FoodBanter.com

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

George Plimpton 29-02-2012 06:36 PM

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.

Dutch 29-02-2012 08:06 PM

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.



George Plimpton 29-02-2012 08:22 PM

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

George Plimpton 01-03-2012 04:11 PM

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.

[email protected] 01-03-2012 10:46 PM

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.

George Plimpton 02-03-2012 01:41 AM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
On 3/1/2012 2:46 PM, [email protected] 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.

Mr.Smartypants[_4_] 02-03-2012 07:56 AM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
On Mar 1, 6:41*pm, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/1/2012 2:46 PM, [email protected] 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.

Rupert 02-03-2012 11:42 AM

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?

Rupert 02-03-2012 11:43 AM

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


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

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

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


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

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

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



George Plimpton 02-03-2012 03:28 PM

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?

George Plimpton 02-03-2012 03:43 PM

The 'vegan' shuffle
 
On 3/2/2012 3:43 AM, Rupert wrote:
On 1 Mrz., 23:46, [email protected] wrote:
On Wed, 29 Feb 2012 10:36:50 -0800, Goo wrote:
"veganism" is not a reliable means


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

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

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


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


****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.

Rupert 02-03-2012 05:29 PM

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.

Rupert 02-03-2012 05:35 PM

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


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


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


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


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


****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?

George Plimpton 02-03-2012 06:07 PM

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.

Rupert 02-03-2012 06:13 PM

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.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:31 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter