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
  #76 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-03-2012, 05:27 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 4:35 AM, Glen wrote:
On 06/03/2012 03:35, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/5/2012 3:47 PM, Glen wrote:
On 05/03/2012 20:45, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/5/2012 11:16 AM, Glen wrote:
On 05/03/2012 17:49, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/5/2012 9:36 AM, Glen wrote:
On 05/03/2012 15:42, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/4/2012 9:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
snip

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

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

Eating meat causes the death of animals.

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

That isn't true.

It *is* true.

No it isn't.


It is.


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


No, that's not the reason.


Yes it is.


No. You are wrong, again.


It /may/ cause some deaths

It does.

No it doesn't.


It does.


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

It is a fact.

It's *your* fact.


It's a fact.


No it's only


It's a fact, "glen". Rupert has confirmed it for you. Listen to him.


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


Ask Rupert, "glen".


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

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


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


It's your claim that every food I eat causes animal deaths in crop
production.


It is *your* claim that they don't. Prove it.


Eating meat *WILL* cause them.

As many?

Numbers are irrelevant.


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


No. If I personally killed them or paid a food producer to kill them
on my behalf then yes I would be a murderer like you.


Sorry, you commission the deaths. Not in dispute.



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


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


It's the untenable and fake moral position of *every* "vegan", "glen".
The *fact* of animal collateral deaths in agriculture - CDs - means that
"vegans" are not living a "cruelty free 'lifestyle'", as they all begin
by claiming, so they are *not* respecting so-called "animal rights".
The fact that a well-chosen meat-including diet can cause fewer CDs than
most "vegan" diets means they aren't minimizing their harm, so they are
not doing the best they could from a utilitarian perspective.

"glen", my boy, the problem here is that you have been caught out in the
worst possible hypocrisy, and your palpable anger and terror over this
is evidence of crippling cognitive dissonance. You just can't come to
grips with the fact - it is a *FACT*, "glen", my boy - that the easy,
*LAZY* claim you thought you established to moral superiority is deader
than a Texas salad bar.


You haven't attempted to verify that, either.

I have no need to verify your irrelevancies.


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


I never made that claim.


You did, you ****ing shit-4-braincell liar. You claimed to have eaten a
specific meal that caused no animal death or suffering:

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

You do *NOT* know that as a fact, you ****ing liar. You bought
commercially produced vegetables and whatever else you ate last night,
and you have no idea how it was produced. You lied.


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

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

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

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

Intent.


Even involuntary manslaughter is a crime.


I'm not even guilty of that.


You are complicit in it. As much as I like Derek, and I do, he is wrong
about this denial of shared responsibility.

Anyway, why did you bring up "intent" if you're not worried about
vicarious moral responsibility? This has been discussed to death here,
and there has never been a credible refutation of it; "vegans" just deny
it even as they accuse others of it. Of *course* you share moral
responsibility for the CDs caused by your diet, because you *could*
avoid them if you really wanted to do so. You *choose* to incur that
responsibility.


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

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

No. I don't believe you.

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

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


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


I live on a farm in the middle of a very large farming community.


Good for you. You don't grow all your own food. You don't even grow a
major portion of it.


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

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


*Some* animals are killed by all vegetable production,


Yes, *some* sometimes but not all times.


Some *ALL* the time.


flushed


Restored, you sniveling little bitch:

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

You *really* don't want to address that, do you, "glen" my boy? You
make *NO* effort to choose, within all "vegan" diets, that which causes
the least harm. No, your smug, sanctimonious self-congratulation for
making the ethically meaningless and purely symbolic gesture of
refraining from putting animal parts in your mouth is all you do. You
start by lying that you are causing no animal deaths, then you retreat
to saying or implying you are "minimizing", and in the end you are
reduced to saying "I'm doing better than you", and *NONE* of them is
true simply based on the fact that you refrain from putting animal bits
in your mouth. You're a ****ing sanctimonious liar, "glen" my boy.



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


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


Yes you do.


I don't. I don't kill a single one.


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


No you do. I don't.


Sorry, "glen" my boy. If you don't, then I do; if I do, then you do.
We both have *exactly* the same relationship with the unknown farmers
and ranchers who produce our food. It is impersonal, they are unknown
to us, we don't "ask" them to do any specific thing, but we both know
full well what they do, and we both know full well that it includes -
*always* - the killing of animals.

Sorry, "glen" my boy, but you bear moral responsibility for the deaths
of animals, exactly the same as I do, and by exactly the same mechanism.
The difference, "glen" my boy, is that I don't deny it; you, a
dishonest sanctimonious lying shitbag, do. That means I'm better than you.




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

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


You don't have any convictions.


Yes I do and I live by them.


You don't. You merely follow a silly rule that is not based on any
valid ethics at all.


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


*NO* ethics, "glen" my boy. It's ethically empty.


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

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

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

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

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


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


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


Davis may not have proved that a meat-including diet will always cause
fewer CDs than a "vegan" diet, but he *DID* establish that animals of
the field die in the course of vegetable agriculture, and that sniveling
shitworm Matheny did *not* refute that, nor did he even attempt to
refute it.

You ****ed up, "glen" my boy - yet again.



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


I read that /story/ and then read the comments underneath it.
__________________________________________________ __________
This is seven year old uncorroborated hearsay, from a hunter, come book
seller called Robert (Bob) A Sykes. - It has no validity.


That's an empty claim by another sanctimonious, lying "vegan".


__________________________________________________ ______________
"There is an "article" circulating on the Internet that describes how
thousands of frogs and other animals are killed in the mechanized
harvesting of grain crops. This "collateral animal deaths" story is an
elaborate hoax. The author, a "Texas organic rice farmer" is a gifted
writer, but he should use his talents elsewhere.

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

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

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

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

-- Kent Lundberg.


A self-serving *dry* rice farmer whose business depends crucially on
hoodwinking ecotopian "vegans" like you. In no way does he *guarantee*
that no animals are killed. He talks a lot of blabber about saving
wildfowl, but makes no mention of rodents or amphibians or reptiles.


An elaborate hoax.


No, "glen" my boy.

Yes, of course you had to erase desperately the testimony of a Tennessee
farmer who talked about killing *eleven* fawns in a four acre patch of land:
http://www.tndeer.com/tndeertalk/ubb...156&page=32 0


Note that that farmer wasn't even discussing it in the context of trying
to debunk the absurd "vegan" claim to a "cruelty free 'lifestyle'" - he
was inquiring of other farmers how me might avoid killing them.

You're doomed, "glen" my boy - flushed out as a fulsome and
sanctimonious liar.

  #77 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-03-2012, 05:37 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 4:47 AM, Glen wrote:
On 06/03/2012 04:01, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/5/2012 4:20 PM, Glen wrote:
On 05/03/2012 20:18, Dutch wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 05/03/2012 17:49, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/5/2012 9:36 AM, Glen wrote:
On 05/03/2012 15:42, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/4/2012 9:43 PM, Rupert wrote:
snip

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

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

Eating meat causes the death of animals.

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

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

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

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

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

So what?

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


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


I don't kill them.


You share moral responsibility for the deaths. You are complicit. You
are guilty - not in rational dispute.


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

No.


So, why do you keep killing mice?


I don't.


You do, "glen" my boy. See above.



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

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

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

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

Yes he does but he won't admit it.


I do admit it.


No you don't.


I do.


You said that meat eating doesn't cause them
because they're dead already - killed by someone else.


I was ****ing with your tiny brain, "glen" my boy. I was engaging, for
rhetorical effect, in the same bullshit sophistry you do.

The reality, "glen" my boy, is that *everyone* causes harm to animals -
and humans - merely by existing and consuming.



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


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


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


I do admit it, of course. I was using your own illogic on you to
illustrate a point. The animals killed in the course of producing your
vegetables are just as dead as the animals I eat. The only difference
is in the disposition of the corpses.



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


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


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


It was a rhetorical stunt, "glen" my boy, employed to illustrate the
absurdity of your claim.

It is a *fact*, "glen" my boy: we both cause the deaths of animals by
our consumption choices, you every bit as much as I.


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

But you *ARE* guilty.


So are you.


No. You are.


So are you, "glen" my boy.


You can't escape that guilt.


Neither can you.


I don't have any guilt to escape from.


Of course you have, "glen" my boy.


The difference is, omnivores admit theirs.


No they/you say that the animals are dead already before they eat
them.


See above, "glen" my boy.


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


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


You share in the moral responsibility for their deaths, "glen" my boy.


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

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

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

It is a fact.

No it isn't.


It is. Animals die in vegetable production.

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


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


Oooooohhhhhhh! So, animals *do* die in the course of producing the
foods you eat! What took you so long, "glen" my boy?


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

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


It is a certainty.


No that's not true.


It is true, "glen" my boy.


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


It is a fact that vegetable production kills animals,


I've never denied that they occasionally die.


Yes, you did, "glen" my boy. It was a lie.

You're done, and you know it. You know that your moral pose is
destroyed. You can't maintain it. You know it's bullshit, "glen" my boy.
  #78 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-03-2012, 05:38 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 4:55 AM, Glen wrote:
On 06/03/2012 08:57, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 6, 5:08 am, George wrote:
Woopert, "glen" here is a "vegan" who claims his diet doesn't kill *any*
animals. What do you have to say to him, Woopert?


He is incorrect.


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


It is, and soon you'll have to acknowledge it.
  #79 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-03-2012, 05:39 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 5:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 6, 1:55 pm, wrote:
On 06/03/2012 08:57, Rupert wrote:

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


He is incorrect.


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


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


It's *not* fine, because he still denies any moral responsibility for it.
  #80 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-03-2012, 05:42 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The'vegan' shuffle)

On 3/6/2012 6:07 AM, Glen wrote:
On 06/03/2012 13:54, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 6, 1:55 pm, wrote:
On 06/03/2012 08:57, Rupert wrote:

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

He is incorrect.

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


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


It may be the case that some animals die but I don't believe
they /have/ to die.


They *do* die, and you're doing nothing to prevent it. You just keep
trying to cling to the fiction that because you're not the hands-on
killer, you don't have any moral responsibility for the deaths. That
position is false - you *do* have moral responsibility.


I live on a farm and since my father's stroke
about two years ago my sister and her husband keep a relatively
small part of it going without killing animals


Bullshit. They kill animals.


to produce vegetables and fruits all year round.


*NOT* enough for all of you to live on year round. It isn't even the
majority of what you eat.

Your moral pedestal is destroyed. You don't cause zero deaths, you
don't cause the lowest possible number of deaths, and you don't cause
fewer than *all* omnivores. You have nothing left.


  #81 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-03-2012, 05:42 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The'vegan' shuffle)

On 3/6/2012 7:18 AM, Rupert wrote:
On Mar 6, 3:07 pm, 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.


And of course, the majority of the food he eats was commercially produced.
  #82 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-03-2012, 06:01 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 107
Default Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The'vegan' shuffle)

On Mar 6, 9:42*am, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/6/2012 6:07 AM, Glen wrote:





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


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


He is incorrect.


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


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


It may be the case that some animals die but I don't believe
they /have/ to die.


They *do* die, and you're doing nothing to prevent it. *You just keep
trying to cling to the fiction that because you're not the hands-on
killer, you don't have any moral responsibility for the deaths. *That
position is false - you *do* have moral responsibility.

I live on a farm and since my father's stroke
about two years ago my sister and her husband keep a relatively
small part of it going without killing animals


Bullshit. *They kill animals.

to produce vegetables and fruits all year round.


*NOT* enough for all of you to live on year round. *It isn't even the
majority of what you eat.

Your moral pedestal is destroyed. *You don't cause zero deaths, you
don't cause the lowest possible number of deaths, and you don't cause
fewer than *all* omnivores. *You have nothing left.



Goo, I have been asking for several years for photographic proof of
the collateral deaths that you allege. When can I expect you to supply
it?
  #83 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-03-2012, 07:25 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: 38
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 12:35:28 +0000, Glen wrote:

On 06/03/2012 03:35, George Plimpton wrote:


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.
_________________________________________________ ____


Exactly right, Glen. There's no reason to believe every morsel of
food you eat has a history of animal death behind it, and there's
absolutely no reason to believe you can be held morally responsible
for the deaths that may occur, as we can see by the above post I made
last year.

Don't pay any attention to the naysayers here. Their only objective
is to make vegans feel that their efforts are worthless. They don't
even believe their own bullshit. You'll never get an honest
discussion here. You'll never get an honest answer from them.

Take Dutch, for example. When he first came here he claimed to
be a vegetarian and an advocate for animal rights. Like you he
used to believe;

"There is a whole different mindset between tolerating
collateral death in your life and seeking out direct
sacrifice for your subsistence."
Dutch Aug 26 2000 http://tinyurl.com/7dduf

and

"The recognition of collateral deaths does one thing, it
enables you to dismiss blanket claims by veg*ns that
their diet causes no deaths or animal suffering. Antis
attempt to parlay this into completely discrediting veg*n
diet claims. Since the phenomenon is virtually
unmeasurable the argument lacks fundamental credibility.
It therefore should not detract from veg*n beliefs that the
v*gan diet causes less animal suffering."
Dutch Dec 13 2000 http://tinyurl.com/yw2zf

Take Rupert. He says he's an animal rights advocate and
gives talks on the subject. But he too caved in and now
promotes animal welfare which reinforces the view that
killing animals for food can be a better option to veganism
if farming animals reduces animal suffering found in crop
production.

"I accept that some nonhuman animals who are raised
for food on farms have lives which are such that it is
better that they live that life than that they not live at
all"
Rupert 24 July 2008 http://tinyurl.com/5m8t28

"Look, you might be right that there's some advantage
in switching to grass-fed beef or game. Fine, why not?
I don't see this contention as an enormous threat to the
animal-rights agenda.
Rupert 12 May 2007 http://tinyurl.com/5o3lgp

He's psychotic and doesn't know what the hell he's talking
about, but that doesn't stop him from promoting animal
cruelty while claiming it isn't a threat to the animal rights
agenda.

George also believes that;

"This counting game will ALWAYS work against
meat eaters. Far more of every bad thing you've
mentioned occurs as a result of people eating meat,
because so much of agriculture is simply to feed the
livestock. There would be far less agriculture in
general if everyone were vegetarian."
4 May 2003 http://tinyurl.com/34ukug

and

"If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll
lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
feed for the animals you eat.

The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
22 May 2003 http://tinyurl.com/3yeoja

He, like you, also believes there's an inherent albeit
inhumane aspect to killing animals, even rodents.

"I have to think there's an inherent albeit slight inhumane
aspect to killing animals, even rodents."
5 Dec 2006 http://tinyurl.com/y5a3xh

He, like you, knows full well that the meat he eats has
an horrific history of systematic abuse and cruelty behind
it.

"... meat packing plants are atrocious. Even if the people
actually doing the killing are watched to be sure they don't
enjoy it, there is a callous indifference to the suffering of
animals that is rampant. Most meat eaters don't ever think
about what happens to animals along the way to becoming
slices of meat in the supermarket meat cases, or if they do,
they're under a lot of illusion that the animals are well
treated from the time they're born all the way to the
point of slaughter. Generally, that simply isn't true - the
welfare of animals bred, raised and slaughtered for meat is
horrifically neglected."
28 Jun 2009 http://tinyurl.com/mohhfm

So, if you want to discuss your vegan lifestyle to any
extent, this is not the place to do it. You'll be lied to,
intentionally misrepresented to avoid tackling your real
position, heckled for having the guts to live by your
convictions and called a liar at every opportunity. If
you want to discuss these issues with someone who's
been on these animal-related groups for a long time and
knows what he's talking about, contact me through my new
email address (check headers). If there's anything I can't
address or fail to address to your satisfaction I will gladly
introduce you to others who will only be too glad to talk to
you.
  #84 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-03-2012, 07:59 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,032
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

"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, and for the most part causes a relatively low environmental
impact. Where their efforts fail, massively and laughably, is in convincing
any well-informed person that following a vegan lifestyle is a moral
imperative, or that is critical for good health. Vegans typically overshoot
badly. Vegan efforts are also worthless in a lot of small ways, such as in
the silly aversion to micrograms of animal parts in sauces.

  #85 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-03-2012, 08:04 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 10:25 AM, Derek wrote:
On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 12:35:28 +0000, wrote:

On 06/03/2012 03:35, George Plimpton wrote:


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.
__________________________________________________ ___


Exactly right, Glen. There's no reason to believe every morsel of
food you eat has a history of animal death behind it,


Vegetables generally have that history.


and there's
absolutely no reason to believe you can be held morally responsible
for the deaths that may occur,


Absolutely wrong, Derek. This idea of shared or vicarious moral
responsibility for events in which you knowingly participate is
established beyond rational dispute. It's the motivation behind
boycotts of goods produced with child or slave labor, unfair labor
practices, "excessive" environmental effects, and so on. The principle
is very well understood and accepted, and trying to carve out an
exception for diet simply fails. Few "vegans" even attempt to maintain
a belief, once they know about CDs, that they don't have responsibility
for those to which their consumption leads; that's why they switch from
"cruelty free" to "minimizing" in the first place.


Don't pay any attention to the naysayers here. Their only objective
is to make vegans feel that their efforts are worthless.


The objective is to get the "vegans" off their fake moral pedestal. The
objective is achieved: the pedestal is crumbled. "vegans" are not
behaving "more" ethically than omnivores when it comes to their basic claim.


[...]

George also believes that;

"This counting game will ALWAYS work against
meat eaters. Far more of every bad thing you've
mentioned occurs as a result of people eating meat,
because so much of agriculture is simply to feed the
livestock. There would be far less agriculture in
general if everyone were vegetarian."
4 May 2003 http://tinyurl.com/34ukug


That was in the context of people following *typical* "vegan" and
omnivorous diets.



and

"If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll
lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
feed for the animals you eat.

The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
22 May 2003 http://tinyurl.com/3yeoja


Same again.

However, note that "glen" is not yet to the point of playing the
counting game, because he is still clinging to the fiction that his
"lifestyle" is "cruelty free." Eventually he'll have to abandon that
claim, as the majority of "vegans" do - Rupert claims the majority
abandon it, anyway - and then he'll have to play the counting game, and
then I'll get to show that he has abandoned all pretense of animal
"rights" and is behaving as a rank utilitarian. I'll also get to
reintroduce the child sodomy rhetoric I used to use on "Scented Nectar".


He, like you, also believes there's an inherent albeit
inhumane aspect to killing animals, even rodents.

"I have to think there's an inherent albeit slight inhumane
aspect to killing animals, even rodents."
5 Dec 2006 http://tinyurl.com/y5a3xh


Yep. As humans, we have a unique moral sense that makes us think about
death differently than other animals - in fact, even thinking about it
at all. Non-human animals don't contemplate death.



He, like you, knows full well that the meat he eats has
an horrific history of systematic abuse and cruelty behind
it.

"... meat packing plants are atrocious. Even if the people
actually doing the killing are watched to be sure they don't
enjoy it, there is a callous indifference to the suffering of
animals that is rampant. Most meat eaters don't ever think
about what happens to animals along the way to becoming
slices of meat in the supermarket meat cases, or if they do,
they're under a lot of illusion that the animals are well
treated from the time they're born all the way to the
point of slaughter. Generally, that simply isn't true - the
welfare of animals bred, raised and slaughtered for meat is
horrifically neglected."
28 Jun 2009 http://tinyurl.com/mohhfm


That's high-volume commercial meat packing plants as they currently
operate. I think kosher and halal slaughterhouses don't operate that
way, which is a big part of why that meat is much more expensive.


So, if you want to discuss your vegan lifestyle to any
extent, this is not the place to do it. You'll be lied to,


Not by me, he won't.


intentionally misrepresented to avoid tackling your real
position, heckled for having the guts to live by your
convictions and called a liar at every opportunity. If
you want to discuss these issues with someone who's
been on these animal-related groups for a long time and
knows what he's talking about, contact me through my new
email address (check headers). If there's anything I can't
address or fail to address to your satisfaction I will gladly
introduce you to others who will only be too glad to talk to
you.




  #86 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-03-2012, 10:09 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: 38
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 11:04:01 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:

On 3/6/2012 10:25 AM, Derek wrote:
On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 12:35:28 +0000, wrote:

On 06/03/2012 03:35, George Plimpton wrote:


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.
__________________________________________________ ___


Exactly right, Glen. There's no reason to believe every morsel of
food you eat has a history of animal death behind it,


Vegetables generally have that history.


No, I don't believe that.

and there's
absolutely no reason to believe you can be held morally responsible
for the deaths that may occur,


Absolutely wrong, Derek.


I'm sorry, but I'm going to go along with the well-established
rule of English law that dictates,

"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...."

This idea of shared or vicarious moral
responsibility for events in which you knowingly participate is
established beyond rational dispute.


Yes, and it goes directly against your view.

It's the motivation behind
boycotts of goods produced with child or slave labor, unfair labor
practices, "excessive" environmental effects, and so on. The principle
is very well understood and accepted, and trying to carve out an
exception for diet simply fails. Few "vegans" even attempt to maintain
a belief, once they know about CDs, that they don't have responsibility
for those to which their consumption leads; that's why they switch from
"cruelty free" to "minimizing" in the first place.

Don't pay any attention to the naysayers here. Their only objective
is to make vegans feel that their efforts are worthless.


The objective is to get the "vegans" off their fake moral pedestal.


And you've failed to do that.

The
objective is achieved: the pedestal is crumbled.


Obviously not, else we wouldn't be having this conversation.
You've managed to convince the weak-willed participants
who didn't understand their position here over the years, but
you've never been able to convince the more able vegans who
genuinely believe animals hold inalienable rights against us
not to be reduced to that of a mere utility for our own ends.

"vegans" are not
behaving "more" ethically than omnivores when it comes to their basic claim.


I disagree.

[...]

George also believes that;

"This counting game will ALWAYS work against
meat eaters. Far more of every bad thing you've
mentioned occurs as a result of people eating meat,
because so much of agriculture is simply to feed the
livestock. There would be far less agriculture in
general if everyone were vegetarian."
4 May 2003 http://tinyurl.com/34ukug


That was in the context of people following *typical* "vegan" and
omnivorous diets.


No, the context "ALWAYS" stands on its own here.

and

"If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll
lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
feed for the animals you eat.

The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
22 May 2003 http://tinyurl.com/3yeoja


Same again.


Yep.

However, note that "glen" is not yet to the point of playing the
counting game, because he is still clinging to the fiction that his
"lifestyle" is "cruelty free."


And it is on his part. The cruelty is not his and doesn't come
from him. The callous food producer is responsible for the
cruelty, and it stays with him.

Eventually he'll have to abandon that claim,


No, I don't think he will, and I don't think he needs to.

as the majority of "vegans" do - Rupert claims the majority
abandon it, anyway


Rupert thinks he knows what he's talking about, but we both
know he doesn't really have a clue. That's why he flip flops
from deontology to utilitarianism all the time. It's why he
switched from being an abolitionist advocating rights for
animals to a 'new welfarist' position promoting farmed
livestock, openly reinforcing the idea that killing animals
for food and medical research is perfectly acceptable.

- and then he'll have to play the counting game,


I'm not sure he'll do that, either. Further up this thread he
wrote, "Numbers are irrelevant."

and
then I'll get to show that he has abandoned all pretense of animal
"rights" and is behaving as a rank utilitarian. I'll also get to
reintroduce the child sodomy rhetoric I used to use on "Scented Nectar".


He, like you, also believes there's an inherent albeit
inhumane aspect to killing animals, even rodents.

"I have to think there's an inherent albeit slight inhumane
aspect to killing animals, even rodents."
5 Dec 2006 http://tinyurl.com/y5a3xh


Yep. As humans, we have a unique moral sense that makes us think about
death differently than other animals - in fact, even thinking about it
at all. Non-human animals don't contemplate death.


But, according to you, should anyone with a strong moral sense
on this issue try to avoid causing the deaths of farmed animals
by forswearing meat, they're smug, sanctimonious hypocrites
without a coherent stopping rule because non-farmed animals
are killed during crop production. I don't follow that connection.
Let me put it this way. I take it that you're against arranged dog
fighting. Wouldn't you be outraged if Harrison called you a
sanctimonious hypocrite without a coherent stopping rule when
criticising him for his participation in dog fighting, simply
because you wear a leather watch strap, for example? And
would your failure to foreswear leather have any bearing on
the matter anyway?

He, like you, knows full well that the meat he eats has
an horrific history of systematic abuse and cruelty behind
it.

"... meat packing plants are atrocious. Even if the people
actually doing the killing are watched to be sure they don't
enjoy it, there is a callous indifference to the suffering of
animals that is rampant. Most meat eaters don't ever think
about what happens to animals along the way to becoming
slices of meat in the supermarket meat cases, or if they do,
they're under a lot of illusion that the animals are well
treated from the time they're born all the way to the
point of slaughter. Generally, that simply isn't true - the
welfare of animals bred, raised and slaughtered for meat is
horrifically neglected."
28 Jun 2009 http://tinyurl.com/mohhfm


That's high-volume commercial meat packing plants as they currently
operate. I think kosher and halal slaughterhouses don't operate that
way, which is a big part of why that meat is much more expensive.


So, if you want to discuss your vegan lifestyle to any
extent, this is not the place to do it. You'll be lied to,


Not by me, he won't.


intentionally misrepresented to avoid tackling your real
position, heckled for having the guts to live by your
convictions and called a liar at every opportunity. If
you want to discuss these issues with someone who's
been on these animal-related groups for a long time and
knows what he's talking about, contact me through my new
email address (check headers). If there's anything I can't
address or fail to address to your satisfaction I will gladly
introduce you to others who will only be too glad to talk to
you.

  #87 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-03-2012, 10:35 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: 38
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

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

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.
  #88 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-03-2012, 10:45 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 3/6/2012 1:09 PM, Derek wrote:
On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 11:04:01 -0800, George wrote:

On 3/6/2012 10:25 AM, Derek wrote:
On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 12:35:28 +0000, wrote:

On 06/03/2012 03:35, George Plimpton wrote:

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.
__________________________________________________ ___

Exactly right, Glen. There's no reason to believe every morsel of
food you eat has a history of animal death behind it,


Vegetables generally have that history.


No, I don't believe that.

and there's
absolutely no reason to believe you can be held morally responsible
for the deaths that may occur,


Absolutely wrong, Derek.


I'm sorry, but I'm going to go along with the well-established
rule of English law that dictates,

"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...."


As noted when you first tried that gambit, that addresses a narrower
*legal* liability; we're talking about moral responsibility. It also
looks at an incident in isolation, but the relationship of food
consumers buying produce whose production they *know* causes animals to
suffer and die is ongoing.



This idea of shared or vicarious moral
responsibility for events in which you knowingly participate is
established beyond rational dispute.


Yes, and it goes directly against your view.


No, it doesn't.


It's the motivation behind
boycotts of goods produced with child or slave labor, unfair labor
practices, "excessive" environmental effects, and so on. The principle
is very well understood and accepted, and trying to carve out an
exception for diet simply fails. Few "vegans" even attempt to maintain
a belief, once they know about CDs, that they don't have responsibility
for those to which their consumption leads; that's why they switch from
"cruelty free" to "minimizing" in the first place.

Don't pay any attention to the naysayers here. Their only objective
is to make vegans feel that their efforts are worthless.


The objective is to get the "vegans" off their fake moral pedestal.


And you've failed to do that.


Ha ha ha! No, I haven't - I dynamited the pedestal.


The objective is achieved: the pedestal is crumbled.


Obviously not, else we wouldn't be having this conversation.


Obviously it is, because you're using the same failed arguments.


You've managed to convince the weak-willed participants
who didn't understand their position here over the years, but
you've never been able to convince the more able vegans who
genuinely believe animals hold inalienable rights against us
not to be reduced to that of a mere utility for our own ends.

"vegans" are not
behaving "more" ethically than omnivores when it comes to their basic claim.


I disagree.


Irrelevant. Most people convicted of crimes continue to insist they're
"innocent", as well, but the convictions typically stand.


[...]

George also believes that;

"This counting game will ALWAYS work against
meat eaters. Far more of every bad thing you've
mentioned occurs as a result of people eating meat,
because so much of agriculture is simply to feed the
livestock. There would be far less agriculture in
general if everyone were vegetarian."
4 May 2003 http://tinyurl.com/34ukug


That was in the context of people following *typical* "vegan" and
omnivorous diets.


No, the context "ALWAYS" stands on its own here.


Nope.



and

"If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll
lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
feed for the animals you eat.

The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
22 May 2003 http://tinyurl.com/3yeoja


Same again.


Yep.


Yep.



However, note that "glen" is not yet to the point of playing the
counting game, because he is still clinging to the fiction that his
"lifestyle" is "cruelty free."


And it is on his part.


It is not. He is in a voluntary, unnecessary, ongoing relationship with
killers. If he and *everyone* else stopped buying from animal-killing
producers, then animal-killing producers would either have to change
their methods or go out of business.

His "lifestyle" is not "cruelty free" - his pursuit of it leads to
animal death.



The cruelty is not his and doesn't come
from him.


yawn Same as meat eaters.

He doesn't commit the so-called cruelty, but he knows of it and rewards
the farmer for it by continuing to buy from him.


Eventually he'll have to abandon that claim,


No, I don't think he will, and I don't think he needs to.


He does need to, and if engages with Rupert much longer, he will.



as the majority of "vegans" do - Rupert claims the majority
abandon it, anyway


Rupert thinks he knows what he's talking about, but we both
know he doesn't really have a clue.


He does have a complete clue regarding the connection between vegetable
farming and animal death.


That's why he flip flops
from deontology to utilitarianism all the time.


Yes, that's the "vegan shuffle" that started the thread.


It's why he
switched from being an abolitionist advocating rights for
animals to a 'new welfarist' position promoting farmed
livestock, openly reinforcing the idea that killing animals
for food and medical research is perfectly acceptable.

- and then he'll have to play the counting game,


I'm not sure he'll do that, either. Further up this thread he
wrote, "Numbers are irrelevant."


So, he won't have any basis for claiming virtue at all, then! Not only
won't he be on a pedestal, he'll be in a hole.


and
then I'll get to show that he has abandoned all pretense of animal
"rights" and is behaving as a rank utilitarian. I'll also get to
reintroduce the child sodomy rhetoric I used to use on "Scented Nectar".


He, like you, also believes there's an inherent albeit
inhumane aspect to killing animals, even rodents.

"I have to think there's an inherent albeit slight inhumane
aspect to killing animals, even rodents."
5 Dec 2006 http://tinyurl.com/y5a3xh


Yep. As humans, we have a unique moral sense that makes us think about
death differently than other animals - in fact, even thinking about it
at all. Non-human animals don't contemplate death.


But, according to you, should anyone with a strong moral sense
on this issue try to avoid causing the deaths of farmed animals
by forswearing meat, they're smug, sanctimonious hypocrites
without a coherent stopping rule because non-farmed animals
are killed during crop production.


They're only smug sanctimonious hypocrites if they claim to be living a
"cruelty free 'lifestyle'", or if they claim to be minimizing when
they've never measured.


I don't follow that connection.


Sure you do, if by "follow" you mean comprehend.


Let me put it this way. I take it that you're against arranged dog
fighting. Wouldn't you be outraged if Harrison called you a
sanctimonious hypocrite without a coherent stopping rule when
criticising him for his participation in dog fighting, simply
because you wear a leather watch strap, for example?


What's the relationship between dog fighting and consumption of cattle
products?
  #89 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-03-2012, 11:55 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On Tue, 6 Mar 2012 01:01:06 -0800 (PST), Rupert
wrote:

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.


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. For you to finally confess that you're aware of that
one fact would be a huge step for you but you still have not taken it, much less
have you gotten to the position of being able to determine in which cases soy
produces more and in which cases beef does. Notice that this is yet another
distinction that you not only are unable to make, but you don't even want to
accept that the situations which create the distinctions exist, even though it's
obvious that they do.

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.

  #90 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 06-03-2012, 11:56 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default Attn: Woopert - "glen" claims to be "cruelty free" (was The 'vegan' shuffle)

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


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 02:52 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 03:27 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