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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #46 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-03-2012, 09:16 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "veganism" is bullshit

On Mar 15, 8:56*am, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/15/2012 12:32 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 15, 5:36 am, George *wrote:
On 3/14/2012 8:32 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 15, 4:06 am, George * *wrote:
On 3/14/2012 6:51 PM, Dutch wrote:


* *wrote
On Mar 14, 10:04 pm, * *wrote:


One compelling argument that you have definitely seen was given in great
detail in the vegan shuffle argument.


Perhaps you can tell me which one you have in mind.


The "shuffle". The vegan's core belief is that by going vegan one is no
longer complicit in animal suffering. When the fallaciousness of that
belief is pointed out to them they start shuffling. This takes various
forms, such as a retreat to the "less suffering" position or a switch to
the "injustice" position.


The shuffle shows that "vegans" are incoherent. *They don't have a valid
reason for not consuming animal parts. *If it's because they think doing
so violates animals' "rights", they lose: *their consumption causes the
violation of animals' rights. *Point this out, and they switch to
reducing suffering, but it's possible to follow a meat-including diet
that causes less suffering than the diets most "vegans" follow. *Suggest
that they consume meat that involves less suffering than what is caused
by *their* "vegan" diets, and they flip-flop back to the rights argument.


I will gladly switch to consuming meat that involves less suffering
when I am convinced that there is a practical means of doing so.


You aren't honestly open to being convinced of it. *You rule it out by
axiomatically.


You have no rational grounds for thinking that.


I do. *You've told us.

You have made some suggestions but what's holding me back is that I
am not convinced that they really would involve less suffering.


And because of the way you play the game, you will never find out,
because you won't even make an effort to determine how much suffering
you cause. *You don't care. *You're happy and smugly satisfied that
you're "better" than omnivores.


This is false. I have made an effort to determine how much suffering I
cause,


No, you haven't. *You've categorically said the data aren't available.

Stop lying.


The data aren't available, and I wouldn't know that unless I had made
some effort to find them, would I?

However there are some estimates that have been made of how much
suffering a vegan diet causes, and I engaged with you about one such
estimate in a recent thread.

Steven Davis writes

"In a study that has been done to examine the
effect of harvesting grain crops, Tew and Macdonald (1993) reported
that
mouse population density dropped from 25/ha preharvest to less than 5/
ha
postharvest. This decrease was attributed to both migration out of the
field
and to mortality. They estimated the mortality rate to be 52%. In
another
study, Nass et al. (1971) reported that the mortality rate of
Polynesian
rats was 77% during the harvest of sugar cane in Hawaii. These are the
estimated mortality rates for only a single species, and for only a
single
operation (i.e., harvesting). Therefore, an estimate somewhere between
52
and 77% (say 60%) for animals of all kinds killed during the
production
year would be reasonable. If we multiply the population density shown
in
Tew and Macdonald’s (1993) paper (25/ha) times a 60% mortality rate,
that equals a mortality of 15 animals/ha each year."

Does that strike you as a reasonable estimate? And do you also agree
that one hectare planted with soy and corn can produce 1000 kilograms
of protein, and that the mean annual dietary requirement for an adult
is 20 kilograms of protein?








Everything is wrong with what "vegans" claim for themselves *solely* by
reason of not consuming animal parts. *They still violate animal rights
in exactly the same way meat consumers do, and any given "vegan" does
not cause less animal suffering than all meat consumers merely by reason
of not consuming animal part - they aren't causing zero harm, they
aren't minimizing, they aren't "doing the best they can", and they're
not even doing better than all meat consumers.


There is no good reason for saying that not "doing the best they can"
given the limited information that is available.


They aren't "doing" anything. *Their entire conclusion is based on what
they're *not* doing: *consuming animal parts. *They assume that what
they're not doing is all they need to know. *That has been proved not to
be a sound basis for the conclusion.


Going vegan on the basis of information about what happens on modern
animal farms


If you eat meat, you aren't required to eat meat from animal farms.
That has *ZERO* bearing on the harm you *cause*, rather than the harm
you don't cause by putting any particular type of meat in your mouth.


If you are avoiding causing a certain type of harm without replacing
it with a comparably bad harm then obviously you are achieving a
reduction in the amount of harm caused.

You have no idea what amount of harm you cause - zero idea.


See above.

*Some* improvement could be had for very little effort,


What's your evidence for that?


**** you, cocksucker. *We've been through this. *Stop trying to waste my
time, prick.


I take it you have no evidence, then.

but they won't
undertake *any* effort to learn how they might improve. *The decision
not to consume animal parts is not the starting point in a quest to
cause less harm - it's the ending point.


You also haven't
pointed out any specific example of a meat consumer who is doing
better than a vegan.


Meat consumers don't make any of the fatuous claims of "vegans". *They
don't accept the fake moral issues that "vegans" want to inject into diet.


You just *did* make a claim that some meat consumers are doing better
than vegans.


*Individual* meat consumers, unlike *all* individual "vegans", make no
claim about causing harm.


Yes, but I was engaging the claim that you made that some meat
consumers cause less harm than vegans.

For most meat consumers it is very unlikely that
they are doing better than a vegan.


Why are you comparing yourself with meat consumers to show that you're
virtuous?


I'm not.


You are. *What you really wrote above, substituting where necessary, is
"For most meat consumers it is very unlikely that they are doing better
than a *me*." *You were making a statement about yourself.


It *entailed* a statement about myself, yes. But the reason I made the
statement is to engage with a claim that you made, not to try to prove
myself virtuous. You have no rational grounds for thinking that the
point of the statement was to try to prove myself virtuous, or that I
believe that simply showing that I am doing better than most meat
consumers is enough to show that I am virtuous.

Don't you know that's invalid?


1. *Your diet causes the "rights" of animals to be violated.


That depends what rights they have.


The *same* rights would be violated whether they are killed by combines
or killed in slaughterhouses. ***** off, ****.


Other rights would be violated by factory-farming.

I've always agreed that those systems of animal agriculture which
cause no more harm than plant-based agriculture are just as morally
defensible, and you knew that.

2. *You almost certainly are not consuming the least-harm "vegan"
* * * diet that you could, let alone the least-harm overall diet..


Yes, I have done everything I can to reduce the amount of harm caused
by my diet,


You have done *NOTHING*. *You don't "do" anything. *You *don't* put
animal parts in your mouth - that's all.


Take the step of becoming a vegan is doing something. You have given
no rational grounds for thinking that I am not doing everything I
reasonably can to reduce the amount of suffering and premature death
required to produce my food.

What does the level of harm caused by "most meat consumers" have to do
with what *you* are doing?


Nothing, that's what.


You were the one who brought the subject up.


*You* are doing nothing. *You obsess solely on what you're *not* doing:
* consuming animal bits. *That's *meaningless* in terms of quantifying
the harm you cause. *You don't want to quantify it - you don't care.


I'm not doing nothing. I acquired some information about what happens
on modern animal farms and responded by going vegan. I also made some
effort to find out about the harm caused by plant-food production,
which I discussed with you above.

You've given absolutely no good reason at all for thinking that vegans
are not genuinely concerned about animal suffering.


I most certainly have. *I have shown beyond all dispute that their
decision not to consume animal parts absolutely does *NOT* lead to the
conclusion they wish to believe,


What conclusion?


The conclusion that they're not violating animal rights, and that
they're "minimizing"/"doing the best they can"/"doing better than
omnivores". *That conclusion, you ****.


You haven't shown that it doesn't mean they're doing the best they
can.

yet they do nothing more than that. *It
*can't* be about animal suffering, because they don't do anything after
their assumption has been falsified, which of course it has.


You're a fool.


I've killed you.


Veganism is *obviously* in most cases an effort to do something about
animal suffering. Any fool should be able to see this.

  #47 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-03-2012, 09:17 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "veganism" is bullshit

On Mar 15, 8:57*am, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/15/2012 12:35 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 15, 6:07 am, George *wrote:
On 3/14/2012 8:28 PM, Rupert wrote:


On Mar 15, 2:51 am, * *wrote:
* *wrote
On Mar 14, 10:04 pm, * *wrote:
One compelling argument that you have definitely seen was given in great
detail in the vegan shuffle argument.


Perhaps you can tell me which one you have in mind.


The "shuffle". The vegan's core belief is that by going vegan one is no
longer complicit in animal suffering. When the fallaciousness of that belief
is pointed out to them they start shuffling. This takes various forms, such
as a retreat to the "less suffering" position or a switch to the "injustice"
position.


How is that evidence that the motivation for going vegan is not to
help animals?


Nice try, woopert. *We're not talking about your alleged initial motive.
* *What I said is that your supposed concern is fake. *The proof of that
is that when it is conclusively demonstrated that the *sole* step you
take - refraining from putting animal parts in your mouth - does not
lead to the conclusion you assumed, you nonetheless stick with it, and
do nothing more.


You began by believing one or both of two things:


1. *Refraining from consuming animal parts would mean, necessarily,
* * * that you weren't violating the "rights" of any animals.


2. *Refraining from consuming animal parts would mean, necessarily,
* * * that you were causing less harm to animals than *all* meat consumers.


It cannot be doubted or disputed that you believed one or both of these
things. *If you didn't, then there could not possibly be any rational
basis for concluding that you ought not put animal parts in your mouth..


It has been shown beyond all dispute that neither is true:


What I began by believing is


...that you were living a "cruelty free 'lifestyle'." *You were and are
wrong.


Wrong. I never believed that.

1. *The "rights" of animals are routinely violated in the course of
* * * producing the things you consume.


2. *Refraining from putting animal parts in your mouth in no way shows
* * * that you are causing less harm than *all* meat consumers.


I think the meat consumers who are causing less harm than me would be
rare indeed,


You have no way of knowing.


I do have rational grounds for believing it which I have given before
more than once.

It's entirely the point, shithead.


It's not a point supported by the evidence at hand.
  #48 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-03-2012, 09:18 AM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,380
Default "veganism" is bullshit

On Mar 15, 8:58*am, George Plimpton wrote:
On 3/15/2012 12:37 AM, Rupert wrote:









On Mar 15, 7:56 am, George *wrote:
On 3/14/2012 11:21 PM, Dutch wrote:


*wrote
On Mar 15, 2:51 am, *wrote:
*wrote
On Mar 14, 10:04 pm, *wrote:
One compelling argument that you have definitely seen was given in
great
detail in the vegan shuffle argument.


Perhaps you can tell me which one you have in mind.


The "shuffle". The vegan's core belief is that by going vegan one is no
longer complicit in animal suffering. When the fallaciousness of that
belief
is pointed out to them they start shuffling. This takes various
forms, such
as a retreat to the "less suffering" position or a switch to the
"injustice"
position.


How is that evidence that the motivation for going vegan is not to
help animals?


If the motivation were to help animals then there would be no shifting
of arguments, no angry denials, the response would be one of simply
acknowledging the receipt of new, helpful, constructive information.
You've done that to some extent, but you're not typical either.


I don't think he has done that at all. *He has done nothing but quibble,
and complain that the evidence isn't ironclad. *There has been complete
opposition to the idea that he is not "doing all he can", instead
invoking vague and utterly solipsistic notions of what's "reasonable" -
that is, whatever he *feels* like doing, not what an objective person
might feel is reasonable.


What do you, as an objective person, feel that it would be reasonable
for me to do


Something other than sit back and throw up your hands and moan that
there's no data.


That's not an answer to the question.

You do nothing. *This is established beyond dispute.


Actually, no rational person would dispute that I have done something.
  #49 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 15-03-2012, 07:35 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,025
Default "veganism" is bullshit

"George Plimpton" wrote
On 3/14/2012 11:21 PM, Dutch wrote:

"Rupert" wrote
On Mar 15, 2:51 am, "Dutch" wrote:
Rupert" wrote
On Mar 14, 10:04 pm, "Dutch" wrote:
One compelling argument that you have definitely seen was given in
great
detail in the vegan shuffle argument.

Perhaps you can tell me which one you have in mind.

The "shuffle". The vegan's core belief is that by going vegan one is no
longer complicit in animal suffering. When the fallaciousness of that
belief
is pointed out to them they start shuffling. This takes various
forms, such
as a retreat to the "less suffering" position or a switch to the
"injustice"
position.

How is that evidence that the motivation for going vegan is not to
help animals?


If the motivation were to help animals then there would be no shifting
of arguments, no angry denials, the response would be one of simply
acknowledging the receipt of new, helpful, constructive information.
You've done that to some extent, but you're not typical either.


I don't think he has done that at all. He has done nothing but quibble,
and complain that the evidence isn't ironclad. There has been complete
opposition to the idea that he is not "doing all he can", instead invoking
vague and utterly solipsistic notions of what's "reasonable" - that is,
whatever he *feels* like doing, not what an objective person might feel is
reasonable.


It's true he has done all that, but he has also acknowledged that some
diets/lifestyles containing meat and other animal products may cause less
animal suffering than a given vegan diet/lifestyle. I find that quite
unusual, in fact I can't recall another vegan who has admitted that.




  #50 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-03-2012, 07:19 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,652
Default "veganism" is bullshit

On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 16:59:21 -0700, Goo wrote:

On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 15:29:00 -0400, [email protected] wrote:

On Thu, 08 Mar 2012 13:40:09 -0800, Goo wrote:


“Veganism” *is* bullshit. Here’s why. It claims to be an ethical
response to an ethical problem, but 1) there is no agreement that there
is an ethical problem


"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
consideration, and gets it." - Goo

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Goo

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo

"Life "justifying" death is the
stupidest goddamned thing you ever wrote." - Goo

"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo

"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Goo

"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
to experience life" - Goo

"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo

"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
(in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
killing them." - Goo
. . .
2) the response is ethically empty.


"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans".
"Vegans" aren't interested in contributing to lives of any
quality for farm animals: they don't want there to be farm
animals." - Goo

""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
an influence, whether you like it or not." - Goo

""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
live in bad conditions." - Goo

"you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
results from killing them." - Goo

"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo


True.


At least we see that you agree with yourself about all of it at this
particular time Goob.


  #51 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 19-03-2012, 07:25 PM posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,talk.politics.animals,alt.food.vegan,alt.food.vegan.science
external usenet poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,258
Default "veganism" is bullshit

On 3/19/2012 12:19 PM, [email protected] wrote:

“Veganism” *is* bullshit. Here’s why. It claims to be an ethical
response to an ethical problem, but 1) there is no agreement that there
is an ethical problem

"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
consideration, and gets it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude
than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"Life "justifying" death is the
stupidest goddamned thing you ever wrote." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an animal
ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude than . . . the
moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing at all" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
to experience life" - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"Causing animals to be born and "get to experience life"
(in ****wit's wretched prose) is no mitigation at all for
killing them." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton
. . .
2) the response is ethically empty.

"People who don't want them to exist should be "vegans".
"Vegans" aren't interested in contributing to lives of any
quality for farm animals: they don't want there to be farm
animals." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

""vegans" are interested in their influence on animals,
****wit. They want everyone to be "vegan", which would
mean no animals raised for food and other products. That's
an influence, whether you like it or not." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

""Veg*nism" certainly doesn't harm any living farm animals.
And if everyone adopted "veg*nism", no farm animals would
live in bad conditions." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not
to raise the animals as the only way to prevent the harm that
results from killing them." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton

"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Prof. Geo. Plimpton


True.


At least we see that you agree with yourself


I always agree with myself, Goo.

Everything I wrote above is true. I didn't bother correctly your
mangled edited "quotes" this time, because everyone knows which ones
they are, and they all know that what I actually said, rather than your
mangled, misrepresented version, is true.

"Getting to experience life" is not a benefit for farm animals, Goo.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Irrational Search for Micrograms (of Animal Parts) proves that"veganism" isn't about so-called "factory farms" at all Rudy Canoza[_8_] Vegan 0 19-08-2016 06:04 PM
"It has not been established that veganism is any better than the Standard Western Diet" [email protected] Vegan 25 12-10-2010 07:21 PM
More "vegan" bullshit about meat "inefficiency" David Vegan 21 29-07-2008 10:10 PM
More "vegan" bullshit about meat "inefficiency" David Vegan 1 09-07-2008 04:10 PM
More "vegan" bullshit about meat "inefficiency" [email protected] Vegan 1 01-07-2008 05:38 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:42 PM.

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

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017