In article >,
Antonio Veranos > wrote:

> [Rupert, ]
> [Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:24:20 -0700 (PDT)]
>
> : So the question is not as simple as you are making out.
>
> Are Vegan girls allowed to swallow?

Now you've done it!

--
Michael Press

In article
>,
Bryan > wrote:

> On Oct 17, 5:51Â*am, Your smrat ® > wrote:
> > On Oct 17, 5:03Â*am, Rupert > wrote:
> >
> > > On Oct 17, 6:47Â*am, Antonio Veranos > wrote:
> >
> > > > [Rupert, ]
> > > > [Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:24:20 -0700 (PDT)]
> >
> > > > : So the question is not as simple as you are making out.
> >
> > > > Are Vegan girls allowed to swallow?
> >
> > > I would think that most of them would see it as a non-issue, but
> > > you'll have to ask them; I've never been with a vegan girl.
> >
> > If they could swallow they wouldn't need those feeding tubes. What?
> > Vegans? Nevermind then.
>
> Why do you capitalize vegan? Just wondering.

Initial word of a sentence.

--
Michael Press

On 10/16/2012 1:34 PM, Rupert wrote:
> On Oct 16, 10:28 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
>> On 10/16/2012 7:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 16, 4:39 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
>>>> On 10/16/2012 7:11 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Oct 16, 4:06 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/16/2012 3:12 AM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Oct 15, 9:49 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2012 12:15 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 15, 9:12 pm, Antonio Veranos > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> [George Plimpton, ]
>>>>>>>>>> [Mon, 15 Oct 2012 12:00:53 -0700]
>>
>>>>>>>>>> : > Well, it was definitely amusing to me,
>>>>>>>>>> :
>>>>>>>>>> : Because you're off your meds again.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you ever want to point out that all vegans are hypocrites whether
>>>>>>>>>> they know it or not, point out that plankton are animals and see if they
>>>>>>>>>> can figure out why this is relevant to veganism.
>>
>>>>>>>>> It would not be relevant to my motivations for being vegan, unless the
>>>>>>>>> plankton were capable of suffering and I were in some way responsible
>>>>>>>>> for them experiencing more suffering than would otherwise be the case.
>>
>>>>>>>> You are indeed responsible for animals of the field suffering more than
>>>>>>>> they otherwise would if you were to produce all your own food.
>>
>>>>>>> True.
>>
>>>>>> So your hypocrisy is established.
>>
>>>>> No, it's not.
>>
>>>> Yes, it is. You claim that your "veganism" is founded on some kind of
>>>> moral principles, but clearly it's nothing but fashion.
>>
>>> I didn't make any such claim in this thread.
>>
>> Not in *this* thread, maybe, but you have in other threads, and you've
>> never recanted it.
>>
>
> Yes I have. I just did, in this thread. I told you I currently am
> fairly skeptical that there are any moral truths. So I've obviously
> changed my position.

Are you feeling a little more wobbly right now? That's a serious
question. In the past, you've exuded absolute moral certitude regarding
the allegedly principled underpinnings of "ar" (or whatever you prefer
to call it; es macht nichts.) Suddenly, you've done a complete
volte-face (that's French - put your German aside for a moment) and
begun spewing extreme doubt on your earlier position. Yet, you're still
"vegan", with all the moral rigidity that always entails. So, you now
claim not to believe in moral truths, yet you're still clinging to a
behavior that is *absolutely* predicated on a belief in moral truths.
To me, that indicates a *HUGE* potential for rapidly increasing wobbliness.

On Oct 17, 10:55*pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 10/17/2012 1:06 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> In this thread I just
> >>>>> said that my veganism was motivated by a desire to do something to
> >>>>> reduce my contribution to suffering.
>
> >>>> Why would you want to do such a thing? *Is there a moral principle - or
> >>>> an alleged moral principle - behind it?
>
> >>> You apparently find it hard to understand why someone would want to
> >>> reduce their contribution to animal suffering. I know plenty of people
> >>> who don't find it hard to understand at all. There's not much point in
> >>> trying to explain it, it's pretty fundamental.
>
> >> Golly - that sounds an awful lot like what ****wit says about "decent
> >> lives of positive value".
>
> > Don't really see the connection, myself.
>
> I'll make one attempt to explain it. *You wrote:
>
> * * * *You apparently find it hard to understand why someone would want
> * * * *to reduce their contribution to animal suffering. I know plenty
> * * * *of people who don't find it hard to understand at all. There's
> * * * *not much point in trying to explain it, it's pretty fundamental.
>
> *Something* has got to serve as the impetus, the motive, to want to
> reduce one's contribution to animal suffering.

What was the motive that led you to want to have a child?

What, indeed, is the motive that leads you to want to keep yourself
alive?

> I trust you're not
> suggesting it's some impulse that comes out of the autonomic nervous
> system. *I mean, everyone has an autonomic nervous system, but not
> everyone really cares all that much about the origin of eggs, or whether
> or not beef cattle are fed grain. *Also, no other species seems to give
> any consideration to this at all; predators don't seem at all concerned
> about the suffering they cause their prey, and non-predators don't care
> about any incidental or collateral suffering they may cause just going
> about their lives - e.g., cattle don't look where they're going to
> ensure they don't step on any grasshoppers or the like. *There must be
> /some/ identifiable aspect of human mentality that leads to some people
> caring about the amount of suffering their activities cause, and I'm
> just trying to get you to say what you think it is.

Well, I think it's our capacity for empathy, which I don't agree with
you is exclusively human.

> You formerly seemed
> to suggest it was some kind of moral principles,

Moral beliefs would play a role in many cases, no doubt.

> but now you're backing
> away from that, and I'm simply trying to get you to say what you think
> it might be, and you're going all ****wit Harrison on us. *When you ask
> ****wit to define what he means by "decent lives of possitive [sic]
> value", and how he can identify which ones are, he refuses to say;
> essentially, he says either you get it or you don't, and if you don't,
> then there's no way you ever will. *That's what you appear to be doing
> here when asked to explain what motivates you to want to reduce the
> suffering your "lifestyle" causes.
>

Well, each one of us has a certain set of motivations, right, and at
some point the explanation of why we have those motivations has to
"bottom out". I gave you the examples of why did you want to have a
child, and why do you want to keep yourself alive. You may be able to
give some kind of explanation, but obviously at some point the
explanation is going to have to "bottom out" and you're just going to
have to say "I just am motivated to try to achieve this goal". There
may be an explanation of why you are so motivated in terms of some
process of natural selection. I speculate that most people wouldn't
find a desire to reduce suffering to be all that mysterious, as you
seem to.

Your analogy with David Harrison is not apt, because you're not asking
me to define a term I've introduced, you're asking me to explain why I
have a certain motivation. Someone who introduces a term has an
obligation to try and define it, but if there are limits to my ability
to explain why I have the set of motivations that I have, that doesn't
mean I'm failing to meet any obligation.

> >>> Either you care about
> >>> animal suffering or you don't. In my experience most people care to at
> >>> least some degree, although usually not to the extent of trying to
> >>> change their eating habits to do something about it.
>
> >> Why do they care about it? *What's behind it? *Other animals don't seem
> >> to care much about it. *What aspect of humanity makes us care about it?
>
> > Well, actually, you do quite frequently observe animals showing
> > empathy towards other animals. I would say it's probably something to
> > do with having evolved as a social animal.
>
> You don't find much interspecies empathy. *I've seen a Youtube video of
> a hippo trying to "save" some kind of deer or antelope or something from
> a crocodile, but who knows why it was doing that. *But you see
> overwhelming evidence of a complete lack of concern. *Predator animals
> don't try to kill their prey by the means that will cause the least
> suffering; they just kill however they can. *As I wrote above,
> non-predator animals don't make any effort to avoid causing collateral
> injury and death to animals as they go about their lives.
>

Humans clearly have a capacity for empathy. You observe this quite
frequently in many nonhuman animals as well. In the case of humans you
also have the capacity to form moral beliefs, which is probably
relevant here. I personally am currently fairly skeptical that there
are any moral truths, but I still have a motivation to try to do
something to reduce suffering, because I dislike the idea of suffering
taking place. Probably you cannot give me any better explanation of
why you chose to have a child or why you even want to keep yourself
alive. Anyway, I don't see what's so mysterious about it, really.

> Anyway, your answer was a complete evasion. *I asked what might be
> behind the amount of care that would lead a person, for example, to want
> to consume eggs from hens not in battery cages, and you just whiffed
> off; didn't answer at all.

I would think it is empathy with the plight of the hens kept in
battery cages and a desire to do something about it.

On Oct 18, 7:50*am, George Plimpton > wrote:
> On 10/16/2012 1:34 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 16, 10:28 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >> On 10/16/2012 7:54 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>> On Oct 16, 4:39 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >>>> On 10/16/2012 7:11 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Oct 16, 4:06 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >>>>>> On 10/16/2012 3:12 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On Oct 15, 9:49 pm, George Plimpton > wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 10/15/2012 12:15 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>> On Oct 15, 9:12 pm, Antonio Veranos > wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> [George Plimpton, ]
> >>>>>>>>>> [Mon, 15 Oct 2012 12:00:53 -0700]
>
> >>>>>>>>>> : > Well, it was definitely amusing to me,
> >>>>>>>>>> :
> >>>>>>>>>> : Because you're off your meds again.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> If you ever want to point out that all vegans are hypocrites whether
> >>>>>>>>>> they know it or not, point out that plankton are animals and see if they
> >>>>>>>>>> can figure out why this is relevant to veganism.
>
> >>>>>>>>> It would not be relevant to my motivations for being vegan, unless the
> >>>>>>>>> plankton were capable of suffering and I were in some way responsible
> >>>>>>>>> for them experiencing more suffering than would otherwise be the case.
>
> >>>>>>>> You are indeed responsible for animals of the field suffering more than
> >>>>>>>> they otherwise would if you were to produce all your own food.
>
> >>>>>>> True.
>
> >>>>>> So your hypocrisy is established.
>
> >>>>> No, it's not.
>
> >>>> Yes, it is. *You claim that your "veganism" is founded on some kind of
> >>>> moral principles, but clearly it's nothing but fashion.
>
> >>> I didn't make any such claim in this thread.
>
> >> Not in *this* thread, maybe, but you have in other threads, and you've
> >> never recanted it.
>
> > Yes I have. I just did, in this thread. I told you I currently am
> > fairly skeptical that there are any moral truths. So I've obviously
> > changed my position.
>
> Are you feeling a little more wobbly right now? *That's a serious
> question. *In the past, you've exuded absolute moral certitude regarding
> the allegedly principled underpinnings of "ar" (or whatever you prefer
> to call it; es macht nichts.)

What's your evidence for that? It was just a view I held, I was open
to the possibility that I might be mistaken.

> *Suddenly, you've done a complete
> volte-face (that's French - put your German aside for a moment) and
> begun spewing extreme doubt on your earlier position.

It's a very different position now, no doubt. It didn't happen
overnight; it's been a while since I expressed any moral views around
here.

It's a result of reading and reflecting on various writings in meta-
ethics.

> Yet, you're still
> "vegan", with all the moral rigidity that always entails. *So, you now
> claim not to believe in moral truths, yet you're still clinging to a
> behavior that is *absolutely* predicated on a belief in moral truths.

Why do you think that it is "absolutely" so predicated?

> To me, that indicates a *HUGE* potential for rapidly increasing wobbliness.

Perhaps you should entertain the possibility that your opinions about
such matters are not especially reliable or well-founded.

Michael Press wrote:

> > > > > Are Vegan girls allowed to swallow?

> > Why do you capitalize vegan? Just wondering.

> Initial word of a sentence.

Stop lying.

On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 12:00:40 -0700, Dutch > wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>> On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 13:53:55 -0700, Michael Press > wrote:
>>
>>> In article
>>> >,
>>> Rupert > wrote:
>>>
>>>> To know how well-represented such people are among vegans, you would
>>>> have to do some empirical homework, not just casual observation of
>>>> lists of famous vegans. I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good
>>>> mathematician.
>>>
>>> Dr Rupert McCallum
>>> University of Sydney
>>> Casual External Casuals?
>>>
>>> The page for Dr Rupert McCallum
>>> did not have a link to a list of
>>> publications.
>>
>> I've pointed out to the doc that though many livestock animals live in poor
>> conditions and have lives of negative value to the animals themselves, many
>> others who live in decent conditions appear to have lives which are of positive
>> value to them. Can you appreciate that distinction, or are you unable to
>> comprehend what it means even to yourself as Doctor Rupert claims to be?
>
>It's bullshit. hth

"I have said repeatedly that I believe that many livestock
animals have lives of positive value"- "Dutch"

"I realize that you can see that quality of life is a factor
when assessing the morality related to food animals." - "Dutch"

On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:29:18 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote:

>On Oct 16, 7:25*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 03:14:04 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Oct 15, 11:14 pm, Goo wrote:
>>
>> >> Rupert is off doing telemarketing in Germany at present.
>>
>> >I am doing a post-doc at the University of M nster.
>>
>> * * Here's an easy experiment for you, but please be honest about the results.
>> Ask some of the students if they can comprehend the distinction between lives
>> which are of positive value and lives which are of negative value for different
>> beings.
>
>It's a bit difficult to do that. I don't have any teaching duties and
>I don't speak German very well. Would you like me to ask some of my
>colleagues?

Yes please. And if they can come up with a better definition than mine I'd
like to learn about that too, but so far I believe mine covers it as well as it
can without causing excessive restrictions on the idea. No offense, but I
consider "good" to be an excessive restriction.

>> The distinction applies to humans as well as other animals, and wildlife
>> as well as domestic animals. See if any of the subjects are unable to relate to
>> the distinction in ANY group of animals or humans. If they say that they have no
>> problem with it in any group as I expect, then you might tell them that you
>> still can't appreciate it for any creatures at all and see what they say about
>> that. Their reaction to you telling them that is something I'm quite interested
>> in, as you should be too. The people I've discussed it with have never had any
>> problem with the concept and agree that someone who has a problem with it is
>> extremely unlikely to be able to obtain a PhD, and possibly even a driver's
>> license.
>
>I've never tried to get a driver's license.

And that doesn't slow you down?

On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:45:23 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On 10/16/2012 10:25 AM, dh@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 03:14:04 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 15, 11:14 pm, Goo wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Rupert is off doing telemarketing in Germany at present.
>>>
>>> I am doing a post-doc at the University of Münster.
>>
>> Here's an easy experiment for you, but please be honest about the results.
>> Ask some of the students if they can comprehend the distinction between lives
>> which are of positive value
>
>Define it <chortle>

You do it <chortle>

>You still can't. Too funny.

You can't do any better. Hilarious!

On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 09:45:42 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote:

>On okt. 17, 17:49, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" > wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote
>>
>> > : So the question is not as simple as you are making out.
>>
>> > Are Vegan girls allowed to swallow?
>>
>> <
>> <I would think that most of them would see it as a non-issue, but
>> <you'll have to ask them; I've never been with a vegan girl.
>>
>> So...do vegan boys swallow?
>>
>
>It would probably depend on whether they are homosexual.

Are you suggesting that both homosexual and non-homosexual vegan guys suck
cock? If so, are you suggesting that only the homos swallow and the non-homos
spit it out, or what???

On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:17:35 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote:

>On 16 Okt., 18:38, dh@. wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 01:06:36 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>> >On Oct 11, 10:55 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 00:42:06 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >On Oct 10, 9:58 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 01:24:24 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >On Oct 9, 8:06 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 09:37:18 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888 >
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >On Oct 8, 9:01 am, Rupert > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> On Oct 8, 5:45 pm, spamtrap1888 > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> > On Oct 8, 4:50 am, Rupert > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > > On Sep 21, 8:00 am, Goo wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > > > On 9/20/2012 3:04 PM, Just.Some.guy wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > > > > Check this out Its great
>> >> >> >> >> > > > >http://youtu.be/1LIyVBWaE_A
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > > > It's shit. It's unpalatable shit.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > > How would you be in a position to know?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > > > Why are "vegans" continually trying to make stuff look like and taste
>> >> >> >> >> > > > like meat? *Extremely* suspicious.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > > Why?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > Why do you think they call vegan meat Satan?
>>
>> >> >> >> >> I didn't realize they did call it that.
>>
>> >> >> >> >They changed the spelling to throw people off the track.:
>>
>> >> >> >> >http://www.vrg.org/recipes/vjseitan.htm
>>
>> >> >> >> It almost certainly involves more animal deaths than grass raised beef, and
>> >> >> >> in some cases grain fed beef. Not as bad as rice based products, but still worse
>> >> >> >> than grass raised beef if not grain fed as well.
>>
>> >> >> >How do you know?
>>
>> >> >> The only way it could not is if there are no wildlife in the area where the
>> >> >> grain is grown. Of course with rice it's not a question due to the flooding and
>> >> >> draining in addition to all the machinery and chemical deaths.
>>
>> >> >I don't really find your remarks convincing. We did an examination of
>> >> >one estimate for the expected collateral death rate associated with a
>> >> >serving of tofu in the past, and it turned out to be less than the
>> >> >corresponding estimate for grass-fed beef.
>>
>> >> I don't remember that, but feel that an estimate for number of deaths per
>> >> serving of grass raised beef should be much less than one.
>>
>> >Yes, we did agree on that point.
>>
>> * * The only way the average for tofu could be less than for beef would be if
>> there are no wildlife in the fields. That's not true with the cattle. Many
>> wildlife that would die in soybean fields thrive and do well in grazing areas.
>> It's another one of those things you don't like apparently, but it's true none
>> the less. Maybe you could learn to appreciate this one, and accept it? Or no?
>
>We've been through this before. We did an estimate both for the tofu
>and the beef.

I remember something about the beef and nothing about the tofu. It would
depend on how much wildlife is around with the soy. If there's a lot around,
then a lot would be killed. Only after all the wildlife is killed off in the
area would there no longer be lots of wildlife deaths due to growing soy. The
same is not true with grass raised beef, since cows eating grass kill few if any
wild animals. Sometimes predators are killed so they don't kill the cattle, but
doing so benefits wildlife and pets as well as the cattle so that aspect needs
to be considered as well as the predators' deaths. Especially in cases where the
predators had already been killed off and removed years ago, then were
re-introduced, and then had to be killed of and removed yet AGAIN! It doesn't
count the second time imo, since they shouldn't have been back to need killing
again.

On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:26:15 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote:

>On Oct 16, 7:24*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 01:14:09 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>> >On Oct 11, 10:57 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 01:17:44 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Oct 10, 9:56 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 07:33:24 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >On Oct 10, 4:28 pm, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" > wrote:
>> >> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote
>>
>> >> >> >> > >> Check this out Its great
>> >> >> >> > >>http://youtu.be/1LIyVBWaE_A
>>
>> >> >> >> > > It's shit. It's unpalatable shit.
>>
>> >> >> >> > > Why are "vegans" continually trying to make stuff look like and taste like meat? *Extremely* suspicious.
>>
>> >> >> >> > It's mostly for people who like meat but are trying to eat "healthy".
>>
>> >> >> >> > > No one likes "vegan" food - no one.
>>
>> >> >> >> > Some actually do, the problem is none of them are healthy.
>>
>> >> >> >> This isn't true. Just about everyone enjoys some food which is
>> >> >> >> suitable for vegans. And a significant majority of those people are
>> >> >> >> healthy. Furthermore a significant majority of those who consume an
>> >> >> >> exclusively vegan diet are quite healthy. The American Dietetic
>> >> >> >> Association has endorsed the position that appropriately-planned vegan
>> >> >> >> diets are nutritionally adequate at all stages of life, and carry many
>> >> >> >> significant health benefits.
>>
>> >> >> >> -----
>>
>> >> >> >> I was talking about vegans. While technically you and the ADD are
>> >> >> >> correct, it's like claiming unicorn farts are part of your diet. Show
>> >> >> >> me the vegan who can appropriate plan a diet at all stages of life,
>> >> >> >> and I'll show you a unicorn because people need meat and dairy.
>>
>> >> >> >I know plenty of vegans who have well-planned diets and are perfectly
>> >> >> >healthy, and at least two doctors have told me that it is a very good
>> >> >> >thing that I am vegan.
>>
>> >> >> Why would a doctor tell you it's good you're a vegan?
>>
>> >> >Presumably because they believed it to be the case.
>>
>> >> Being a vegan isn't only about your health.
>>
>> >Indeed. Obviously I never said it was.
>>
>> * * I won't just take your word that you've never said it, but I pointed the
>> fact out for anyone else who might be unfamiliar with it. For some reason one of
>> the dishonest things I've seen veg*ns do is try to persuade people to believe
>> that sometimes veganism is just for health reasons, though we know it's not.
>
>It is sometimes, just not usually.

Some types of vegetarianism yes, but not full veganism.

>> >> >> >It is just as easy to sensibly plan a vegan
>> >> >> >diet as an omnivorous one. Your opinions about vegans are just not
>> >> >> >especially well-informed; you don't really know what you're talking
>> >> >> >about.
>>
>> >> >> You don't contribute to any decent lives for livestock, but only to the
>> >> >> deaths of wildlife. Hopefully he knows that much at least.
>>
>> >> >I have taken steps to reduce my contribution to the amount of
>> >> >suffering that takes place. I don't see any good reason to think that
>> >> >the strategy I've chosen is a poor one.
>>
>> >> You could contribute to decent lives for livestock, and probably to less
>> >> suffering at the same time.
>>
>> >Do you think that animals in the wild have "decent lives"?
>>
>> * * Some do and some don't. In general I feel that domestic animals probably
>> have better lives than most wild animals. They also live longer imo. For example
>> though broiler chickens only live about 6-8 weeks it's still longer than most
>> ground nesting birds in general imo, probably most of them only successfully
>> raising a tiny percentage of chicks that hatch for more than a couple of weeks
>> at best. Even in larger animals I imagine the majority of offspring don't make
>> it very long, and the only time the majority do make it is when their non-human
>> predators have been pretty much if not entirely removed from the area.
>
>But it still might be conceivable that bringing about a large increase
>in the number of wild animals might be better than bringing about a
>small increase in the number of livestock.

Wildlife is almost always more welcome in grazing areas than in crop fields.
There's also a lot less danger of the animals being killed unintentionally in
grazing areas than in crop fields. Those are basic aspects we should keep in
mind to keep a realistic interpretation.

On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:24:20 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote:

>On 16 Okt., 19:04, dh@. wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 01:12:54 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Oct 11, 11:02 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 01:15:05 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Oct 10, 10:06 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 07:18:10 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >On Oct 10, 4:09 pm, "J.C. Watts" > wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Oct 10, 3:26 am, Rupert > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> > On Oct 9, 8:40 pm, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> > > "Goo wrote
>>
>> >> >> >> > > >> Check this out Its great
>> >> >> >> > > >>http://youtu.be/1LIyVBWaE_A
>>
>> >> >> >> > > > It's shit. It's unpalatable shit.
>>
>> >> >> >> > > > Why are "vegans" continually trying to make stuff look like and taste like meat? *Extremely* suspicious.
>>
>> >> >> >> > > It's mostly for people who like meat but are trying to eat "healthy".
>>
>> >> >> >> > > > No one likes "vegan" food - no one.
>>
>> >> >> >> > > Some actually do, the problem is none of them are healthy.
>>
>> >> >> >> > This isn't true. Just about everyone enjoys some food which is
>> >> >> >> > suitable for vegans. And a significant majority of those people are
>> >> >> >> > healthy. Furthermore a significant majority of those who consume an
>> >> >> >> > exclusively vegan diet are quite healthy. The American Dietetic
>> >> >> >> > Association has endorsed the position that appropriately-planned vegan
>> >> >> >> > diets are nutritionally adequate at all stages of life, and carry many
>> >> >> >> > significant health benefits.
>>
>> >> >> >> Yeah, but hamburgers taste so much better.
>>
>> >> >> >Well, if that's what you reckon then that's fine. I've been vegan for
>> >> >> >about 16 years and I definitely remember that I used to enjoy the
>> >> >> >taste of meat
>>
>> >> >> Then why didn't you begin contributing to decent lives for cattle by buying
>> >> >> grass raise beef and dairy products instead of not contributing to anything
>> >> >> other than the deaths of wildlife?
>>
>> >> >Let's be clear about what you think the upside would be. You think
>> >> >that I would be increasing the expected number of cows who come into
>> >> >existence and lead fairly happy lives, as well as reducing my
>> >> >contribution to collateral deaths caused by plant-based agriculture,
>> >> >and that would be a good thing? Is that the story?
>>
>> >> If you did it right, yes. If you didn't, no. If you bought a veal calf that
>> >> was soon to be slaughtered and made a deal with a farmer to raise it for you for
>> >> two years with no grain, then you had it humanely slaughtered and you ate that
>> >> instead of your soy stuff you would reduce your contribution plus benefit a
>> >> livestock animal in the biggest way.
>>
>> >So how much do you suppose that would cost?
>>
>> * * It doesn't matter what it would cost to do things like that in regards to
>> whether or not it would be "better" than not doing anything.
>
>Yes it does,

No it doesn't.

>because the money I spend on it might be spent on
>alleviating suffering in other ways.

We're talking about you doing the most you could do for a livestock animal
in comparison to you doing nothing as you are now. There are things you could do
to contribute to decent lives for livestock without spending a lot of money but
it would still be doing more than nothing like you're doing now. If you buy cage
free eggs and give them to someone who buys battery farmed eggs then you'll be
doing a couple of things instead of nothing, and if you can persuade some people
to buy cage free instead of battery farmed you'd be doing that much more than
nothing.

>> And from the
>> animals' position having that done would be priceless. We're talking about
>> doubling, tripling, or whatever the lives of the animals so from their position
>> the cost could never enter into it.
>>
>
>But the same might be said of the potential malaria victim in the
>Third World whose life I can save. So I have to make the decision
>based on something or other, and one of the relevant factors is how
>much each option costs, so that I can make the outcome better in the
>most economically efficient way possible.

We're discussing whether it might be ok for you to contribute to decent
lives for livestock or better to do nothing as you're doing now. What you do in
regards to OTHER animals doesn't enter into it, and sadly it's really a form of
dishonesty for you to try pretending otherwise. So far it still appears that you
do hate them btw, even the grass raised cattle you've acted like you could
appreciate. If you didn't there would be no reason for you to try changing the
subject to humans and away from livestock.

>> But.
>>
>> * * If you find the right dairy farmer you could probably work it out fairly
>> cheap, especially if you tell him you've been vegan for years but now you want
>> to try something that would actually benefit a livestock animal, instead of not
>> doing anything. Dairy farmers are opposed to the eliminationist position, of
>> course!!!, but some of them would be in favor of working with the situation. So
>> imo the cheapest way would be to find a farmer who would work with you, and who
>> will sell you a baby male dairy calf cheap, then charge you however much to
>> raise it to weening for you unless you can keep it at home and feed it twice a
>> day for a while until it can eat on its own. After the calf is weened you might
>> be able to board it on the farm where it was born, or maybe someplace else like
>> a large beef farm where the farmer would charge you so much a month to let it
>> hang out in the pastures. That's how people did stuff like that with some of the
>> farmers I knew in NC at least, so I imagine it goes on in a lot of farming
>> areas.
>>
>
>And Ball is speculating that you haven't chosen to do this yourself,
>would that be correct?

I don't intend to do it, but if my goal was to help livestock as much as I
could while reducing the amount of deaths I contribute to, and I was able to
afford it, that's how I'd do it. Otherwise I do buy cage free eggs, and
persuaded at least one other person to do so as well. Possibly more than one.
Don't forget also that I believe most cattle, grass raised AND grain fed, have
lives of positive value so there's no reason for me to do what I described to
you. I'm not claiming that I try to be as ethical as I can, but that doesn't
prevent me from discussing things that could be more ethical than doing nothing,
and the elimination objective, etc. Also, imo the Goober is the most unethical
person posting, as well as being the most dishonest. The dishonesty aspect is
only part of Goo's unethical position, but it is a large part.

>> >> You could do the same with the brothers of
>> >> commercial laying hens. You might even be able to get them for free and give
>> >> them a good life, then slaughter humanely... That's probably the best way you
>> >> could do it, but there are variations between that and doing nothing as you are
>> >> now.
>>
>> >> >> >and I also think that I enjoy my food now about as much
>> >> >> >as I used to before I became vegan. And I also believe that by being
>> >> >> >vegan I'm reducing my expected contribution to animal suffering.
>>
>> >> >> It depends how a person does it. I feel certain there are vegans who buy
>> >> >> rice milk when even regular cow milk almost certainly involves fewer deaths, and
>> >> >> grass raised dairy undoubtedly does.
>>
>> >> >Well, how did you come to that conclusion; do you have any kind of
>> >> >estimate available for how many premature deaths are required to
>> >> >produce one serving of rice milk?
>>
>> >> "ok, get your calculator out, we'll be numerate he
>>
>> >> it takes 7 passes with a 30' combine to cut an acre (208' x 208'). to
>> >> digest 7,000 frogs in that acre (7,000 1st cutting + 3,000 2nd cutting
>> >> for a total of 10,000 - hard shower), that means 1000 unlucky (slow, bad
>> >> jumpers, ...) frogs in the 6240 sq.ft. that constitutes *one* pass, or
>> >> one per 6+ sq.ft. or 5 per lineal foot of travel.
>>
>> >> i *did* say these numbers were conservative, didn't i?
>>
>> >> for the 'deluge' (i used 35,000 in the faq, divided 25k & 10k per
>> >> cutting), the numbers are ~3500 per pass; one for every 1 sq.ft.; and
>> >> ~17 per lineal foot of travel.
>>
>> >> [...]
>>
>> >Yeah, ok, but we still haven't finished; you need to say how much rice
>> >milk you get out of an acre of rice.
>>
>> * * You're the math guy...you tell me.
>
>It's an empirical question, not a maths question.

It undoubtedly depends on a number of things, none of which could cause rice
milk to involve fewer deaths than grass raised cow milk imo.

>> >> > The closest diderot comes to providing us with evidence we could
>> >> > possibly remeasure is his "500 yard long, foot-wide windrows of drowned
>> >> > grey and brown (rats)". You and I could layout rats in a matching
>> >> > configuration and do a head count, but there wouldn't be much point
>> >> > since diderot goes on to say that this mass drowning occurs "whenever
>> >> > the rice is flooded". Then he neglects to tell us how often he floods
>> >> > his fields.
>>
>> >I didn't write this. Who is this from?
>>
>> * * Whoever diderot was telling about it years ago.
>>
>> >> rice has to grow in water, so it is flooded in april, drained for
>> >> harvest in july/august, reflooded and drained in october. we flood in
>> >> mid-december for waterfowl, and drain in february. in february and
>> >> march, the land is disced and planed." - didderot
>>
>> >> >> >But you may find it unlikely that you would enjoy food and/or you may
>> >> >> >not find the consideration about animal suffering to be compelling.
>> >> >> >Which is of course your choice, I have no interest in trying to get
>> >> >> >you to change your mind.
>>
>> >> >> I told a guy about the difference between cage free and battery farmed eggs
>> >> >> and he started buying cage free. So he's doing something while veganism does
>> >> >> nothing.
>>
>> >> >This assertion strikes me as irrational. Moving from battery-farmed
>> >> >eggs to cage-free eggs is of course an improvement, and moving to no
>> >> >eggs at all is at least as much of an improvement.
>>
>> >> Not from my pov. From my pov not supporting the cage free method is nothing
>> >> more than not supporting the cage free method. I believe the cage method is
>> >> cruel but that most cage free hens have lives of positive value to them. If you
>> >> don't know what that means yet then you just don't know.
>>
>> >Well, it's at least as much of an improvement in terms of suffering
>> >reduction. You obviously think that encouraging people to bring
>> >animals into existence whose lives will contain a balance of pleasant
>> >experiences over aversive experiences should be part of the goal too.
>>
>> * * I try to think openly about things, which includes trying to think them
>> through. My belief is that eventually people will produce meat without need of
>> living animals. That means no more livestock experiencing their lives, but
>> instead meat grown in vats and no consciousness involved at all. From my pov
>> that will not be a better situation than livestock experiencing lives of
>> positive value, so I encourage people to appreciate them while they still are in
>> existence and will continue to be for a while.
>>
>> >> >> Vegans help livestock like dead people help livestock, while at the
>> >> >> same time still contributing to the deaths of wildlife that most people do.
>>
>> >> >The belief is that most animals living on modern farms have lives
>> >> >which contain a lot of suffering, and the motivation is to reduce the
>> >> >number of animals who are brought into existence in order to lead such
>> >> >lives. Veganism sounds like one pretty rational strategy for achieving
>> >> >this goal. But perhaps you think that there is something wrong with
>> >> >the goal?
>>
>> >> I believe a lot of livestock do have lives of positive value, and that
>> >> almost all of them could if people took the interest. Amusingly before I started
>> >> posting here I imagined that sort of thing and what could be done to make their
>> >> lives better was the sort of things people discussed, and WHICH animals have
>> >> lives of positive value and which do not. LOL...you people can't get anywhere
>> >> near stuff like that.
>>
>> >So how about animals in the wild? Are their lives "of positive value"?
>>
>> * * Some are and some are not, the same as with livestock and humans and
>> everything else. The value can change for wildlife just as it can for livestock
>> also. Wild animals aren't necessarily really free to do whatever they want
>> either, since they're restricted by the territories of other animals as well as
>> other types of natural restrictions and the influence of humans. I feel that in
>> general the lives of domestic animals are better than those of wildlife, since
>> they usually don't live in fear of predators, or have to worry about getting
>> food, or water, or being driven off of their own territory, etc...
>
>But if some wild animals have lives that are "of positive value", then
>it's conceivable that by being a vegan I could be reducing land use
>and thereby creating ecological niches for wild animals to fill up,
>and this might result in a greater increase in the balance of pleasant
>experiences over aversive ones than would be the case if I ate beef
>instead, even granting that livestock tend to have better lives than
>wild animals (because a larger number of wild animals might be
>involved and you agreed that some of them have lives "of positive
>value").
>
>So the question is not as simple as you are making out.

You're fighting very hard to think as narrowly as possible, which is to
never appreciate any situations where it's better to contribute to lives of
positive value for livestock than not to. If you learn to appreciate one such
situation then you will be thinking in the second most narrow way possible, and
if you learn to appreciate two then you'll be thinking in the third most..., and
three would be fourth most....but so far you are still thinking in the most
narrow way possible. It's also a very poor, stifling, weak, etc.... approach in
general. In fact the poorest, most stifling, weakest, etc... What could be less?
It's why I point out that you're on the bottom. Not just to be insulting, but
because you are and I still have some hope that you might be able to rise up at
least a little bit at some point during your life and if so I'm curious what the
result would be so I'd like to see it if it ever happens. Good luck if you ever
try. Try to ignore Goo's attempts to drive you back down if you ever do try
moving on a little.

On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 14:00:36 -0700, Goo wrote:

>On 10/17/2012 4:14 AM, Bryan wrote:
>> On Oct 17, 5:51 am, Your smrat ® > wrote:
>>> On Oct 17, 5:03 am, Rupert > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Oct 17, 6:47 am, Antonio Veranos > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> [Rupert, ]
>>>>> [Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:24:20 -0700 (PDT)]
>>>
>>>>> : So the question is not as simple as you are making out.
>>>
>>>>> Are Vegan girls allowed to swallow?
>>>
>>>> I would think that most of them would see it as a non-issue, but
>>>> you'll have to ask them; I've never been with a vegan girl.
>>>
>>> If they could swallow they wouldn't need those feeding tubes. What?
>>> Vegans? Nevermind then.
>>
>> Why do you capitalize vegan? Just wondering.
>
>I think you meant to put it in "proper case", i.e., treat it as a proper
>noun requiring capitalization of the first letter. I don't consider it
>to be a proper noun, but interestingly, the first historical uses of the
>word generally had it in proper case, as it was part of the name of an
>organization: The Vegan Society.

What has changed about it, Goo?

>I almost always put it in normal case but inside quotes of derision,
>i.e. "vegan", to show my complete contempt and disgust for the word.
>It's an ugly word describing an ugly, sanctimonious and morally bankrupt
>set of beliefs.

Yet you agree with "ethical" veg*ns about a number of significant things
Goober, like:
__________________________________________________ _______
"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo

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

"Shut the **** up about "consideration" for "their lives"" - Goo

"There is no "consideration" to be given." - Goo

""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - Goo

"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

"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo

"It is not "good" for the animals that they exist, no matter
how pleasant the condition of their existence." - Goo

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

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

"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get
to experience life" deserves no consideration when
asking whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Goo

"It is completely UNIMPORTANT, morally, that "billions
of animals" at any point "get to experience life."
ZERO importance to it." - Goo

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

"one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
ethically superior choice." - 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

""appreciation for decent AW" doesn't mean anything." - Goo

"EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one
might provide: they STILL might not be as good as the
"pre-existence" state was for the animals" - Goo

"Coming into existence is not a benefit to them: it does
not make them better off than before" - Goo

"Life -per se- NEVER is a "benefit" to animals or even
to humans . . . "getting to experience life" is not
a benefit." - Goo

"Humans could change it. They could change it by ending it." - Goo

"There is no "selfishness" involved in wanting farm animals not to
exist as a step towards creating a more just world." - Goo
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯ ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Note to anyone not familiar with Goo: Sometimes Goo says that such quotes of his
are all true statements and other times he lies that his quotes are not his
quotes, but the consistency is that he can *never* explain how he wants people
to think he disagrees with himself about any of them meaning that Goo agrees
with himself about every bit of it.

Note to Goo: As always Goob if you think you finally figured out how you think
you disagree with yourself about any of your quotes, then try saying which
one(s) and how you think you disagree. If/When you can't Goo it will remain
clear that you do agree with yourself about all your above quotes so you have no
reason to object to (ie: bitch about) them being presented.

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 14:55:41 -0400, George M. Middius >
wrote:

>Dutch wrote:
>
>> I have been curious about the nature of randomness and it's
>> appearance to the human mind for a long time.
>
>That "sentence" is an exemplar of randomness.

His brain is also. When he began posting he confessed to being in favor of
the elimination of domestic animals and to being some sort of veg*n. Then all of
a sudden he started claiming to have flopped over and changed his pov entirely,
being suddenly in favor of decent AW over elimination and claiming to eat meat.
His randomness still continues since though he claims to now favor decent AW
over elimination he has maniacally opposed the suggestion that people take the
animals' lives into consideration as well as their deaths, for over a decade now
which is something ONLY eliminationists have good reason to do.

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:53:02 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote:

>On Oct 10, 5:39*pm, CheeseHusker dos > wrote:
>
>> At least when I eat cheese, I'm not killing the cow.
>>
>
>Not directly, no, but you are giving financial incentives to an
>industry which inflicts considerable suffering and premature death on
>a large number of cows.

There is no way the dairy industry can cause "premature death" to beings who
would have no life at all if it weren't for the dairy industry. You vegans
contribute to the early deaths of wildlife and ONLY to that, but people who
contribute to the dairy industry contribute to every bit of life the cattle
experience, good and bad.

>Dairy cows are killed when they outlive their
>usefulness,

That's still not premature since the alternative is never living at all.

>and their calves are used in the veal industry

The male calves are used in the veal industry. I'm sure some females are for
some reasons sometimes, but it's mainly what they do to get the most out of
basically useless male dairy cattle. As long as they're treated decently there
should be nothing wrong with them experiencing life as a veal calf, afaWk.

On 10/18/2012 11:14 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 12:00:40 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>
>> dh@. wrote:
>>> On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 13:53:55 -0700, Michael Press > wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article
>>>> >,
>>>> Rupert > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> To know how well-represented such people are among vegans, you would
>>>>> have to do some empirical homework, not just casual observation of
>>>>> lists of famous vegans. I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good
>>>>> mathematician.
>>>>
>>>> Dr Rupert McCallum
>>>> University of Sydney
>>>> Casual External Casuals?
>>>>
>>>> The page for Dr Rupert McCallum
>>>> did not have a link to a list of
>>>> publications.
>>>
>>> I've pointed out to the doc that though many livestock animals live in poor
>>> conditions and have lives of negative value to the animals themselves, many
>>> others who live in decent conditions appear to have lives which are of positive
>>> value to them. Can you appreciate that distinction, or are you unable to
>>> comprehend what it means even to yourself as Doctor Rupert claims to be?
>>
>> It's bullshit. hth
>
> [bullshit snipped]

It's still bullshit, ****wit.

On 10/18/2012 11:14 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:29:18 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 16, 7:25 pm, dh@. wrote:
>>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 03:14:04 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Oct 15, 11:14 pm, Goo wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Rupert is off doing telemarketing in Germany at present.
>>>
>>>> I am doing a post-doc at the University of M nster.
>>>
>>> Here's an easy experiment for you, but please be honest about the results.
>>> Ask some of the students if they can comprehend the distinction between lives
>>> which are of positive value and lives which are of negative value for different
>>> beings.
>>
>> It's a bit difficult to do that. I don't have any teaching duties and
>> I don't speak German very well. Would you like me to ask some of my
>> colleagues?
>
> Yes please. And if they can come up with a better definition than mine

You don't have one.

On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 09:42:07 -0700 (PDT), CheeseHusker dos >
wrote:

>On Oct 10, 10:53*am, Rupert > wrote:
>> On Oct 10, 5:39*pm, CheeseHusker dos > wrote:
>>
>> > At least when I eat cheese, I'm not killing the cow.
>>
>> Not directly, no, but you are giving financial incentives to an
>> industry which inflicts considerable suffering and premature death on
>> a large number of cows.
>
>Wow - and now you toss organic farmers under the bus too. Nice.

He has acted like he can appreciate "good" lives for some grass raised
cattle, but if he honestly can appreciate any of them in any way at all he's
very poor at it and appears to be horribly inconsistent as well...apparently
being able to sometimes and unable to at other times. Of course millions of
dairy cattle experience decent lives of positive value only because they're
raised to produce dairy products, but people like Rupert find it between very
difficult and impossible to appreciate facts like that. Most people I've
discussed it with find it to be fairly easy but for eliminationists like Rupert
it's nearly impossible. The kids in my sixth grade class were better at it while
they were in sixth grade than Rupert is now, or probably ever will be. I try to
encourage him but he just can't budge.

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 01:06:38 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote:

>My assertion
>that the dairy industry inflicts considerable suffering and premature
>death on a large number of cows was factual

No it's not since as I pointed out you can't inflict premature death when
the only option is no life at all. Since we know you have no grounds to complain
about that aspect it makes it seem likely that the suffering you're referring to
may not be enough to make their lives of negative value to them either. So, what
sort of suffering are you referring to?

On 10/18/2012 11:14 AM, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:45:23 -0700, Goo wrote:
>
>> On 10/16/2012 10:25 AM, dh@. wrote:
>>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 03:14:04 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Oct 15, 11:14 pm, Goo wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Rupert is off doing telemarketing in Germany at present.
>>>>
>>>> I am doing a post-doc at the University of Münster.
>>>
>>> Here's an easy experiment for you, but please be honest about the results.
>>> Ask some of the students if they can comprehend the distinction between lives
>>> which are of positive value
>>
>> Define it <chortle>
>
> You do it

No, *YOU* do it, ****wit. It's your bullshit term. Define it
<chortle>. You can't, of course.


>> You still can't. Too funny.
>
> You can't do any better.

It's not my term; I don't have any burden to define it.

It's bullshit, because it's part of your dishonest, unethical attempt at
a smokescreen. We already know, ****wit David Harrison, that all you're
really interested in is *existence* for livestock animals, so you can
consume them. You don't care about "decent lives" in the least. You've
told us:

It's not out of consideration for porcupines
that we don't raise them for food. It's because
they would be a pain in the ass to raise. We
don't raise cattle out of consideration for them
either, but because they're fairly easy to
raise.
Goo/****wit David Harrison - Sep 26, 2005

I am not an extremist about it, and if I thought
that all of the animals I eat had terrible
lives, I would still eat meat. That is not
because I don't care about them at all, but I
would just ignore their suffering.
Goo/****wit David Harrison - Nov 29, 1999

I would eat animals even if I thought that it was
cruel to them, and even if they gained nothing from
the deal. Is that what you want me to say? It is true.
But that doesn't mean that I can't still like the animals
also....
Goo/****wit David Harrison - Sept 23, 1999

I don't try to eat ethically, because I don't really care enough
to make the effort.
Goo/****wit David Harrison - July 31, 2003


You want animals to exist so they'll have "decent lives of possitive
[sic] value", ****wit - you just want them to exist so you can consume
them. This is perfectly clear. All your bullshit about "decent lives"
is dishonest.

In article >,
George M. Middius > wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
>
> > > > > > Are Vegan girls allowed to swallow?
>
> > > Why do you capitalize vegan? Just wondering.
>
> > Initial word of a sentence.
>
> Stop lying.

In article >,
Michael Press > wrote:

> In article
> >,
> Bryan > wrote:
>
> > On Oct 17, 5:51Â*am, Your smrat ® > wrote:
> > > On Oct 17, 5:03Â*am, Rupert > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Oct 17, 6:47Â*am, Antonio Veranos > wrote:
> > >
> > > > > [Rupert, ]
> > > > > [Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:24:20 -0700 (PDT)]
> > >
> > > > > : So the question is not as simple as you are making out.
> > >
> > > > > Are Vegan girls allowed to swallow?
> > >
> > > > I would think that most of them would see it as a non-issue, but
> > > > you'll have to ask them; I've never been with a vegan girl.
> > >
> > > If they could swallow they wouldn't need those feeding tubes. What?
> > > Vegans? Nevermind then.
> >
> > Why do you capitalize vegan? Just wondering.
>
> Initial word of a sentence.

--
Michael Press

dh@. wrote:
> Are you suggesting that both homosexual and non-homosexual vegan guys suck
> cock?

Don't pretend you don't remember what Ron Hamilton has taught you.

****wit David Harrison - a convicted felon - lied:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 14:00:36 -0700, Goo wrote:
>
>> On 10/17/2012 4:14 AM, Bryan wrote:
>>> On Oct 17, 5:51 am, Your smrat ® > wrote:
>>>> On Oct 17, 5:03 am, Rupert > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 17, 6:47 am, Antonio Veranos > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> [Rupert, ]
>>>>>> [Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:24:20 -0700 (PDT)]
>>>>
>>>>>> : So the question is not as simple as you are making out.
>>>>
>>>>>> Are Vegan girls allowed to swallow?
>>>>
>>>>> I would think that most of them would see it as a non-issue, but
>>>>> you'll have to ask them; I've never been with a vegan girl.
>>>>
>>>> If they could swallow they wouldn't need those feeding tubes. What?
>>>> Vegans? Nevermind then.
>>>
>>> Why do you capitalize vegan? Just wondering.
>>
>> I think you meant to put it in "proper case", i.e., treat it as a proper
>> noun requiring capitalization of the first letter. I don't consider it
>> to be a proper noun, but interestingly, the first historical uses of the
>> word generally had it in proper case, as it was part of the name of an
>> organization: The Vegan Society.
>
> What has changed about it

People began using it as a noun, ****wit. Here's a nice Wikipedia page
for you to learn about nouns:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noun


>> I almost always put it in normal case but inside quotes of derision,
>> i.e. "vegan", to show my complete contempt and disgust for the word.
>> It's an ugly word describing an ugly, sanctimonious and morally bankrupt
>> set of beliefs.
>
> Yet you agree with "ethical" veg*ns

No, Goo.

****wit David Harrison - Goo, a convicted felon - lied:

> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 01:06:38 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
>> My assertion
>> that the dairy industry inflicts considerable suffering and premature
>> death on a large number of cows was factual
>
> No it's not since as I pointed out you can't inflict premature death when
> the only option is no life at all.

That's not the only alternative, Goo.

On 10/18/2012 11:39 AM, Dutch wrote:
> dh@. wrote:
>> Are you suggesting that both homosexual and non-homosexual vegan
>> guys suck
>> cock?
>
> Don't pretend you don't remember what Ron Hamilton has taught you.

HA HA HA HA HA! Excellent!

dh@. wrote:
> The male calves are used in the veal industry. I'm sure some females are for
> some reasons sometimes, but it's mainly what they do to get the most out of
> basically useless male dairy cattle. As long as they're treated decently there
> should be nothing wrong with them experiencing life as a veal calf, afaWk.

I agree, there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. But their lives are
NOT a *gift* to them in the sense that humans get to consider themselves
to be their benefactors. That argument, called "The Logic of the Larder"
is circular and illegitimate.

On 10/18/2012 12:22 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
> On 10/18/2012 11:14 AM, dh@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 12:00:40 -0700, Dutch > wrote:
>>
>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 13:53:55 -0700, Michael Press
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article
>>>>> >,
>>>>> Rupert > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> To know how well-represented such people are among vegans, you would
>>>>>> have to do some empirical homework, not just casual observation of
>>>>>> lists of famous vegans. I'm an example of a vegan who is quite a good
>>>>>> mathematician.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dr Rupert McCallum
>>>>> University of Sydney
>>>>> Casual External Casuals?
>>>>>
>>>>> The page for Dr Rupert McCallum
>>>>> did not have a link to a list of
>>>>> publications.
>>>>
>>>> I've pointed out to the doc that though many livestock animals
>>>> live in poor
>>>> conditions and have lives of negative value to the animals
>>>> themselves, many
>>>> others who live in decent conditions appear to have lives which are
>>>> of positive
>>>> value to them. Can you appreciate that distinction, or are you
>>>> unable to
>>>> comprehend what it means even to yourself as Doctor Rupert claims to
>>>> be?
>>>
>>> It's bullshit. hth
>>
>> [bullshit snipped]
>
> It's still bullshit, ****wit.
>

Your response is horseshit. I did not call a lie detector. Go **** off
back to your cave.

//

--
Did I kill?
Some of your people, Mirneaux?
Did I kill? Did I kill?
I can't remember.

On Oct 18, 8:19*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:17:35 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 16 Okt., 18:38, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 01:06:36 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> wrote:
> >> >On Oct 11, 10:55 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 00:42:06 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >On Oct 10, 9:58 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 01:24:24 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >On Oct 9, 8:06 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Mon, 8 Oct 2012 09:37:18 -0700 (PDT), spamtrap1888 >
> >> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >On Oct 8, 9:01 am, Rupert > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> On Oct 8, 5:45 pm, spamtrap1888 > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> >> > On Oct 8, 4:50 am, Rupert > wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> > > On Sep 21, 8:00 am, Goo wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> > > > On 9/20/2012 3:04 PM, Just.Some.guy wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > Check this out Its great
> >> >> >> >> >> > > > >http://youtu.be/1LIyVBWaE_A
>
> >> >> >> >> >> > > > It's shit. It's unpalatable shit.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> > > How would you be in a position to know?
>
> >> >> >> >> >> > > > Why are "vegans" continually trying to make stuff look like and taste
> >> >> >> >> >> > > > like meat? *Extremely* suspicious.
>
> >> >> >> >> >> > > Why?
>
> >> >> >> >> >> > Why do you think they call vegan meat Satan?
>
> >> >> >> >> >> I didn't realize they did call it that.
>
> >> >> >> >> >They changed the spelling to throw people off the track.:
>
> >> >> >> >> >http://www.vrg.org/recipes/vjseitan.htm
>
> >> >> >> >> It almost certainly involves more animal deaths than grass raised beef, and
> >> >> >> >> in some cases grain fed beef. Not as bad as rice based products, but still worse
> >> >> >> >> than grass raised beef if not grain fed as well.
>
> >> >> >> >How do you know?
>
> >> >> >> The only way it could not is if there are no wildlife in the area where the
> >> >> >> grain is grown. Of course with rice it's not a question due to the flooding and
> >> >> >> draining in addition to all the machinery and chemical deaths.
>
> >> >> >I don't really find your remarks convincing. We did an examination of
> >> >> >one estimate for the expected collateral death rate associated with a
> >> >> >serving of tofu in the past, and it turned out to be less than the
> >> >> >corresponding estimate for grass-fed beef.
>
> >> >> I don't remember that, but feel that an estimate for number of deaths per
> >> >> serving of grass raised beef should be much less than one.
>
> >> >Yes, we did agree on that point.
>
> >> � � The only way the average for tofu could be less than for beef would be if
> >> there are no wildlife in the fields. That's not true with the cattle. Many
> >> wildlife that would die in soybean fields thrive and do well in grazing areas.
> >> It's another one of those things you don't like apparently, but it's true none
> >> the less. Maybe you could learn to appreciate this one, and accept it? Or no?
>
> >We've been through this before. We did an estimate both for the tofu
> >and the beef.
>
> * * I remember something about the beef and nothing about the tofu. It would
> depend on how much wildlife is around with the soy.

We did an estimate for the collateral death toll associated with one
serving of tofu, based on Matheny's estimates for the death toll
associated with one acre of corn and soy.

On Oct 18, 8:23*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 01:06:38 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
> >My assertion
> >that the dairy industry inflicts considerable suffering and premature
> >death on a large number of cows was factual
>
> * * No it's not since as I pointed out you can't inflict premature death when
> the only option is no life at all.

Of course you can, you stupid fool.

> Since we know you have no grounds to complain
> about that aspect it makes it seem likely that the suffering you're referring to
> may not be enough to make their lives of negative value to them either. So, what
> sort of suffering are you referring to?

http://www.ciwf.org.uk/farm_animals/...re_issues.aspx

On Oct 18, 8:22*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:53:02 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
> >On Oct 10, 5:39*pm, CheeseHusker dos > wrote:
>
> >> At least when I eat cheese, I'm not killing the cow.
>
> >Not directly, no, but you are giving financial incentives to an
> >industry which inflicts considerable suffering and premature death on
> >a large number of cows.
>
> * * There is no way the dairy industry can cause "premature death" to beings who
> would have no life at all if it weren't for the dairy industry. You vegans
> contribute to the early deaths of wildlife and ONLY to that, but people who
> contribute to the dairy industry contribute to every bit of life the cattle
> experience, good and bad.
>
> >Dairy cows are killed when they outlive their
> >usefulness,
>
> * * That's still not premature since the alternative is never living at all.
>
> >and their calves are used in the veal industry
>
> * * The male calves are used in the veal industry. I'm sure some females are for
> some reasons sometimes, but it's mainly what they do to get the most out of
> basically useless male dairy cattle. As long as they're treated decently there
> should be nothing wrong with them experiencing life as a veal calf, afaWk..

http://www.ciwf.org.uk/farm_animals/...re_issues.aspx

On Oct 18, 8:19*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 09:45:42 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
> >On okt. 17, 17:49, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" > wrote:
> >> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> >> > : So the question is not as simple as you are making out.
>
> >> > Are Vegan girls allowed to swallow?
>
> >> <
> >> <I would think that most of them would see it as a non-issue, but
> >> <you'll have to ask them; I've never been with a vegan girl.
>
> >> So...do vegan boys swallow?
>
> >It would probably depend on whether they are homosexual.
>
> * * Are you suggesting that both homosexual and non-homosexual vegan guys suck
> cock?

No, obviously what I wrote in no way suggests that.

> If so, are you suggesting that only the homos swallow and the non-homos
> spit it out, or what???

On Oct 18, 8:20*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:24:20 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
> >On 16 Okt., 19:04, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 01:12:54 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Oct 11, 11:02 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 01:15:05 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >On Oct 10, 10:06 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 07:18:10 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >On Oct 10, 4:09 pm, "J.C. Watts" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> On Oct 10, 3:26 am, Rupert > wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> > On Oct 9, 8:40 pm, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" > wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >> > > "Goo wrote
>
> >> >> >> >> > > >> Check this out Its great
> >> >> >> >> > > >>http://youtu.be/1LIyVBWaE_A
>
> >> >> >> >> > > > It's shit. It's unpalatable shit.
>
> >> >> >> >> > > > Why are "vegans" continually trying to make stuff look like and taste like meat? *Extremely* suspicious.
>
> >> >> >> >> > > It's mostly for people who like meat but are trying to eat "healthy".
>
> >> >> >> >> > > > No one likes "vegan" food - no one.
>
> >> >> >> >> > > Some actually do, the problem is none of them are healthy..
>
> >> >> >> >> > This isn't true. Just about everyone enjoys some food which is
> >> >> >> >> > suitable for vegans. And a significant majority of those people are
> >> >> >> >> > healthy. Furthermore a significant majority of those who consume an
> >> >> >> >> > exclusively vegan diet are quite healthy. The American Dietetic
> >> >> >> >> > Association has endorsed the position that appropriately-planned vegan
> >> >> >> >> > diets are nutritionally adequate at all stages of life, and carry many
> >> >> >> >> > significant health benefits.
>
> >> >> >> >> Yeah, but hamburgers taste so much better.
>
> >> >> >> >Well, if that's what you reckon then that's fine. I've been vegan for
> >> >> >> >about 16 years and I definitely remember that I used to enjoy the
> >> >> >> >taste of meat
>
> >> >> >> Then why didn't you begin contributing to decent lives for cattle by buying
> >> >> >> grass raise beef and dairy products instead of not contributing to anything
> >> >> >> other than the deaths of wildlife?
>
> >> >> >Let's be clear about what you think the upside would be. You think
> >> >> >that I would be increasing the expected number of cows who come into
> >> >> >existence and lead fairly happy lives, as well as reducing my
> >> >> >contribution to collateral deaths caused by plant-based agriculture,
> >> >> >and that would be a good thing? Is that the story?
>
> >> >> If you did it right, yes. If you didn't, no. If you bought a veal calf that
> >> >> was soon to be slaughtered and made a deal with a farmer to raise it for you for
> >> >> two years with no grain, then you had it humanely slaughtered and you ate that
> >> >> instead of your soy stuff you would reduce your contribution plus benefit a
> >> >> livestock animal in the biggest way.
>
> >> >So how much do you suppose that would cost?
>
> >> � � It doesn't matter what it would cost to do things like that in regards to
> >> whether or not it would be "better" than not doing anything.
>
> >Yes it does,
>
> * * No it doesn't.
>
> >because the money I spend on it might be spent on
> >alleviating suffering in other ways.
>
> * * We're talking about you doing the most you could do for a livestock animal
> in comparison to you doing nothing as you are now.

I'm talking about doing what I can to make the outcome better.

> There are things you could do
> to contribute to decent lives for livestock without spending a lot of money but
> it would still be doing more than nothing like you're doing now. If you buy cage
> free eggs and give them to someone who buys battery farmed eggs then you'll be
> doing a couple of things instead of nothing, and if you can persuade some people
> to buy cage free instead of battery farmed you'd be doing that much more than
> nothing.
>

Or I could donate to Vegan Outreach, as I sometimes do, which tries to
persuade people to give up animal products or at least cut down on
them. This will no doubt have the result that some people move from
battery cage eggs to free-range eggs.

> >> And from the
> >> animals' position having that done would be priceless. We're talking about
> >> doubling, tripling, or whatever the lives of the animals so from their position
> >> the cost could never enter into it.
>
> >But the same might be said of the potential malaria victim in the
> >Third World whose life I can save. So I have to make the decision
> >based on something or other, and one of the relevant factors is how
> >much each option costs, so that I can make the outcome better in the
> >most economically efficient way possible.
>
> * * We're discussing whether it might be ok for you to contribute to decent
> lives for livestock or better to do nothing as you're doing now. What you do in
> regards to OTHER animals doesn't enter into it, and sadly it's really a form of
> dishonesty for you to try pretending otherwise.

And why would that be, exactly?

> So far it still appears that you
> do hate them btw, even the grass raised cattle you've acted like you could
> appreciate. If you didn't there would be no reason for you to try changing the
> subject to humans and away from livestock.
>

You're an idiot.

> >> But.
>
> >> � � If you find the right dairy farmer you could probably work it out fairly
> >> cheap, especially if you tell him you've been vegan for years but now you want
> >> to try something that would actually benefit a livestock animal, instead of not
> >> doing anything. Dairy farmers are opposed to the eliminationist position, of
> >> course!!!, but some of them would be in favor of working with the situation. So
> >> imo the cheapest way would be to find a farmer who would work with you, and who
> >> will sell you a baby male dairy calf cheap, then charge you however much to
> >> raise it to weening for you unless you can keep it at home and feed it twice a
> >> day for a while until it can eat on its own. After the calf is weened you might
> >> be able to board it on the farm where it was born, or maybe someplace else like
> >> a large beef farm where the farmer would charge you so much a month to let it
> >> hang out in the pastures. That's how people did stuff like that with some of the
> >> farmers I knew in NC at least, so I imagine it goes on in a lot of farming
> >> areas.
>
> >And Ball is speculating that you haven't chosen to do this yourself,
> >would that be correct?
>
> * * I don't intend to do it, but if my goal was to help livestock as much as I
> could while reducing the amount of deaths I contribute to, and I was able to
> afford it, that's how I'd do it. Otherwise I do buy cage free eggs, and
> persuaded at least one other person to do so as well. Possibly more than one.
> Don't forget also that I believe most cattle, grass raised AND grain fed, have
> lives of positive value so there's no reason for me to do what I described to
> you. I'm not claiming that I try to be as ethical as I can, but that doesn't
> prevent me from discussing things that could be more ethical than doing nothing,
> and the elimination objective, etc. Also, imo the Goober is the most unethical
> person posting, as well as being the most dishonest. The dishonesty aspect is
> only part of Goo's unethical position, but it is a large part.
>

Okay, so I have told you that I am interested in trying to make the
outcome as good as possible. So the considerations that I bring up,
such as whether the money I spent on buying a veal calf could be put
to some better use, are relevant, and it's obviously totally
irrational for you to suggest that my bringing it up must in some way
be motivated by hatred of the calf.

> >> >> You could do the same with the brothers of
> >> >> commercial laying hens. You might even be able to get them for free and give
> >> >> them a good life, then slaughter humanely... That's probably the best way you
> >> >> could do it, but there are variations between that and doing nothing as you are
> >> >> now.
>
> >> >> >> >and I also think that I enjoy my food now about as much
> >> >> >> >as I used to before I became vegan. And I also believe that by being
> >> >> >> >vegan I'm reducing my expected contribution to animal suffering..
>
> >> >> >> It depends how a person does it. I feel certain there are vegans who buy
> >> >> >> rice milk when even regular cow milk almost certainly involves fewer deaths, and
> >> >> >> grass raised dairy undoubtedly does.
>
> >> >> >Well, how did you come to that conclusion; do you have any kind of
> >> >> >estimate available for how many premature deaths are required to
> >> >> >produce one serving of rice milk?
>
> >> >> "ok, get your calculator out, we'll be numerate he
>
> >> >> it takes 7 passes with a 30' combine to cut an acre (208' x 208'). to
> >> >> digest 7,000 frogs in that acre (7,000 1st cutting + 3,000 2nd cutting
> >> >> for a total of 10,000 - hard shower), that means 1000 unlucky (slow, bad
> >> >> jumpers, ...) frogs in the 6240 sq.ft. that constitutes *one* pass, or
> >> >> one per 6+ sq.ft. or 5 per lineal foot of travel.
>
> >> >> i *did* say these numbers were conservative, didn't i?
>
> >> >> for the 'deluge' (i used 35,000 in the faq, divided 25k & 10k per
> >> >> cutting), the numbers are ~3500 per pass; one for every 1 sq.ft.; and
> >> >> ~17 per lineal foot of travel.
>
> >> >> [...]
>
> >> >Yeah, ok, but we still haven't finished; you need to say how much rice
> >> >milk you get out of an acre of rice.
>
> >> � � You're the math guy...you tell me.
>
> >It's an empirical question, not a maths question.
>
> * * It undoubtedly depends on a number of things, none of which could cause rice
> milk to involve fewer deaths than grass raised cow milk imo.
>

How would you know that?

> >> >> > The closest diderot comes to providing us with evidence we could
> >> >> > possibly remeasure is his "500 yard long, foot-wide windrows of drowned
> >> >> > grey and brown (rats)". You and I could layout rats in a matching
> >> >> > configuration and do a head count, but there wouldn't be much point
> >> >> > since diderot goes on to say that this mass drowning occurs "whenever
> >> >> > the rice is flooded". Then he neglects to tell us how often he floods
> >> >> > his fields.
>
> >> >I didn't write this. Who is this from?
>
> >> � � Whoever diderot was telling about it years ago.
>
> >> >> rice has to grow in water, so it is flooded in april, drained for
> >> >> harvest in july/august, reflooded and drained in october. we flood in
> >> >> mid-december for waterfowl, and drain in february. in february and
> >> >> march, the land is disced and planed." - didderot
>
> >> >> >> >But you may find it unlikely that you would enjoy food and/or you may
> >> >> >> >not find the consideration about animal suffering to be compelling.
> >> >> >> >Which is of course your choice, I have no interest in trying to get
> >> >> >> >you to change your mind.
>
> >> >> >> I told a guy about the difference between cage free and battery farmed eggs
> >> >> >> and he started buying cage free. So he's doing something while veganism does
> >> >> >> nothing.
>
> >> >> >This assertion strikes me as irrational. Moving from battery-farmed
> >> >> >eggs to cage-free eggs is of course an improvement, and moving to no
> >> >> >eggs at all is at least as much of an improvement.
>
> >> >> Not from my pov. From my pov not supporting the cage free method is nothing
> >> >> more than not supporting the cage free method. I believe the cage method is
> >> >> cruel but that most cage free hens have lives of positive value to them. If you
> >> >> don't know what that means yet then you just don't know.
>
> >> >Well, it's at least as much of an improvement in terms of suffering
> >> >reduction. You obviously think that encouraging people to bring
> >> >animals into existence whose lives will contain a balance of pleasant
> >> >experiences over aversive experiences should be part of the goal too.
>
> >> � � I try to think openly about things, which includes trying to think them
> >> through. My belief is that eventually people will produce meat without need of
> >> living animals. That means no more livestock experiencing their lives, but
> >> instead meat grown in vats and no consciousness involved at all. From my pov
> >> that will not be a better situation than livestock experiencing lives of
> >> positive value, so I encourage people to appreciate them while they still are in
> >> existence and will continue to be for a while.
>
> >> >> >> Vegans help livestock like dead people help livestock, while at the
> >> >> >> same time still contributing to the deaths of wildlife that most people do.
>
> >> >> >The belief is that most animals living on modern farms have lives
> >> >> >which contain a lot of suffering, and the motivation is to reduce the
> >> >> >number of animals who are brought into existence in order to lead such
> >> >> >lives. Veganism sounds like one pretty rational strategy for achieving
> >> >> >this goal. But perhaps you think that there is something wrong with
> >> >> >the goal?
>
> >> >> I believe a lot of livestock do have lives of positive value, and that
> >> >> almost all of them could if people took the interest. Amusingly before I started
> >> >> posting here I imagined that sort of thing and what could be done to make their
> >> >> lives better was the sort of things people discussed, and WHICH animals have
> >> >> lives of positive value and which do not. LOL...you people can't get anywhere
> >> >> near stuff like that.
>
> >> >So how about animals in the wild? Are their lives "of positive value"?
>
> >> � � Some are and some are not, the same as with livestock and humans and
> >> everything else. The value can change for wildlife just as it can for livestock
> >> also. Wild animals aren't necessarily really free to do whatever they want
> >> either, since they're restricted by the territories of other animals as well as
> >> other types of natural restrictions and the influence of humans. I feel that in
> >> general the lives of domestic animals are better than those of wildlife, since
> >> they usually don't live in fear of predators, or have to worry about getting
> >> food, or water, or being driven off of their own territory, etc...
>
> >But if some wild animals have lives that are "of positive value", then
> >it's conceivable that by being a vegan I could be reducing land use
> >and thereby creating ecological niches for wild animals to fill up,
> >and this might result in a greater increase in the balance of pleasant
> >experiences over aversive ones than would be the case if I ate beef
> >instead, even granting that livestock tend to have better lives than
> >wild animals (because a larger number of wild animals might be
> >involved and you agreed that some of them have lives "of positive
> >value").
>
> >So the question is not as simple as you are making out.
>
> * * You're fighting very hard to think as narrowly as possible, which is to
> never appreciate any situations where it's better to contribute to lives of
> positive value for livestock than not to. If you learn to appreciate one such
> situation then you will be thinking in the second most narrow way possible, and
> if you learn to appreciate two then you'll be thinking in the third most...., and
> three would be fourth most....but so far you are still thinking in the most
> narrow way possible. It's also a very poor, stifling, weak, etc.... approach in
> general. In fact the poorest, most stifling, weakest, etc... What could be less?
> It's why I point out that you're on the bottom. Not just to be insulting, but
> because you are and I still have some hope that you might be able to rise up at
> least a little bit at some point during your life and if so I'm curious what the
> result would be so I'd like to see it if it ever happens. Good luck if you ever
> try. Try to ignore Goo's attempts to drive you back down if you ever do try
> moving on a little.

On Oct 18, 8:19*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:26:15 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Oct 16, 7:24 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 01:14:09 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> wrote:
> >> >On Oct 11, 10:57 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 01:17:44 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >On Oct 10, 9:56 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> >> >> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 07:33:24 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> >> >> wrote:
>
> >> >> >> >On Oct 10, 4:28 pm, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> "Rupert" > wrote
>
> >> >> >> >> > >> Check this out Its great
> >> >> >> >> > >>http://youtu.be/1LIyVBWaE_A
>
> >> >> >> >> > > It's shit. It's unpalatable shit.
>
> >> >> >> >> > > Why are "vegans" continually trying to make stuff look like and taste like meat? *Extremely* suspicious.
>
> >> >> >> >> > It's mostly for people who like meat but are trying to eat "healthy".
>
> >> >> >> >> > > No one likes "vegan" food - no one.
>
> >> >> >> >> > Some actually do, the problem is none of them are healthy.
>
> >> >> >> >> This isn't true. Just about everyone enjoys some food which is
> >> >> >> >> suitable for vegans. And a significant majority of those people are
> >> >> >> >> healthy. Furthermore a significant majority of those who consume an
> >> >> >> >> exclusively vegan diet are quite healthy. The American Dietetic
> >> >> >> >> Association has endorsed the position that appropriately-planned vegan
> >> >> >> >> diets are nutritionally adequate at all stages of life, and carry many
> >> >> >> >> significant health benefits.
>
> >> >> >> >> -----
>
> >> >> >> >> I was talking about vegans. While technically you and the ADD are
> >> >> >> >> correct, it's like claiming unicorn farts are part of your diet. Show
> >> >> >> >> me the vegan who can appropriate plan a diet at all stages of life,
> >> >> >> >> and I'll show you a unicorn because people need meat and dairy.
>
> >> >> >> >I know plenty of vegans who have well-planned diets and are perfectly
> >> >> >> >healthy, and at least two doctors have told me that it is a very good
> >> >> >> >thing that I am vegan.
>
> >> >> >> Why would a doctor tell you it's good you're a vegan?
>
> >> >> >Presumably because they believed it to be the case.
>
> >> >> Being a vegan isn't only about your health.
>
> >> >Indeed. Obviously I never said it was.
>
> >> I won't just take your word that you've never said it, but I pointed the
> >> fact out for anyone else who might be unfamiliar with it. For some reason one of
> >> the dishonest things I've seen veg*ns do is try to persuade people to believe
> >> that sometimes veganism is just for health reasons, though we know it's not.
>
> >It is sometimes, just not usually.
>
> * * Some types of vegetarianism yes, but not full veganism.
>

No, sometimes full veganism as well.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> >> >> >It is just as easy to sensibly plan a vegan
> >> >> >> >diet as an omnivorous one. Your opinions about vegans are just not
> >> >> >> >especially well-informed; you don't really know what you're talking
> >> >> >> >about.
>
> >> >> >> You don't contribute to any decent lives for livestock, but only to the
> >> >> >> deaths of wildlife. Hopefully he knows that much at least.
>
> >> >> >I have taken steps to reduce my contribution to the amount of
> >> >> >suffering that takes place. I don't see any good reason to think that
> >> >> >the strategy I've chosen is a poor one.
>
> >> >> You could contribute to decent lives for livestock, and probably to less
> >> >> suffering at the same time.
>
> >> >Do you think that animals in the wild have "decent lives"?
>
> >> Some do and some don't. In general I feel that domestic animals probably
> >> have better lives than most wild animals. They also live longer imo. For example
> >> though broiler chickens only live about 6-8 weeks it's still longer than most
> >> ground nesting birds in general imo, probably most of them only successfully
> >> raising a tiny percentage of chicks that hatch for more than a couple of weeks
> >> at best. Even in larger animals I imagine the majority of offspring don't make
> >> it very long, and the only time the majority do make it is when their non-human
> >> predators have been pretty much if not entirely removed from the area.
>
> >But it still might be conceivable that bringing about a large increase
> >in the number of wild animals might be better than bringing about a
> >small increase in the number of livestock.
>
> * * Wildlife is almost always more welcome in grazing areas than in crop fields.
> There's also a lot less danger of the animals being killed unintentionally in
> grazing areas than in crop fields. Those are basic aspects we should keep in
> mind to keep a realistic interpretation.

On Oct 18, 8:14*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:29:18 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Oct 16, 7:25 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 03:14:04 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Oct 15, 11:14 pm, Goo wrote:
>
> >> >> Rupert is off doing telemarketing in Germany at present.
>
> >> >I am doing a post-doc at the University of M nster.
>
> >> Here's an easy experiment for you, but please be honest about the results.
> >> Ask some of the students if they can comprehend the distinction between lives
> >> which are of positive value and lives which are of negative value for different
> >> beings.
>
> >It's a bit difficult to do that. I don't have any teaching duties and
> >I don't speak German very well. Would you like me to ask some of my
> >colleagues?
>
> * * Yes please. And if they can come up with a better definition than mine I'd
> like to learn about that too, but so far I believe mine covers it as well as it
> can without causing excessive restrictions on the idea. No offense, but I
> consider "good" to be an excessive restriction.
>
> >> The distinction applies to humans as well as other animals, and wildlife
> >> as well as domestic animals. See if any of the subjects are unable to relate to
> >> the distinction in ANY group of animals or humans. If they say that they have no
> >> problem with it in any group as I expect, then you might tell them that you
> >> still can't appreciate it for any creatures at all and see what they say about
> >> that. Their reaction to you telling them that is something I'm quite interested
> >> in, as you should be too. The people I've discussed it with have never had any
> >> problem with the concept and agree that someone who has a problem with it is
> >> extremely unlikely to be able to obtain a PhD, and possibly even a driver's
> >> license.
>
> >I've never tried to get a driver's license.
>
> * * And that doesn't slow you down?

I don't really need to know how to drive.

On Oct 18, 8:14*pm, dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:29:18 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Oct 16, 7:25 pm, dh@. wrote:
> >> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 03:14:04 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Oct 15, 11:14 pm, Goo wrote:
>
> >> >> Rupert is off doing telemarketing in Germany at present.
>
> >> >I am doing a post-doc at the University of M nster.
>
> >> Here's an easy experiment for you, but please be honest about the results.
> >> Ask some of the students if they can comprehend the distinction between lives
> >> which are of positive value and lives which are of negative value for different
> >> beings.
>
> >It's a bit difficult to do that. I don't have any teaching duties and
> >I don't speak German very well. Would you like me to ask some of my
> >colleagues?
>
> * * Yes please. And if they can come up with a better definition than mine I'd
> like to learn about that too, but so far I believe mine covers it as well as it
> can without causing excessive restrictions on the idea. No offense, but I
> consider "good" to be an excessive restriction.
>

I asked Petra and Stefan. Petra said "What does he mean by positive
value?" I tried to give them some idea of what I thought you meant by
it. They both seemed to think it would be pretty hard to determine
whether a cow has a life of positive value, and they also didn't think
that your argument against vegetarianism was very strong (although
neither of them are vegetarians).

> >> The distinction applies to humans as well as other animals, and wildlife
> >> as well as domestic animals. See if any of the subjects are unable to relate to
> >> the distinction in ANY group of animals or humans. If they say that they have no
> >> problem with it in any group as I expect, then you might tell them that you
> >> still can't appreciate it for any creatures at all and see what they say about
> >> that. Their reaction to you telling them that is something I'm quite interested
> >> in, as you should be too. The people I've discussed it with have never had any
> >> problem with the concept and agree that someone who has a problem with it is
> >> extremely unlikely to be able to obtain a PhD, and possibly even a driver's
> >> license.
>
> >I've never tried to get a driver's license.
>
> * * And that doesn't slow you down?

On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 06:53:41 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote:

>On Oct 18, 8:14*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:29:18 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>> >On Oct 16, 7:25 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 03:14:04 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Oct 15, 11:14 pm, Goo wrote:
>>
>> >> >> Rupert is off doing telemarketing in Germany at present.
>>
>> >> >I am doing a post-doc at the University of M nster.
>>
>> >> Here's an easy experiment for you, but please be honest about the results.
>> >> Ask some of the students if they can comprehend the distinction between lives
>> >> which are of positive value and lives which are of negative value for different
>> >> beings.
>>
>> >It's a bit difficult to do that. I don't have any teaching duties and
>> >I don't speak German very well. Would you like me to ask some of my
>> >colleagues?
>>
>> * * Yes please. And if they can come up with a better definition than mine I'd
>> like to learn about that too, but so far I believe mine covers it as well as it
>> can without causing excessive restrictions on the idea. No offense, but I
>> consider "good" to be an excessive restriction.
>>
>
>I asked Petra and Stefan. Petra said "What does he mean by positive
>value?" I tried to give them some idea of what I thought you meant by
>it.

What did you tell them?

>They both seemed to think it would be pretty hard to determine
>whether a cow has a life of positive value,

Not for a person who is familiar with the cow and its life. You can bet
there are lots of farmers who have a pretty good idea about how their animals
are doing and whether they are overly stressed or not. Here's something I feel
sure you've heard before but can't afford to appreciate: Cow produce milk a lot
better when they aren't stressed and unhappy.

>and they also didn't think
>that your argument against vegetarianism was very strong (although
>neither of them are vegetarians).

Maybe they think it will be better when all meat is grown in vats or
something and there are no more livestock animals in existence, but so far I
don't feel that it would be since I believe many livestock have lives of
positive value and pretty much all of them COULD if people in general gave a
shit. But not only do people in general not give a shit, but even in here where
people discuss the subject, appreciation for the animals' lives is attacked by
eliminationists who dishonestly try to present the impression that they DO give
a shit. So now that we're on that subject it's another excellent reason for the
Goos to lie about their position. To begin with it was all eliminationists who
attacked having appreciation, but then the Goober came along and soon recruited
"Dutch" in an attempt to make it look like most of the opposition to
appreciation is being made by the very people who should be able to appreciate
it the most. LOL...making the position that much more amusing from my pov.
Everything to do with the misnomer is just lame and idiotic from my pov, and has
been since I first learned anything about it back in grade school. In fact I
learned about the misnomer at just about the same time we were learning to
appreciate the distinction between lives of positive and negative value...about
the fifth or sixth grade. I wonder if you'll ever learn that........

>> >> The distinction applies to humans as well as other animals, and wildlife
>> >> as well as domestic animals. See if any of the subjects are unable to relate to
>> >> the distinction in ANY group of animals or humans. If they say that they have no
>> >> problem with it in any group as I expect, then you might tell them that you
>> >> still can't appreciate it for any creatures at all and see what they say about
>> >> that. Their reaction to you telling them that is something I'm quite interested
>> >> in, as you should be too. The people I've discussed it with have never had any
>> >> problem with the concept and agree that someone who has a problem with it is
>> >> extremely unlikely to be able to obtain a PhD, and possibly even a driver's
>> >> license.
>>
>> >I've never tried to get a driver's license.
>>
>> * * And that doesn't slow you down?

On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 01:36:14 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote:

>On Oct 18, 8:23*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 01:06:38 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >My assertion
>> >that the dairy industry inflicts considerable suffering and premature
>> >death on a large number of cows was factual
>>
>> * * No it's not since as I pointed out you can't inflict premature death when
>> the only option is no life at all.
>
>Of course you can, you stupid fool.
>
>> Since we know you have no grounds to complain
>> about that aspect it makes it seem likely that the suffering you're referring to
>> may not be enough to make their lives of negative value to them either. So, what
>> sort of suffering are you referring to?
>
>http://www.ciwf.org.uk/farm_animals/...re_issues.aspx

It doesn't seem to give their lives negative value from my pov, so you have
no argument from my pov.

On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 01:37:29 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote:

>On Oct 18, 8:22*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 08:53:02 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Oct 10, 5:39*pm, CheeseHusker dos > wrote:
>>
>> >> At least when I eat cheese, I'm not killing the cow.
>>
>> >Not directly, no, but you are giving financial incentives to an
>> >industry which inflicts considerable suffering and premature death on
>> >a large number of cows.
>>
>> * * There is no way the dairy industry can cause "premature death" to beings who
>> would have no life at all if it weren't for the dairy industry. You vegans
>> contribute to the early deaths of wildlife and ONLY to that, but people who
>> contribute to the dairy industry contribute to every bit of life the cattle
>> experience, good and bad.
>>
>> >Dairy cows are killed when they outlive their
>> >usefulness,
>>
>> * * That's still not premature since the alternative is never living at all.
>>
>> >and their calves are used in the veal industry
>>
>> * * The male calves are used in the veal industry. I'm sure some females are for
>> some reasons sometimes, but it's mainly what they do to get the most out of
>> basically useless male dairy cattle. As long as they're treated decently there
>> should be nothing wrong with them experiencing life as a veal calf, afaWk.
>
>http://www.ciwf.org.uk/farm_animals/...re_issues.aspx

I'm glad the crates are illegal in places where they are and am glad they're
being phased out. I don't think much of the slat idea either. But then stuff
like that isn't them being treated decently, so my point remains good.

On Fri, 19 Oct 2012 01:44:30 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
wrote:

>On Oct 18, 8:20*pm, dh@. wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Oct 2012 13:24:20 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On 16 Okt., 19:04, dh@. wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 01:12:54 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Oct 11, 11:02 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 01:15:05 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >On Oct 10, 10:06 pm, dh@. wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 07:18:10 -0700 (PDT), Rupert >
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >On Oct 10, 4:09 pm, "J.C. Watts" > wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> On Oct 10, 3:26 am, Rupert > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > On Oct 9, 8:40 pm, "The Undead Edward M. Kennedy" > wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > > "Goo wrote
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > > >> Check this out Its great
>> >> >> >> >> > > >>http://youtu.be/1LIyVBWaE_A
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > > > It's shit. It's unpalatable shit.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > > > Why are "vegans" continually trying to make stuff look like and taste like meat? *Extremely* suspicious.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > > It's mostly for people who like meat but are trying to eat "healthy".
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > > > No one likes "vegan" food - no one.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > > Some actually do, the problem is none of them are healthy.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> > This isn't true. Just about everyone enjoys some food which is
>> >> >> >> >> > suitable for vegans. And a significant majority of those people are
>> >> >> >> >> > healthy. Furthermore a significant majority of those who consume an
>> >> >> >> >> > exclusively vegan diet are quite healthy. The American Dietetic
>> >> >> >> >> > Association has endorsed the position that appropriately-planned vegan
>> >> >> >> >> > diets are nutritionally adequate at all stages of life, and carry many
>> >> >> >> >> > significant health benefits.
>>
>> >> >> >> >> Yeah, but hamburgers taste so much better.
>>
>> >> >> >> >Well, if that's what you reckon then that's fine. I've been vegan for
>> >> >> >> >about 16 years and I definitely remember that I used to enjoy the
>> >> >> >> >taste of meat
>>
>> >> >> >> Then why didn't you begin contributing to decent lives for cattle by buying
>> >> >> >> grass raise beef and dairy products instead of not contributing to anything
>> >> >> >> other than the deaths of wildlife?
>>
>> >> >> >Let's be clear about what you think the upside would be. You think
>> >> >> >that I would be increasing the expected number of cows who come into
>> >> >> >existence and lead fairly happy lives, as well as reducing my
>> >> >> >contribution to collateral deaths caused by plant-based agriculture,
>> >> >> >and that would be a good thing? Is that the story?
>>
>> >> >> If you did it right, yes. If you didn't, no. If you bought a veal calf that
>> >> >> was soon to be slaughtered and made a deal with a farmer to raise it for you for
>> >> >> two years with no grain, then you had it humanely slaughtered and you ate that
>> >> >> instead of your soy stuff you would reduce your contribution plus benefit a
>> >> >> livestock animal in the biggest way.
>>
>> >> >So how much do you suppose that would cost?
>>
>> >> � � It doesn't matter what it would cost to do things like that in regards to
>> >> whether or not it would be "better" than not doing anything.
>>
>> >Yes it does,
>>
>> * * No it doesn't.
>>
>> >because the money I spend on it might be spent on
>> >alleviating suffering in other ways.
>>
>> * * We're talking about you doing the most you could do for a livestock animal
>> in comparison to you doing nothing as you are now.
>
>I'm talking about doing what I can to make the outcome better.

You're doing nothing for any livestock with your lifestyle, and you should
either accept it and be proud of it because that's your deliberate intent, of
finally do something after however many years of deliberately doing nothing.

>> There are things you could do
>> to contribute to decent lives for livestock without spending a lot of money but
>> it would still be doing more than nothing like you're doing now. If you buy cage
>> free eggs and give them to someone who buys battery farmed eggs then you'll be
>> doing a couple of things instead of nothing, and if you can persuade some people
>> to buy cage free instead of battery farmed you'd be doing that much more than
>> nothing.
>>
>
>Or I could donate to Vegan Outreach, as I sometimes do, which tries to
>persuade people to give up animal products or at least cut down on
>them.

That does nothing to help any livestock, so even when you pretend to do
something you are still doing nothing. Doing the thing with cage free eggs I
suggested WOULD BE doing something, but for years you have done nothing. You
should either accept it and be proud of it, or move on and do something as I've
been encouraging you for how many years now? Several, no doubt, but still you do
nothing.

>This will no doubt have the result that some people move from
>battery cage eggs to free-range eggs.

LOL! It's dishonestly on a Goobal level to blatanly lie that encouraging
veganism will promote cage free egg purchases. I don't believe you're stupid
enough to think it somehow could either, meaning you're being deliberately
dishonest. Why would you even want people to think you're supporting ANY kind of
egg production when you're opposed to every bit of it entirely?

>> >> And from the
>> >> animals' position having that done would be priceless. We're talking about
>> >> doubling, tripling, or whatever the lives of the animals so from their position
>> >> the cost could never enter into it.
>>
>> >But the same might be said of the potential malaria victim in the
>> >Third World whose life I can save. So I have to make the decision
>> >based on something or other, and one of the relevant factors is how
>> >much each option costs, so that I can make the outcome better in the
>> >most economically efficient way possible.
>>
>> * * We're discussing whether it might be ok for you to contribute to decent
>> lives for livestock or better to do nothing as you're doing now. What you do in
>> regards to OTHER animals doesn't enter into it, and sadly it's really a form of
>> dishonesty for you to try pretending otherwise.
>
>And why would that be, exactly?

Because what you do in regards to other animals doesn't enter into it at
all, meaning you're dishonest for trying to dishonestly pretend it does. That
one's so obvious even a misnomer hugger should be able to figure it out.

>> So far it still appears that you
>> do hate them btw, even the grass raised cattle you've acted like you could
>> appreciate. If you didn't there would be no reason for you to try changing the
>> subject to humans and away from livestock.
>
>You're an idiot.

What I said is a fact and IF you can't appreciate it that means YOU are the
idiot, not me for presenting it.

>> >> But.
>>
>> >> � � If you find the right dairy farmer you could probably work it out fairly
>> >> cheap, especially if you tell him you've been vegan for years but now you want
>> >> to try something that would actually benefit a livestock animal, instead of not
>> >> doing anything. Dairy farmers are opposed to the eliminationist position, of
>> >> course!!!, but some of them would be in favor of working with the situation. So
>> >> imo the cheapest way would be to find a farmer who would work with you, and who
>> >> will sell you a baby male dairy calf cheap, then charge you however much to
>> >> raise it to weening for you unless you can keep it at home and feed it twice a
>> >> day for a while until it can eat on its own. After the calf is weened you might
>> >> be able to board it on the farm where it was born, or maybe someplace else like
>> >> a large beef farm where the farmer would charge you so much a month to let it
>> >> hang out in the pastures. That's how people did stuff like that with some of the
>> >> farmers I knew in NC at least, so I imagine it goes on in a lot of farming
>> >> areas.
>>
>> >And Ball is speculating that you haven't chosen to do this yourself,
>> >would that be correct?
>>
>> * * I don't intend to do it, but if my goal was to help livestock as much as I
>> could while reducing the amount of deaths I contribute to, and I was able to
>> afford it, that's how I'd do it. Otherwise I do buy cage free eggs, and
>> persuaded at least one other person to do so as well. Possibly more than one.
>> Don't forget also that I believe most cattle, grass raised AND grain fed, have
>> lives of positive value so there's no reason for me to do what I described to
>> you. I'm not claiming that I try to be as ethical as I can, but that doesn't
>> prevent me from discussing things that could be more ethical than doing nothing,
>> and the elimination objective, etc. Also, imo the Goober is the most unethical
>> person posting, as well as being the most dishonest. The dishonesty aspect is
>> only part of Goo's unethical position, but it is a large part.
>>
>
>Okay, so I have told you that I am interested in trying to make the
>outcome as good as possible. So the considerations that I bring up,
>such as whether the money I spent on buying a veal calf could be put
>to some better use, are relevant, and it's obviously totally
>irrational for you to suggest that my bringing it up must in some way
>be motivated by hatred of the calf.

You have hatred for all livestock, which is why you're opposed to any
livestock existing.

>> >> >> You could do the same with the brothers of
>> >> >> commercial laying hens. You might even be able to get them for free and give
>> >> >> them a good life, then slaughter humanely... That's probably the best way you
>> >> >> could do it, but there are variations between that and doing nothing as you are
>> >> >> now.
>>
>> >> >> >> >and I also think that I enjoy my food now about as much
>> >> >> >> >as I used to before I became vegan. And I also believe that by being
>> >> >> >> >vegan I'm reducing my expected contribution to animal suffering.
>>
>> >> >> >> It depends how a person does it. I feel certain there are vegans who buy
>> >> >> >> rice milk when even regular cow milk almost certainly involves fewer deaths, and
>> >> >> >> grass raised dairy undoubtedly does.
>>
>> >> >> >Well, how did you come to that conclusion; do you have any kind of
>> >> >> >estimate available for how many premature deaths are required to
>> >> >> >produce one serving of rice milk?
>>
>> >> >> "ok, get your calculator out, we'll be numerate he
>>
>> >> >> it takes 7 passes with a 30' combine to cut an acre (208' x 208'). to
>> >> >> digest 7,000 frogs in that acre (7,000 1st cutting + 3,000 2nd cutting
>> >> >> for a total of 10,000 - hard shower), that means 1000 unlucky (slow, bad
>> >> >> jumpers, ...) frogs in the 6240 sq.ft. that constitutes *one* pass, or
>> >> >> one per 6+ sq.ft. or 5 per lineal foot of travel.
>>
>> >> >> i *did* say these numbers were conservative, didn't i?
>>
>> >> >> for the 'deluge' (i used 35,000 in the faq, divided 25k & 10k per
>> >> >> cutting), the numbers are ~3500 per pass; one for every 1 sq.ft.; and
>> >> >> ~17 per lineal foot of travel.
>>
>> >> >> [...]
>>
>> >> >Yeah, ok, but we still haven't finished; you need to say how much rice
>> >> >milk you get out of an acre of rice.
>>
>> >> � � You're the math guy...you tell me.
>>
>> >It's an empirical question, not a maths question.
>>
>> * * It undoubtedly depends on a number of things, none of which could cause rice
>> milk to involve fewer deaths than grass raised cow milk imo.
>>
>
>How would you know that?

I know what my opinion is if that's what you're wondering. And I know the
number of deaths depends on a number of things because it's obvious, like the
number of animals that are in the rice fields for one thing. Whether they use
chemicals and how much is another, whether they get the water from are river or
creek of pump it from wells is yet another. There are more. Can you appreciate
any?

>> I still have some hope that you might be able to rise up at
>> least a little bit at some point during your life and if so I'm curious what the
>> result would be so I'd like to see it if it ever happens. Good luck if you ever
>> try. Try to ignore Goo's attempts to drive you back down if you ever do try
>> moving on a little.