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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #61 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-03-2012, 05:23 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Farmers kill animals while harvesting - not in dispute

http://www.okrangelandswest.okstate..../NREM-5006.pdf

  #62 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-03-2012, 08:46 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On Mar 5, 4:42*pm, George Plimpton wrote:

It's an insincere and time-wasting question.


So you appear to believe.


Because it is.


You reckon?


Guaranteed.


How do you know?


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


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


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


No. I don't know that my expected contribution to collateral deaths by
buying one serving of tofu is greater than one.
  #63 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-03-2012, 08:54 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On Mar 5, 9:45*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/5/2012 11:16 AM, Glen wrote:









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


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


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


Eating meat causes the death of animals.


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


That isn't true.


It *is* true.

It /may/ cause some deaths


It does.

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


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

Eating meat *WILL* cause them.


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

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


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


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


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

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


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


No. I don't believe you.


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


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

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


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

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


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


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


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

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



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


No


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


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

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


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



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


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


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

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


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


  #64 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-03-2012, 08:57 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The'vegan' shuffle)

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


He is incorrect.
  #65 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-03-2012, 09:01 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On Mar 5, 8:22*pm, [email protected] wrote:
On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 09:35:17 -0800 (PST), Rupert
wrote:

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


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


I never said anything about rice.


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

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


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

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


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


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


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

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


* * Start with that.

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


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

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


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


* * Sometimes beef will involve more and sometimes the soy will.

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


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




  #66 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-03-2012, 09:01 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On Mar 5, 8:07*pm, [email protected] wrote:
On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 03:43:46 -0800 (PST), Rupert
wrote:









On 1 Mrz., 23:46, [email protected] wrote:
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:36:50 -0800, Goo wrote:
"veganism" is not a reliable means


* Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:


tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water
filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides,
insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen,
heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides,
gelatin capsules, *adhesive tape, laminated wood products,
plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane
wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings


* * The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
* * From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals.


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


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


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


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

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


I never gave an estimate for that.







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


  #67 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-03-2012, 12:35 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 32
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 06/03/2012 03:35, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/5/2012 3:47 PM, Glen wrote:
On 05/03/2012 20:45, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/5/2012 11:16 AM, Glen wrote:
On 05/03/2012 17:49, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/5/2012 9:36 AM, Glen wrote:
On 05/03/2012 15:42, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/4/2012 9:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
snip

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

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

Eating meat causes the death of animals.

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

That isn't true.

It *is* true.


No it isn't.


It is.


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


No, that's not the reason.


Yes it is. You're racked with guilt.

It /may/ cause some deaths

It does.


No it doesn't.


It does.


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

It is a fact.


It's *your* fact.


It's a fact.


No it's only your baseless fact.


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


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


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


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


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

Eating meat *WILL* cause them.

As many?


Numbers are irrelevant.


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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

You haven't attempted to verify that, either.


I have no need to verify your irrelevancies.


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


I never made that claim. I don't deny that /some/ animals die. You claim
that animals die during the production of everything I eat. That's what I
deny and I'll keep denying it until you provide evidence to support your
baseless claim. Are we clear on that now?

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

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

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

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


Intent.


Even involuntary manslaughter is a crime.


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

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

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

No. I don't believe you.

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


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


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


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

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

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


*Some* animals are killed by all vegetable production,


Yes, *some* sometimes but not all times.


flushed

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


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


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

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


No you do. I don't.


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


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


You don't have any convictions.


Yes I do and I live by them.

You are congratulating yourself for
following a morally empty rule. It's as morally empty as "chew 12 times
before swallowing." It's just a rule - no ethics behind it.


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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

-- Kent Lundberg.

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

An elaborate hoax.

flushed
  #68 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-03-2012, 12:47 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 32
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 06/03/2012 04:01, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/5/2012 4:20 PM, Glen wrote:
On 05/03/2012 20:18, Dutch wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 05/03/2012 17:49, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/5/2012 9:36 AM, Glen wrote:
On 05/03/2012 15:42, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/4/2012 9:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
snip

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

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

Eating meat causes the death of animals.

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

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

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

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

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

So what?


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


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


I don't kill them.

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


No.


So, why do you keep killing mice?


I don't.

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

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

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

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


Yes he does but he won't admit it.


I do admit it.


No you don't. You said that meat eating doesn't cause them
because they're dead already - killed by someone else.

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


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


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

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


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


Then the eating of vegetables doesn't cause any deaths. The
animals are already dead long before I buy my food. You said
it.

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


But you *ARE* guilty.


So are you.


No. You are.

You can't escape that guilt.


Neither can you.


I don't have any guilt to escape from.

The difference is, omnivores admit theirs.


No they/you say that the animals are dead already before they eat
them. That's not admitting your death count.

"vegans"
fatuously try to deny theirs, so they can continue to propagate the
fiction that they lead "cruelty-free" lives.


There's nothing to deny. Vegans don't kill them.

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

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

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

It is a fact.


No it isn't.


It is. Animals die in vegetable production.

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


Yes they do occasionally die but not in the numbers I've seen
reported here.

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


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


It is a certainty.


No that's not true. I don't believe that. The deaths you're talking
about are merely /plausible./ (having an appearance of truth or
reason; seemingly worthy of approval or acceptance) You said
it yourself. You admitted it.

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


It is a fact that vegetable production kills animals,


I've never denied that they occasionally die. What I deny is
your baseless assertion that animal deaths are involved in
every vegetarian meal I eat.There's a very good chance that
the food I eat has no deaths attached to it at all. You can't
say the same. You *demand* animal deaths at every meal
unless it's a vegetarian one.

flush
  #69 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-03-2012, 12:55 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 32
Default Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The'vegan' shuffle)

On 06/03/2012 08:57, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 6, 5:08 am, George wrote:
Woopert, "glen" here is a "vegan" who claims his diet doesn't kill *any*
animals. What do you have to say to him, Woopert?


He is incorrect.


I have never denied that animals die during crop production. What I
deny is George's baseless claim that all the food I eat is /contaminated/
with it.
  #70 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-03-2012, 01:54 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The'vegan' shuffle)

On Mar 6, 1:55*pm, Glen wrote:
On 06/03/2012 08:57, Rupert wrote:

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


He is incorrect.


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


Well, suffering and death have to take place to produce your food, as
long as you acknowledge that that's fine.


  #71 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-03-2012, 02:07 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 32
Default Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The'vegan' shuffle)

On 06/03/2012 13:54, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 6, 1:55 pm, wrote:
On 06/03/2012 08:57, Rupert wrote:

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


He is incorrect.


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


Well, suffering and death have to take place to produce your food, as
long as you acknowledge that that's fine.


It may be the case that some animals die but I don't believe
they /have/ to die. I live on a farm and since my father's stroke
about two years ago my sister and her husband keep a relatively
small part of it going without killing animals to produce vegetables
and fruits all year round. If they can do it so can others. I'm not
interested in keeping it going. I just want to get rid of it.
  #72 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-03-2012, 03:18 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The'vegan' shuffle)

On Mar 6, 3:07*pm, Glen wrote:
On 06/03/2012 13:54, Rupert wrote:

On Mar 6, 1:55 pm, *wrote:
On 06/03/2012 08:57, Rupert wrote:


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


He is incorrect.


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


Well, suffering and death have to take place to produce your food, as
long as you acknowledge that that's fine.


It may be the case that some animals die but I don't believe
they /have/ to die. I live on a farm and since my father's stroke
about two years ago my sister and her husband keep a relatively
small part of it going without killing animals to produce vegetables
and fruits all year round. If they can do it so can others. I'm not
interested in keeping it going. I just want to get rid of it.


It's not very realistic to think that food that you buy at the
supermarket would have been produced without causing suffering and
death.
  #73 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-03-2012, 03:52 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 3/6/2012 12:46 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 5, 4:42 pm, George wrote:

It's an insincere and time-wasting question.


So you appear to believe.


Because it is.


You reckon?


Guaranteed.


How do you know?


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


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


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


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


Of course you do. You can't *NOT* know it.

  #74 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-03-2012, 03:54 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 3/6/2012 12:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 5, 9:45 pm, George wrote:
On 3/5/2012 11:16 AM, Glen wrote:









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


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


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


Eating meat causes the death of animals.


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


That isn't true.


It *is* true.

It /may/ cause some deaths


It does.

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


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

Eating meat *WILL* cause them.


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

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


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


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


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

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


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


No. I don't believe you.


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


I never made that claim about all vegans.


You have said that "vegans" - always put that word in quotes - generally
are aware of and do not dispute the fact that farming causes collateral
animal deaths. "glen" is an example of a "vegan" in raging denial.
Correct him, please.


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


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

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


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


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


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

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



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


No


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


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

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


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



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


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


One of the interesting things about this is that if you accept driving
a car as an example of causing harm to animals, then you must also
acknowledge that carbon emissions will inevitably cause serious harm
to humans in the future.


More likely than not, yes.


It's pretty plausible that you drive a car,
and if that's the case then you can't claim not to be engaging in
activity that causes harm to humans, if you wanted to make that claim.


I never made such a claim.


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


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



  #75 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-03-2012, 03:56 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The'vegan' shuffle)

On 3/6/2012 12:57 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 6, 5:08 am, George wrote:
Woopert, "glen" here is a "vegan" who claims his diet doesn't kill *any*
animals. What do you have to say to him, Woopert?


He is incorrect.


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

Well, "glen", there you go. Rupert McCallum, the "smartest 'vegan' in
Usenet" - he has a Ph.D. in mathematics, you know - is telling you that
your "vegan 'lifestyle'" does indeed cause harm to animals; no doubt
about it. You do not live a "cruelty-free 'lifestyle'" by any stretch
of the imagination.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:09 AM.

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

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017