>>> > one of vegetarianism's dirty little secrets. I have
>>>> > experienced it first- hand, my family returned to eating
>>>> > meat after 18 years as vegetarians because of it."
>>>> > Dutch Aug 5 2004 http://tinyurl.com/yd5u5a
>>>>
>>>> That doesn't contradict what I said above.
>>>>
>>>> > Face it, Dutch, there's not a single issue that's been raised
>>>> > here, or anywhere, that you haven't lied about. You even
>>>> > lied about having kids to make that particular lie more
>>>> > convincing.
>>>>
>>>> No I didn't.
>>>
>>> Did you or did you not have kids? Isn't it the case that you have
>>> given inconsistent testimony about that on different occasions?

>>
>>None of your business and no, I haven't.

>
> You lied, and Pearl (Lesley) got you to admit you'd lied, so don't
> lie again, Dutch.
>
> [start - Pearl to Dutch]
> > Of course I DON'T believe you. No one does. How could we.
> > You LIED about having CHILDREN, for heaven's sake. GLL!

> [Dutch replied]
> Nobody tells the whole truth all the time, and I advise strongly not to
> try
> to claim otherwise.
> [end]
> Dutch Oct 23 2006 http://tinyurl.com/6psp6h7
>
> And that, coming from someone who wrote,
>
> "You will never, ever catch me in a lie, because I don't."
> Dutch Oct 16 2006 http://tinyurl.com/yxt76l
>
> just a couple of weeks earlier on the same day in the same thread that
> I caught you bare-faced lying about having kids.


Don't attempt to imply that everything you say is the complete truth Derek,
that's not credible.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...udy-finds.html





Mr.Smartypants[_4_] 12-03-2012 06:13 AM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
On Mar 10, 3:51*pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> "father of the bride" > wrote in messagenews:skcnl71rh3gpkeo79njgchogaa3hg9juki@fat her_of_the_bride...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 11:51:24 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
> >>"father of the bride" > wrote in message
> >>news:cacml79sd92idg3ebhq5i9fl77g91hdh4g@father_o f_the_bride...
> >>> On Sat, 10 Mar 2012 01:51:42 -0800 (PST), Rupert
> >>> > wrote:
> >>>>On Mar 7, 10:12 pm, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>>> "Derek" > wrote:
> >>>>> > On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 10:59:20 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >>>>> >>"Derek" > wrote

>
> >>>>> >>> Don't pay any attention to the naysayers here.

>
> >>>>> >>That's bad advice.

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

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

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

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

>
> >>>>> That doesn't contradict what I said above.

>
> >>> Yes, it does.

>
> >>No, it doesn't.

>
> > It does.

>
> >>>You said that "a well-designed vegan diet can
> >>> be healthy" above, but you've often said that it isn't and that
> >>> a failure to thrive on it is one of vegetarianism's dirty little
> >>> secrets. The only dirty little secret I can see is yours. You
> >>> haven't had any kids.

>
> >>Whether I actually have kids or I prefer to refer to 'my kids' in the
> >>hypothetical should be none of your concern.

>
> > It is my concern when you invent children to use as anecdotal
> > evidence a failure to thrive on a vegetarian diet.

>
> I never did that.
>
> > Your kids
> > didn't .suffer on a vegetarian diet

>
> I never said I had kids that suffered on a vegetarian diet.
>
> > And what was all that ********
> > about having to do all the hoovering while she was pregnant; another
> > hypothetical reference, or just another lie to reinforce the first one?

>
> Context ****wit.
>
> >>> You don't have a family.

>
> >>Yes I do.

>
> > I don't believe a word you say about your family, if in fact you
> > actually have one.

>
> >> > They and you
> >>> didn't fail to thrive on a vegetarian diet. Your anecdotal
> >>> evidence used to support your arguments is a lie.

>
> >>Yes we did

>
> > No, you didn't. You lied about having kids.

>
> I've referred in the past to kids as if I had them rather than say what I
> would do *if* I had kids. I have never said that I had kids who suffered
> from FTT.
>
> > You lied about your
> > family's failure to survive on a vegetarian diet.

>
> That was true.
>
> Pearl got you to
>
> > admit you'd lied:

>
> > [start - Pearl to Dutch]
> > > Of course I DON'T believe you. *No one does. *How could we.
> > > You LIED about having CHILDREN, for heaven's sake. *GLL!

> > [Dutch replied]
> > Nobody tells the whole truth all the time, and I advise strongly not to
> > try
> > to claim otherwise.
> > [end]
> > Dutch Oct 23 2006http://tinyurl.com/6psp6h7

>
> That's good advice, depending on the situation, people lie all the time,
> most many times a day.
>
>
>
> > You lied about your child status in alt.abortion, too, and used
> > personal anecdotes to bolster your arguments there.

>
> This is usenet Derek, not a court of law. *Being creative about your
> personal life and experiences is perfectly normal. Implying that you never
> lie is itself not credible.
>
> You can choose to believe that since I referred to children that I don't
> have that discredits everything I have said, but I have have given other
> evidence about FTT in vegetarianism, and besides it's a fallacy.



LOL!! Goo trained you to lie like a drunken sailor and just like Goo
you got caught at it.

Dutch 12-03-2012 07:55 AM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
"Mr.Smartypants" > wrote

> LOL!! Goo trained you to lie like a drunken sailor and just like Goo
> you got caught at it.


FTT is real, I provided plenty of evidence beyond the anecdotal. By the way,
I did NOT claim I had children who failed to thrive.


dh@. 13-03-2012 08:03 PM

Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The 'vegan' shuffle)
 
On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 14:39:53 -0800, Goo wrote:

>On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 16:22:57 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 13:57:21 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 12:55:32 +0000, Glen > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 06/03/2012 08:57, Rupert wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> On Mar 6, 5:08 am, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Woopert, "glen" here is a "vegan" who claims his diet doesn't kill
>>>>>>> *any*
>>>>>>> animals. What do you have to say to him, Woopert?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He is incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>>I have never denied that animals die during crop production. What I
>>>>>deny is ... [Goo's] baseless claim that all the food I eat is
>>>>>/contaminated/
>>>>>with it.
>>>>
>>>> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals [...]
>>>
>>>See ...[Goo] arguing against veganism.

>>
>>"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans".
>>"Vegans" aren't interested in contributing to lives of any
>>quality for farm animals: they don't want there to be farm
>>animals." - Goo
>>
>>"Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing
>>you ever wrote." - Goo
>>
>>"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
>>
>>"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>>
>>"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
>>to experience life" - Goo
>>
>>>See how he ALWAYS does.

>>
>>""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
>>****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
>>mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
>>an influence, whether you like it or not." - Goo
>>
>>""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
>>And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
>>live in bad conditions." - Goo
>>
>>""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - Goo
>>
>>"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
>>consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
>>of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
>>consideration, and gets it." - Goo
>>
>>""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>their deaths" - Goo
>>
>>"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
>>(in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
>>killing them." - Goo
>>
>>"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
>>ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
>>eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo
>>
>>>See how you continue to insist that he a <sic> "eliminationist".

>>
>>""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>their deaths" - Goo
>>
>>"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
>>ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
>>moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo
>>
>>"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
>>
>>"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
>>experience life" deserves no consideration when asking
>>whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Goo
>>
>>"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
>>
>>>See how that shows what a fool you are.

>>
>>"you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not to raise the
>>animals as the only way to prevent the harm that results from
>>killing them." - Goo
>>
>>"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo
>>
>>"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
>>exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo

>
>All true.


Sometimes you agree with yourself Goob and apparently this is one of them,
but other times you want to try pretending you disagree with yourself about some
things and you have also been known to deny that some of those quotes of yours
are quotes of yours.

dh@. 13-03-2012 08:03 PM

Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The 'vegan' shuffle)
 
On Fri, 9 Mar 2012 13:07:32 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 13:57:21 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 12:55:32 +0000, Glen > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 06/03/2012 08:57, Rupert wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> On Mar 6, 5:08 am, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Woopert, "glen" here is a "vegan" who claims his diet doesn't kill
>>>>>>> *any*
>>>>>>> animals. What do you have to say to him, Woopert?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He is incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>>I have never denied that animals die during crop production. What I
>>>>>deny is ... [Goo's] baseless claim that all the food I eat is
>>>>>/contaminated/
>>>>>with it.
>>>>
>>>> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals [...]
>>>
>>>See ...[Goo] arguing against veganism.

>>
>> "People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans".
>> "Vegans" aren't interested in contributing to lives of any
>> quality for farm animals: they don't want there to be farm
>> animals." - Goo
>>
>> "Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing
>> you ever wrote." - Goo
>>
>> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
>>
>> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>>
>> "There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
>> to experience life" - Goo
>>
>>>See how he ALWAYS does.

>>
>> ""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
>> ****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
>> mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
>> an influence, whether you like it or not." - Goo
>>
>> ""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
>> And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
>> live in bad conditions." - Goo
>>
>> ""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - Goo
>>
>> "the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
>> consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
>> of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
>> consideration, and gets it." - Goo
>>
>> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>> their deaths" - Goo
>>
>> "Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
>> (in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
>> killing them." - Goo
>>
>> "When considering your food choices ethically, assign
>> ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
>> eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo
>>
>>>See how you continue to insist that he a <sic> "eliminationist".

>>
>> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>> their deaths" - Goo
>>
>> "the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
>> ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
>> moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo
>>
>> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>> than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
>>
>> "The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
>> experience life" deserves no consideration when asking
>> whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Goo
>>
>> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>> of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
>>
>>>See how that shows what a fool you are.

>>
>> "you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not to raise the
>> animals as the only way to prevent the harm that results from
>> killing them." - Goo
>>
>> "Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo
>>
>> "There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
>> exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo

>
>Thanks for such a clear demonstration of your blinding stupidity.


HOW do you want us to try pretending that Goo's claims are my stupidity, do
you have any clue at all?

dh@. 13-03-2012 08:39 PM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 23:50:46 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
wrote:

>On Mar 8, 10:22*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 23:18:44 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Mar 6, 11:55*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 01:01:06 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
>> >> wrote:

>>
>> >> >On Mar 5, 8:22*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 09:35:17 -0800 (PST), Rupert >
>> >> >> wrote:

>>
>> >> >> >On 2 Mrz., 16:43, Goo wrote:

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

>>
>> >> >> >I never said anything about rice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>
>> >> * * You haven't thought this through enough to make such a claim, since you're
>> >> only now--IF you finally are now--beginning to accept the fact that beef
>> >> sometimes involves less.

>>
>> >I don't have any way of knowing, do I?

>>
>> * * It's easy to figure that sometimes beef causes fewer and sometimes soy does,
>> depending on the conditions. It's a safe enough bet that there are grass raised
>> cattle who kill little or no other animals, and also that there are situations
>> in which soy production results in many deaths. About the only time soy does not
>> involve many deaths is when there are not many animals in the area because
>> they've been killed off in the past.
>>
>> >You refuse to give *any* estimate at all for the death rate associated
>> >with one serving of tofu.

>>
>> * * So do you.

>
>Yes, but I'm not making any claims which would require such an
>estimate to back them up.


You're being critical of mine, which is close enough that you need to come
up with an estimate of your own. You're afraid to confess to yourself that there
are any though, which is why you're very afraid to make any sort of estimate.

>> >If you do not have any idea of any range
>> >into which the number falls, then you're not in a position to make any
>> >comparisons.

>>
>> * * Neither are you. That being the case it doesn't make sense for you to have
>> made your extreme dietary choice (veg*nism) based on something you don't know
>> anything about.
>> . . .
>>

>
>Modern animal farming causes a lot of suffering. Also, most animal
>food products require more crop production,


If you don't like that then it's reason for you TO buy grass raised
products, not a reason not to.
.. . .
>I am not in a position to know what difference it would make if I
>replaced some of the tofu in my diet with 100% grass-fed beef (and I
>think it would take a bit of effort to make sure it really was 100%
>grass-fed beef all year round) and I have never claimed to be in a
>position to know. You, on the other hand, have claimed to be in a
>position to know, but it looks like you actually aren't, so you should
>stop making the claim.


I'm in a position to know that some beef involves less deaths than some soy
products, and just by doing that I have surpassed you by a LONG way regarding
this particular issue. You still have not been able to even get to the starting
line. Throughout your entire life you STILL haven't gotten to the starting line
yet, and even if you eventually do that still doesn't mean you'll be able to
move on. To get "to" the starting line you would have to acknowledge the fact to
yourself that sometimes beef involves fewer deaths than soy. To move on from
that point would involve considering particular examples of when it does and
when it does not.

George Plimpton 13-03-2012 10:51 PM

Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The'vegan' shuffle)
 
On 3/13/2012 12:03 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Fri, 09 Mar 2012 14:39:53 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 16:22:57 -0500, dh@. wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 13:57:21 -0800, > wrote:
>>>
>>>> <dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>>> On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 12:55:32 +0000, > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 06/03/2012 08:57, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mar 6, 5:08 am, Goo wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Woopert, "glen" here is a "vegan" who claims his diet doesn't kill
>>>>>>>> *any*
>>>>>>>> animals. What do you have to say to him, Woopert?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He is incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have never denied that animals die during crop production. What I
>>>>>> deny is ... [Goo's] baseless claim that all the food I eat is
>>>>>> /contaminated/
>>>>>> with it.
>>>>>
>>>>> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals [...]
>>>>
>>>> See ...[Goo] arguing against veganism.
>>>
>>> "People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans".
>>> "Vegans" aren't interested in contributing to lives of any
>>> quality for farm animals: they don't want there to be farm
>>> animals." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing
>>> you ever wrote." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
>>> to experience life" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>>> See how he ALWAYS does.
>>>
>>> ""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
>>> ****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
>>> mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
>>> an influence, whether you like it or not." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> ""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
>>> And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
>>> live in bad conditions." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> ""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
>>> consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
>>> of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
>>> consideration, and gets it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>> their deaths" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
>>> (in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
>>> killing them." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "When considering your food choices ethically, assign
>>> ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
>>> eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>>> See how you continue to insist that he a<sic> "eliminationist".
>>>
>>> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>> their deaths" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
>>> ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
>>> moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>> than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
>>> experience life" deserves no consideration when asking
>>> whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>> of the animals erases all of it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>>> See how that shows what a fool you are.
>>>
>>> "you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not to raise the
>>> animals as the only way to prevent the harm that results from
>>> killing them." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
>>>
>>> "There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
>>> exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

>>
>> All true.

>
> Sometimes you agree with yourself


I always agree with myself, ****wit. I never claim to have made a
"mistake" <chortle> of terminology. I always know what I'm saying.

Dutch 14-03-2012 02:25 AM

Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The 'vegan' shuffle)
 
<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 9 Mar 2012 13:07:32 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 13:57:21 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>> On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 12:55:32 +0000, Glen > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 06/03/2012 08:57, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mar 6, 5:08 am, Goo wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Woopert, "glen" here is a "vegan" who claims his diet doesn't kill
>>>>>>>> *any*
>>>>>>>> animals. What do you have to say to him, Woopert?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He is incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I have never denied that animals die during crop production. What I
>>>>>>deny is ... [Goo's] baseless claim that all the food I eat is
>>>>>>/contaminated/
>>>>>>with it.
>>>>>
>>>>> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals [...]
>>>>
>>>>See ...[Goo] arguing against veganism.
>>>
>>> "People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans".
>>> "Vegans" aren't interested in contributing to lives of any
>>> quality for farm animals: they don't want there to be farm
>>> animals." - Goo
>>>
>>> "Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing
>>> you ever wrote." - Goo
>>>
>>> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
>>>
>>> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>>>
>>> "There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
>>> to experience life" - Goo
>>>
>>>>See how he ALWAYS does.
>>>
>>> ""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
>>> ****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
>>> mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
>>> an influence, whether you like it or not." - Goo
>>>
>>> ""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
>>> And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
>>> live in bad conditions." - Goo
>>>
>>> ""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - Goo
>>>
>>> "the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
>>> consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
>>> of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
>>> consideration, and gets it." - Goo
>>>
>>> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>> their deaths" - Goo
>>>
>>> "Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
>>> (in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
>>> killing them." - Goo
>>>
>>> "When considering your food choices ethically, assign
>>> ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
>>> eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo
>>>
>>>>See how you continue to insist that he a <sic> "eliminationist".
>>>
>>> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>> their deaths" - Goo
>>>
>>> "the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
>>> ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
>>> moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo
>>>
>>> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>> than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
>>>
>>> "The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
>>> experience life" deserves no consideration when asking
>>> whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Goo
>>>
>>> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>> of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
>>>
>>>>See how that shows what a fool you are.
>>>
>>> "you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not to raise the
>>> animals as the only way to prevent the harm that results from
>>> killing them." - Goo
>>>
>>> "Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo
>>>
>>> "There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
>>> exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo

>>
>>Thanks for such a clear demonstration of your blinding stupidity.

>
> HOW do you want us to try pretending that Goo's claims are my
> stupidity, do
> you have any clue at all?


Thanks for the further demonstration, very kind of you..



dh@. 19-03-2012 08:20 PM

Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The 'vegan' shuffle)
 
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 18:25:02 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Fri, 9 Mar 2012 13:07:32 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 13:57:21 -0800, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
om...
>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 12:55:32 +0000, Glen > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 06/03/2012 08:57, Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Mar 6, 5:08 am, Goo wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Woopert, "glen" here is a "vegan" who claims his diet doesn't kill
>>>>>>>>> *any*
>>>>>>>>> animals. What do you have to say to him, Woopert?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He is incorrect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I have never denied that animals die during crop production. What I
>>>>>>>deny is ... [Goo's] baseless claim that all the food I eat is
>>>>>>>/contaminated/
>>>>>>>with it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>See ...[Goo] arguing against veganism.
>>>>
>>>> "People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans".
>>>> "Vegans" aren't interested in contributing to lives of any
>>>> quality for farm animals: they don't want there to be farm
>>>> animals." - Goo
>>>>
>>>> "Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing
>>>> you ever wrote." - Goo
>>>>
>>>> "NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo
>>>>
>>>> "No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo
>>>>
>>>> "There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
>>>> to experience life" - Goo
>>>>
>>>>>See how he ALWAYS does.
>>>>
>>>> ""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
>>>> ****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
>>>> mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
>>>> an influence, whether you like it or not." - Goo
>>>>
>>>> ""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
>>>> And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
>>>> live in bad conditions." - Goo
>>>>
>>>> ""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - Goo
>>>>
>>>> "the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
>>>> consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
>>>> of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
>>>> consideration, and gets it." - Goo
>>>>
>>>> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>>> their deaths" - Goo
>>>>
>>>> "Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
>>>> (in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
>>>> killing them." - Goo
>>>>
>>>> "When considering your food choices ethically, assign
>>>> ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
>>>> eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>>See how you continue to insist that he a <sic> "eliminationist".
>>>>
>>>> ""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
>>>> their deaths" - Goo
>>>>
>>>> "the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
>>>> ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
>>>> moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo
>>>>
>>>> "the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
>>>> than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo
>>>>
>>>> "The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
>>>> experience life" deserves no consideration when asking
>>>> whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Goo
>>>>
>>>> "no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
>>>> of the animals erases all of it." - Goo
>>>>
>>>>>See how that shows what a fool you are.
>>>>
>>>> "you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not to raise the
>>>> animals as the only way to prevent the harm that results from
>>>> killing them." - Goo
>>>>
>>>> "Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo
>>>>
>>>> "There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
>>>> exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo
>>>
>>>Thanks for such a clear demonstration of your blinding stupidity.

>>
>> HOW do you want us to try pretending that Goo's claims are my
>> stupidity, do
>> you have any clue at all?

>
>Thanks for


Then YOU are the moron for trying to pretend Goo's claims have anything to
do with me, when you have no reason to try to pretend backing the stupid idea up
with.

dh@. 19-03-2012 08:25 PM

Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The 'vegan' shuffle)
 
On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 14:51:20 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 15:03:03 -0400, dh@. pointed out:
>
>> Sometimes you agree with yourself Goob and apparently this is one of them,
>>but other times you want to try pretending you disagree with yourself about some
>>things and you have also been known to deny that some of those quotes of yours
>>are quotes of yours.

>
>I always agree with myself


"The opportunity for potential livestock to "get to
experience life" deserves *NO* moral consideration
whatever" - Goo

"I give the lives of animals that exist *LOTS*
of consideration." - Goo

"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO
moral consideration, and is given none" - Goo

"I also give the not-yet-begun lives of animals
that are "in the pipeline", so to speak, a lot of
consideration" - Goo

"There is no "consideration" to be given." - Goo

>, ****wit. I never claim to have made a "mistake"


""Life", by which you mean coming into existence, is not
a benefit at all" - Goo

"We ARE NOT, and NEVER WERE, talking about whether
existing animals "benefit" from living." - Goo

"Those "lives of positive value" are only meaningful
*IF* the livestock exist. " - Goo

"The topic is not and never has been whether or not
existing animals enjoy living." - Goo

"IF they exist, then they can benefit (or not) from the
aspects of their lives." - Goo

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo

"We are not and never were talking about benefits for
existing entities" - Goo

"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them" - Goo
.. . .
> I always know what I'm saying.


"Set your clock back by an hour" - Goo

"I didn't say to set your clock back an hour" - Goo

"When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
existence we know" - Goo

"I never said they "move from 'pre-existence'"" - Goo

"we don't know if that move improves its welfare" - Goo

"the deliberate killing of animals for use by humans DOES
deserve moral consideration, and gets it." - Goo

"Intent doesn't matter" - Goo

"ONLY deliberate human killing deserves any moral
consideration." - Goo


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:52 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter