|
The 'vegan' shuffle
I read this a while ago, and I had the devil of a time finding the site
again to share here. http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/11419...-fails-and-one This is an excellent and thorough elaboration of why "veganism" fails as a sound ethical approach to the human use of animals. I really like the author's turn of phrase, "the vegan shuffle." By that, he means the flip-flop back and forth between animal "rights" and the reduction of animal suffering when "vegans" are confronted with the inescapable and undeniable fact that "veganism" is not a reliable means for achieving either one. |
The 'vegan' shuffle
"George Plimpton" > wrote in message
... > I read this a while ago, and I had the devil of a time finding the site > again to share here. > > http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/11419...-fails-and-one > > This is an excellent and thorough elaboration of why "veganism" fails as a > sound ethical approach to the human use of animals. I really like the > author's turn of phrase, "the vegan shuffle." By that, he means the > flip-flop back and forth between animal "rights" and the reduction of > animal suffering when "vegans" are confronted with the inescapable and > undeniable fact that "veganism" is not a reliable means for achieving > either one. That is an excellent blog. Too bad the formatting in the comments section is so messed up. |
The 'vegan' shuffle
On 2/29/2012 12:06 PM, Dutch wrote:
> "George Plimpton" > wrote in message > ... >> I read this a while ago, and I had the devil of a time finding the >> site again to share here. >> >> http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/11419...-fails-and-one >> >> >> This is an excellent and thorough elaboration of why "veganism" fails >> as a sound ethical approach to the human use of animals. I really like >> the author's turn of phrase, "the vegan shuffle." By that, he means >> the flip-flop back and forth between animal "rights" and the reduction >> of animal suffering when "vegans" are confronted with the inescapable >> and undeniable fact that "veganism" is not a reliable means for >> achieving either one. > > That is an excellent blog. Too bad the formatting in the comments > section is so messed up. It is a good blog, isn't it? I think that formatting is due to the way that site has implemented the commenting technology. A newspaper with which I have some familiarity uses what appears to be the same technology for its comments, and they don't seem to have that problem. See the comments following this story: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/02/29/430...ones-dies.html |
The 'vegan' shuffle
On 3/1/2012 12:16 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 7:36:50 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote: >> I read this a while ago, and I had the devil of a time finding the site >> again to share here. >> >> http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/11419...-fails-and-one >> >> This is an excellent and thorough elaboration of why "veganism" fails as >> a sound ethical approach to the human use of animals. I really like the >> author's turn of phrase, "the vegan shuffle." By that, he means the >> flip-flop back and forth between animal "rights" and the reduction of >> animal suffering when "vegans" are confronted with the inescapable and >> undeniable fact that "veganism" is not a reliable means for achieving >> either one. > > Why is veganism not a good means for reducing animal suffering? Because refraining from consuming animal bits doesn't say anything about the number of animals harmed by what you do consume. |
The 'vegan' shuffle
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:36:50 -0800, Goo wrote:
>"veganism" is not a reliable means · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does. What they try to avoid are products which provide life (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have to avoid the following items containing animal by-products in order to be successful: tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides, insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen, heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides, gelatin capsules, adhesive tape, laminated wood products, plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings The meat industry provides life for the animals that it slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume animal products from animals they think are raised in decent ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by being vegan. From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. · |
The 'vegan' shuffle
On 3/1/2012 2:46 PM, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:36:50 -0800, Goo wrote: > >> "veganism" is not a reliable means > > · Vegans contribute to the Shut up, ****wit. |
The 'vegan' shuffle
On Mar 1, 6:41*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/1/2012 2:46 PM, dh@. wrote: > > > On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:36:50 -0800, Goo wrote: > > >> "veganism" is not a reliable means > > > * *· Vegans contribute to the > > Shut up, ****wit. Show us some photographic proof of all the millions of animals killed by grain farming, Gooberdoodle. |
The 'vegan' shuffle
On 1 Mrz., 17:11, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/1/2012 12:16 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 7:36:50 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote: > >> I read this a while ago, and I had the devil of a time finding the site > >> again to share here. > > >>http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/11419...al-argument-fo.... > > >> This is an excellent and thorough elaboration of why "veganism" fails as > >> a sound ethical approach to the human use of animals. *I really like the > >> author's turn of phrase, "the vegan shuffle." *By that, he means the > >> flip-flop back and forth between animal "rights" and the reduction of > >> animal suffering when "vegans" are confronted with the inescapable and > >> undeniable fact that "veganism" is not a reliable means for achieving > >> either one. > > > Why is veganism not a good means for reducing animal suffering? > > Because refraining from consuming animal bits doesn't say anything about > the number of animals harmed by what you do consume. Why not? |
The 'vegan' shuffle
On 1 Mrz., 23:46, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:36:50 -0800, Goo wrote: > >"veganism" is not a reliable means > > * · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of > wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of > buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does. > What they try to avoid are products which provide life > (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have > to avoid the following items containing animal by-products > in order to be successful: > > tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water > filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides, > insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen, > heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides, > gelatin capsules, *adhesive tape, laminated wood products, > plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane > wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings > > * * The meat industry provides life for the animals that it > slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it > as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for > their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume > animal products from animals they think are raised in decent > ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the > future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for > livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious > consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by > being vegan. > * * From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised > steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people > get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well > over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people > get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm > machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and > draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is > likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings > derived from grass raised animals. You keep on making this claim over and over again, just as you have for at least six years, but when challenged to provide actual evidence for it you are unable to provide any. If you were able to provide evidence for it, you would. One can only conclude that you are making the claim in the absence of any real evidence. > Grass raised animal products > contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and > better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. · |
The 'vegan' shuffle
On 3/2/2012 3:42 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 1 Mrz., 17:11, George > wrote: >> On 3/1/2012 12:16 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>> On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 7:36:50 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote: >>>> I read this a while ago, and I had the devil of a time finding the site >>>> again to share here. >> >>>> http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/11419...al-argument-fo... >> >>>> This is an excellent and thorough elaboration of why "veganism" fails as >>>> a sound ethical approach to the human use of animals. I really like the >>>> author's turn of phrase, "the vegan shuffle." By that, he means the >>>> flip-flop back and forth between animal "rights" and the reduction of >>>> animal suffering when "vegans" are confronted with the inescapable and >>>> undeniable fact that "veganism" is not a reliable means for achieving >>>> either one. >> >>> Why is veganism not a good means for reducing animal suffering? >> >> Because refraining from consuming animal bits doesn't say anything about >> the number of animals harmed by what you do consume. > > Why not? How would it? |
The 'vegan' shuffle
On 3/2/2012 3:43 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 1 Mrz., 23:46, dh@. wrote: >> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:36:50 -0800, Goo wrote: >>> "veganism" is not a reliable means >> >> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of >> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of >> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does. >> What they try to avoid are products which provide life >> (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have >> to avoid the following items containing animal by-products >> in order to be successful: >> >> tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water >> filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides, >> insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen, >> heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides, >> gelatin capsules, adhesive tape, laminated wood products, >> plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane >> wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings >> >> The meat industry provides life for the animals that it >> slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it >> as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for >> their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume >> animal products from animals they think are raised in decent >> ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the >> future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for >> livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious >> consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by >> being vegan. >> From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised >> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people >> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well >> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people >> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm >> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and >> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is >> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings >> derived from grass raised animals. > > You keep on making this claim over and over again, just as you have > for at least six years, but when challenged to provide actual evidence > for it you are unable to provide any. ****wit doesn't have any evidence, of course, but for certain there is a strong logical case to be made. What do you think the number of deaths caused raising one grass-fed steer might be? How many deaths can plausibly be attributed to the farming of one hectare of rice in a wet paddy? Some assumptions have to be made concerning the distribution of the products, such as pest extermination when storing the rice, refrigeration when storing the beef, but we will ignore those and focus solely on the process of raising and harvesting the initial product - that is, up to the time when the product leaves the control of the primary producers, i.e. the rancher and the rice farmer. There can be no doubt that raising the rice kills many animals - you have always conceded that vegetable agriculture kills animals. There can be no doubt that raising a 100% grass-fed steer kills far fewer animals - quite plausibly, *no* additional animals beyond the steer itself. 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. 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. You just don't believe it, and we all know you don't believe it. |
The 'vegan' shuffle
On 2 Mrz., 16:28, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/2/2012 3:42 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 1 Mrz., 17:11, George > *wrote: > >> On 3/1/2012 12:16 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 7:36:50 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote: > >>>> I read this a while ago, and I had the devil of a time finding the site > >>>> again to share here. > > >>>>http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/11419...al-argument-fo.... > > >>>> This is an excellent and thorough elaboration of why "veganism" fails as > >>>> a sound ethical approach to the human use of animals. *I really like the > >>>> author's turn of phrase, "the vegan shuffle." *By that, he means the > >>>> flip-flop back and forth between animal "rights" and the reduction of > >>>> animal suffering when "vegans" are confronted with the inescapable and > >>>> undeniable fact that "veganism" is not a reliable means for achieving > >>>> either one. > > >>> Why is veganism not a good means for reducing animal suffering? > > >> Because refraining from consuming animal bits doesn't say anything about > >> the number of animals harmed by what you do consume. > > > Why not? > > How would it? Most animal products are produced on factory farms which cause a lot of suffering. Also, most animal products require more collateral deaths from plant-based agriculture in order to produce the same amount of protein than would be required by simply growing plant-based food and feeding it directly to humans. Therefore, it would seem to be a pretty good rule of thumb that someone who only buys the products of plant-based agriculture is likely to be requiring significantly less suffering and premature death in order to produce the food they eat than someone who eats animal products. |
The 'vegan' shuffle
On 2 Mrz., 16:43, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/2/2012 3:43 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 1 Mrz., 23:46, dh@. wrote: > >> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:36:50 -0800, Goo wrote: > >>> "veganism" is not a reliable means > > >> * *· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of > >> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of > >> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does. > >> What they try to avoid are products which provide life > >> (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have > >> to avoid the following items containing animal by-products > >> in order to be successful: > > >> tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water > >> filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides, > >> insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen, > >> heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides, > >> gelatin capsules, *adhesive tape, laminated wood products, > >> plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane > >> wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings > > >> * * *The meat industry provides life for the animals that it > >> slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it > >> as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for > >> their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume > >> animal products from animals they think are raised in decent > >> ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the > >> future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for > >> livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious > >> consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by > >> being vegan. > >> * * *From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised > >> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people > >> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well > >> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people > >> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm > >> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and > >> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is > >> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings > >> derived from grass raised animals. > > > You keep on making this claim over and over again, just as you have > > for at least six years, but when challenged to provide actual evidence > > for it you are unable to provide any. > > ****wit doesn't have any evidence, of course, but for certain there is a > strong logical case to be made. *What do you think the number of deaths > caused raising one grass-fed steer might be? *How many deaths can > plausibly be attributed to the farming of one hectare of rice in a wet > paddy? > I don't have any idea about the answers to either of those questions, and I was talking about soya-based products, not rice. > Some assumptions have to be made concerning the distribution of the > products, such as pest extermination when storing the rice, > refrigeration when storing the beef, but we will ignore those and focus > solely on the process of raising and harvesting the initial product - > that is, up to the time when the product leaves the control of the > primary producers, i.e. the rancher and the rice farmer. > > There can be no doubt that raising the rice kills many animals - you > have always conceded that vegetable agriculture kills animals. *There > can be no doubt that raising a 100% grass-fed steer kills far fewer > animals - quite plausibly, *no* additional animals beyond the steer itself. > > 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. But I also don't have any idea about what could be said about calorically equivalent servings of beef and rice, either. > *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. (I assume you're talking about fully grass-fed beef, by the way, the cattle are put out to pasture the whole year round. Yes?) In any case I never said anything about rice. I was talking about tofu. > *You just don't believe it, and we all know you don't > believe it. I don't have any opinion one way or the other, because I don't have sufficient information. Suppose I wanted to go about buying some beef which had a smaller CD count per serving than a typical calorically equivalent serving of rice. How exactly would you suggest I go about doing that, given that I live in the European Union at the moment? How would I be sure that the beef was not partially grain-fed? |
The 'vegan' shuffle
On 3/2/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 2 Mrz., 16:28, George > wrote: >> On 3/2/2012 3:42 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 1 Mrz., 17:11, George > wrote: >>>> On 3/1/2012 12:16 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 7:36:50 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote: >>>>>> I read this a while ago, and I had the devil of a time finding the site >>>>>> again to share here. >> >>>>>> http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/11419...al-argument-fo... >> >>>>>> This is an excellent and thorough elaboration of why "veganism" fails as >>>>>> a sound ethical approach to the human use of animals. I really like the >>>>>> author's turn of phrase, "the vegan shuffle." By that, he means the >>>>>> flip-flop back and forth between animal "rights" and the reduction of >>>>>> animal suffering when "vegans" are confronted with the inescapable and >>>>>> undeniable fact that "veganism" is not a reliable means for achieving >>>>>> either one. >> >>>>> Why is veganism not a good means for reducing animal suffering? >> >>>> Because refraining from consuming animal bits doesn't say anything about >>>> the number of animals harmed by what you do consume. >> >>> Why not? >> >> How would it? > > Most animal products are produced on factory farms which cause a lot > of suffering. Irrelevant. That says *nothing* about the harm caused by the non-animal products you *do* eat. You know nothing about it. Which causes more harm, a commercially farmed apple or a commercially farmed orange? Don't think about it, don't blabber your usual wheeze, just state it, right now. |
The 'vegan' shuffle
On 2 Mrz., 19:07, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/2/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 2 Mrz., 16:28, George > *wrote: > >> On 3/2/2012 3:42 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On 1 Mrz., 17:11, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 3/1/2012 12:16 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 7:36:50 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote: > >>>>>> I read this a while ago, and I had the devil of a time finding the site > >>>>>> again to share here. > > >>>>>>http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/11419...al-argument-fo... > > >>>>>> This is an excellent and thorough elaboration of why "veganism" fails as > >>>>>> a sound ethical approach to the human use of animals. *I really like the > >>>>>> author's turn of phrase, "the vegan shuffle." *By that, he means the > >>>>>> flip-flop back and forth between animal "rights" and the reduction of > >>>>>> animal suffering when "vegans" are confronted with the inescapable and > >>>>>> undeniable fact that "veganism" is not a reliable means for achieving > >>>>>> either one. > > >>>>> Why is veganism not a good means for reducing animal suffering? > > >>>> Because refraining from consuming animal bits doesn't say anything about > >>>> the number of animals harmed by what you do consume. > > >>> Why not? > > >> How would it? > > > Most animal products are produced on factory farms which cause a lot > > of suffering. > > Irrelevant. *That says *nothing* about the harm caused by the non-animal > products you *do* eat. I gave good reasons for thinking that less suffering and premature death is caused in order to produce what I eat than is required in order to produce a typical modern Western diet including animal products. >*You know nothing about it. > That's not true. > Which causes more harm, a commercially farmed apple or a commercially > farmed orange? *Don't think about it, don't blabber your usual wheeze, > just state it, right now. Obviously I wouldn't have any idea. |
The 'vegan' shuffle
On 3/2/2012 9:35 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 2 Mrz., 16:43, George > wrote: >> On 3/2/2012 3:43 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 1 Mrz., 23:46, dh@. wrote: >>>> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:36:50 -0800, Goo wrote: >>>>> "veganism" is not a reliable means >> >>>> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of >>>> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of >>>> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does. >>>> What they try to avoid are products which provide life >>>> (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have >>>> to avoid the following items containing animal by-products >>>> in order to be successful: >> >>>> tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water >>>> filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides, >>>> insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen, >>>> heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides, >>>> gelatin capsules, adhesive tape, laminated wood products, >>>> plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane >>>> wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings >> >>>> The meat industry provides life for the animals that it >>>> slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it >>>> as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for >>>> their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume >>>> animal products from animals they think are raised in decent >>>> ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the >>>> future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for >>>> livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious >>>> consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by >>>> being vegan. >>>> From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised >>>> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people >>>> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well >>>> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people >>>> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm >>>> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and >>>> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is >>>> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings >>>> derived from grass raised animals. >> >>> You keep on making this claim over and over again, just as you have >>> for at least six years, but when challenged to provide actual evidence >>> for it you are unable to provide any. >> >> ****wit doesn't have any evidence, of course, but for certain there is a >> strong logical case to be made. What do you think the number of deaths >> caused raising one grass-fed steer might be? How many deaths can >> plausibly be attributed to the farming of one hectare of rice in a wet >> paddy? >> > > I don't have any idea about the answers to either of those questions, > and I was talking about soya-based products, not rice. But you certainly ought to be able to think in terms of what's plausible and seems to make sense, can't you? Oh, wait - maybe not. >> Some assumptions have to be made concerning the distribution of the >> products, such as pest extermination when storing the rice, >> refrigeration when storing the beef, but we will ignore those and focus >> solely on the process of raising and harvesting the initial product - >> that is, up to the time when the product leaves the control of the >> primary producers, i.e. the rancher and the rice farmer. >> >> There can be no doubt that raising the rice kills many animals - you >> have always conceded that vegetable agriculture kills animals. There >> can be no doubt that raising a 100% grass-fed steer kills far fewer >> animals - quite plausibly, *no* additional animals beyond the steer itself. >> >> 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. **** off. > But I also don't have any idea about what could be said about > calorically equivalent servings of beef and rice, either. You ought to have. If you don't, you're trying not to have any idea. >> Now I get the pleasure once again of telling you what you do and don't >> believe, because I know: you do not believe that the rice causes fewer >> CDs than the beef. > > No, I don't. I lack a belief one way or the other, because I have no > evidence one way or the other. No, that's false. You do not lack any belief one way or another. We know this because you have already said you know that vegetable agriculture kills animals. You have *some* sense as to what might be a plausible number of animals killed for different types of agriculture. > > (I assume you're talking about fully grass-fed beef, by the way, the > cattle are put out to pasture the whole year round. Yes?) Obviously. > > In any case I never said anything about rice. I was talking about > tofu. Fine. >> You just don't believe it, and we all know you don't >> believe it. > > I don't have any opinion one way or the other, because I don't have > sufficient information. That's false. You have information on what might be plausible numbers. |
The 'vegan' shuffle
On 2 Mrz., 19:33, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/2/2012 9:35 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 2 Mrz., 16:43, George > *wrote: > >> On 3/2/2012 3:43 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On 1 Mrz., 23:46, dh@. wrote: > >>>> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:36:50 -0800, Goo wrote: > >>>>> "veganism" is not a reliable means > > >>>> * * · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of > >>>> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of > >>>> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does. > >>>> What they try to avoid are products which provide life > >>>> (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have > >>>> to avoid the following items containing animal by-products > >>>> in order to be successful: > > >>>> tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water > >>>> filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides, > >>>> insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen, > >>>> heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides, > >>>> gelatin capsules, *adhesive tape, laminated wood products, > >>>> plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane > >>>> wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings > > >>>> * * * The meat industry provides life for the animals that it > >>>> slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it > >>>> as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for > >>>> their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume > >>>> animal products from animals they think are raised in decent > >>>> ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the > >>>> future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for > >>>> livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious > >>>> consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by > >>>> being vegan. > >>>> * * * From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised > >>>> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people > >>>> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well > >>>> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people > >>>> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm > >>>> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and > >>>> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is > >>>> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings > >>>> derived from grass raised animals. > > >>> You keep on making this claim over and over again, just as you have > >>> for at least six years, but when challenged to provide actual evidence > >>> for it you are unable to provide any. > > >> ****wit doesn't have any evidence, of course, but for certain there is a > >> strong logical case to be made. *What do you think the number of deaths > >> caused raising one grass-fed steer might be? *How many deaths can > >> plausibly be attributed to the farming of one hectare of rice in a wet > >> paddy? > > > I don't have any idea about the answers to either of those questions, > > and I was talking about soya-based products, not rice. > > But you certainly ought to be able to think in terms of what's plausible > and seems to make sense, can't you? *Oh, wait - maybe not. > I don't really have any feel for what's "plausible" or "seems to make sense" in this area. Probably a lot of deaths would be caused by farming one hectare of rice, yes. But I don't know how many servings of rice that would produce. You would need to do some calculations before you had any real idea. If you think you have some idea, then why don't you just tell me the calculations you made? I don't see how you could have any idea unless you've done some calculations. > > > > > > > > > >> Some assumptions have to be made concerning the distribution of the > >> products, such as pest extermination when storing the rice, > >> refrigeration when storing the beef, but we will ignore those and focus > >> solely on the process of raising and harvesting the initial product - > >> that is, up to the time when the product leaves the control of the > >> primary producers, i.e. the rancher and the rice farmer. > > >> There can be no doubt that raising the rice kills many animals - you > >> have always conceded that vegetable agriculture kills animals. *There > >> can be no doubt that raising a 100% grass-fed steer kills far fewer > >> animals - quite plausibly, *no* additional animals beyond the steer itself. > > >> 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. > > **** off. > You **** off, you pointless waste of space. My remark was correct: I never said anything about rice. > > But I also don't have any idea about what could be said about > > calorically equivalent servings of beef and rice, either. > > You ought to have. *If you don't, you're trying not to have any idea. > Wrong. If you have some idea, then why don't you tell me how you arrived at this idea. You can't have just magically pulled it out of thin air, there must have been some process of reasoning that led to it. > >> *Now I get the pleasure once again of telling you what you do and don't > >> believe, because I know: *you do not believe that the rice causes fewer > >> CDs than the beef. > > > No, I don't. I lack a belief one way or the other, because I have no > > evidence one way or the other. > > No, that's false. *You do not lack any belief one way or another. *We > know this because you have already said you know that vegetable > agriculture kills animals. *You have *some* sense as to what might be a > plausible number of animals killed for different types of agriculture. > Not enough to know how to compare calorically equivalent servings of rice and grass-fed beef. If you think you know, then just bring on the evidence. > > > > (I assume you're talking about fully grass-fed beef, by the way, the > > cattle are put out to pasture the whole year round. Yes?) > > Obviously. > > > > > In any case I never said anything about rice. I was talking about > > tofu. > > Fine. > > >> * You just don't believe it, and we all know you don't > >> believe it. > > > I don't have any opinion one way or the other, because I don't have > > sufficient information. > > That's false. *You have information on what might be plausible numbers. No, I don't. If you do, then by all means tell me more. |
The 'vegan' shuffle
On 3/2/2012 10:13 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 2 Mrz., 19:07, George > wrote: >> On 3/2/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 2 Mrz., 16:28, George > wrote: >>>> On 3/2/2012 3:42 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On 1 Mrz., 17:11, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 3/1/2012 12:16 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 7:36:50 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote: >>>>>>>> I read this a while ago, and I had the devil of a time finding the site >>>>>>>> again to share here. >> >>>>>>>> http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/11419...al-argument-fo... >> >>>>>>>> This is an excellent and thorough elaboration of why "veganism" fails as >>>>>>>> a sound ethical approach to the human use of animals. I really like the >>>>>>>> author's turn of phrase, "the vegan shuffle." By that, he means the >>>>>>>> flip-flop back and forth between animal "rights" and the reduction of >>>>>>>> animal suffering when "vegans" are confronted with the inescapable and >>>>>>>> undeniable fact that "veganism" is not a reliable means for achieving >>>>>>>> either one. >> >>>>>>> Why is veganism not a good means for reducing animal suffering? >> >>>>>> Because refraining from consuming animal bits doesn't say anything about >>>>>> the number of animals harmed by what you do consume. >> >>>>> Why not? >> >>>> How would it? >> >>> Most animal products are produced on factory farms which cause a lot >>> of suffering. >> >> Irrelevant. That says *nothing* about the harm caused by the non-animal >> products you *do* eat. > > I gave good reasons for thinking that less suffering and premature > death is caused in order to produce what I eat than is required in > order to produce a typical modern Western diet including animal > products. We're not talking about a "typical" western diet, you ****wit. The "vegan" diet is *already* a highly atypical diet. You must contrast it with another atypical diet that has been proposed to you. >> You know nothing about it. >> > > That's not true. It is true. You've already admitted not to know which of wheat or maize causes more animal harm. You don't know anything about the amount of harm caused by *any* non-animal produce. >> Which causes more harm, a commercially farmed apple or a commercially >> farmed orange? Don't think about it, don't blabber your usual wheeze, >> just state it, right now. > > Obviously I wouldn't have any idea. Yes, obviously - my whole point. You don't know, and more to the point, you don't care to know - you can't be bothered. It's all about your self-image rather than about any real consideration for reducing animal harm. |
The 'vegan' shuffle
On 3/2/2012 10:38 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 2 Mrz., 19:33, George > wrote: >> On 3/2/2012 9:35 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 2 Mrz., 16:43, George > wrote: >>>> On 3/2/2012 3:43 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On 1 Mrz., 23:46, dh@. wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:36:50 -0800, Goo wrote: >>>>>>> "veganism" is not a reliable means >> >>>>>> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of >>>>>> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of >>>>>> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does. >>>>>> What they try to avoid are products which provide life >>>>>> (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have >>>>>> to avoid the following items containing animal by-products >>>>>> in order to be successful: >> >>>>>> tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water >>>>>> filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides, >>>>>> insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen, >>>>>> heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides, >>>>>> gelatin capsules, adhesive tape, laminated wood products, >>>>>> plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane >>>>>> wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings >> >>>>>> The meat industry provides life for the animals that it >>>>>> slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it >>>>>> as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for >>>>>> their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume >>>>>> animal products from animals they think are raised in decent >>>>>> ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the >>>>>> future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for >>>>>> livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious >>>>>> consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by >>>>>> being vegan. >>>>>> From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised >>>>>> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people >>>>>> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well >>>>>> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people >>>>>> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm >>>>>> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and >>>>>> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is >>>>>> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings >>>>>> derived from grass raised animals. >> >>>>> You keep on making this claim over and over again, just as you have >>>>> for at least six years, but when challenged to provide actual evidence >>>>> for it you are unable to provide any. >> >>>> ****wit doesn't have any evidence, of course, but for certain there is a >>>> strong logical case to be made. What do you think the number of deaths >>>> caused raising one grass-fed steer might be? How many deaths can >>>> plausibly be attributed to the farming of one hectare of rice in a wet >>>> paddy? >> >>> I don't have any idea about the answers to either of those questions, >>> and I was talking about soya-based products, not rice. >> >> But you certainly ought to be able to think in terms of what's plausible >> and seems to make sense, can't you? Oh, wait - maybe not. >> > > I don't really have any feel for what's "plausible" or "seems to make > sense" in this area. That's obviously a lie, but even telling it shows that you don't care to know. >>>> Some assumptions have to be made concerning the distribution of the >>>> products, such as pest extermination when storing the rice, >>>> refrigeration when storing the beef, but we will ignore those and focus >>>> solely on the process of raising and harvesting the initial product - >>>> that is, up to the time when the product leaves the control of the >>>> primary producers, i.e. the rancher and the rice farmer. >> >>>> There can be no doubt that raising the rice kills many animals - you >>>> have always conceded that vegetable agriculture kills animals. There >>>> can be no doubt that raising a 100% grass-fed steer kills far fewer >>>> animals - quite plausibly, *no* additional animals beyond the steer itself. >> >>>> 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. >> >> **** off. >> > > You **** off, No, you **** off, you little prick. >>> But I also don't have any idea about what could be said about >>> calorically equivalent servings of beef and rice, either. >> >> You ought to have. If you don't, you're trying not to have any idea. >> > > Wrong. No - right. > If you have some idea, then why don't you tell me how you arrived at > this idea. I have done. I have elaborated that the production of any vegetable crop plausibly causes many animal CDs, and the production of one 100% grass-fed steer plausibly causes no CDs. >>>> Now I get the pleasure once again of telling you what you do and don't >>>> believe, because I know: you do not believe that the rice causes fewer >>>> CDs than the beef. >> >>> No, I don't. I lack a belief one way or the other, because I have no >>> evidence one way or the other. >> >> No, that's false. You do not lack any belief one way or another. We >> know this because you have already said you know that vegetable >> agriculture kills animals. You have *some* sense as to what might be a >> plausible number of animals killed for different types of agriculture. >> > > Not enough to know how to compare calorically equivalent servings of > rice and grass-fed beef. Bullshit. As previously established, a 100 gram serving of rice - or soybeans or whatever - carries the weight of many animal CDs, versus *no* CDs for a 100 gram serving of 100% grass-fed beef. You can do the comparison. Adjust the serving sizes to their caloric equivalents - the comparison is still many-to-none. >> >>> (I assume you're talking about fully grass-fed beef, by the way, the >>> cattle are put out to pasture the whole year round. Yes?) >> >> Obviously. >> >> >> >>> In any case I never said anything about rice. I was talking about >>> tofu. >> >> Fine. >> >>>> You just don't believe it, and we all know you don't >>>> believe it. >> >>> I don't have any opinion one way or the other, because I don't have >>> sufficient information. >> >> That's false. You have information on what might be plausible numbers. > > No, I don't. You do. > If you do, then by all means tell me more. Already done. |
The 'vegan' shuffle
On Mar 2, 8:00*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/2/2012 10:13 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 2 Mrz., 19:07, George > *wrote: > >> On 3/2/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On 2 Mrz., 16:28, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 3/2/2012 3:42 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On 1 Mrz., 17:11, George > * * *wrote: > >>>>>> On 3/1/2012 12:16 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 7:36:50 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote: > >>>>>>>> I read this a while ago, and I had the devil of a time finding the site > >>>>>>>> again to share here. > > >>>>>>>>http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/11419...al-argument-fo... > > >>>>>>>> This is an excellent and thorough elaboration of why "veganism" fails as > >>>>>>>> a sound ethical approach to the human use of animals. *I really like the > >>>>>>>> author's turn of phrase, "the vegan shuffle." *By that, he means the > >>>>>>>> flip-flop back and forth between animal "rights" and the reduction of > >>>>>>>> animal suffering when "vegans" are confronted with the inescapable and > >>>>>>>> undeniable fact that "veganism" is not a reliable means for achieving > >>>>>>>> either one. > > >>>>>>> Why is veganism not a good means for reducing animal suffering? > > >>>>>> Because refraining from consuming animal bits doesn't say anything about > >>>>>> the number of animals harmed by what you do consume. > > >>>>> Why not? > > >>>> How would it? > > >>> Most animal products are produced on factory farms which cause a lot > >>> of suffering. > > >> Irrelevant. *That says *nothing* about the harm caused by the non-animal > >> products you *do* eat. > > > I gave good reasons for thinking that less suffering and premature > > death is caused in order to produce what I eat than is required in > > order to produce a typical modern Western diet including animal > > products. > > We're not talking about a "typical" western diet, you ****wit. *The > "vegan" diet is *already* a highly atypical diet. *You must contrast it > with another atypical diet that has been proposed to you. > I will gladly do so when you specify which atypical diet you want to talk about. > >> * You know nothing about it. > > > That's not true. > > It is true. *You've already admitted not to know which of wheat or maize > causes more animal harm. *You don't know anything about the amount of > harm caused by *any* non-animal produce. > I know something. Specifically, I know that less collateral deaths are required to produce plant-based food than almost all animal products. Also, almost all animal products involve additional suffering on factory farms. So I have good reason to think that cutting out animal products is a good rule of thumb if I want to reduce the amount of suffering required in order to produce my diet. It's difficult to get more detailed information than that. I have already invested some time and energy into trying to acquire more detailed information and found it unproductive. I have no reason to think that investing further time and energy into trying to get more detailed information would enable me to achieve a substantial further reduction in the amount of suffering required to produce my diet. So, from the point of view of minimising the amount of suffering required to produce my diet (short of extreme measures such as committing suicide or dropping out of technological civilisation and joining and commune) it is rational for me to stick with the rule of thumb "be vegan". > >> Which causes more harm, a commercially farmed apple or a commercially > >> farmed orange? *Don't think about it, don't blabber your usual wheeze, > >> just state it, right now. > > > Obviously I wouldn't have any idea. > > Yes, obviously - my whole point. *You don't know, and more to the point, > you don't care to know - you can't be bothered. I have no reason to think it is within my power to find out. If I had good reason to think that I could find out easily enough and that it would have a significant bearing on the amount of suffering required in order to produce my food, then I would be motivated to find out. But that is not the case, so I have no especially good reason to worry about the issue. > *It's all about your > self-image rather than about any real consideration for reducing animal > harm. Nonsense. |
The 'vegan' shuffle
On Mar 2, 8:06*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/2/2012 10:38 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 2 Mrz., 19:33, George > *wrote: > >> On 3/2/2012 9:35 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On 2 Mrz., 16:43, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 3/2/2012 3:43 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On 1 Mrz., 23:46, dh@. wrote: > >>>>>> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:36:50 -0800, Goo wrote: > >>>>>>> "veganism" is not a reliable means > > >>>>>> * * *· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of > >>>>>> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of > >>>>>> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does. > >>>>>> What they try to avoid are products which provide life > >>>>>> (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have > >>>>>> to avoid the following items containing animal by-products > >>>>>> in order to be successful: > > >>>>>> tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water > >>>>>> filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides, > >>>>>> insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen, > >>>>>> heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides, > >>>>>> gelatin capsules, *adhesive tape, laminated wood products, > >>>>>> plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane > >>>>>> wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings > > >>>>>> * * * *The meat industry provides life for the animals that it > >>>>>> slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it > >>>>>> as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for > >>>>>> their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume > >>>>>> animal products from animals they think are raised in decent > >>>>>> ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the > >>>>>> future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for > >>>>>> livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious > >>>>>> consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by > >>>>>> being vegan. > >>>>>> * * * *From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised > >>>>>> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people > >>>>>> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well > >>>>>> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people > >>>>>> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm > >>>>>> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and > >>>>>> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is > >>>>>> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings > >>>>>> derived from grass raised animals. > > >>>>> You keep on making this claim over and over again, just as you have > >>>>> for at least six years, but when challenged to provide actual evidence > >>>>> for it you are unable to provide any. > > >>>> ****wit doesn't have any evidence, of course, but for certain there is a > >>>> strong logical case to be made. *What do you think the number of deaths > >>>> caused raising one grass-fed steer might be? *How many deaths can > >>>> plausibly be attributed to the farming of one hectare of rice in a wet > >>>> paddy? > > >>> I don't have any idea about the answers to either of those questions, > >>> and I was talking about soya-based products, not rice. > > >> But you certainly ought to be able to think in terms of what's plausible > >> and seems to make sense, can't you? *Oh, wait - maybe not. > > > I don't really have any feel for what's "plausible" or "seems to make > > sense" in this area. > > That's obviously a lie, but even telling it shows that you don't care to > know. > I would be interested in knowing if I thought that it was feasible to find out. That's why I asked David Harrison if he actually had any evidence about the matter. I showed an interest. So it's nonsense to say that I don't care to know. I would be interested in knowing. If you think that you have reliable information about the matter then by all means share it. I don't have any gut feeling for how a serving of grass-fed beef compares with a calorically equivalent serving of rice, and I don't see how you could reasonably expect me to have an opinion about the matter. If you think you can offer some kind of rational foundation for having an opinion about the matter, then let's hear it. > > > > > > > > > >>>> Some assumptions have to be made concerning the distribution of the > >>>> products, such as pest extermination when storing the rice, > >>>> refrigeration when storing the beef, but we will ignore those and focus > >>>> solely on the process of raising and harvesting the initial product - > >>>> that is, up to the time when the product leaves the control of the > >>>> primary producers, i.e. the rancher and the rice farmer. > > >>>> There can be no doubt that raising the rice kills many animals - you > >>>> have always conceded that vegetable agriculture kills animals. *There > >>>> can be no doubt that raising a 100% grass-fed steer kills far fewer > >>>> animals - quite plausibly, *no* additional animals beyond the steer itself. > > >>>> 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. > > >> **** off. > > > You **** off, > > No, you **** off, you little prick. > Go and stuff your head as far as it will go up a dead yak's anus. > >>> But I also don't have any idea about what could be said about > >>> calorically equivalent servings of beef and rice, either. > > >> You ought to have. *If you don't, you're trying not to have any idea.. > > > Wrong. > > No - right. > Actually, you were wrong again, Ball, sorry. > > If you have some idea, then why don't you tell me how you arrived at > > this idea. > > I have done. *I have elaborated that the production of any vegetable > crop plausibly causes many animal CDs, and the production of one 100% > grass-fed steer plausibly causes no CDs. > So how does that help me to arrive at a conclusion about the matter? What do you mean by "many" anyway? If you think you're in a position to actually offer a range of numbers then why don't you just do it. > >>>> * Now I get the pleasure once again of telling you what you do and don't > >>>> believe, because I know: *you do not believe that the rice causes fewer > >>>> CDs than the beef. > > >>> No, I don't. I lack a belief one way or the other, because I have no > >>> evidence one way or the other. > > >> No, that's false. *You do not lack any belief one way or another. *We > >> know this because you have already said you know that vegetable > >> agriculture kills animals. *You have *some* sense as to what might be a > >> plausible number of animals killed for different types of agriculture. > > > Not enough to know how to compare calorically equivalent servings of > > rice and grass-fed beef. > > Bullshit. *As previously established, a 100 gram serving of rice - or > soybeans or whatever - carries the weight of many animal CDs, How many? Give me a range. > versus > *no* CDs for a 100 gram serving of 100% grass-fed beef. *You can do the > comparison. No I can't, I have no ranges of numbers on the basis of which to make the comparison. If you think you have some reliable estimates for ranges of numbers*then tell me what they are. > Adjust the serving sizes to their caloric equivalents - the > comparison is still many-to-none. > I am not sure I agree that 100% grass-fed beef has no CDs, anyway. The farmers still need to kill predators to protect the cattle. > > > > > > > > > > > >>> (I assume you're talking about fully grass-fed beef, by the way, the > >>> cattle are put out to pasture the whole year round. Yes?) > > >> Obviously. > > >>> In any case I never said anything about rice. I was talking about > >>> tofu. > > >> Fine. > > >>>> * *You just don't believe it, and we all know you don't > >>>> believe it. > > >>> I don't have any opinion one way or the other, because I don't have > >>> sufficient information. > > >> That's false. *You have information on what might be plausible numbers. > > > No, I don't. > > You do. > Where did I get this information from? From listening to you? > > If you do, then by all means tell me more. > > Already done. Liar. |
The 'vegan' shuffle
On 3/2/2012 8:18 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 2, 8:00 pm, George > wrote: >> On 3/2/2012 10:13 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 2 Mrz., 19:07, George > wrote: >>>> On 3/2/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On 2 Mrz., 16:28, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 3/2/2012 3:42 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On 1 Mrz., 17:11, George > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/1/2012 12:16 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 7:36:50 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote: >>>>>>>>>> I read this a while ago, and I had the devil of a time finding the site >>>>>>>>>> again to share here. >> >>>>>>>>>> http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/11419...al-argument-fo... >> >>>>>>>>>> This is an excellent and thorough elaboration of why "veganism" fails as >>>>>>>>>> a sound ethical approach to the human use of animals. I really like the >>>>>>>>>> author's turn of phrase, "the vegan shuffle." By that, he means the >>>>>>>>>> flip-flop back and forth between animal "rights" and the reduction of >>>>>>>>>> animal suffering when "vegans" are confronted with the inescapable and >>>>>>>>>> undeniable fact that "veganism" is not a reliable means for achieving >>>>>>>>>> either one. >> >>>>>>>>> Why is veganism not a good means for reducing animal suffering? >> >>>>>>>> Because refraining from consuming animal bits doesn't say anything about >>>>>>>> the number of animals harmed by what you do consume. >> >>>>>>> Why not? >> >>>>>> How would it? >> >>>>> Most animal products are produced on factory farms which cause a lot >>>>> of suffering. >> >>>> Irrelevant. That says *nothing* about the harm caused by the non-animal >>>> products you *do* eat. >> >>> I gave good reasons for thinking that less suffering and premature >>> death is caused in order to produce what I eat than is required in >>> order to produce a typical modern Western diet including animal >>> products. >> >> We're not talking about a "typical" western diet, you ****wit. The >> "vegan" diet is *already* a highly atypical diet. You must contrast it >> with another atypical diet that has been proposed to you. >> > > I will gladly do so when you specify which atypical diet you want to > talk about. I have done, numerous times. >>>> You know nothing about it. >> >>> That's not true. >> >> It is true. You've already admitted not to know which of wheat or maize >> causes more animal harm. You don't know anything about the amount of >> harm caused by *any* non-animal produce. >> > > I know something. You don't know anything. You've already admitted to ****wit you have no idea how many animal CDs are caused by the cultivation of soybeans, for example. > Specifically, I know that less collateral deaths are > required to produce plant-based food than almost all animal products. No, you don't know that, because you have no ****ing idea how many CDs are incurred by either one. >>>> Which causes more harm, a commercially farmed apple or a commercially >>>> farmed orange? Don't think about it, don't blabber your usual wheeze, >>>> just state it, right now. >> >>> Obviously I wouldn't have any idea. >> >> Yes, obviously - my whole point. You don't know, and more to the point, >> you don't care to know - you can't be bothered. > > I have no reason to think it is within my power to find out. You don't care. That's all we needed to know. Concession noted. |
The 'vegan' shuffle
On 3/2/2012 8:25 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 2, 8:06 pm, George > wrote: >> On 3/2/2012 10:38 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 2 Mrz., 19:33, George > wrote: >>>> On 3/2/2012 9:35 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On 2 Mrz., 16:43, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 3/2/2012 3:43 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On 1 Mrz., 23:46, dh@. wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:36:50 -0800, Goo wrote: >>>>>>>>> "veganism" is not a reliable means >> >>>>>>>> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of >>>>>>>> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of >>>>>>>> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does. >>>>>>>> What they try to avoid are products which provide life >>>>>>>> (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have >>>>>>>> to avoid the following items containing animal by-products >>>>>>>> in order to be successful: >> >>>>>>>> tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water >>>>>>>> filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides, >>>>>>>> insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen, >>>>>>>> heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides, >>>>>>>> gelatin capsules, adhesive tape, laminated wood products, >>>>>>>> plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane >>>>>>>> wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings >> >>>>>>>> The meat industry provides life for the animals that it >>>>>>>> slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it >>>>>>>> as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for >>>>>>>> their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume >>>>>>>> animal products from animals they think are raised in decent >>>>>>>> ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the >>>>>>>> future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for >>>>>>>> livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious >>>>>>>> consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by >>>>>>>> being vegan. >>>>>>>> From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised >>>>>>>> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people >>>>>>>> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well >>>>>>>> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people >>>>>>>> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm >>>>>>>> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and >>>>>>>> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is >>>>>>>> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings >>>>>>>> derived from grass raised animals. >> >>>>>>> You keep on making this claim over and over again, just as you have >>>>>>> for at least six years, but when challenged to provide actual evidence >>>>>>> for it you are unable to provide any. >> >>>>>> ****wit doesn't have any evidence, of course, but for certain there is a >>>>>> strong logical case to be made. What do you think the number of deaths >>>>>> caused raising one grass-fed steer might be? How many deaths can >>>>>> plausibly be attributed to the farming of one hectare of rice in a wet >>>>>> paddy? >> >>>>> I don't have any idea about the answers to either of those questions, >>>>> and I was talking about soya-based products, not rice. >> >>>> But you certainly ought to be able to think in terms of what's plausible >>>> and seems to make sense, can't you? Oh, wait - maybe not. >> >>> I don't really have any feel for what's "plausible" or "seems to make >>> sense" in this area. >> >> That's obviously a lie, but even telling it shows that you don't care to >> know. >> > > I would be interested in knowing if I thought that it was feasible to > find out. You don't care about the feasibility of finding out. You don't care about knowing the answer, period. You don't care to know *which* "vegan" diet is the least-harm diet, so that you might really validly claim to be "minimizing". You don't care about any of it. You just want to pat yourself on the back and act superior. >> >> >>>>>> Some assumptions have to be made concerning the distribution of the >>>>>> products, such as pest extermination when storing the rice, >>>>>> refrigeration when storing the beef, but we will ignore those and focus >>>>>> solely on the process of raising and harvesting the initial product - >>>>>> that is, up to the time when the product leaves the control of the >>>>>> primary producers, i.e. the rancher and the rice farmer. >> >>>>>> There can be no doubt that raising the rice kills many animals - you >>>>>> have always conceded that vegetable agriculture kills animals. There >>>>>> can be no doubt that raising a 100% grass-fed steer kills far fewer >>>>>> animals - quite plausibly, *no* additional animals beyond the steer itself. >> >>>>>> 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. >> >>>> **** off. >> >>> You **** off, >> >> No, you **** off, you little prick. >> > > Go and stuff your head as far as it will go up a dead yak's anus. Go suck the green festering flesh of your mother's ****. Oh, wait - you already did that, which is why you're psychotic. >>>>> But I also don't have any idea about what could be said about >>>>> calorically equivalent servings of beef and rice, either. >> >>>> You ought to have. If you don't, you're trying not to have any idea. >> >>> Wrong. >> >> No - right. >> > > Actually, Actually, I was right, once again. >>> If you have some idea, then why don't you tell me how you arrived at >>> this idea. >> >> I have done. I have elaborated that the production of any vegetable >> crop plausibly causes many animal CDs, and the production of one 100% >> grass-fed steer plausibly causes no CDs. >> > > So how does that help me to arrive at a conclusion about the matter? Easily: if you want to follow a positively lower CD diet than "veganism", eat grass fed beef plus some fruits and vegetables you pick from wild plants or cultivate yourself in your home garden. >>>>>> Now I get the pleasure once again of telling you what you do and don't >>>>>> believe, because I know: you do not believe that the rice causes fewer >>>>>> CDs than the beef. >> >>>>> No, I don't. I lack a belief one way or the other, because I have no >>>>> evidence one way or the other. >> >>>> No, that's false. You do not lack any belief one way or another. We >>>> know this because you have already said you know that vegetable >>>> agriculture kills animals. You have *some* sense as to what might be a >>>> plausible number of animals killed for different types of agriculture. >> >>> Not enough to know how to compare calorically equivalent servings of >>> rice and grass-fed beef. >> >> Bullshit. As previously established, a 100 gram serving of rice - or >> soybeans or whatever - carries the weight of many animal CDs, > > How many? Give me a range. According to diderot, many thousands. > >> versus >> *no* CDs for a 100 gram serving of 100% grass-fed beef. You can do the >> comparison. > > No I can't, I have no ranges of numbers on the basis of which to make > the comparison. You *know* that plausibly, the steer causes no CDs, and the vegetable products cause many. >> Adjust the serving sizes to their caloric equivalents - the >> comparison is still many-to-none. >> > > I am not sure I agree that 100% grass-fed beef has no CDs, anyway. Plausibly, it does. A steer wanders of rangeland feeding until it's old enough and big enough to slaughter. How, plausibly, would that steer cause any CDs by grazing? >> >>>>> (I assume you're talking about fully grass-fed beef, by the way, the >>>>> cattle are put out to pasture the whole year round. Yes?) >> >>>> Obviously. >> >>>>> In any case I never said anything about rice. I was talking about >>>>> tofu. >> >>>> Fine. >> >>>>>> You just don't believe it, and we all know you don't >>>>>> believe it. >> >>>>> I don't have any opinion one way or the other, because I don't have >>>>> sufficient information. >> >>>> That's false. You have information on what might be plausible numbers. >> >>> No, I don't. >> >> You do. >> > > Where did I get this information from? From listening to you? Why, yes, actually. |
The 'vegan' shuffle
On Mar 3, 6:31*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/2/2012 8:18 PM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 2, 8:00 pm, George > *wrote: > >> On 3/2/2012 10:13 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On 2 Mrz., 19:07, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 3/2/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On 2 Mrz., 16:28, George > * * *wrote: > >>>>>> On 3/2/2012 3:42 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On 1 Mrz., 17:11, George > * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 3/1/2012 12:16 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 7:36:50 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> I read this a while ago, and I had the devil of a time finding the site > >>>>>>>>>> again to share here. > > >>>>>>>>>>http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/11419...al-argument-fo... > > >>>>>>>>>> This is an excellent and thorough elaboration of why "veganism" fails as > >>>>>>>>>> a sound ethical approach to the human use of animals. *I really like the > >>>>>>>>>> author's turn of phrase, "the vegan shuffle." *By that, he means the > >>>>>>>>>> flip-flop back and forth between animal "rights" and the reduction of > >>>>>>>>>> animal suffering when "vegans" are confronted with the inescapable and > >>>>>>>>>> undeniable fact that "veganism" is not a reliable means for achieving > >>>>>>>>>> either one. > > >>>>>>>>> Why is veganism not a good means for reducing animal suffering? > > >>>>>>>> Because refraining from consuming animal bits doesn't say anything about > >>>>>>>> the number of animals harmed by what you do consume. > > >>>>>>> Why not? > > >>>>>> How would it? > > >>>>> Most animal products are produced on factory farms which cause a lot > >>>>> of suffering. > > >>>> Irrelevant. *That says *nothing* about the harm caused by the non-animal > >>>> products you *do* eat. > > >>> I gave good reasons for thinking that less suffering and premature > >>> death is caused in order to produce what I eat than is required in > >>> order to produce a typical modern Western diet including animal > >>> products. > > >> We're not talking about a "typical" western diet, you ****wit. *The > >> "vegan" diet is *already* a highly atypical diet. *You must contrast it > >> with another atypical diet that has been proposed to you. > > > I will gladly do so when you specify which atypical diet you want to > > talk about. > > I have done, numerous times. > Really? > >>>> * *You know nothing about it. > > >>> That's not true. > > >> It is true. *You've already admitted not to know which of wheat or maize > >> causes more animal harm. *You don't know anything about the amount of > >> harm caused by *any* non-animal produce. > > > I know something. > > You don't know anything. Wrong. > *You've already admitted to ****wit you have no > idea how many animal CDs are caused by the cultivation of soybeans, for > example. > Yes, that is true. > > Specifically, I know that less collateral deaths are > > required to produce plant-based food than almost all animal products. > > No, you don't know that, because you have no ****ing idea how many CDs > are incurred by either one. > Yes, I do know that. Because almost all animal products require *more* plant food to be grown in order to produce a calorically equivalent serving than plant food products. > >>>> Which causes more harm, a commercially farmed apple or a commercially > >>>> farmed orange? *Don't think about it, don't blabber your usual wheeze, > >>>> just state it, right now. > > >>> Obviously I wouldn't have any idea. > > >> Yes, obviously - my whole point. *You don't know, and more to the point, > >> you don't care to know - you can't be bothered. > > > I have no reason to think it is within my power to find out. > > You don't care. *That's all we needed to know. *Concession noted. I didn't concede anything. You dishonestly snipped what I wrote. |
The 'vegan' shuffle
On 3/2/2012 9:49 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 3, 6:31 am, George > wrote: >> On 3/2/2012 8:18 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Mar 2, 8:00 pm, George > wrote: >>>> On 3/2/2012 10:13 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On 2 Mrz., 19:07, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 3/2/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On 2 Mrz., 16:28, George > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 3:42 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On 1 Mrz., 17:11, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2012 12:16 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 7:36:50 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> I read this a while ago, and I had the devil of a time finding the site >>>>>>>>>>>> again to share here. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/11419...al-argument-fo... >> >>>>>>>>>>>> This is an excellent and thorough elaboration of why "veganism" fails as >>>>>>>>>>>> a sound ethical approach to the human use of animals. I really like the >>>>>>>>>>>> author's turn of phrase, "the vegan shuffle." By that, he means the >>>>>>>>>>>> flip-flop back and forth between animal "rights" and the reduction of >>>>>>>>>>>> animal suffering when "vegans" are confronted with the inescapable and >>>>>>>>>>>> undeniable fact that "veganism" is not a reliable means for achieving >>>>>>>>>>>> either one. >> >>>>>>>>>>> Why is veganism not a good means for reducing animal suffering? >> >>>>>>>>>> Because refraining from consuming animal bits doesn't say anything about >>>>>>>>>> the number of animals harmed by what you do consume. >> >>>>>>>>> Why not? >> >>>>>>>> How would it? >> >>>>>>> Most animal products are produced on factory farms which cause a lot >>>>>>> of suffering. >> >>>>>> Irrelevant. That says *nothing* about the harm caused by the non-animal >>>>>> products you *do* eat. >> >>>>> I gave good reasons for thinking that less suffering and premature >>>>> death is caused in order to produce what I eat than is required in >>>>> order to produce a typical modern Western diet including animal >>>>> products. >> >>>> We're not talking about a "typical" western diet, you ****wit. The >>>> "vegan" diet is *already* a highly atypical diet. You must contrast it >>>> with another atypical diet that has been proposed to you. >> >>> I will gladly do so when you specify which atypical diet you want to >>> talk about. >> >> I have done, numerous times. >> > > Really? Yes, and you know it already, too. >>>>>> You know nothing about it. >> >>>>> That's not true. >> >>>> It is true. You've already admitted not to know which of wheat or maize >>>> causes more animal harm. You don't know anything about the amount of >>>> harm caused by *any* non-animal produce. >> >>> I know something. >> >> You don't know anything. > > Wrong. No, right. >> You've already admitted to ****wit you have no >> idea how many animal CDs are caused by the cultivation of soybeans, for >> example. >> > > Yes, that is true. So, you have no valid comparison for anything, because you don't know any numbers for anything, and the plausibility case works completely against you. You have no empirical case at all, and the theoretical case crushes you. >>> Specifically, I know that less collateral deaths are >>> required to produce plant-based food than almost all animal products. >> >> No, you don't know that, because you have no ****ing idea how many CDs >> are incurred by either one. >> > > Yes, I do know that. No, you don't. > Because almost all animal products require *more* > plant food to be grown No. Monbiot wrote that hogs, for example, require virtually *no* plant food to be grown. >>>>>> Which causes more harm, a commercially farmed apple or a commercially >>>>>> farmed orange? Don't think about it, don't blabber your usual wheeze, >>>>>> just state it, right now. >> >>>>> Obviously I wouldn't have any idea. >> >>>> Yes, obviously - my whole point. You don't know, and more to the point, >>>> you don't care to know - you can't be bothered. >> >>> I have no reason to think it is within my power to find out. >> >> You don't care. That's all we needed to know. Concession noted. > > I didn't concede anything. You sure did. You conceded that you don't know, and don't want to know. |
The 'vegan' shuffle
On Mar 3, 7:32*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/2/2012 9:49 PM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 3, 6:31 am, George > *wrote: > >> On 3/2/2012 8:18 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Mar 2, 8:00 pm, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 3/2/2012 10:13 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On 2 Mrz., 19:07, George > * * *wrote: > >>>>>> On 3/2/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On 2 Mrz., 16:28, George > * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 3:42 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On 1 Mrz., 17:11, George > * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2012 12:16 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 7:36:50 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> I read this a while ago, and I had the devil of a time finding the site > >>>>>>>>>>>> again to share here. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/11419...al-argument-fo... > > >>>>>>>>>>>> This is an excellent and thorough elaboration of why "veganism" fails as > >>>>>>>>>>>> a sound ethical approach to the human use of animals. *I really like the > >>>>>>>>>>>> author's turn of phrase, "the vegan shuffle." *By that, he means the > >>>>>>>>>>>> flip-flop back and forth between animal "rights" and the reduction of > >>>>>>>>>>>> animal suffering when "vegans" are confronted with the inescapable and > >>>>>>>>>>>> undeniable fact that "veganism" is not a reliable means for achieving > >>>>>>>>>>>> either one. > > >>>>>>>>>>> Why is veganism not a good means for reducing animal suffering? > > >>>>>>>>>> Because refraining from consuming animal bits doesn't say anything about > >>>>>>>>>> the number of animals harmed by what you do consume. > > >>>>>>>>> Why not? > > >>>>>>>> How would it? > > >>>>>>> Most animal products are produced on factory farms which cause a lot > >>>>>>> of suffering. > > >>>>>> Irrelevant. *That says *nothing* about the harm caused by the non-animal > >>>>>> products you *do* eat. > > >>>>> I gave good reasons for thinking that less suffering and premature > >>>>> death is caused in order to produce what I eat than is required in > >>>>> order to produce a typical modern Western diet including animal > >>>>> products. > > >>>> We're not talking about a "typical" western diet, you ****wit. *The > >>>> "vegan" diet is *already* a highly atypical diet. *You must contrast it > >>>> with another atypical diet that has been proposed to you. > > >>> I will gladly do so when you specify which atypical diet you want to > >>> talk about. > > >> I have done, numerous times. > > > Really? > > Yes, and you know it already, too. > How interesting. > >>>>>> * * You know nothing about it. > > >>>>> That's not true. > > >>>> It is true. *You've already admitted not to know which of wheat or maize > >>>> causes more animal harm. *You don't know anything about the amount of > >>>> harm caused by *any* non-animal produce. > > >>> I know something. > > >> You don't know anything. > > > Wrong. > > No, right. > > >> * You've already admitted to ****wit you have no > >> idea how many animal CDs are caused by the cultivation of soybeans, for > >> example. > > > Yes, that is true. > > So, you have no valid comparison for anything, because you don't know > any numbers for anything, and the plausibility case works completely > against you. *You have no empirical case at all, and the theoretical > case crushes you. > You have not made any "plausibility case". To do that you would have to actually argue the point instead of just making assertions. I can make a comparison between plant foods and most animal foods, without knowing the collateral death rates for plant foods, for obvious reasons which I have already given. > >>> Specifically, I know that less collateral deaths are > >>> required to produce plant-based food than almost all animal products. > > >> No, you don't know that, because you have no ****ing idea how many CDs > >> are incurred by either one. > > > Yes, I do know that. > > No, you don't. > > > Because almost all animal products require *more* > > plant food to be grown > > No. *Monbiot wrote that hogs, for example, require virtually *no* plant > food to be grown. > This is false. It takes 8 pounds of protein in hog feed to produce one pound of pork. > >>>>>> Which causes more harm, a commercially farmed apple or a commercially > >>>>>> farmed orange? *Don't think about it, don't blabber your usual wheeze, > >>>>>> just state it, right now. > > >>>>> Obviously I wouldn't have any idea. > > >>>> Yes, obviously - my whole point. *You don't know, and more to the point, > >>>> you don't care to know - you can't be bothered. > > >>> I have no reason to think it is within my power to find out. > > >> You don't care. *That's all we needed to know. *Concession noted. > > > I didn't concede anything. > > You sure did. *You conceded that you don't know, and don't want to know.. No, I didn't. |
The 'vegan' shuffle
On Mar 3, 6:37*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/2/2012 8:25 PM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 2, 8:06 pm, George > *wrote: > >> On 3/2/2012 10:38 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On 2 Mrz., 19:33, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 3/2/2012 9:35 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On 2 Mrz., 16:43, George > * * *wrote: > >>>>>> On 3/2/2012 3:43 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On 1 Mrz., 23:46, dh@. wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:36:50 -0800, Goo wrote: > >>>>>>>>> "veganism" is not a reliable means > > >>>>>>>> * * * · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of > >>>>>>>> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of > >>>>>>>> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does. > >>>>>>>> What they try to avoid are products which provide life > >>>>>>>> (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have > >>>>>>>> to avoid the following items containing animal by-products > >>>>>>>> in order to be successful: > > >>>>>>>> tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water > >>>>>>>> filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides, > >>>>>>>> insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen, > >>>>>>>> heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides, > >>>>>>>> gelatin capsules, *adhesive tape, laminated wood products, > >>>>>>>> plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane > >>>>>>>> wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings > > >>>>>>>> * * * * The meat industry provides life for the animals that it > >>>>>>>> slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it > >>>>>>>> as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for > >>>>>>>> their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume > >>>>>>>> animal products from animals they think are raised in decent > >>>>>>>> ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the > >>>>>>>> future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for > >>>>>>>> livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious > >>>>>>>> consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by > >>>>>>>> being vegan. > >>>>>>>> * * * * From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised > >>>>>>>> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people > >>>>>>>> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well > >>>>>>>> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people > >>>>>>>> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm > >>>>>>>> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and > >>>>>>>> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is > >>>>>>>> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings > >>>>>>>> derived from grass raised animals. > > >>>>>>> You keep on making this claim over and over again, just as you have > >>>>>>> for at least six years, but when challenged to provide actual evidence > >>>>>>> for it you are unable to provide any. > > >>>>>> ****wit doesn't have any evidence, of course, but for certain there is a > >>>>>> strong logical case to be made. *What do you think the number of deaths > >>>>>> caused raising one grass-fed steer might be? *How many deaths can > >>>>>> plausibly be attributed to the farming of one hectare of rice in a wet > >>>>>> paddy? > > >>>>> I don't have any idea about the answers to either of those questions, > >>>>> and I was talking about soya-based products, not rice. > > >>>> But you certainly ought to be able to think in terms of what's plausible > >>>> and seems to make sense, can't you? *Oh, wait - maybe not. > > >>> I don't really have any feel for what's "plausible" or "seems to make > >>> sense" in this area. > > >> That's obviously a lie, but even telling it shows that you don't care to > >> know. > > > I would be interested in knowing if I thought that it was feasible to > > find out. > > You don't care about the feasibility of finding out. *You don't care > about knowing the answer, period. False. > *You don't care to know *which* > "vegan" diet is the least-harm diet, so that you might really validly > claim to be "minimizing". *You don't care about any of it. *You just > want to pat yourself on the back and act superior. > You're a fool. > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Some assumptions have to be made concerning the distribution of the > >>>>>> products, such as pest extermination when storing the rice, > >>>>>> refrigeration when storing the beef, but we will ignore those and focus > >>>>>> solely on the process of raising and harvesting the initial product - > >>>>>> that is, up to the time when the product leaves the control of the > >>>>>> primary producers, i.e. the rancher and the rice farmer. > > >>>>>> There can be no doubt that raising the rice kills many animals - you > >>>>>> have always conceded that vegetable agriculture kills animals. *There > >>>>>> can be no doubt that raising a 100% grass-fed steer kills far fewer > >>>>>> animals - quite plausibly, *no* additional animals beyond the steer itself. > > >>>>>> 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. > > >>>> **** off. > > >>> You **** off, > > >> No, you **** off, you little prick. > > > Go and stuff your head as far as it will go up a dead yak's anus. > > Go suck the green festering flesh of your mother's ****. *Oh, wait - you > already did that, which is why you're psychotic. > You have a weird imagination. > >>>>> But I also don't have any idea about what could be said about > >>>>> calorically equivalent servings of beef and rice, either. > > >>>> You ought to have. *If you don't, you're trying not to have any idea. > > >>> Wrong. > > >> No - right. > > > Actually, > > Actually, I was right, once again. > Much joy may this belief bring you. > >>> If you have some idea, then why don't you tell me how you arrived at > >>> this idea. > > >> I have done. *I have elaborated that the production of any vegetable > >> crop plausibly causes many animal CDs, and the production of one 100% > >> grass-fed steer plausibly causes no CDs. > > > So how does that help me to arrive at a conclusion about the matter? > > Easily: *if you want to follow a positively lower CD diet than > "veganism", eat grass fed beef plus some fruits and vegetables you pick > from wild plants or cultivate yourself in your home garden. > It does not follow from what you said above that this diet would involve less suffering and premature death. Is it your opinion that I can buy beef that I can be sure is 100% grass-fed in the European Union? > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> * *Now I get the pleasure once again of telling you what you do and don't > >>>>>> believe, because I know: *you do not believe that the rice causes fewer > >>>>>> CDs than the beef. > > >>>>> No, I don't. I lack a belief one way or the other, because I have no > >>>>> evidence one way or the other. > > >>>> No, that's false. *You do not lack any belief one way or another. *We > >>>> know this because you have already said you know that vegetable > >>>> agriculture kills animals. *You have *some* sense as to what might be a > >>>> plausible number of animals killed for different types of agriculture. > > >>> Not enough to know how to compare calorically equivalent servings of > >>> rice and grass-fed beef. > > >> Bullshit. *As previously established, a 100 gram serving of rice - or > >> soybeans or whatever - carries the weight of many animal CDs, > > > How many? Give me a range. > > According to diderot, many thousands. > So many tens of CDs per gram of rice? > > > >> versus > >> *no* CDs for a 100 gram serving of 100% grass-fed beef. *You can do the > >> comparison. > > > No I can't, I have no ranges of numbers on the basis of which to make > > the comparison. > > You *know* that plausibly, the steer causes no CDs, and the vegetable > products cause many. > "Many" doesn't mean anything. Specify a number range. > >> Adjust the serving sizes to their caloric equivalents - the > >> comparison is still many-to-none. > > > I am not sure I agree that 100% grass-fed beef has no CDs, anyway. > > Plausibly, it does. *A steer wanders of rangeland feeding until it's old > enough and big enough to slaughter. *How, plausibly, would that steer > cause any CDs by grazing? > You snipped a sentence which has a bearing on your question. > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> (I assume you're talking about fully grass-fed beef, by the way, the > >>>>> cattle are put out to pasture the whole year round. Yes?) > > >>>> Obviously. > > >>>>> In any case I never said anything about rice. I was talking about > >>>>> tofu. > > >>>> Fine. > > >>>>>> * * You just don't believe it, and we all know you don't > >>>>>> believe it. > > >>>>> I don't have any opinion one way or the other, because I don't have > >>>>> sufficient information. > > >>>> That's false. *You have information on what might be plausible numbers. > > >>> No, I don't. > > >> You do. > > > Where did I get this information from? From listening to you? > > Why, yes, actually. So what are the plausible numbers? |
The 'vegan' shuffle
On 3/3/2012 3:56 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 3, 7:32 am, George > wrote: >> On 3/2/2012 9:49 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Mar 3, 6:31 am, George > wrote: >>>> On 3/2/2012 8:18 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Mar 2, 8:00 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 3/2/2012 10:13 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On 2 Mrz., 19:07, George > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On 2 Mrz., 16:28, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 3:42 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On 1 Mrz., 17:11, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2012 12:16 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 7:36:50 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I read this a while ago, and I had the devil of a time finding the site >>>>>>>>>>>>>> again to share here. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/11419...al-argument-fo... >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is an excellent and thorough elaboration of why "veganism" fails as >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a sound ethical approach to the human use of animals. I really like the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> author's turn of phrase, "the vegan shuffle." By that, he means the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> flip-flop back and forth between animal "rights" and the reduction of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal suffering when "vegans" are confronted with the inescapable and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> undeniable fact that "veganism" is not a reliable means for achieving >>>>>>>>>>>>>> either one. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Why is veganism not a good means for reducing animal suffering? >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Because refraining from consuming animal bits doesn't say anything about >>>>>>>>>>>> the number of animals harmed by what you do consume. >> >>>>>>>>>>> Why not? >> >>>>>>>>>> How would it? >> >>>>>>>>> Most animal products are produced on factory farms which cause a lot >>>>>>>>> of suffering. >> >>>>>>>> Irrelevant. That says *nothing* about the harm caused by the non-animal >>>>>>>> products you *do* eat. >> >>>>>>> I gave good reasons for thinking that less suffering and premature >>>>>>> death is caused in order to produce what I eat than is required in >>>>>>> order to produce a typical modern Western diet including animal >>>>>>> products. >> >>>>>> We're not talking about a "typical" western diet, you ****wit. The >>>>>> "vegan" diet is *already* a highly atypical diet. You must contrast it >>>>>> with another atypical diet that has been proposed to you. >> >>>>> I will gladly do so when you specify which atypical diet you want to >>>>> talk about. >> >>>> I have done, numerous times. >> >>> Really? >> >> Yes, and you know it already, too. >> > > How interesting. No, it's actually quite basic. >>>>>>>> You know nothing about it. >> >>>>>>> That's not true. >> >>>>>> It is true. You've already admitted not to know which of wheat or maize >>>>>> causes more animal harm. You don't know anything about the amount of >>>>>> harm caused by *any* non-animal produce. >> >>>>> I know something. >> >>>> You don't know anything. >> >>> Wrong. >> >> No, right. >> >>>> You've already admitted to ****wit you have no >>>> idea how many animal CDs are caused by the cultivation of soybeans, for >>>> example. >> >>> Yes, that is true. >> >> So, you have no valid comparison for anything, because you don't know >> any numbers for anything, and the plausibility case works completely >> against you. You have no empirical case at all, and the theoretical >> case crushes you. >> > > You have not made any "plausibility case". I have. >>>>> Specifically, I know that less collateral deaths are >>>>> required to produce plant-based food than almost all animal products. >> >>>> No, you don't know that, because you have no ****ing idea how many CDs >>>> are incurred by either one. >> >>> Yes, I do know that. >> >> No, you don't. >> >>> Because almost all animal products require *more* >>> plant food to be grown >> >> No. Monbiot wrote that hogs, for example, require virtually *no* plant >> food to be grown. >> > > This is false. It's not false. > It takes 8 pounds of protein in hog feed to produce one > pound of pork. Obviously you didn't read Monbiot's essay. But these idiocies, Fairlie shows, are not arguments against all meat eating, but arguments against the current farming model. He demonstrates that we've been using the wrong comparison to judge the efficiency of meat production. Instead of citing a simple conversion rate of feed into meat, we should be comparing the amount of land required to grow meat with the land needed to grow plant products of the same nutritional value to humans. The results are radically different. If pigs are fed on residues and waste, and cattle on straw, stovers and grass from fallows and rangelands – food for which humans don't compete – meat becomes a very efficient means of food production. Even though it is tilted by the profligate use of grain in rich countries, the global average conversion ratio of useful plant food to useful meat is not the 5:1 or 10:1 cited by almost everyone, but less than 2:1. If we stopped feeding edible grain to animals, we could still produce around half the current global meat supply with no loss to human nutrition: in fact it's a significant net gain. Hogs do not require eight pounds of *protein* to produce a pound of pork, liar. They don't require *any* amount of human-edible food. > >>>>>>>> Which causes more harm, a commercially farmed apple or a commercially >>>>>>>> farmed orange? Don't think about it, don't blabber your usual wheeze, >>>>>>>> just state it, right now. >> >>>>>>> Obviously I wouldn't have any idea. >> >>>>>> Yes, obviously - my whole point. You don't know, and more to the point, >>>>>> you don't care to know - you can't be bothered. >> >>>>> I have no reason to think it is within my power to find out. >> >>>> You don't care. That's all we needed to know. Concession noted. >> >>> I didn't concede anything. >> >> You sure did. You conceded that you don't know, and don't want to know. > > No, I didn't. You did, of course. |
The 'vegan' shuffle
On 3/3/2012 4:00 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On Mar 3, 6:37 am, George > wrote: >> On 3/2/2012 8:25 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Mar 2, 8:06 pm, George > wrote: >>>> On 3/2/2012 10:38 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On 2 Mrz., 19:33, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 3/2/2012 9:35 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On 2 Mrz., 16:43, George > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 3:43 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On 1 Mrz., 23:46, dh@. wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:36:50 -0800, Goo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> "veganism" is not a reliable means >> >>>>>>>>>> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of >>>>>>>>>> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of >>>>>>>>>> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does. >>>>>>>>>> What they try to avoid are products which provide life >>>>>>>>>> (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have >>>>>>>>>> to avoid the following items containing animal by-products >>>>>>>>>> in order to be successful: >> >>>>>>>>>> tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water >>>>>>>>>> filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides, >>>>>>>>>> insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen, >>>>>>>>>> heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides, >>>>>>>>>> gelatin capsules, adhesive tape, laminated wood products, >>>>>>>>>> plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane >>>>>>>>>> wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings >> >>>>>>>>>> The meat industry provides life for the animals that it >>>>>>>>>> slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it >>>>>>>>>> as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for >>>>>>>>>> their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume >>>>>>>>>> animal products from animals they think are raised in decent >>>>>>>>>> ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the >>>>>>>>>> future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for >>>>>>>>>> livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious >>>>>>>>>> consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by >>>>>>>>>> being vegan. >>>>>>>>>> From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised >>>>>>>>>> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people >>>>>>>>>> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well >>>>>>>>>> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people >>>>>>>>>> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm >>>>>>>>>> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and >>>>>>>>>> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is >>>>>>>>>> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings >>>>>>>>>> derived from grass raised animals. >> >>>>>>>>> You keep on making this claim over and over again, just as you have >>>>>>>>> for at least six years, but when challenged to provide actual evidence >>>>>>>>> for it you are unable to provide any. >> >>>>>>>> ****wit doesn't have any evidence, of course, but for certain there is a >>>>>>>> strong logical case to be made. What do you think the number of deaths >>>>>>>> caused raising one grass-fed steer might be? How many deaths can >>>>>>>> plausibly be attributed to the farming of one hectare of rice in a wet >>>>>>>> paddy? >> >>>>>>> I don't have any idea about the answers to either of those questions, >>>>>>> and I was talking about soya-based products, not rice. >> >>>>>> But you certainly ought to be able to think in terms of what's plausible >>>>>> and seems to make sense, can't you? Oh, wait - maybe not. >> >>>>> I don't really have any feel for what's "plausible" or "seems to make >>>>> sense" in this area. >> >>>> That's obviously a lie, but even telling it shows that you don't care to >>>> know. >> >>> I would be interested in knowing if I thought that it was feasible to >>> find out. >> >> You don't care about the feasibility of finding out. You don't care >> about knowing the answer, period. > > False. Nope - true. >> You don't care to know *which* >> "vegan" diet is the least-harm diet, so that you might really validly >> claim to be "minimizing". You don't care about any of it. You just >> want to pat yourself on the back and act superior. >> > > You're a fool. Concession noted and accepted. >>>>> If you have some idea, then why don't you tell me how you arrived at >>>>> this idea. >> >>>> I have done. I have elaborated that the production of any vegetable >>>> crop plausibly causes many animal CDs, and the production of one 100% >>>> grass-fed steer plausibly causes no CDs. >> >>> So how does that help me to arrive at a conclusion about the matter? >> >> Easily: if you want to follow a positively lower CD diet than >> "veganism", eat grass fed beef plus some fruits and vegetables you pick >> from wild plants or cultivate yourself in your home garden. >> > > It does not follow from what you said above that this diet would > involve less suffering and premature death. It does. >>>>>>>> Now I get the pleasure once again of telling you what you do and don't >>>>>>>> believe, because I know: you do not believe that the rice causes fewer >>>>>>>> CDs than the beef. >> >>>>>>> No, I don't. I lack a belief one way or the other, because I have no >>>>>>> evidence one way or the other. >> >>>>>> No, that's false. You do not lack any belief one way or another. We >>>>>> know this because you have already said you know that vegetable >>>>>> agriculture kills animals. You have *some* sense as to what might be a >>>>>> plausible number of animals killed for different types of agriculture. >> >>>>> Not enough to know how to compare calorically equivalent servings of >>>>> rice and grass-fed beef. >> >>>> Bullshit. As previously established, a 100 gram serving of rice - or >>>> soybeans or whatever - carries the weight of many animal CDs, >> >>> How many? Give me a range. >> >> According to diderot, many thousands. >> > > So many tens of CDs per gram of rice? > >> >> >>>> versus >>>> *no* CDs for a 100 gram serving of 100% grass-fed beef. You can do the >>>> comparison. >> >>> No I can't, I have no ranges of numbers on the basis of which to make >>> the comparison. >> >> You *know* that plausibly, the steer causes no CDs, and the vegetable >> products cause many. >> > > "Many" doesn't mean anything. Specify a number range. All you need to know is that it exceeds the expected value of CDs for a nutritionally equivalent amount of grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish. >>>>>>>> You just don't believe it, and we all know you don't >>>>>>>> believe it. >> >>>>>>> I don't have any opinion one way or the other, because I don't have >>>>>>> sufficient information. >> >>>>>> That's false. You have information on what might be plausible numbers. >> >>>>> No, I don't. >> >>>> You do. >> >>> Where did I get this information from? From listening to you? >> >> Why, yes, actually. |
The 'vegan' shuffle
On Mar 3, 11:16*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/3/2012 3:56 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 3, 7:32 am, George > *wrote: > >> On 3/2/2012 9:49 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Mar 3, 6:31 am, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 3/2/2012 8:18 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On Mar 2, 8:00 pm, George > * * *wrote: > >>>>>> On 3/2/2012 10:13 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On 2 Mrz., 19:07, George > * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On 2 Mrz., 16:28, George > * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 3:42 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> On 1 Mrz., 17:11, George > * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2012 12:16 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 7:36:50 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I read this a while ago, and I had the devil of a time finding the site > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> again to share here. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/11419...al-argument-fo... > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is an excellent and thorough elaboration of why "veganism" fails as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a sound ethical approach to the human use of animals. *I really like the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> author's turn of phrase, "the vegan shuffle." *By that, he means the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> flip-flop back and forth between animal "rights" and the reduction of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal suffering when "vegans" are confronted with the inescapable and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> undeniable fact that "veganism" is not a reliable means for achieving > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> either one. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Why is veganism not a good means for reducing animal suffering? > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Because refraining from consuming animal bits doesn't say anything about > >>>>>>>>>>>> the number of animals harmed by what you do consume. > > >>>>>>>>>>> Why not? > > >>>>>>>>>> How would it? > > >>>>>>>>> Most animal products are produced on factory farms which cause a lot > >>>>>>>>> of suffering. > > >>>>>>>> Irrelevant. *That says *nothing* about the harm caused by the non-animal > >>>>>>>> products you *do* eat. > > >>>>>>> I gave good reasons for thinking that less suffering and premature > >>>>>>> death is caused in order to produce what I eat than is required in > >>>>>>> order to produce a typical modern Western diet including animal > >>>>>>> products. > > >>>>>> We're not talking about a "typical" western diet, you ****wit. *The > >>>>>> "vegan" diet is *already* a highly atypical diet. *You must contrast it > >>>>>> with another atypical diet that has been proposed to you. > > >>>>> I will gladly do so when you specify which atypical diet you want to > >>>>> talk about. > > >>>> I have done, numerous times. > > >>> Really? > > >> Yes, and you know it already, too. > > > How interesting. > > No, it's actually quite basic. > > > > > > >>>>>>>> * * *You know nothing about it. > > >>>>>>> That's not true. > > >>>>>> It is true. *You've already admitted not to know which of wheat or maize > >>>>>> causes more animal harm. *You don't know anything about the amount of > >>>>>> harm caused by *any* non-animal produce. > > >>>>> I know something. > > >>>> You don't know anything. > > >>> Wrong. > > >> No, right. > > >>>> * *You've already admitted to ****wit you have no > >>>> idea how many animal CDs are caused by the cultivation of soybeans, for > >>>> example. > > >>> Yes, that is true. > > >> So, you have no valid comparison for anything, because you don't know > >> any numbers for anything, and the plausibility case works completely > >> against you. *You have no empirical case at all, and the theoretical > >> case crushes you. > > > You have not made any "plausibility case". > > I have. > > > > > > >>>>> Specifically, I know that less collateral deaths are > >>>>> required to produce plant-based food than almost all animal products. > > >>>> No, you don't know that, because you have no ****ing idea how many CDs > >>>> are incurred by either one. > > >>> Yes, I do know that. > > >> No, you don't. > > >>> Because almost all animal products require *more* > >>> plant food to be grown > > >> No. *Monbiot wrote that hogs, for example, require virtually *no* plant > >> food to be grown. > > > This is false. > > It's not false. > > > It takes 8 pounds of protein in hog feed to produce one > > pound of pork. > > Obviously you didn't read Monbiot's essay. > > * * * But these idiocies, Fairlie shows, are not arguments against all > * * * meat eating, but arguments against the current farming model. He > * * * demonstrates that we've been using the wrong comparison to judge > * * * the efficiency of meat production. Instead of citing a simple > * * * conversion rate of feed into meat, we should be comparing the > * * * amount of land required to grow meat with the land needed to grow > * * * plant products of the same nutritional value to humans. The > * * * results are radically different. > > * * * If pigs are fed on residues and waste, and cattle on straw, > * * * stovers and grass from fallows and rangelands – food for which > * * * humans don't compete – meat becomes a very efficient means of food > * * * production. Even though it is tilted by the profligate use of > * * * grain in rich countries, the global average conversion ratio of > * * * useful plant food to useful meat is not the 5:1 or 10:1 cited by > * * * almost everyone, but less than 2:1. If we stopped feeding edible > * * * grain to animals, we could still produce around half the current > * * * global meat supply with no loss to human nutrition: in fact it's a > * * * significant net gain. > > Hogs do not require eight pounds of *protein* to produce a pound of > pork, liar. *They don't require *any* amount of human-edible food. > What are they being fed, Gooberdoodle? > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Which causes more harm, a commercially farmed apple or a commercially > >>>>>>>> farmed orange? *Don't think about it, don't blabber your usual wheeze, > >>>>>>>> just state it, right now. > > >>>>>>> Obviously I wouldn't have any idea. > > >>>>>> Yes, obviously - my whole point. *You don't know, and more to the point, > >>>>>> you don't care to know - you can't be bothered. > > >>>>> I have no reason to think it is within my power to find out. > > >>>> You don't care. *That's all we needed to know. *Concession noted.. > > >>> I didn't concede anything. > > >> You sure did. *You conceded that you don't know, and don't want to know. > > > No, I didn't. > > You did, of course. |
The 'vegan' shuffle
On 3 Mrz., 19:16, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/3/2012 3:56 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 3, 7:32 am, George > *wrote: > >> On 3/2/2012 9:49 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Mar 3, 6:31 am, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 3/2/2012 8:18 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On Mar 2, 8:00 pm, George > * * *wrote: > >>>>>> On 3/2/2012 10:13 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On 2 Mrz., 19:07, George > * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On 2 Mrz., 16:28, George > * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 3:42 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> On 1 Mrz., 17:11, George > * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2012 12:16 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 7:36:50 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I read this a while ago, and I had the devil of a time finding the site > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> again to share here. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/11419...al-argument-fo... > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is an excellent and thorough elaboration of why "veganism" fails as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> a sound ethical approach to the human use of animals. *I really like the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> author's turn of phrase, "the vegan shuffle." *By that, he means the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> flip-flop back and forth between animal "rights" and the reduction of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal suffering when "vegans" are confronted with the inescapable and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> undeniable fact that "veganism" is not a reliable means for achieving > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> either one. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Why is veganism not a good means for reducing animal suffering? > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Because refraining from consuming animal bits doesn't say anything about > >>>>>>>>>>>> the number of animals harmed by what you do consume. > > >>>>>>>>>>> Why not? > > >>>>>>>>>> How would it? > > >>>>>>>>> Most animal products are produced on factory farms which cause a lot > >>>>>>>>> of suffering. > > >>>>>>>> Irrelevant. *That says *nothing* about the harm caused by the non-animal > >>>>>>>> products you *do* eat. > > >>>>>>> I gave good reasons for thinking that less suffering and premature > >>>>>>> death is caused in order to produce what I eat than is required in > >>>>>>> order to produce a typical modern Western diet including animal > >>>>>>> products. > > >>>>>> We're not talking about a "typical" western diet, you ****wit. *The > >>>>>> "vegan" diet is *already* a highly atypical diet. *You must contrast it > >>>>>> with another atypical diet that has been proposed to you. > > >>>>> I will gladly do so when you specify which atypical diet you want to > >>>>> talk about. > > >>>> I have done, numerous times. > > >>> Really? > > >> Yes, and you know it already, too. > > > How interesting. > > No, it's actually quite basic. > Seems like obvious bullshit to me, but of course you know best Ball. > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> * * *You know nothing about it. > > >>>>>>> That's not true. > > >>>>>> It is true. *You've already admitted not to know which of wheat or maize > >>>>>> causes more animal harm. *You don't know anything about the amount of > >>>>>> harm caused by *any* non-animal produce. > > >>>>> I know something. > > >>>> You don't know anything. > > >>> Wrong. > > >> No, right. > > >>>> * *You've already admitted to ****wit you have no > >>>> idea how many animal CDs are caused by the cultivation of soybeans, for > >>>> example. > > >>> Yes, that is true. > > >> So, you have no valid comparison for anything, because you don't know > >> any numbers for anything, and the plausibility case works completely > >> against you. *You have no empirical case at all, and the theoretical > >> case crushes you. > > > You have not made any "plausibility case". > > I have. > What arguments did you produce in favour of this "plausibility case"? > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Specifically, I know that less collateral deaths are > >>>>> required to produce plant-based food than almost all animal products. > > >>>> No, you don't know that, because you have no ****ing idea how many CDs > >>>> are incurred by either one. > > >>> Yes, I do know that. > > >> No, you don't. > > >>> Because almost all animal products require *more* > >>> plant food to be grown > > >> No. *Monbiot wrote that hogs, for example, require virtually *no* plant > >> food to be grown. > > > This is false. > > It's not false. > > > It takes 8 pounds of protein in hog feed to produce one > > pound of pork. > > Obviously you didn't read Monbiot's essay. > > * * * But these idiocies, Fairlie shows, are not arguments against all > * * * meat eating, but arguments against the current farming model. He > * * * demonstrates that we've been using the wrong comparison to judge > * * * the efficiency of meat production. Instead of citing a simple > * * * conversion rate of feed into meat, we should be comparing the > * * * amount of land required to grow meat with the land needed to grow > * * * plant products of the same nutritional value to humans. The > * * * results are radically different. > > * * * If pigs are fed on residues and waste, and cattle on straw, > * * * stovers and grass from fallows and rangelands – food for which > * * * humans don't compete – meat becomes a very efficient means of food > * * * production. Even though it is tilted by the profligate use of > * * * grain in rich countries, the global average conversion ratio of > * * * useful plant food to useful meat is not the 5:1 or 10:1 cited by > * * * almost everyone, but less than 2:1. If we stopped feeding edible > * * * grain to animals, we could still produce around half the current > * * * global meat supply with no loss to human nutrition: in fact it's a > * * * significant net gain. > > Hogs do not require eight pounds of *protein* to produce a pound of > pork, liar. Yes, they do. This quotation you have provided doesn't give any reason to think that that is false. >*They don't require *any* amount of human-edible food. > It may be that human-edible food is not required, and that would be relevant if we were discussing the argument about meat production having a bad effect on global food distribution. But we were talking about CDs. Even if the pigs are fed non-human-edible food, CDs will still be required in order to produce the food. > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> Which causes more harm, a commercially farmed apple or a commercially > >>>>>>>> farmed orange? *Don't think about it, don't blabber your usual wheeze, > >>>>>>>> just state it, right now. > > >>>>>>> Obviously I wouldn't have any idea. > > >>>>>> Yes, obviously - my whole point. *You don't know, and more to the point, > >>>>>> you don't care to know - you can't be bothered. > > >>>>> I have no reason to think it is within my power to find out. > > >>>> You don't care. *That's all we needed to know. *Concession noted.. > > >>> I didn't concede anything. > > >> You sure did. *You conceded that you don't know, and don't want to know. > > > No, I didn't. > > You did, of course. So you appear to believe for some strange reason. |
The 'vegan' shuffle
On 3 Mrz., 19:18, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/3/2012 4:00 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Mar 3, 6:37 am, George > *wrote: > >> On 3/2/2012 8:25 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Mar 2, 8:06 pm, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 3/2/2012 10:38 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On 2 Mrz., 19:33, George > * * *wrote: > >>>>>> On 3/2/2012 9:35 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On 2 Mrz., 16:43, George > * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 3:43 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On 1 Mrz., 23:46, dh@. wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:36:50 -0800, Goo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> "veganism" is not a reliable means > > >>>>>>>>>> * * * *· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of > >>>>>>>>>> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of > >>>>>>>>>> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does. > >>>>>>>>>> What they try to avoid are products which provide life > >>>>>>>>>> (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have > >>>>>>>>>> to avoid the following items containing animal by-products > >>>>>>>>>> in order to be successful: > > >>>>>>>>>> tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water > >>>>>>>>>> filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides, > >>>>>>>>>> insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen, > >>>>>>>>>> heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides, > >>>>>>>>>> gelatin capsules, *adhesive tape, laminated wood products, > >>>>>>>>>> plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane > >>>>>>>>>> wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings > > >>>>>>>>>> * * * * *The meat industry provides life for the animals that it > >>>>>>>>>> slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it > >>>>>>>>>> as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for > >>>>>>>>>> their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume > >>>>>>>>>> animal products from animals they think are raised in decent > >>>>>>>>>> ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the > >>>>>>>>>> future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for > >>>>>>>>>> livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious > >>>>>>>>>> consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by > >>>>>>>>>> being vegan. > >>>>>>>>>> * * * * *From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised > >>>>>>>>>> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people > >>>>>>>>>> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well > >>>>>>>>>> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people > >>>>>>>>>> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm > >>>>>>>>>> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and > >>>>>>>>>> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is > >>>>>>>>>> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings > >>>>>>>>>> derived from grass raised animals. > > >>>>>>>>> You keep on making this claim over and over again, just as you have > >>>>>>>>> for at least six years, but when challenged to provide actual evidence > >>>>>>>>> for it you are unable to provide any. > > >>>>>>>> ****wit doesn't have any evidence, of course, but for certain there is a > >>>>>>>> strong logical case to be made. *What do you think the number of deaths > >>>>>>>> caused raising one grass-fed steer might be? *How many deaths can > >>>>>>>> plausibly be attributed to the farming of one hectare of rice in a wet > >>>>>>>> paddy? > > >>>>>>> I don't have any idea about the answers to either of those questions, > >>>>>>> and I was talking about soya-based products, not rice. > > >>>>>> But you certainly ought to be able to think in terms of what's plausible > >>>>>> and seems to make sense, can't you? *Oh, wait - maybe not. > > >>>>> I don't really have any feel for what's "plausible" or "seems to make > >>>>> sense" in this area. > > >>>> That's obviously a lie, but even telling it shows that you don't care to > >>>> know. > > >>> I would be interested in knowing if I thought that it was feasible to > >>> find out. > > >> You don't care about the feasibility of finding out. *You don't care > >> about knowing the answer, period. > > > False. > > Nope - true. > > >> * You don't care to know *which* > >> "vegan" diet is the least-harm diet, so that you might really validly > >> claim to be "minimizing". *You don't care about any of it. *You just > >> want to pat yourself on the back and act superior. > > > You're a fool. > > Concession noted and accepted. > You appear to have lost touch with reality. > > > > > > > > > >>>>> If you have some idea, then why don't you tell me how you arrived at > >>>>> this idea. > > >>>> I have done. *I have elaborated that the production of any vegetable > >>>> crop plausibly causes many animal CDs, and the production of one 100% > >>>> grass-fed steer plausibly causes no CDs. > > >>> So how does that help me to arrive at a conclusion about the matter? > > >> Easily: *if you want to follow a positively lower CD diet than > >> "veganism", eat grass fed beef plus some fruits and vegetables you pick > >> from wild plants or cultivate yourself in your home garden. > > > It does not follow from what you said above that this diet would > > involve less suffering and premature death. > > It does. > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> * * Now I get the pleasure once again of telling you what you do and don't > >>>>>>>> believe, because I know: *you do not believe that the rice causes fewer > >>>>>>>> CDs than the beef. > > >>>>>>> No, I don't. I lack a belief one way or the other, because I have no > >>>>>>> evidence one way or the other. > > >>>>>> No, that's false. *You do not lack any belief one way or another.. *We > >>>>>> know this because you have already said you know that vegetable > >>>>>> agriculture kills animals. *You have *some* sense as to what might be a > >>>>>> plausible number of animals killed for different types of agriculture. > > >>>>> Not enough to know how to compare calorically equivalent servings of > >>>>> rice and grass-fed beef. > > >>>> Bullshit. *As previously established, a 100 gram serving of rice - or > >>>> soybeans or whatever - carries the weight of many animal CDs, > > >>> How many? Give me a range. > > >> According to diderot, many thousands. > > > So many tens of CDs per gram of rice? > > >>>> versus > >>>> *no* CDs for a 100 gram serving of 100% grass-fed beef. *You can do the > >>>> comparison. > > >>> No I can't, I have no ranges of numbers on the basis of which to make > >>> the comparison. > > >> You *know* that plausibly, the steer causes no CDs, and the vegetable > >> products cause many. > > > "Many" doesn't mean anything. Specify a number range. > > All you need to know is that it exceeds the expected value of CDs for a > nutritionally equivalent amount of grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish. > And how exactly do I know that? > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> * * *You just don't believe it, and we all know you don't > >>>>>>>> believe it. > > >>>>>>> I don't have any opinion one way or the other, because I don't have > >>>>>>> sufficient information. > > >>>>>> That's false. *You have information on what might be plausible numbers. > > >>>>> No, I don't. > > >>>> You do. > > >>> Where did I get this information from? From listening to you? > > >> Why, yes, actually. |
The 'vegan' shuffle
On 3/4/2012 4:28 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 3 Mrz., 19:16, George > wrote: >> On 3/3/2012 3:56 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Mar 3, 7:32 am, George > wrote: >>>> On 3/2/2012 9:49 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Mar 3, 6:31 am, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 3/2/2012 8:18 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Mar 2, 8:00 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 10:13 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On 2 Mrz., 19:07, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On 2 Mrz., 16:28, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 3:42 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1 Mrz., 17:11, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2012 12:16 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 7:36:50 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I read this a while ago, and I had the devil of a time finding the site >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again to share here. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/11419...al-argument-fo... >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is an excellent and thorough elaboration of why "veganism" fails as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a sound ethical approach to the human use of animals. I really like the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> author's turn of phrase, "the vegan shuffle." By that, he means the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flip-flop back and forth between animal "rights" and the reduction of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal suffering when "vegans" are confronted with the inescapable and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undeniable fact that "veganism" is not a reliable means for achieving >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either one. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why is veganism not a good means for reducing animal suffering? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because refraining from consuming animal bits doesn't say anything about >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the number of animals harmed by what you do consume. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not? >> >>>>>>>>>>>> How would it? >> >>>>>>>>>>> Most animal products are produced on factory farms which cause a lot >>>>>>>>>>> of suffering. >> >>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant. That says *nothing* about the harm caused by the non-animal >>>>>>>>>> products you *do* eat. >> >>>>>>>>> I gave good reasons for thinking that less suffering and premature >>>>>>>>> death is caused in order to produce what I eat than is required in >>>>>>>>> order to produce a typical modern Western diet including animal >>>>>>>>> products. >> >>>>>>>> We're not talking about a "typical" western diet, you ****wit. The >>>>>>>> "vegan" diet is *already* a highly atypical diet. You must contrast it >>>>>>>> with another atypical diet that has been proposed to you. >> >>>>>>> I will gladly do so when you specify which atypical diet you want to >>>>>>> talk about. >> >>>>>> I have done, numerous times. >> >>>>> Really? >> >>>> Yes, and you know it already, too. >> >>> How interesting. >> >> No, it's actually quite basic. >> > > Seems like obvious bullshit to me, but of course you know best Ball. > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> You know nothing about it. >> >>>>>>>>> That's not true. >> >>>>>>>> It is true. You've already admitted not to know which of wheat or maize >>>>>>>> causes more animal harm. You don't know anything about the amount of >>>>>>>> harm caused by *any* non-animal produce. >> >>>>>>> I know something. >> >>>>>> You don't know anything. >> >>>>> Wrong. >> >>>> No, right. >> >>>>>> You've already admitted to ****wit you have no >>>>>> idea how many animal CDs are caused by the cultivation of soybeans, for >>>>>> example. >> >>>>> Yes, that is true. >> >>>> So, you have no valid comparison for anything, because you don't know >>>> any numbers for anything, and the plausibility case works completely >>>> against you. You have no empirical case at all, and the theoretical >>>> case crushes you. >> >>> You have not made any "plausibility case". >> >> I have. >> > > What arguments did you produce in favour of this "plausibility case"? > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>> Specifically, I know that less collateral deaths are >>>>>>> required to produce plant-based food than almost all animal products. >> >>>>>> No, you don't know that, because you have no ****ing idea how many CDs >>>>>> are incurred by either one. >> >>>>> Yes, I do know that. >> >>>> No, you don't. >> >>>>> Because almost all animal products require *more* >>>>> plant food to be grown >> >>>> No. Monbiot wrote that hogs, for example, require virtually *no* plant >>>> food to be grown. >> >>> This is false. >> >> It's not false. >> >>> It takes 8 pounds of protein in hog feed to produce one >>> pound of pork. >> >> Obviously you didn't read Monbiot's essay. >> >> But these idiocies, Fairlie shows, are not arguments against all >> meat eating, but arguments against the current farming model. He >> demonstrates that we've been using the wrong comparison to judge >> the efficiency of meat production. Instead of citing a simple >> conversion rate of feed into meat, we should be comparing the >> amount of land required to grow meat with the land needed to grow >> plant products of the same nutritional value to humans. The >> results are radically different. >> >> If pigs are fed on residues and waste, and cattle on straw, >> stovers and grass from fallows and rangelands – food for which >> humans don't compete – meat becomes a very efficient means of food >> production. Even though it is tilted by the profligate use of >> grain in rich countries, the global average conversion ratio of >> useful plant food to useful meat is not the 5:1 or 10:1 cited by >> almost everyone, but less than 2:1. If we stopped feeding edible >> grain to animals, we could still produce around half the current >> global meat supply with no loss to human nutrition: in fact it's a >> significant net gain. >> >> Hogs do not require eight pounds of *protein* to produce a pound of >> pork, liar. > > Yes, they do. This quotation you have provided doesn't give any reason > to think that that is false. > >> They don't require *any* amount of human-edible food. >> > > It may be that human-edible food is not required, and that would be > relevant if we were discussing the argument about meat production > having a bad effect on global food distribution. But we were talking > about CDs. Even if the pigs are fed non-human-edible food, CDs will > still be required in order to produce the food. > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> Which causes more harm, a commercially farmed apple or a commercially >>>>>>>>>> farmed orange? Don't think about it, don't blabber your usual wheeze, >>>>>>>>>> just state it, right now. >> >>>>>>>>> Obviously I wouldn't have any idea. >> >>>>>>>> Yes, obviously - my whole point. You don't know, and more to the point, >>>>>>>> you don't care to know - you can't be bothered. >> >>>>>>> I have no reason to think it is within my power to find out. >> >>>>>> You don't care. That's all we needed to know. Concession noted. >> >>>>> I didn't concede anything. >> >>>> You sure did. You conceded that you don't know, and don't want to know. >> >>> No, I didn't. >> >> You did, of course. > > So you appear to believe You did, of course. You conceded that you don't know, and don't want to know. You're satisfied with your smug, self-flattering assumptions. |
The 'vegan' shuffle
On 3/4/2012 4:29 AM, Rupert wrote:
> On 3 Mrz., 19:18, George > wrote: >> On 3/3/2012 4:00 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Mar 3, 6:37 am, George > wrote: >>>> On 3/2/2012 8:25 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Mar 2, 8:06 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 3/2/2012 10:38 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On 2 Mrz., 19:33, George > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 9:35 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On 2 Mrz., 16:43, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 3:43 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On 1 Mrz., 23:46, dh@. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:36:50 -0800, Goo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> "veganism" is not a reliable means >> >>>>>>>>>>>> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of >>>>>>>>>>>> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of >>>>>>>>>>>> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does. >>>>>>>>>>>> What they try to avoid are products which provide life >>>>>>>>>>>> (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have >>>>>>>>>>>> to avoid the following items containing animal by-products >>>>>>>>>>>> in order to be successful: >> >>>>>>>>>>>> tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water >>>>>>>>>>>> filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides, >>>>>>>>>>>> insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen, >>>>>>>>>>>> heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides, >>>>>>>>>>>> gelatin capsules, adhesive tape, laminated wood products, >>>>>>>>>>>> plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane >>>>>>>>>>>> wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings >> >>>>>>>>>>>> The meat industry provides life for the animals that it >>>>>>>>>>>> slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it >>>>>>>>>>>> as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for >>>>>>>>>>>> their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume >>>>>>>>>>>> animal products from animals they think are raised in decent >>>>>>>>>>>> ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the >>>>>>>>>>>> future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for >>>>>>>>>>>> livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious >>>>>>>>>>>> consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by >>>>>>>>>>>> being vegan. >>>>>>>>>>>> From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised >>>>>>>>>>>> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people >>>>>>>>>>>> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well >>>>>>>>>>>> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people >>>>>>>>>>>> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm >>>>>>>>>>>> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and >>>>>>>>>>>> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is >>>>>>>>>>>> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings >>>>>>>>>>>> derived from grass raised animals. >> >>>>>>>>>>> You keep on making this claim over and over again, just as you have >>>>>>>>>>> for at least six years, but when challenged to provide actual evidence >>>>>>>>>>> for it you are unable to provide any. >> >>>>>>>>>> ****wit doesn't have any evidence, of course, but for certain there is a >>>>>>>>>> strong logical case to be made. What do you think the number of deaths >>>>>>>>>> caused raising one grass-fed steer might be? How many deaths can >>>>>>>>>> plausibly be attributed to the farming of one hectare of rice in a wet >>>>>>>>>> paddy? >> >>>>>>>>> I don't have any idea about the answers to either of those questions, >>>>>>>>> and I was talking about soya-based products, not rice. >> >>>>>>>> But you certainly ought to be able to think in terms of what's plausible >>>>>>>> and seems to make sense, can't you? Oh, wait - maybe not. >> >>>>>>> I don't really have any feel for what's "plausible" or "seems to make >>>>>>> sense" in this area. >> >>>>>> That's obviously a lie, but even telling it shows that you don't care to >>>>>> know. >> >>>>> I would be interested in knowing if I thought that it was feasible to >>>>> find out. >> >>>> You don't care about the feasibility of finding out. You don't care >>>> about knowing the answer, period. >> >>> False. >> >> Nope - true. >> >>>> You don't care to know *which* >>>> "vegan" diet is the least-harm diet, so that you might really validly >>>> claim to be "minimizing". You don't care about any of it. You just >>>> want to pat yourself on the back and act superior. >> >>> You're a fool. >> >> Concession noted and accepted. >> > > You appear to have lost touch with reality. Not in the least, and you don't believe that anyway. It's just the sorty of childish whining to which you've been reduced. >>>>>>> If you have some idea, then why don't you tell me how you arrived at >>>>>>> this idea. >> >>>>>> I have done. I have elaborated that the production of any vegetable >>>>>> crop plausibly causes many animal CDs, and the production of one 100% >>>>>> grass-fed steer plausibly causes no CDs. >> >>>>> So how does that help me to arrive at a conclusion about the matter? >> >>>> Easily: if you want to follow a positively lower CD diet than >>>> "veganism", eat grass fed beef plus some fruits and vegetables you pick >>>> from wild plants or cultivate yourself in your home garden. >> >>> It does not follow from what you said above that this diet would >>> involve less suffering and premature death. >> >> It does. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> Now I get the pleasure once again of telling you what you do and don't >>>>>>>>>> believe, because I know: you do not believe that the rice causes fewer >>>>>>>>>> CDs than the beef. >> >>>>>>>>> No, I don't. I lack a belief one way or the other, because I have no >>>>>>>>> evidence one way or the other. >> >>>>>>>> No, that's false. You do not lack any belief one way or another. We >>>>>>>> know this because you have already said you know that vegetable >>>>>>>> agriculture kills animals. You have *some* sense as to what might be a >>>>>>>> plausible number of animals killed for different types of agriculture. >> >>>>>>> Not enough to know how to compare calorically equivalent servings of >>>>>>> rice and grass-fed beef. >> >>>>>> Bullshit. As previously established, a 100 gram serving of rice - or >>>>>> soybeans or whatever - carries the weight of many animal CDs, >> >>>>> How many? Give me a range. >> >>>> According to diderot, many thousands. >> >>> So many tens of CDs per gram of rice? >> >>>>>> versus >>>>>> *no* CDs for a 100 gram serving of 100% grass-fed beef. You can do the >>>>>> comparison. >> >>>>> No I can't, I have no ranges of numbers on the basis of which to make >>>>> the comparison. >> >>>> You *know* that plausibly, the steer causes no CDs, and the vegetable >>>> products cause many. >> >>> "Many" doesn't mean anything. Specify a number range. >> >> All you need to know is that it exceeds the expected value of CDs for a >> nutritionally equivalent amount of grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish. >> > > And how exactly do I know that? Cut it out, woopee. Just cut the shit, now. |
The 'vegan' shuffle
On 4 Mrz., 18:02, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/4/2012 4:28 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 3 Mrz., 19:16, George > *wrote: > >> On 3/3/2012 3:56 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Mar 3, 7:32 am, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 3/2/2012 9:49 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On Mar 3, 6:31 am, George > * * *wrote: > >>>>>> On 3/2/2012 8:18 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Mar 2, 8:00 pm, George > * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 10:13 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On 2 Mrz., 19:07, George > * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> On 2 Mrz., 16:28, George > * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 3:42 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1 Mrz., 17:11, George > * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2012 12:16 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 7:36:50 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I read this a while ago, and I had the devil of a time finding the site > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again to share here. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/11419...al-argument-fo... > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is an excellent and thorough elaboration of why "veganism" fails as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a sound ethical approach to the human use of animals. *I really like the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> author's turn of phrase, "the vegan shuffle." *By that, he means the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flip-flop back and forth between animal "rights" and the reduction of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal suffering when "vegans" are confronted with the inescapable and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undeniable fact that "veganism" is not a reliable means for achieving > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either one. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why is veganism not a good means for reducing animal suffering? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because refraining from consuming animal bits doesn't say anything about > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the number of animals harmed by what you do consume. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not? > > >>>>>>>>>>>> How would it? > > >>>>>>>>>>> Most animal products are produced on factory farms which cause a lot > >>>>>>>>>>> of suffering. > > >>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant. *That says *nothing* about the harm caused by the non-animal > >>>>>>>>>> products you *do* eat. > > >>>>>>>>> I gave good reasons for thinking that less suffering and premature > >>>>>>>>> death is caused in order to produce what I eat than is required in > >>>>>>>>> order to produce a typical modern Western diet including animal > >>>>>>>>> products. > > >>>>>>>> We're not talking about a "typical" western diet, you ****wit. *The > >>>>>>>> "vegan" diet is *already* a highly atypical diet. *You must contrast it > >>>>>>>> with another atypical diet that has been proposed to you. > > >>>>>>> I will gladly do so when you specify which atypical diet you want to > >>>>>>> talk about. > > >>>>>> I have done, numerous times. > > >>>>> Really? > > >>>> Yes, and you know it already, too. > > >>> How interesting. > > >> No, it's actually quite basic. > > > Seems like obvious bullshit to me, but of course you know best Ball. > > >>>>>>>>>> * * * You know nothing about it. > > >>>>>>>>> That's not true. > > >>>>>>>> It is true. *You've already admitted not to know which of wheat or maize > >>>>>>>> causes more animal harm. *You don't know anything about the amount of > >>>>>>>> harm caused by *any* non-animal produce. > > >>>>>>> I know something. > > >>>>>> You don't know anything. > > >>>>> Wrong. > > >>>> No, right. > > >>>>>> * * You've already admitted to ****wit you have no > >>>>>> idea how many animal CDs are caused by the cultivation of soybeans, for > >>>>>> example. > > >>>>> Yes, that is true. > > >>>> So, you have no valid comparison for anything, because you don't know > >>>> any numbers for anything, and the plausibility case works completely > >>>> against you. *You have no empirical case at all, and the theoretical > >>>> case crushes you. > > >>> You have not made any "plausibility case". > > >> I have. > > > What arguments did you produce in favour of this "plausibility case"? > > >>>>>>> Specifically, I know that less collateral deaths are > >>>>>>> required to produce plant-based food than almost all animal products. > > >>>>>> No, you don't know that, because you have no ****ing idea how many CDs > >>>>>> are incurred by either one. > > >>>>> Yes, I do know that. > > >>>> No, you don't. > > >>>>> Because almost all animal products require *more* > >>>>> plant food to be grown > > >>>> No. *Monbiot wrote that hogs, for example, require virtually *no* plant > >>>> food to be grown. > > >>> This is false. > > >> It's not false. > > >>> It takes 8 pounds of protein in hog feed to produce one > >>> pound of pork. > > >> Obviously you didn't read Monbiot's essay. > > >> * * * *But these idiocies, Fairlie shows, are not arguments against all > >> * * * *meat eating, but arguments against the current farming model. He > >> * * * *demonstrates that we've been using the wrong comparison to judge > >> * * * *the efficiency of meat production. Instead of citing a simple > >> * * * *conversion rate of feed into meat, we should be comparing the > >> * * * *amount of land required to grow meat with the land needed to grow > >> * * * *plant products of the same nutritional value to humans. The > >> * * * *results are radically different. > > >> * * * *If pigs are fed on residues and waste, and cattle on straw, > >> * * * *stovers and grass from fallows and rangelands – food for which > >> * * * *humans don't compete – meat becomes a very efficient means of food > >> * * * *production. Even though it is tilted by the profligate use of > >> * * * *grain in rich countries, the global average conversion ratio of > >> * * * *useful plant food to useful meat is not the 5:1 or 10:1 cited by > >> * * * *almost everyone, but less than 2:1. If we stopped feeding edible > >> * * * *grain to animals, we could still produce around half the current > >> * * * *global meat supply with no loss to human nutrition: in fact it's a > >> * * * *significant net gain. > > >> Hogs do not require eight pounds of *protein* to produce a pound of > >> pork, liar. > > > Yes, they do. This quotation you have provided doesn't give any reason > > to think that that is false. > > >> * They don't require *any* amount of human-edible food. > > > It may be that human-edible food is not required, and that would be > > relevant if we were discussing the argument about meat production > > having a bad effect on global food distribution. But we were talking > > about CDs. Even if the pigs are fed non-human-edible food, CDs will > > still be required in order to produce the food. > > >>>>>>>>>> Which causes more harm, a commercially farmed apple or a commercially > >>>>>>>>>> farmed orange? *Don't think about it, don't blabber your usual wheeze, > >>>>>>>>>> just state it, right now. > > >>>>>>>>> Obviously I wouldn't have any idea. > > >>>>>>>> Yes, obviously - my whole point. *You don't know, and more to the point, > >>>>>>>> you don't care to know - you can't be bothered. > > >>>>>>> I have no reason to think it is within my power to find out. > > >>>>>> You don't care. *That's all we needed to know. *Concession noted. > > >>>>> I didn't concede anything. > > >>>> You sure did. *You conceded that you don't know, and don't want to know. > > >>> No, I didn't. > > >> You did, of course. > > > So you appear to believe > > You did, of course. *You conceded that you don't know, and don't want to > know. *You're satisfied with your smug, self-flattering assumptions. Much joy may this belief bring you. |
The 'vegan' shuffle
On 4 Mrz., 18:05, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/4/2012 4:29 AM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 3 Mrz., 19:18, George > *wrote: > >> On 3/3/2012 4:00 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On Mar 3, 6:37 am, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 3/2/2012 8:25 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On Mar 2, 8:06 pm, George > * * *wrote: > >>>>>> On 3/2/2012 10:38 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On 2 Mrz., 19:33, George > * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 9:35 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On 2 Mrz., 16:43, George > * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 3:43 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> On 1 Mrz., 23:46, dh@. wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:36:50 -0800, Goo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "veganism" is not a reliable means > > >>>>>>>>>>>> * * * * · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of > >>>>>>>>>>>> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of > >>>>>>>>>>>> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.. > >>>>>>>>>>>> What they try to avoid are products which provide life > >>>>>>>>>>>> (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have > >>>>>>>>>>>> to avoid the following items containing animal by-products > >>>>>>>>>>>> in order to be successful: > > >>>>>>>>>>>> tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water > >>>>>>>>>>>> filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides, > >>>>>>>>>>>> insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen, > >>>>>>>>>>>> heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides, > >>>>>>>>>>>> gelatin capsules, *adhesive tape, laminated wood products, > >>>>>>>>>>>> plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane > >>>>>>>>>>>> wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings > > >>>>>>>>>>>> * * * * * The meat industry provides life for the animals that it > >>>>>>>>>>>> slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it > >>>>>>>>>>>> as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for > >>>>>>>>>>>> their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume > >>>>>>>>>>>> animal products from animals they think are raised in decent > >>>>>>>>>>>> ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the > >>>>>>>>>>>> future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for > >>>>>>>>>>>> livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious > >>>>>>>>>>>> consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by > >>>>>>>>>>>> being vegan. > >>>>>>>>>>>> * * * * * From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised > >>>>>>>>>>>> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people > >>>>>>>>>>>> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well > >>>>>>>>>>>> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people > >>>>>>>>>>>> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm > >>>>>>>>>>>> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and > >>>>>>>>>>>> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is > >>>>>>>>>>>> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings > >>>>>>>>>>>> derived from grass raised animals. > > >>>>>>>>>>> You keep on making this claim over and over again, just as you have > >>>>>>>>>>> for at least six years, but when challenged to provide actual evidence > >>>>>>>>>>> for it you are unable to provide any. > > >>>>>>>>>> ****wit doesn't have any evidence, of course, but for certain there is a > >>>>>>>>>> strong logical case to be made. *What do you think the number of deaths > >>>>>>>>>> caused raising one grass-fed steer might be? *How many deaths can > >>>>>>>>>> plausibly be attributed to the farming of one hectare of rice in a wet > >>>>>>>>>> paddy? > > >>>>>>>>> I don't have any idea about the answers to either of those questions, > >>>>>>>>> and I was talking about soya-based products, not rice. > > >>>>>>>> But you certainly ought to be able to think in terms of what's plausible > >>>>>>>> and seems to make sense, can't you? *Oh, wait - maybe not. > > >>>>>>> I don't really have any feel for what's "plausible" or "seems to make > >>>>>>> sense" in this area. > > >>>>>> That's obviously a lie, but even telling it shows that you don't care to > >>>>>> know. > > >>>>> I would be interested in knowing if I thought that it was feasible to > >>>>> find out. > > >>>> You don't care about the feasibility of finding out. *You don't care > >>>> about knowing the answer, period. > > >>> False. > > >> Nope - true. > > >>>> * *You don't care to know *which* > >>>> "vegan" diet is the least-harm diet, so that you might really validly > >>>> claim to be "minimizing". *You don't care about any of it. *You just > >>>> want to pat yourself on the back and act superior. > > >>> You're a fool. > > >> Concession noted and accepted. > > > You appear to have lost touch with reality. > > Not in the least, and you don't believe that anyway. *It's just the > sorty of childish whining to which you've been reduced. > I see. > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>> If you have some idea, then why don't you tell me how you arrived at > >>>>>>> this idea. > > >>>>>> I have done. *I have elaborated that the production of any vegetable > >>>>>> crop plausibly causes many animal CDs, and the production of one 100% > >>>>>> grass-fed steer plausibly causes no CDs. > > >>>>> So how does that help me to arrive at a conclusion about the matter? > > >>>> Easily: *if you want to follow a positively lower CD diet than > >>>> "veganism", eat grass fed beef plus some fruits and vegetables you pick > >>>> from wild plants or cultivate yourself in your home garden. > > >>> It does not follow from what you said above that this diet would > >>> involve less suffering and premature death. > > >> It does. > > >>>>>>>>>> * * *Now I get the pleasure once again of telling you what you do and don't > >>>>>>>>>> believe, because I know: *you do not believe that the rice causes fewer > >>>>>>>>>> CDs than the beef. > > >>>>>>>>> No, I don't. I lack a belief one way or the other, because I have no > >>>>>>>>> evidence one way or the other. > > >>>>>>>> No, that's false. *You do not lack any belief one way or another. *We > >>>>>>>> know this because you have already said you know that vegetable > >>>>>>>> agriculture kills animals. *You have *some* sense as to what might be a > >>>>>>>> plausible number of animals killed for different types of agriculture. > > >>>>>>> Not enough to know how to compare calorically equivalent servings of > >>>>>>> rice and grass-fed beef. > > >>>>>> Bullshit. *As previously established, a 100 gram serving of rice - or > >>>>>> soybeans or whatever - carries the weight of many animal CDs, > > >>>>> How many? Give me a range. > > >>>> According to diderot, many thousands. > > >>> So many tens of CDs per gram of rice? > > >>>>>> versus > >>>>>> *no* CDs for a 100 gram serving of 100% grass-fed beef. *You can do the > >>>>>> comparison. > > >>>>> No I can't, I have no ranges of numbers on the basis of which to make > >>>>> the comparison. > > >>>> You *know* that plausibly, the steer causes no CDs, and the vegetable > >>>> products cause many. > > >>> "Many" doesn't mean anything. Specify a number range. > > >> All you need to know is that it exceeds the expected value of CDs for a > >> nutritionally equivalent amount of grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish. > > > And how exactly do I know that? > > Cut it out, woopee. *Just cut the shit, now. It would appear that you do not wish to answer my question. |
The 'vegan' shuffle
On 3/4/2012 12:09 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On 4 Mrz., 18:02, George > wrote: >> On 3/4/2012 4:28 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 3 Mrz., 19:16, George > wrote: >>>> On 3/3/2012 3:56 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Mar 3, 7:32 am, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 3/2/2012 9:49 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Mar 3, 6:31 am, George > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 8:18 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On Mar 2, 8:00 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 10:13 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On 2 Mrz., 19:07, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2 Mrz., 16:28, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 3:42 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1 Mrz., 17:11, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2012 12:16 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 7:36:50 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I read this a while ago, and I had the devil of a time finding the site >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again to share here. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/11419...al-argument-fo... >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is an excellent and thorough elaboration of why "veganism" fails as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a sound ethical approach to the human use of animals. I really like the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> author's turn of phrase, "the vegan shuffle." By that, he means the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flip-flop back and forth between animal "rights" and the reduction of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal suffering when "vegans" are confronted with the inescapable and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undeniable fact that "veganism" is not a reliable means for achieving >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either one. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why is veganism not a good means for reducing animal suffering? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because refraining from consuming animal bits doesn't say anything about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the number of animals harmed by what you do consume. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> How would it? >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Most animal products are produced on factory farms which cause a lot >>>>>>>>>>>>> of suffering. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant. That says *nothing* about the harm caused by the non-animal >>>>>>>>>>>> products you *do* eat. >> >>>>>>>>>>> I gave good reasons for thinking that less suffering and premature >>>>>>>>>>> death is caused in order to produce what I eat than is required in >>>>>>>>>>> order to produce a typical modern Western diet including animal >>>>>>>>>>> products. >> >>>>>>>>>> We're not talking about a "typical" western diet, you ****wit. The >>>>>>>>>> "vegan" diet is *already* a highly atypical diet. You must contrast it >>>>>>>>>> with another atypical diet that has been proposed to you. >> >>>>>>>>> I will gladly do so when you specify which atypical diet you want to >>>>>>>>> talk about. >> >>>>>>>> I have done, numerous times. >> >>>>>>> Really? >> >>>>>> Yes, and you know it already, too. >> >>>>> How interesting. >> >>>> No, it's actually quite basic. >> >>> Seems like obvious bullshit to me, but of course you know best Ball. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> You know nothing about it. >> >>>>>>>>>>> That's not true. >> >>>>>>>>>> It is true. You've already admitted not to know which of wheat or maize >>>>>>>>>> causes more animal harm. You don't know anything about the amount of >>>>>>>>>> harm caused by *any* non-animal produce. >> >>>>>>>>> I know something. >> >>>>>>>> You don't know anything. >> >>>>>>> Wrong. >> >>>>>> No, right. >> >>>>>>>> You've already admitted to ****wit you have no >>>>>>>> idea how many animal CDs are caused by the cultivation of soybeans, for >>>>>>>> example. >> >>>>>>> Yes, that is true. >> >>>>>> So, you have no valid comparison for anything, because you don't know >>>>>> any numbers for anything, and the plausibility case works completely >>>>>> against you. You have no empirical case at all, and the theoretical >>>>>> case crushes you. >> >>>>> You have not made any "plausibility case". >> >>>> I have. >> >>> What arguments did you produce in favour of this "plausibility case"? >> >>>>>>>>> Specifically, I know that less collateral deaths are >>>>>>>>> required to produce plant-based food than almost all animal products. >> >>>>>>>> No, you don't know that, because you have no ****ing idea how many CDs >>>>>>>> are incurred by either one. >> >>>>>>> Yes, I do know that. >> >>>>>> No, you don't. >> >>>>>>> Because almost all animal products require *more* >>>>>>> plant food to be grown >> >>>>>> No. Monbiot wrote that hogs, for example, require virtually *no* plant >>>>>> food to be grown. >> >>>>> This is false. >> >>>> It's not false. >> >>>>> It takes 8 pounds of protein in hog feed to produce one >>>>> pound of pork. >> >>>> Obviously you didn't read Monbiot's essay. >> >>>> But these idiocies, Fairlie shows, are not arguments against all >>>> meat eating, but arguments against the current farming model. He >>>> demonstrates that we've been using the wrong comparison to judge >>>> the efficiency of meat production. Instead of citing a simple >>>> conversion rate of feed into meat, we should be comparing the >>>> amount of land required to grow meat with the land needed to grow >>>> plant products of the same nutritional value to humans. The >>>> results are radically different. >> >>>> If pigs are fed on residues and waste, and cattle on straw, >>>> stovers and grass from fallows and rangelands – food for which >>>> humans don't compete – meat becomes a very efficient means of food >>>> production. Even though it is tilted by the profligate use of >>>> grain in rich countries, the global average conversion ratio of >>>> useful plant food to useful meat is not the 5:1 or 10:1 cited by >>>> almost everyone, but less than 2:1. If we stopped feeding edible >>>> grain to animals, we could still produce around half the current >>>> global meat supply with no loss to human nutrition: in fact it's a >>>> significant net gain. >> >>>> Hogs do not require eight pounds of *protein* to produce a pound of >>>> pork, liar. >> >>> Yes, they do. This quotation you have provided doesn't give any reason >>> to think that that is false. It is false. The conversion ratio is not of protein into protein, you ****ing liar. >>>> They don't require *any* amount of human-edible food. >> >>> It may be that human-edible food is not required, and that would be >>> relevant if we were discussing the argument about meat production >>> having a bad effect on global food distribution. But we were talking >>> about CDs. Even if the pigs are fed non-human-edible food, CDs will >>> still be required in order to produce the food. We're talking about the environmental effects, you sleazy fat ****. >>>>>>>>>>>> Which causes more harm, a commercially farmed apple or a commercially >>>>>>>>>>>> farmed orange? Don't think about it, don't blabber your usual wheeze, >>>>>>>>>>>> just state it, right now. >> >>>>>>>>>>> Obviously I wouldn't have any idea. >> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, obviously - my whole point. You don't know, and more to the point, >>>>>>>>>> you don't care to know - you can't be bothered. >> >>>>>>>>> I have no reason to think it is within my power to find out. >> >>>>>>>> You don't care. That's all we needed to know. Concession noted. >> >>>>>>> I didn't concede anything. >> >>>>>> You sure did. You conceded that you don't know, and don't want to know. >> >>>>> No, I didn't. >> >>>> You did, of course. >> >>> So you appear to believe >> >> You did, of course. You conceded that you don't know, and don't want to >> know. You're satisfied with your smug, self-flattering assumptions. > > Much joy may this belief bring you. It is the truth. |
The 'vegan' shuffle
On 3/4/2012 12:10 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On 4 Mrz., 18:05, George > wrote: >> On 3/4/2012 4:29 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 3 Mrz., 19:18, George > wrote: >>>> On 3/3/2012 4:00 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>> On Mar 3, 6:37 am, George > wrote: >>>>>> On 3/2/2012 8:25 PM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>> On Mar 2, 8:06 pm, George > wrote: >>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 10:38 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>> On 2 Mrz., 19:33, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 9:35 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>> On 2 Mrz., 16:43, George > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 3:43 AM, Rupert wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1 Mrz., 23:46, dh@. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:36:50 -0800, Goo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "veganism" is not a reliable means >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What they try to avoid are products which provide life >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to avoid the following items containing animal by-products >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in order to be successful: >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water >>>>>>>>>>>>>> filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> gelatin capsules, adhesive tape, laminated wood products, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The meat industry provides life for the animals that it >>>>>>>>>>>>>> slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it >>>>>>>>>>>>>> as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume >>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal products from animals they think are raised in decent >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious >>>>>>>>>>>>>> consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by >>>>>>>>>>>>>> being vegan. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised >>>>>>>>>>>>>> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people >>>>>>>>>>>>>> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well >>>>>>>>>>>>>> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people >>>>>>>>>>>>>> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm >>>>>>>>>>>>>> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings >>>>>>>>>>>>>> derived from grass raised animals. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You keep on making this claim over and over again, just as you have >>>>>>>>>>>>> for at least six years, but when challenged to provide actual evidence >>>>>>>>>>>>> for it you are unable to provide any. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit doesn't have any evidence, of course, but for certain there is a >>>>>>>>>>>> strong logical case to be made. What do you think the number of deaths >>>>>>>>>>>> caused raising one grass-fed steer might be? How many deaths can >>>>>>>>>>>> plausibly be attributed to the farming of one hectare of rice in a wet >>>>>>>>>>>> paddy? >> >>>>>>>>>>> I don't have any idea about the answers to either of those questions, >>>>>>>>>>> and I was talking about soya-based products, not rice. >> >>>>>>>>>> But you certainly ought to be able to think in terms of what's plausible >>>>>>>>>> and seems to make sense, can't you? Oh, wait - maybe not. >> >>>>>>>>> I don't really have any feel for what's "plausible" or "seems to make >>>>>>>>> sense" in this area. >> >>>>>>>> That's obviously a lie, but even telling it shows that you don't care to >>>>>>>> know. >> >>>>>>> I would be interested in knowing if I thought that it was feasible to >>>>>>> find out. >> >>>>>> You don't care about the feasibility of finding out. You don't care >>>>>> about knowing the answer, period. >> >>>>> False. >> >>>> Nope - true. >> >>>>>> You don't care to know *which* >>>>>> "vegan" diet is the least-harm diet, so that you might really validly >>>>>> claim to be "minimizing". You don't care about any of it. You just >>>>>> want to pat yourself on the back and act superior. >> >>>>> You're a fool. >> >>>> Concession noted and accepted. >> >>> You appear to have lost touch with reality. >> >> Not in the least, and you don't believe that anyway. It's just the >> sort of childish whining to which you've been reduced. >> > > I see. We all see it. >> >>>>>>>>> If you have some idea, then why don't you tell me how you arrived at >>>>>>>>> this idea. >> >>>>>>>> I have done. I have elaborated that the production of any vegetable >>>>>>>> crop plausibly causes many animal CDs, and the production of one 100% >>>>>>>> grass-fed steer plausibly causes no CDs. >> >>>>>>> So how does that help me to arrive at a conclusion about the matter? >> >>>>>> Easily: if you want to follow a positively lower CD diet than >>>>>> "veganism", eat grass fed beef plus some fruits and vegetables you pick >>>>>> from wild plants or cultivate yourself in your home garden. >> >>>>> It does not follow from what you said above that this diet would >>>>> involve less suffering and premature death. >> >>>> It does. >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Now I get the pleasure once again of telling you what you do and don't >>>>>>>>>>>> believe, because I know: you do not believe that the rice causes fewer >>>>>>>>>>>> CDs than the beef. >> >>>>>>>>>>> No, I don't. I lack a belief one way or the other, because I have no >>>>>>>>>>> evidence one way or the other. >> >>>>>>>>>> No, that's false. You do not lack any belief one way or another. We >>>>>>>>>> know this because you have already said you know that vegetable >>>>>>>>>> agriculture kills animals. You have *some* sense as to what might be a >>>>>>>>>> plausible number of animals killed for different types of agriculture. >> >>>>>>>>> Not enough to know how to compare calorically equivalent servings of >>>>>>>>> rice and grass-fed beef. >> >>>>>>>> Bullshit. As previously established, a 100 gram serving of rice - or >>>>>>>> soybeans or whatever - carries the weight of many animal CDs, >> >>>>>>> How many? Give me a range. >> >>>>>> According to diderot, many thousands. >> >>>>> So many tens of CDs per gram of rice? >> >>>>>>>> versus >>>>>>>> *no* CDs for a 100 gram serving of 100% grass-fed beef. You can do the >>>>>>>> comparison. >> >>>>>>> No I can't, I have no ranges of numbers on the basis of which to make >>>>>>> the comparison. >> >>>>>> You *know* that plausibly, the steer causes no CDs, and the vegetable >>>>>> products cause many. >> >>>>> "Many" doesn't mean anything. Specify a number range. >> >>>> All you need to know is that it exceeds the expected value of CDs for a >>>> nutritionally equivalent amount of grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish. >> >>> And how exactly do I know that? >> >> Cut it out, woopee. Just cut the shit, now. > > It would appear that you do not wish to answer my question. It's an insincere and time-wasting question. |
The 'vegan' shuffle
On Mar 5, 4:39*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/4/2012 12:09 PM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 4 Mrz., 18:02, George > *wrote: > >> On 3/4/2012 4:28 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On 3 Mrz., 19:16, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 3/3/2012 3:56 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On Mar 3, 7:32 am, George > * * *wrote: > >>>>>> On 3/2/2012 9:49 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Mar 3, 6:31 am, George > * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 8:18 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On Mar 2, 8:00 pm, George > * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 10:13 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> On 2 Mrz., 19:07, George > * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 9:29 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2 Mrz., 16:28, George > * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 3:42 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1 Mrz., 17:11, George > * * * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2012 12:16 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, February 29, 2012 7:36:50 PM UTC+1, George Plimpton wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I read this a while ago, and I had the devil of a time finding the site > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again to share here. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>http://letthemeatmeat.com/post/11419...al-argument-fo... > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is an excellent and thorough elaboration of why "veganism" fails as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a sound ethical approach to the human use of animals. *I really like the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> author's turn of phrase, "the vegan shuffle." *By that, he means the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flip-flop back and forth between animal "rights" and the reduction of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal suffering when "vegans" are confronted with the inescapable and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undeniable fact that "veganism" is not a reliable means for achieving > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either one. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why is veganism not a good means for reducing animal suffering? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because refraining from consuming animal bits doesn't say anything about > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the number of animals harmed by what you do consume. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> How would it? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Most animal products are produced on factory farms which cause a lot > >>>>>>>>>>>>> of suffering. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Irrelevant. *That says *nothing* about the harm caused by the non-animal > >>>>>>>>>>>> products you *do* eat. > > >>>>>>>>>>> I gave good reasons for thinking that less suffering and premature > >>>>>>>>>>> death is caused in order to produce what I eat than is required in > >>>>>>>>>>> order to produce a typical modern Western diet including animal > >>>>>>>>>>> products. > > >>>>>>>>>> We're not talking about a "typical" western diet, you ****wit. *The > >>>>>>>>>> "vegan" diet is *already* a highly atypical diet. *You must contrast it > >>>>>>>>>> with another atypical diet that has been proposed to you. > > >>>>>>>>> I will gladly do so when you specify which atypical diet you want to > >>>>>>>>> talk about. > > >>>>>>>> I have done, numerous times. > > >>>>>>> Really? > > >>>>>> Yes, and you know it already, too. > > >>>>> How interesting. > > >>>> No, it's actually quite basic. > > >>> Seems like obvious bullshit to me, but of course you know best Ball. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> * * * *You know nothing about it. > > >>>>>>>>>>> That's not true. > > >>>>>>>>>> It is true. *You've already admitted not to know which of wheat or maize > >>>>>>>>>> causes more animal harm. *You don't know anything about the amount of > >>>>>>>>>> harm caused by *any* non-animal produce. > > >>>>>>>>> I know something. > > >>>>>>>> You don't know anything. > > >>>>>>> Wrong. > > >>>>>> No, right. > > >>>>>>>> * * *You've already admitted to ****wit you have no > >>>>>>>> idea how many animal CDs are caused by the cultivation of soybeans, for > >>>>>>>> example. > > >>>>>>> Yes, that is true. > > >>>>>> So, you have no valid comparison for anything, because you don't know > >>>>>> any numbers for anything, and the plausibility case works completely > >>>>>> against you. *You have no empirical case at all, and the theoretical > >>>>>> case crushes you. > > >>>>> You have not made any "plausibility case". > > >>>> I have. > > >>> What arguments did you produce in favour of this "plausibility case"? > > >>>>>>>>> Specifically, I know that less collateral deaths are > >>>>>>>>> required to produce plant-based food than almost all animal products. > > >>>>>>>> No, you don't know that, because you have no ****ing idea how many CDs > >>>>>>>> are incurred by either one. > > >>>>>>> Yes, I do know that. > > >>>>>> No, you don't. > > >>>>>>> Because almost all animal products require *more* > >>>>>>> plant food to be grown > > >>>>>> No. *Monbiot wrote that hogs, for example, require virtually *no* plant > >>>>>> food to be grown. > > >>>>> This is false. > > >>>> It's not false. > > >>>>> It takes 8 pounds of protein in hog feed to produce one > >>>>> pound of pork. > > >>>> Obviously you didn't read Monbiot's essay. > > >>>> * * * * But these idiocies, Fairlie shows, are not arguments against all > >>>> * * * * meat eating, but arguments against the current farming model. He > >>>> * * * * demonstrates that we've been using the wrong comparison to judge > >>>> * * * * the efficiency of meat production. Instead of citing a simple > >>>> * * * * conversion rate of feed into meat, we should be comparing the > >>>> * * * * amount of land required to grow meat with the land needed to grow > >>>> * * * * plant products of the same nutritional value to humans. The > >>>> * * * * results are radically different. > > >>>> * * * * If pigs are fed on residues and waste, and cattle on straw, > >>>> * * * * stovers and grass from fallows and rangelands – food for which > >>>> * * * * humans don't compete – meat becomes a very efficient means of food > >>>> * * * * production. Even though it is tilted by the profligate use of > >>>> * * * * grain in rich countries, the global average conversion ratio of > >>>> * * * * useful plant food to useful meat is not the 5:1 or 10:1 cited by > >>>> * * * * almost everyone, but less than 2:1. If we stopped feeding edible > >>>> * * * * grain to animals, we could still produce around half the current > >>>> * * * * global meat supply with no loss to human nutrition: in fact it's a > >>>> * * * * significant net gain. > > >>>> Hogs do not require eight pounds of *protein* to produce a pound of > >>>> pork, liar. > > >>> Yes, they do. This quotation you have provided doesn't give any reason > >>> to think that that is false. > > It is false. *The conversion ratio is not of protein into protein, you > ****ing liar. > It's not false. > >>>> * *They don't require *any* amount of human-edible food. > > >>> It may be that human-edible food is not required, and that would be > >>> relevant if we were discussing the argument about meat production > >>> having a bad effect on global food distribution. But we were talking > >>> about CDs. Even if the pigs are fed non-human-edible food, CDs will > >>> still be required in order to produce the food. > > We're talking about the environmental effects, you sleazy fat ****. > Actually, the original context was that we were talking about CDs. I never said anything about the environmental effects. > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Which causes more harm, a commercially farmed apple or a commercially > >>>>>>>>>>>> farmed orange? *Don't think about it, don't blabber your usual wheeze, > >>>>>>>>>>>> just state it, right now. > > >>>>>>>>>>> Obviously I wouldn't have any idea. > > >>>>>>>>>> Yes, obviously - my whole point. *You don't know, and more to the point, > >>>>>>>>>> you don't care to know - you can't be bothered. > > >>>>>>>>> I have no reason to think it is within my power to find out. > > >>>>>>>> You don't care. *That's all we needed to know. *Concession noted. > > >>>>>>> I didn't concede anything. > > >>>>>> You sure did. *You conceded that you don't know, and don't want to know. > > >>>>> No, I didn't. > > >>>> You did, of course. > > >>> So you appear to believe > > >> You did, of course. *You conceded that you don't know, and don't want to > >> know. *You're satisfied with your smug, self-flattering assumptions. > > > Much joy may this belief bring you. > > It is the truth. Where did I concede that I don't know and don't want to know? |
The 'vegan' shuffle
On Mar 5, 4:40*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 3/4/2012 12:10 PM, Rupert wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On 4 Mrz., 18:05, George > *wrote: > >> On 3/4/2012 4:29 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>> On 3 Mrz., 19:18, George > * *wrote: > >>>> On 3/3/2012 4:00 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>> On Mar 3, 6:37 am, George > * * *wrote: > >>>>>> On 3/2/2012 8:25 PM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Mar 2, 8:06 pm, George > * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 10:38 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On 2 Mrz., 19:33, George > * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 9:35 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> On 2 Mrz., 16:43, George > * * * * * *wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/2/2012 3:43 AM, Rupert wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1 Mrz., 23:46, dh@. wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:36:50 -0800, Goo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "veganism" is not a reliable means > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> * * * * *· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What they try to avoid are products which provide life > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to avoid the following items containing animal by-products > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in order to be successful: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> tires, paper, upholstery, floor waxes, glass, water > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> filters, rubber, fertilizer, antifreeze, ceramics, insecticides, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> insulation, linoleum, plastic, textiles, blood factors, collagen, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> heparin, insulin, solvents, biodegradable detergents, herbicides, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> gelatin capsules, *adhesive tape, laminated wood products, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> plywood, paneling, wallpaper and wallpaper paste, cellophane > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrap and tape, abrasives, steel ball bearings > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> * * * * * *The meat industry provides life for the animals that it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> animal products from animals they think are raised in decent > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> being vegan. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> * * * * * *From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> derived from grass raised animals. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> You keep on making this claim over and over again, just as you have > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for at least six years, but when challenged to provide actual evidence > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for it you are unable to provide any. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> ****wit doesn't have any evidence, of course, but for certain there is a > >>>>>>>>>>>> strong logical case to be made. *What do you think the number of deaths > >>>>>>>>>>>> caused raising one grass-fed steer might be? *How many deaths can > >>>>>>>>>>>> plausibly be attributed to the farming of one hectare of rice in a wet > >>>>>>>>>>>> paddy? > > >>>>>>>>>>> I don't have any idea about the answers to either of those questions, > >>>>>>>>>>> and I was talking about soya-based products, not rice. > > >>>>>>>>>> But you certainly ought to be able to think in terms of what's plausible > >>>>>>>>>> and seems to make sense, can't you? *Oh, wait - maybe not. > > >>>>>>>>> I don't really have any feel for what's "plausible" or "seems to make > >>>>>>>>> sense" in this area. > > >>>>>>>> That's obviously a lie, but even telling it shows that you don't care to > >>>>>>>> know. > > >>>>>>> I would be interested in knowing if I thought that it was feasible to > >>>>>>> find out. > > >>>>>> You don't care about the feasibility of finding out. *You don't care > >>>>>> about knowing the answer, period. > > >>>>> False. > > >>>> Nope - true. > > >>>>>> * * You don't care to know *which* > >>>>>> "vegan" diet is the least-harm diet, so that you might really validly > >>>>>> claim to be "minimizing". *You don't care about any of it. *You just > >>>>>> want to pat yourself on the back and act superior. > > >>>>> You're a fool. > > >>>> Concession noted and accepted. > > >>> You appear to have lost touch with reality. > > >> Not in the least, and you don't believe that anyway. *It's just the > >> sort of childish whining to which you've been reduced. > > > I see. > > We all see it. > You have all sorts of very interesting insights, Ball. > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>> If you have some idea, then why don't you tell me how you arrived at > >>>>>>>>> this idea. > > >>>>>>>> I have done. *I have elaborated that the production of any vegetable > >>>>>>>> crop plausibly causes many animal CDs, and the production of one 100% > >>>>>>>> grass-fed steer plausibly causes no CDs. > > >>>>>>> So how does that help me to arrive at a conclusion about the matter? > > >>>>>> Easily: *if you want to follow a positively lower CD diet than > >>>>>> "veganism", eat grass fed beef plus some fruits and vegetables you pick > >>>>>> from wild plants or cultivate yourself in your home garden. > > >>>>> It does not follow from what you said above that this diet would > >>>>> involve less suffering and premature death. > > >>>> It does. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> * * * Now I get the pleasure once again of telling you what you do and don't > >>>>>>>>>>>> believe, because I know: *you do not believe that the rice causes fewer > >>>>>>>>>>>> CDs than the beef. > > >>>>>>>>>>> No, I don't. I lack a belief one way or the other, because I have no > >>>>>>>>>>> evidence one way or the other. > > >>>>>>>>>> No, that's false. *You do not lack any belief one way or another. *We > >>>>>>>>>> know this because you have already said you know that vegetable > >>>>>>>>>> agriculture kills animals. *You have *some* sense as to what might be a > >>>>>>>>>> plausible number of animals killed for different types of agriculture. > > >>>>>>>>> Not enough to know how to compare calorically equivalent servings of > >>>>>>>>> rice and grass-fed beef. > > >>>>>>>> Bullshit. *As previously established, a 100 gram serving of rice - or > >>>>>>>> soybeans or whatever - carries the weight of many animal CDs, > > >>>>>>> How many? Give me a range. > > >>>>>> According to diderot, many thousands. > > >>>>> So many tens of CDs per gram of rice? > > >>>>>>>> versus > >>>>>>>> *no* CDs for a 100 gram serving of 100% grass-fed beef. *You can do the > >>>>>>>> comparison. > > >>>>>>> No I can't, I have no ranges of numbers on the basis of which to make > >>>>>>> the comparison. > > >>>>>> You *know* that plausibly, the steer causes no CDs, and the vegetable > >>>>>> products cause many. > > >>>>> "Many" doesn't mean anything. Specify a number range. > > >>>> All you need to know is that it exceeds the expected value of CDs for a > >>>> nutritionally equivalent amount of grass-fed beef or wild-caught fish. > > >>> And how exactly do I know that? > > >> Cut it out, woopee. *Just cut the shit, now. > > > It would appear that you do not wish to answer my question. > > It's an insincere and time-wasting question. So you appear to believe. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:08 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter