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
  #106 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 04:46 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 7 Mrz., 17:45, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/7/2012 8:26 AM, Rupert wrote:









On 7 Mrz., 17:14, George *wrote:
On 3/6/2012 11:14 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 6, 4:56 pm, George * *wrote:
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?


Seems like an eminently reasonable and sensible statement to me, and
all that needs to be said.


It seems pretty weak and begrudging to me.


Well, you're a bit weird.


Nope.

You didn't expend a minute fraction as much effort trying to tell "glen"
that he's wrong as I did on ****wit Harrison.


Why should I?

Your engaging with David Harrison is a complete waste of time.

  #107 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 04:52 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 3/7/2012 8:30 AM, Rupert wrote:
On 7 Mrz., 17:20, George wrote:
On 3/6/2012 11:16 PM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 6, 4:54 pm, George wrote:
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.


I did.


Barely.


No, I did correct him, full stop.


Weakly. Basically, you mumbled it.


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.


It seems to be implicit in your accusing vegans of hypocrisy while
denying that you yourself are a hypocrite.


Nope. Not in the least. "vegans" claim to be causing no harm of a
particular kind, even though they are causing it. I never made any
claim not to be causing harm anywhere. I never claimed to be causing no
harm, and I never claimed to be minimizing. Recognizing that some harm
to someone's interests is inevitable, and that reducing it can be
desirable, I am always open to suggestions. I recycle as much waste as
I know how to do; when I was much younger, I recycled nothing. I always
turn out the light when I leave a room in the house. I set my
thermostat to a lower temperature in cool weather and a higher
temperature in warm weather than I did when I was younger. I suggest
these things to others, and I am receptive to their suggestions.

Above all else, I don't compare myself to others in trying to decide if
I'm doing what is right. That comparison, more than anything else, is
what completely queers "veganism" - it is entirely predicated on such an
invidious comparison, and that's immoral.


Veganism is not predicated on a comparison.


Of course it is.


You have just admitted that you engage in activities that cause harm
to humans even though you believe that humans have rights, but you say
that you are "trying to do the best you can".


Nope - I absolutely did *not* say I'm doing the best I can. I also
didn't say that I try not to impose environmental harm on humans due to
their "rights"; it's because of their interests, and because of my wish
to benefit from their similar consideration.


You haven't got any
grounds on which to criticise vegans who try to do the best they can
to reduce the harm they cause to animals.


1. "vegans" are *NOT* "doing the best they can" - this has been
established beyond dispute in several ways, focusing on the
absolute *fact* that "vegans" don't even conduct any analysis
whatever on which vegetable crops are least-harm within the
universe of all vegetable crops, and also on the *fact* that
it is possible to follow a meat-including diet that is lower
harm than many "vegan" diets.

"vegans" are not doing the best they can - never.

2. "vegans" absolutely *do* engage in a loathsome comparison with
omnivores. Their conclusion about their virtue is false.
  #108 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 04:56 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On 7 Mrz., 17:52, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/7/2012 8:30 AM, Rupert wrote:









On 7 Mrz., 17:20, George *wrote:
On 3/6/2012 11:16 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 6, 4:54 pm, George * *wrote:
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.


I did.


Barely.


No, I did correct him, full stop.


Weakly. *Basically, you mumbled it.


You're a fool.









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.


It seems to be implicit in your accusing vegans of hypocrisy while
denying that you yourself are a hypocrite.


Nope. *Not in the least. *"vegans" claim to be causing no harm of a
particular kind, even though they are causing it. *I never made any
claim not to be causing harm anywhere. *I never claimed to be causing no
harm, and I never claimed to be minimizing. *Recognizing that some harm
to someone's interests is inevitable, and that reducing it can be
desirable, I am always open to suggestions. *I recycle as much waste as
I know how to do; when I was much younger, I recycled nothing. *I always
turn out the light when I leave a room in the house. *I set my
thermostat to a lower temperature in cool weather and a higher
temperature in warm weather than I did when I was younger. *I suggest
these things to others, and I am receptive to their suggestions.


Above all else, I don't compare myself to others in trying to decide if
I'm doing what is right. *That comparison, more than anything else, is
what completely queers "veganism" - it is entirely predicated on such an
invidious comparison, and that's immoral.


Veganism is not predicated on a comparison.


Of course it is.


Wrong.

You have just admitted that you engage in activities that cause harm
to humans even though you believe that humans have rights, but you say
that you are "trying to do the best you can".


Nope - I absolutely did *not* say I'm doing the best I can. *I also
didn't say that I try not to impose environmental harm on humans due to
their "rights"; it's because of their interests, and because of my wish
to benefit from their similar consideration.


If you don't think that your contribution to global warming violates
human rights, then how do you figure Glen is violating the polar
bears' rights?

You haven't got any
grounds on which to criticise vegans who try to do the best they can
to reduce the harm they cause to animals.


1. *"vegans" are *NOT* "doing the best they can" - this has been
* * *established beyond dispute in several ways, focusing on the
* * *absolute *fact* that "vegans" don't even conduct any analysis
* * *whatever on which vegetable crops are least-harm within the
* * *universe of all vegetable crops, and also on the *fact* that
* * *it is possible to follow a meat-including diet that is lower
* * *harm than many "vegan" diets.


There is no reason to think that vegans would be able to achieve any
significant further reduction in harm by doing an analysis of which
vegetable crops are least-harm, partly because there is no reliable
information available about that anyway, the research has not been
done.

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

* * *"vegans" are not doing the best they can - never.


You've given no rational grounds for thinking so.

2. *"vegans" absolutely *do* engage in a loathsome comparison with
* * *omnivores. *Their conclusion about their virtue is false.


Wrong.
  #109 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 04:56 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 - Derek says omnivores bear no moral responsibility

On 3/7/2012 6:03 AM, Derek wrote:
On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 13:45:21 -0800, George wrote:


[Assigning vicarious responsibility

How to Cite

Shultz, T. R., Jaggi, C. and Schleifer, M. (1987), Assigning vicarious
responsibility. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17: 377380.
doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420170314

Abstract

An experiment tested three hypotheses about the conditions under which
someone can be held vicariously responsible for the actions of
another. Two of the hypotheses received empirical support: that the
vicariously responsible person is in a superior relationship to the
person who caused the damage and is able to control that person's
causing of the damage]
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...70314/abstract

Vicarious responsibility only has meaning iff the accused "person is
in a superior relationship to the person who caused the damage and is
able to control that person's causing of the damage." Vegetarians
aren't "able to control the food producer's causing of the damage."
Meat eaters don't want to control it; they want it to happen. But I've
always held that neither the meat-eater nor the vegetarian are
responsible for the collateral deaths accrued during the production of
their food. They can't be. The evidence given above from academics in
the field of social psychology make it perfectly clear.


What do you have to say, Woopert? Is Derek right? It is a fact -
beyond rational dispute, as I enjoy saying - that the meat consumer is
in *exactly* the same relationship to meat animal farmers and processors
as the "vegan" is in with respect to crop farmers and processors.
Therefore, if the "vegan" bears no responsibility for the deaths caused
by crop farming, then the omnivore bears no responsibility for the
deaths of meat animals. The degree of control and the degree of
"[superiority in the] relationship to the person who caused the damage"
are identical.

How about it, Woopert?
  #110 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 04:57 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 - Derek says omnivores bear no moral responsibility

On 7 Mrz., 17:56, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/7/2012 6:03 AM, Derek wrote:









On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 13:45:21 -0800, George *wrote:
[Assigning vicarious responsibility


* *How to Cite


Shultz, T. R., Jaggi, C. and Schleifer, M. (1987), Assigning vicarious
responsibility. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17: 377380.
doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420170314


Abstract


An experiment tested three hypotheses about the conditions under which
someone can be held vicariously responsible for the actions of
another. Two of the hypotheses received empirical support: that the
vicariously responsible person is in a superior relationship to the
person who caused the damage and is able to control that person's
causing of the damage]
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...70314/abstract


Vicarious responsibility only has meaning iff the accused "person is
in a superior relationship to the person who caused the damage and is
able to control that person's causing of the damage." Vegetarians
aren't "able to control the food producer's causing of the damage."
Meat eaters don't want to control it; they want it to happen. But I've
always held that neither the meat-eater nor the vegetarian are
responsible for the collateral deaths accrued during the production of
their food. They can't be. The evidence given above from academics in
the field of social psychology make it perfectly clear.


What do you have to say, Woopert? *Is Derek right? *It is a fact -
beyond rational dispute, as I enjoy saying - that the meat consumer is
in *exactly* the same relationship to meat animal farmers and processors
as the "vegan" is in with respect to crop farmers and processors.
Therefore, if the "vegan" bears no responsibility for the deaths caused
by crop farming, then the omnivore bears no responsibility for the
deaths of meat animals. *The degree of control and the degree of
"[superiority in the] relationship to the person who caused the damage"
are identical.

How about it, Woopert?


Yes, I agree with you about that hypothetical statement but I suspect
that Derek will not.


  #111 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 05:01 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: 31
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 08:42:45 -0800, George Plimpton wrote:

On 3/7/2012 6:03 AM, Derek wrote:
On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 13:45:21 -0800, George wrote:
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.


It's true all the same.


No, I don't believe it is. If you want to support your claim you're
going to have to provide irrefutable evidence, not guesswork.

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.


No, it addresses both.


It doesn't.


It does. I can't accept your vague definition in light of all the evidence
I've produced from articles describing a "well-established general rule of
English law" and the European Journal of Social Psychology.

Legal liability is narrower than moral liability. It is
based on it, but it doesn't exhaust it.


[Assigning vicarious responsibility

How to Cite

Shultz, T. R., Jaggi, C. and Schleifer, M. (1987), Assigning vicarious
responsibility. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17: 377380.
doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420170314

Abstract

An experiment tested three hypotheses about the conditions under which
someone can be held vicariously responsible [snip remaining blabber]


No, it's not blabber. It describes how and when to properly assign
vicarious responsibility. It's a shame you had to carve it all out.

So, you believe that consumers are under no obligation not to buy goods
made by slave labor or by workers suffering other severe human rights
abuses in countries like China.


No, I do not. I have the latest iPad and many other items bought
from China. I also have diamonds which most likely help fund
atrocities in Africa. Do you own any of these items?

You also just got all omnivores off the hook for their meat consumption,
because they bear *exactly* the same relationship to the meat producers
that vegetable consumers bear to the crop farmers. Thanks!


No, I did not. If you go over what you snipped away you'll find
that I covered all that.
  #112 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 05:10 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 3/7/2012 8:46 AM, Rupert wrote:
On 7 Mrz., 17:45, George wrote:
On 3/7/2012 8:26 AM, Rupert wrote:









On 7 Mrz., 17:14, George wrote:
On 3/6/2012 11:14 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 6, 4:56 pm, George wrote:
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?


Seems like an eminently reasonable and sensible statement to me, and
all that needs to be said.


It seems pretty weak and begrudging to me.


Well, you're a bit weird.


Nope.

You didn't expend a minute fraction as much effort trying to tell "glen"
that he's wrong as I did on ****wit Harrison.


Why should I?


Intellectual integrity, maybe?
  #113 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 05:12 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 7 Mrz., 18:10, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/7/2012 8:46 AM, Rupert wrote:









On 7 Mrz., 17:45, George *wrote:
On 3/7/2012 8:26 AM, Rupert wrote:


On 7 Mrz., 17:14, George * *wrote:
On 3/6/2012 11:14 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 6, 4:56 pm, George * * *wrote:
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?


Seems like an eminently reasonable and sensible statement to me, and
all that needs to be said.


It seems pretty weak and begrudging to me.


Well, you're a bit weird.


Nope.


You didn't expend a minute fraction as much effort trying to tell "glen"
that he's wrong as I did on ****wit Harrison.


Why should I?


Intellectual integrity, maybe?


There was absolutely no breach of intellectual integrity. You asked me
to make a comment about what Glen was saying and I did, correctly
reporting what my view was. My intellectual integrity was
unimpeachable.
  #114 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 05:17 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 3/7/2012 8:56 AM, Rupert wrote:
On 7 Mrz., 17:52, George wrote:
On 3/7/2012 8:30 AM, Rupert wrote:









On 7 Mrz., 17:20, George wrote:
On 3/6/2012 11:16 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 6, 4:54 pm, George wrote:
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.


I did.


Barely.


No, I did correct him, full stop.


Weakly. Basically, you mumbled it.


You're a fool.









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.


It seems to be implicit in your accusing vegans of hypocrisy while
denying that you yourself are a hypocrite.


Nope. Not in the least. "vegans" claim to be causing no harm of a
particular kind, even though they are causing it. I never made any
claim not to be causing harm anywhere. I never claimed to be causing no
harm, and I never claimed to be minimizing. Recognizing that some harm
to someone's interests is inevitable, and that reducing it can be
desirable, I am always open to suggestions. I recycle as much waste as
I know how to do; when I was much younger, I recycled nothing. I always
turn out the light when I leave a room in the house. I set my
thermostat to a lower temperature in cool weather and a higher
temperature in warm weather than I did when I was younger. I suggest
these things to others, and I am receptive to their suggestions.


Above all else, I don't compare myself to others in trying to decide if
I'm doing what is right. That comparison, more than anything else, is
what completely queers "veganism" - it is entirely predicated on such an
invidious comparison, and that's immoral.


Veganism is not predicated on a comparison.


Of course it is.


Wrong.


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


You have just admitted that you engage in activities that cause harm
to humans even though you believe that humans have rights, but you say
that you are "trying to do the best you can".


Nope - I absolutely did *not* say I'm doing the best I can. I also
didn't say that I try not to impose environmental harm on humans due to
their "rights"; it's because of their interests, and because of my wish
to benefit from their similar consideration.


If you don't think that your contribution to global warming violates
human rights, then how do you figure Glen is violating the polar
bears' rights?


When did I suggest he was violating the polar bears' *rights*? I
didn't. I said his driving is killing polar bears, you stupid ****.



You haven't got any
grounds on which to criticise vegans who try to do the best they can
to reduce the harm they cause to animals.


1. "vegans" are *NOT* "doing the best they can" - this has been
established beyond dispute in several ways, focusing on the
absolute *fact* that "vegans" don't even conduct any analysis
whatever on which vegetable crops are least-harm within the
universe of all vegetable crops, and also on the *fact* that
it is possible to follow a meat-including diet that is lower
harm than many "vegan" diets.


There is no reason to think that vegans would be able to achieve any
significant further reduction in harm by doing an analysis of which
vegetable crops are least-harm,


Bullshit.


partly because there is no reliable
information available about that anyway, the research has not been
done.


There's that disgusting "animal rights passivism" on display again - why
can't some ****ing idealistic "vegan" stop marching and participating in
PeTA stunts and *DO* the ****ing research, you ****ing idiot?

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

The simple fact, you mother****ing idiot, is that "vegans" don't care.
This has been established thoroughly: they do NOT care. The easy, lazy
and casual assumption that not putting animal parts in their mouths is
sufficient is just too convenient.



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


That's a lie. What I haven't done is help "vegans" figure out how to
salvage their bankrupt belief system.


"vegans" are not doing the best they can - never.


You've given no rational grounds for thinking so.


I have proved it beyond all doubt.


2. "vegans" absolutely *do* engage in a loathsome comparison with
omnivores. Their conclusion about their virtue is false.


Wrong.


No, right. "glen" is a perfect example.
  #115 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 05:18 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default Attn: Woopert - Derek says omnivores bear no moral responsibilityfor the deaths of meat animals

On 3/7/2012 8:57 AM, Rupert wrote:
On 7 Mrz., 17:56, George wrote:
On 3/7/2012 6:03 AM, Derek wrote:









On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 13:45:21 -0800, George wrote:
[Assigning vicarious responsibility


How to Cite


Shultz, T. R., Jaggi, C. and Schleifer, M. (1987), Assigning vicarious
responsibility. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17: 377380.
doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420170314


Abstract


An experiment tested three hypotheses about the conditions under which
someone can be held vicariously responsible for the actions of
another. Two of the hypotheses received empirical support: that the
vicariously responsible person is in a superior relationship to the
person who caused the damage and is able to control that person's
causing of the damage]
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...70314/abstract


Vicarious responsibility only has meaning iff the accused "person is
in a superior relationship to the person who caused the damage and is
able to control that person's causing of the damage." Vegetarians
aren't "able to control the food producer's causing of the damage."
Meat eaters don't want to control it; they want it to happen. But I've
always held that neither the meat-eater nor the vegetarian are
responsible for the collateral deaths accrued during the production of
their food. They can't be. The evidence given above from academics in
the field of social psychology make it perfectly clear.


What do you have to say, Woopert? Is Derek right? It is a fact -
beyond rational dispute, as I enjoy saying - that the meat consumer is
in *exactly* the same relationship to meat animal farmers and processors
as the "vegan" is in with respect to crop farmers and processors.
Therefore, if the "vegan" bears no responsibility for the deaths caused
by crop farming, then the omnivore bears no responsibility for the
deaths of meat animals. The degree of control and the degree of
"[superiority in the] relationship to the person who caused the damage"
are identical.

How about it, Woopert?


Yes, I agree with you about that hypothetical statement but I suspect
that Derek will not.


Well, good for you, then.


  #116 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 05:20 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 3/7/2012 9:01 AM, Derek wrote:
On Wed, 07 Mar 2012 08:42:45 -0800, George wrote:

On 3/7/2012 6:03 AM, Derek wrote:
On Tue, 06 Mar 2012 13:45:21 -0800, George wrote:
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.


It's true all the same.


No, I don't believe it is. If you want to support your claim you're
going to have to provide irrefutable evidence, not guesswork.

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.

No, it addresses both.


It doesn't.


It does.


It doesn't.


Legal liability is narrower than moral liability. It is
based on it, but it doesn't exhaust it.


[Assigning vicarious responsibility

How to Cite

Shultz, T. R., Jaggi, C. and Schleifer, M. (1987), Assigning vicarious
responsibility. European Journal of Social Psychology, 17: 377380.
doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420170314

Abstract

An experiment tested three hypotheses about the conditions under which
someone can be held vicariously responsible [snip remaining blabber]


No, it's not blabber.


It's blabber.


So, you believe that consumers are under no obligation not to buy goods
made by slave labor or by workers suffering other severe human rights
abuses in countries like China.


No, I do not. I have the latest iPad and many other items bought
from China. I also have diamonds which most likely help fund
atrocities in Africa. Do you own any of these items?


No.


You also just got all omnivores off the hook for their meat consumption,
because they bear *exactly* the same relationship to the meat producers
that vegetable consumers bear to the crop farmers. Thanks!


No, I did not. If you go over what you snipped away you'll find
that I covered all that.


No, you didn't. It is not in dispute that omnivores' relationship to
meat producers is identical in terms of degree of control and degree of
"superiority", whatever that's supposed to mean, as "vegans'"
relationship with crop producers.
  #117 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 05:24 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

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

Veganism is not predicated on a comparison.


Of course it is.


Wrong.


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


You're a fool.

You have just admitted that you engage in activities that cause harm
to humans even though you believe that humans have rights, but you say
that you are "trying to do the best you can".


Nope - I absolutely did *not* say I'm doing the best I can. *I also
didn't say that I try not to impose environmental harm on humans due to
their "rights"; it's because of their interests, and because of my wish
to benefit from their similar consideration.


If you don't think that your contribution to global warming violates
human rights, then how do you figure Glen is violating the polar
bears' rights?


When did I suggest he was violating the polar bears' *rights*? *I
didn't. *I said his driving is killing polar bears, you stupid ****.


By that logic you must also conclude that your driving will help to
kill humans in the future, and yet you don't think you're violating
human rights?



You haven't got any
grounds on which to criticise vegans who try to do the best they can
to reduce the harm they cause to animals.


1. *"vegans" are *NOT* "doing the best they can" - this has been
* * * established beyond dispute in several ways, focusing on the
* * * absolute *fact* that "vegans" don't even conduct any analysis
* * * whatever on which vegetable crops are least-harm within the
* * * universe of all vegetable crops, and also on the *fact* that
* * * it is possible to follow a meat-including diet that is lower
* * * harm than many "vegan" diets.


There is no reason to think that vegans would be able to achieve any
significant further reduction in harm by doing an analysis of which
vegetable crops are least-harm,


Bullshit.

partly because there is no reliable
information available about that anyway, the research has not been
done.


There's that disgusting "animal rights passivism" on display again - why
can't some ****ing idealistic "vegan" stop marching and participating in
PeTA stunts and *DO* the ****ing research, you ****ing idiot?

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


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

The simple fact, you mother****ing idiot, is that "vegans" don't care.
This has been established thoroughly: *they do NOT care. *The easy, lazy
and casual assumption that not putting animal parts in their mouths is
sufficient is just too convenient.


You're a fool.

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


That's a lie.


So where have you given the suggestion, then?

What I haven't done is help "vegans" figure out how to
salvage their bankrupt belief system.

* * * "vegans" are not doing the best they can - never.


You've given no rational grounds for thinking so.


I have proved it beyond all doubt.


Wrong.



2. *"vegans" absolutely *do* engage in a loathsome comparison with
* * * omnivores. *Their conclusion about their virtue is false..


Wrong.


No, right. *"glen" is a perfect example.


  #118 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 05:30 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 3/7/2012 9:24 AM, Rupert wrote:
On 7 Mrz., 18:17, George wrote:

Veganism is not predicated on a comparison.


Of course it is.


Wrong.


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


You're a fool.


Gotcha!


You have just admitted that you engage in activities that cause harm
to humans even though you believe that humans have rights, but you say
that you are "trying to do the best you can".


Nope - I absolutely did *not* say I'm doing the best I can. I also
didn't say that I try not to impose environmental harm on humans due to
their "rights"; it's because of their interests, and because of my wish
to benefit from their similar consideration.


If you don't think that your contribution to global warming violates
human rights, then how do you figure Glen is violating the polar
bears' rights?


When did I suggest he was violating the polar bears' *rights*? I
didn't. I said his driving is killing polar bears, you stupid ****.


By that logic you must also conclude that your driving will help to
kill humans in the future, and yet you don't think you're violating
human rights?


Not everything that shortens a human's lifespan is a violation of his
rights.


You haven't got any
grounds on which to criticise vegans who try to do the best they can
to reduce the harm they cause to animals.


1. "vegans" are *NOT* "doing the best they can" - this has been
established beyond dispute in several ways, focusing on the
absolute *fact* that "vegans" don't even conduct any analysis
whatever on which vegetable crops are least-harm within the
universe of all vegetable crops, and also on the *fact* that
it is possible to follow a meat-including diet that is lower
harm than many "vegan" diets.


There is no reason to think that vegans would be able to achieve any
significant further reduction in harm by doing an analysis of which
vegetable crops are least-harm,


Bullshit.

partly because there is no reliable
information available about that anyway, the research has not been
done.


There's that disgusting "animal rights passivism" on display again - why
can't some ****ing idealistic "vegan" stop marching and participating in
PeTA stunts and *DO* the ****ing research, you ****ing idiot?

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


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


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

The entire thing is shit.


The simple fact, you mother****ing idiot, is that "vegans" don't care.
This has been established thoroughly: they do NOT care. The easy, lazy
and casual assumption that not putting animal parts in their mouths is
sufficient is just too convenient.


You're a fool.


Gotcha!



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


That's a lie.


So where have you given the suggestion, then?


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



What I haven't done is help "vegans" figure out how to
salvage their bankrupt belief system.

"vegans" are not doing the best they can - never.


You've given no rational grounds for thinking so.


I have proved it beyond all doubt.


Wrong.


No, I'm right.





2. "vegans" absolutely *do* engage in a loathsome comparison with
omnivores. Their conclusion about their virtue is false.


Wrong.


No, right. "glen" is a perfect example.


Gotcha again!
  #119 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 05:36 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default The 'vegan' shuffle

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

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


Veganism is not predicated on a comparison.


Of course it is.


Wrong.


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


You're a fool.


Gotcha!


I see.









You have just admitted that you engage in activities that cause harm
to humans even though you believe that humans have rights, but you say
that you are "trying to do the best you can".


Nope - I absolutely did *not* say I'm doing the best I can. *I also
didn't say that I try not to impose environmental harm on humans due to
their "rights"; it's because of their interests, and because of my wish
to benefit from their similar consideration.


If you don't think that your contribution to global warming violates
human rights, then how do you figure Glen is violating the polar
bears' rights?


When did I suggest he was violating the polar bears' *rights*? *I
didn't. *I said his driving is killing polar bears, you stupid ****.


By that logic you must also conclude that your driving will help to
kill humans in the future, and yet you don't think you're violating
human rights?


Not everything that shortens a human's lifespan is a violation of his
rights.


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

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

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









You haven't got any
grounds on which to criticise vegans who try to do the best they can
to reduce the harm they cause to animals.


1. *"vegans" are *NOT* "doing the best they can" - this has been
* * * *established beyond dispute in several ways, focusing on the
* * * *absolute *fact* that "vegans" don't even conduct any analysis
* * * *whatever on which vegetable crops are least-harm within the
* * * *universe of all vegetable crops, and also on the *fact* that
* * * *it is possible to follow a meat-including diet that is lower
* * * *harm than many "vegan" diets.


There is no reason to think that vegans would be able to achieve any
significant further reduction in harm by doing an analysis of which
vegetable crops are least-harm,


Bullshit.


partly because there is no reliable
information available about that anyway, the research has not been
done.


There's that disgusting "animal rights passivism" on display again - why
can't some ****ing idealistic "vegan" stop marching and participating in
PeTA stunts and *DO* the ****ing research, you ****ing idiot?


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


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


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

The entire thing is shit.


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

The simple fact, you mother****ing idiot, is that "vegans" don't care.
This has been established thoroughly: *they do NOT care. *The easy, lazy
and casual assumption that not putting animal parts in their mouths is
sufficient is just too convenient.


You're a fool.


Gotcha!



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


That's a lie.


So where have you given the suggestion, then?


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


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



What I haven't done is help "vegans" figure out how to
salvage their bankrupt belief system.


* * * *"vegans" are not doing the best they can - never.


You've given no rational grounds for thinking so.


I have proved it beyond all doubt.


Wrong.


No, I'm right.



2. *"vegans" absolutely *do* engage in a loathsome comparison with
* * * *omnivores. *Their conclusion about their virtue is false.


Wrong.


No, right. *"glen" is a perfect example.


Gotcha again!


  #120 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 07-03-2012, 05:44 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 3/7/2012 9:36 AM, Rupert wrote:
On 7 Mrz., 18:30, George wrote:
On 3/7/2012 9:24 AM, Rupert wrote:

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


Veganism is not predicated on a comparison.


Of course it is.


Wrong.


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


You're a fool.


Gotcha!


I see.


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


You have just admitted that you engage in activities that cause harm
to humans even though you believe that humans have rights, but you say
that you are "trying to do the best you can".


Nope - I absolutely did *not* say I'm doing the best I can. I also
didn't say that I try not to impose environmental harm on humans due to
their "rights"; it's because of their interests, and because of my wish
to benefit from their similar consideration.


If you don't think that your contribution to global warming violates
human rights, then how do you figure Glen is violating the polar
bears' rights?


When did I suggest he was violating the polar bears' *rights*? I
didn't. I said his driving is killing polar bears, you stupid ****.


By that logic you must also conclude that your driving will help to
kill humans in the future, and yet you don't think you're violating
human rights?


Not everything that shortens a human's lifespan is a violation of his
rights.


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

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

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


No, because they can be relocated.


You haven't got any
grounds on which to criticise vegans who try to do the best they can
to reduce the harm they cause to animals.


1. "vegans" are *NOT* "doing the best they can" - this has been
established beyond dispute in several ways, focusing on the
absolute *fact* that "vegans" don't even conduct any analysis
whatever on which vegetable crops are least-harm within the
universe of all vegetable crops, and also on the *fact* that
it is possible to follow a meat-including diet that is lower
harm than many "vegan" diets.


There is no reason to think that vegans would be able to achieve any
significant further reduction in harm by doing an analysis of which
vegetable crops are least-harm,


Bullshit.


partly because there is no reliable
information available about that anyway, the research has not been
done.


There's that disgusting "animal rights passivism" on display again - why
can't some ****ing idealistic "vegan" stop marching and participating in
PeTA stunts and *DO* the ****ing research, you ****ing idiot?


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


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


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

The entire thing is shit.


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


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


The simple fact, you mother****ing idiot, is that "vegans" don't care.
This has been established thoroughly: they do NOT care. The easy, lazy
and casual assumption that not putting animal parts in their mouths is
sufficient is just too convenient.


You're a fool.


Gotcha!



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


That's a lie.


So where have you given the suggestion, then?


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


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


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


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:20 PM.

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

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017