Vegan/ARA Fallacy: Objecting to the 1001st Death
 

Vegans and animal rights activists trivialize the collateral suffering
and death that results from their own food production. Their objections
to animal deaths arise only with respect to the actual eating of meat.
They'd rather labor entirely over the death of the one animal eaten so
they can bury their heads over the mass slaughter resulting from grain
and other plant-based food production. They think they're more ethical
because they assume (wrongly) that those who eat meat are always at
least "plus one" in the counting game.

It is a very sleazy and shoddy attempt at moral relativism.

Let's suppose a grain field's planting and harvesting results in 1000
animal deaths. The vegans and animal rights activists are mum on every
single one of those deaths, but they eat the grains anyway and proclaim
their own self-righteousness because they didn't eat any meat. The
vegans and ARAs simply do not care about the first thousand dead animals.

If that same field were used to raise one head of beef, the vegans would
offer their "plus one" objection -- that even though they themselves
were responsible for 1000 collateral deaths, they were personally and
collectively absolved of the 1001st death because they did not eat the
meat from it. They forget that they were complicit in animal deaths
number 1 through number 1000, but those don't matter to them because
they're uneaten.

Such an argument, which I now call "Objecting to the 1001st Death,"
relies ENTIRELY on moral relativism. It avoids personal culpability for
one's actions and ultimately becomes a diversion from the issue vegans
and ARAs raise about animal cruelty.

The 1001st animal, the one that appears in meals, is most usually
slaughtered in a very humane fashion after being well fed and cared for.
We have many laws and regulations to protect that animal's welfare and
to protect the public's safety.

Animals 1 through 1000, the collateral deaths, die as a result of being
run over, sliced and diced, poisoning, predation, burning (some
croplands like those used for sugar production are burned), and flooding
from irrigation. Their deaths can be prolonged and agonizing if they're
wounded and left to die or for scavenging.

If veganism were about concern and compassion for animals, vegans and
ARAs would need to genuinely address deaths 1 through 1000 rather than
trivialize them. They would need to admit that their diet is every bit
as cruel and inhumane as any other diet. They would have to be more
candid that a diet based on commercially-grown grains and legumes --
which they advocate -- is not the most compassionate diet because it
causes many animals to die or become injured.

Their objections only to the death of the 1001st animal demonstrate,
however, that their concerns are not about concern for animals as they
claim. Their only concern is their own smug and back-patting
self-righteousness and their desire to claim moral uprightness. Their
objections to meat eating overlook the fact that many meals come as a
result of the death of the 1001st animal, while only a few meals come
from the deaths of the first 1000.

Veganism and ARA are not about compassion for animals. "Objecting to the
1001st Death" proves it.

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:10:50 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:

>Vegans and animal rights activists trivialize the collateral suffering
>and death that results from their own food production.

Ipse dixit and false.

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:42:27 +0000, Reynard > wrote:

>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:10:50 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>
>>Vegans and animal rights activists trivialize the collateral suffering
>>and death that results from their own food production.
>
>Ipse dixit and false.

· From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one meal of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of meals
derived from grass raised cattle. Grass raised animal products
contribute to less wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Vegans and animal rights activists trivialize the collateral suffering and
> death that results from their own food production. Their objections to
> animal deaths arise only with respect to the actual eating of meat. They'd
> rather labor entirely over the death of the one animal eaten so they can
> bury their heads over the mass slaughter resulting from grain and other
> plant-based food production. They think they're more ethical because they
> assume (wrongly) that those who eat meat are always at least "plus one" in
> the counting game.
>
> It is a very sleazy and shoddy attempt at moral relativism.
>
> Let's suppose a grain field's planting and harvesting results in 1000
> animal deaths. The vegans and animal rights activists are mum on every
> single one of those deaths, but they eat the grains anyway and proclaim
> their own self-righteousness because they didn't eat any meat. The vegans
> and ARAs simply do not care about the first thousand dead animals.
>
> If that same field were used to raise one head of beef, the vegans would
> offer their "plus one" objection -- that even though they themselves were
> responsible for 1000 collateral deaths, they were personally and
> collectively absolved of the 1001st death because they did not eat the
> meat from it. They forget that they were complicit in animal deaths number
> 1 through number 1000, but those don't matter to them because they're
> uneaten.
>
> Such an argument, which I now call "Objecting to the 1001st Death," relies
> ENTIRELY on moral relativism. It avoids personal culpability for one's
> actions and ultimately becomes a diversion from the issue vegans and ARAs
> raise about animal cruelty.
>
> The 1001st animal, the one that appears in meals, is most usually
> slaughtered in a very humane fashion after being well fed and cared for.
> We have many laws and regulations to protect that animal's welfare and to
> protect the public's safety.
>
> Animals 1 through 1000, the collateral deaths, die as a result of being
> run over, sliced and diced, poisoning, predation, burning (some croplands
> like those used for sugar production are burned), and flooding from
> irrigation. Their deaths can be prolonged and agonizing if they're wounded
> and left to die or for scavenging.
>
> If veganism were about concern and compassion for animals, vegans and ARAs
> would need to genuinely address deaths 1 through 1000 rather than
> trivialize them. They would need to admit that their diet is every bit as
> cruel and inhumane as any other diet. They would have to be more candid
> that a diet based on commercially-grown grains and legumes --
> which they advocate -- is not the most compassionate diet because it
> causes many animals to die or become injured.
>
> Their objections only to the death of the 1001st animal demonstrate,
> however, that their concerns are not about concern for animals as they
> claim. Their only concern is their own smug and back-patting
> self-righteousness and their desire to claim moral uprightness. Their
> objections to meat eating overlook the fact that many meals come as a
> result of the death of the 1001st animal, while only a few meals come from
> the deaths of the first 1000.
>
> Veganism and ARA are not about compassion for animals. "Objecting to the
> 1001st Death" proves it.



**** off you trolling bore.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Vegans and animal rights activists trivialize the collateral suffering and
> death that results from their own food production. Their objections to
> animal deaths arise only with respect to the actual eating of meat. They'd
> rather labor entirely over the death of the one animal eaten so they can
> bury their heads over the mass slaughter resulting from grain and other
> plant-based food production. They think they're more ethical because they
> assume (wrongly) that those who eat meat are always at least "plus one" in
> the counting game.
>
> It is a very sleazy and shoddy attempt at moral relativism.
>
> Let's suppose a grain field's planting and harvesting results in 1000
> animal deaths. The vegans and animal rights activists are mum on every
> single one of those deaths, but they eat the grains anyway and proclaim
> their own self-righteousness because they didn't eat any meat. The vegans
> and ARAs simply do not care about the first thousand dead animals.
>
> If that same field were used to raise one head of beef, the vegans would
> offer their "plus one" objection -- that even though they themselves were
> responsible for 1000 collateral deaths, they were personally and
> collectively absolved of the 1001st death because they did not eat the
> meat from it. They forget that they were complicit in animal deaths number
> 1 through number 1000, but those don't matter to them because they're
> uneaten.
>
> Such an argument, which I now call "Objecting to the 1001st Death," relies
> ENTIRELY on moral relativism. It avoids personal culpability for one's
> actions and ultimately becomes a diversion from the issue vegans and ARAs
> raise about animal cruelty.
>
> The 1001st animal, the one that appears in meals, is most usually
> slaughtered in a very humane fashion after being well fed and cared for.
> We have many laws and regulations to protect that animal's welfare and to
> protect the public's safety.
>
> Animals 1 through 1000, the collateral deaths, die as a result of being
> run over, sliced and diced, poisoning, predation, burning (some croplands
> like those used for sugar production are burned), and flooding from
> irrigation. Their deaths can be prolonged and agonizing if they're wounded
> and left to die or for scavenging.
>
> If veganism were about concern and compassion for animals, vegans and ARAs
> would need to genuinely address deaths 1 through 1000 rather than
> trivialize them. They would need to admit that their diet is every bit as
> cruel and inhumane as any other diet. They would have to be more candid
> that a diet based on commercially-grown grains and legumes --
> which they advocate -- is not the most compassionate diet because it
> causes many animals to die or become injured.
>
> Their objections only to the death of the 1001st animal demonstrate,
> however, that their concerns are not about concern for animals as they
> claim. Their only concern is their own smug and back-patting
> self-righteousness and their desire to claim moral uprightness. Their
> objections to meat eating overlook the fact that many meals come as a
> result of the death of the 1001st animal, while only a few meals come from
> the deaths of the first 1000.
>
> Veganism and ARA are not about compassion for animals. "Objecting to the
> 1001st Death" proves it.



**** off you trolling bore.

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:10:29 GMT, wrote:

>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:42:27 +0000, Reynard > wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:10:50 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>
>>>Vegans and animal rights activists trivialize the collateral suffering
>>>and death that results from their own food production.
>>
>>Ipse dixit and false.
>
> Grass raised animal products contribute to less wildlife
> deaths, better wildlife habitat, and better lives for livestock
> than soy or rice products. ·

No, it doesn't. Grass fed beef accumulates collateral
deaths like any other beef.

[The Animal Damage Control (ADC) program
is administered by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture under its Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS). One of ADC's
biggest and most controversial activities is killing
coyotes and other predators, primarily to protect
western livestock.

Under pressure from ranchers, the U.S. government
exterminates tens of thousands of predator and
"nuisance" animals each year. In 1989, a partial list
of animals killed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Animal Damage Control Program included 86,502
coyotes, 7,158 foxes, 236 black bears, 1,220 bobcats,
and 80 wolves. In 1988, 4.6 million birds, 9,000
beavers, 76,000 coyotes, 5,000 raccoons, 300 black
bears, and 200 mountain lions, among others, were
killed. Some 400 pet dogs and 100 cats were also
inadvertently killed. Extermination methods used
include poisoning, shooting, gassing, and burning
animals in their dens.]
http://www.ti.org/adcreport.html

Also, though a customer might switch to grass
fed beef on the understanding that he would be
reducing the collateral deaths associated with
his food, evidence from U.S.D.A shows that
" an animal could be fed 85% grain for 60 days
and still qualify under these guidelines" as grass
fed beef. That being so, grass fed beef accrues
collateral death from the feed grown to feed
them, just like any other steer in the feedlot.

[Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the
most commented upon topic in this docket. We
will not belabor all the points of concern which
are addressed but will focus on the areas of
concern to our cooperative of growers. While
Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method
IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS
NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that
you need to define both as what they ARE since
that is what is motivating the consumer.

While the intent of this language would suggest
that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished,
especially in Feedlots, the language as written is
not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing
80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at
the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef
animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for
70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be
fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under
these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with
consumer expectations as is borne out in the
website comments.]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc213.pdf

Also, farmers lie to their customers who ask after
their product. Farmer tell them it's grass fed but
finishes his animals in feedlots on grains far away.

[Some meat producers use "grass-fed" to describe
animals that are raised in pens on industrial feed,
including corn, and finished on rations of grass in
feedlots far from home. A similar confusion still
surrounds "free-range," which can refer to animals
that roam where they please or to animals kept in
barns and allowed to range in circumscribed yards.
No one regulates the use of these terms, and given
how many years it took to achieve a national
definition of "organic," it may be a long time before
anyone does.]
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/05/kummer.htm

You can keep your grass fed beef, because you
cannot show that it accrues less collateral deaths
than the veg one might buy in a supermarket.

Reynard wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:10:50 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>
>>Vegans and animal rights activists trivialize the collateral suffering
>>and death that results from their own food production.
>
> Ipse dixit and false.

Your posting history on the issue proves it. You're a chronic
buck-passer when it comes to taking responsibility for your own principles:
http://tinyurl.com/3wnlv

RESTORING THE REST OF MY POST
Their objections to animal deaths arise only with respect to the actual
eating of meat. They'd rather labor entirely over the death of the one
animal eaten so they can bury their heads over the mass slaughter
resulting from grain and other plant-based food production. They think
they're more ethical because they assume (wrongly) that those who eat
meat are always at least "plus one" in the counting game.

It is a very sleazy and shoddy attempt at moral relativism.

Let's suppose a grain field's planting and harvesting results in 1000
animal deaths. The vegans and animal rights activists are mum on every
single one of those deaths, but they eat the grains anyway and proclaim
their own self-righteousness because they didn't eat any meat. The
vegans and ARAs simply do not care about the first thousand dead animals.

If that same field were used to raise one head of beef, the vegans would
offer their "plus one" objection -- that even though they themselves
were responsible for 1000 collateral deaths, they were personally and
collectively absolved of the 1001st death because they did not eat the
meat from it. They forget that they were complicit in animal deaths
number 1 through number 1000, but those don't matter to them because
they're uneaten.

Such an argument, which I now call "Objecting to the 1001st Death,"
relies ENTIRELY on moral relativism. It avoids personal culpability for
one's actions and ultimately becomes a diversion from the issue vegans
and ARAs raise about animal cruelty.

The 1001st animal, the one that appears in meals, is most usually
slaughtered in a very humane fashion after being well fed and cared for.
We have many laws and regulations to protect that animal's welfare and
to protect the public's safety.

Animals 1 through 1000, the collateral deaths, die as a result of being
run over, sliced and diced, poisoning, predation, burning (some
croplands like those used for sugar production are burned), and flooding
from irrigation. Their deaths can be prolonged and agonizing if they're
wounded and left to die or for scavenging.

If veganism were about concern and compassion for animals, vegans and
ARAs would need to genuinely address deaths 1 through 1000 rather than
trivialize them. They would need to admit that their diet is every bit
as cruel and inhumane as any other diet. They would have to be more
candid that a diet based on commercially-grown grains and legumes --
which they advocate -- is not the most compassionate diet because it
causes many animals to die or become injured.

Their objections only to the death of the 1001st animal demonstrate,
however, that their concerns are not about concern for animals as they
claim. Their only concern is their own smug and back-patting
self-righteousness and their desire to claim moral uprightness. Their
objections to meat eating overlook the fact that many meals come as a
result of the death of the 1001st animal, while only a few meals come
from the deaths of the first 1000.

Veganism and ARA are not about compassion for animals. "Objecting to the
1001st Death" proves it.
END RESTORE

Your posting history also proves it, fatso: http://tinyurl.com/3wnlv

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:33:21 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>Reynard wrote:
>> On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:10:50 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>
>>>Vegans and animal rights activists trivialize the collateral suffering
>>>and death that results from their own food production.
>>
>> Ipse dixit and false.
>
>Your posting history on the issue proves it.

Exactly. I've always shown that your assertion is without
any support and false.

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Vegans and animal rights activists trivialize the collateral suffering
> and death that results from their own food production. Their objections
> to animal deaths arise only with respect to the actual eating of meat.
> They'd rather labor entirely over the death of the one animal eaten so
> they can bury their heads over the mass slaughter resulting from grain
> and other plant-based food production. They think they're more ethical
> because they assume (wrongly) that those who eat meat are always at
> least "plus one" in the counting game.
>
> It is a very sleazy and shoddy attempt at moral relativism.
>
> Let's suppose a grain field's planting and harvesting results in 1000
> animal deaths. The vegans and animal rights activists are mum on every
> single one of those deaths, but they eat the grains anyway and proclaim
> their own self-righteousness because they didn't eat any meat. The
> vegans and ARAs simply do not care about the first thousand dead animals.

They keep mum on the first 1000 deaths up to the point that someone informs
them of the deaths. At that point, then begin handwaving and temporizing
about doing "all they can" to minimize those deaths, e.g. by buying only
"locally produced" produce.

>
> If that same field were used to raise one head of beef, the vegans would
> offer their "plus one" objection -- that even though they themselves
> were responsible for 1000 collateral deaths, they were personally and
> collectively absolved of the 1001st death because they did not eat the
> meat from it. They forget that they were complicit in animal deaths
> number 1 through number 1000, but those don't matter to them because
> they're uneaten.

This gets back to the basic fallacy underlying the "vegan"
pseudo-philosophy. It's the eating, not the killing, that bothers "vegans".
As John Mercer memorably put it in an earlier discussion on the topic - the
topic that won't go away: "The only distinction is an esthetic one--the
disposition of the corpses produced."

"vegans" aren't concerned in the least about the 1000 deaths, because they
don't eat the corpses.

>
> Such an argument, which I now call "Objecting to the 1001st Death,"
> relies ENTIRELY on moral relativism. It avoids personal culpability for
> one's actions and ultimately becomes a diversion from the issue vegans
> and ARAs raise about animal cruelty.

The wish to avoid or reduce personal culpability actually leads some
"vegans" and omnivores alike to view animal deaths, incorrectly, as
divisible. Many on both sides subscribe to a bizarre and erroneous belief
that one can be responsible for some discrete fraction of an animal death.
Somewhat surprisingly, the argument seems to be found more commonly among
omnivores, most often when they talk about the number of meals that may be
had from the meat from one large animal; they'll talk about a "fraction of a
death" attributable to one hamburger, for example.

The animal deaths are indivisible. If the food production that caused the
1000 collateral deaths yielded food to feed 100,000 people (that would be
some yield!), the eaters cannot say that they only "caused" 1/100th of a
death. They all, collectively, are responsible for all 1000 deaths.
Similarly, if a dressed steer carcass yields 250 pounds of edible beef, and
those are made into 500 half-pound servings, those who eat them cannot say
they only "caused" 1/500th of a death; they ALL caused one full death,
together.

The point is to compare the total numbers. One *could* eat a fish, causing
one animal death; or one could eat a serving of rice that came from a
particular crop whose cultivation and harvest caused 1000 deaths. The rice
eater caused 1000 deaths.

>
> The 1001st animal, the one that appears in meals, is most usually
> slaughtered in a very humane fashion after being well fed and cared for.
> We have many laws and regulations to protect that animal's welfare and
> to protect the public's safety.
>
> Animals 1 through 1000, the collateral deaths, die as a result of being
> run over, sliced and diced, poisoning, predation, burning (some
> croplands like those used for sugar production are burned), and flooding
> from irrigation. Their deaths can be prolonged and agonizing if they're
> wounded and left to die or for scavenging.

As long as one doesn't eat the corpses, one can pretend not to know.

>
> If veganism were about concern and compassion for animals, vegans and
> ARAs would need to genuinely address deaths 1 through 1000 rather than
> trivialize them. They would need to admit that their diet is every bit
> as cruel and inhumane as any other diet. They would have to be more
> candid that a diet based on commercially-grown grains and legumes --
> which they advocate -- is not the most compassionate diet because it
> causes many animals to die or become injured.
>
> Their objections only to the death of the 1001st animal demonstrate,
> however, that their concerns are not about concern for animals as they
> claim. Their only concern is their own smug and back-patting
> self-righteousness and their desire to claim moral uprightness. Their
> objections to meat eating overlook the fact that many meals come as a
> result of the death of the 1001st animal, while only a few meals come
> from the deaths of the first 1000.
>
> Veganism and ARA are not about compassion for animals. "Objecting to the
> 1001st Death" proves it.

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:16:26 +0000, Reynard > wrote:

>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:10:29 GMT, wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:42:27 +0000, Reynard > wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:10:50 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Vegans and animal rights activists trivialize the collateral suffering
>>>>and death that results from their own food production.
>>>
>>>Ipse dixit and false.
>>
>> Grass raised animal products contribute to less wildlife
>> deaths, better wildlife habitat, and better lives for livestock
>> than soy or rice products. ·
>
>No, it doesn't. Grass fed beef accumulates collateral
>deaths like any other beef.

Thanks for proving him right. You not only have tried to
trivialize the death that results from your own food production,
buy you obviously want to ignore it completely and talk about
something else.

>[The Animal Damage Control (ADC) program
>is administered by the U.S. Department of
>Agriculture under its Animal and Plant Health
>Inspection Service (APHIS). One of ADC's
>biggest and most controversial activities is killing
>coyotes and other predators, primarily to protect
>western livestock.
>
>Under pressure from ranchers, the U.S. government
>exterminates tens of thousands of predator and
>"nuisance" animals each year. In 1989, a partial list
>of animals killed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
>Animal Damage Control Program included 86,502
>coyotes, 7,158 foxes, 236 black bears, 1,220 bobcats,
>and 80 wolves. In 1988, 4.6 million birds, 9,000
>beavers, 76,000 coyotes, 5,000 raccoons, 300 black
>bears, and 200 mountain lions, among others, were
>killed. Some 400 pet dogs and 100 cats were also
>inadvertently killed. Extermination methods used
>include poisoning, shooting, gassing, and burning
>animals in their dens.]
>http://www.ti.org/adcreport.html
>
>Also, though a customer might switch to grass
>fed beef on the understanding that he would be
>reducing the collateral deaths associated with
>his food, evidence from U.S.D.A shows that
>" an animal could be fed 85% grain for 60 days
>and still qualify under these guidelines" as grass
>fed beef. That being so, grass fed beef accrues
>collateral death from the feed grown to feed
>them, just like any other steer in the feedlot.
>
>[Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the
>most commented upon topic in this docket. We
>will not belabor all the points of concern which
>are addressed but will focus on the areas of
>concern to our cooperative of growers. While
>Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method
>IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS
>NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that
>you need to define both as what they ARE since
>that is what is motivating the consumer.
>
>While the intent of this language would suggest
>that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished,
>especially in Feedlots, the language as written is
>not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing
>80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at
>the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef
>animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for
>70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be
>fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under
>these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with
>consumer expectations as is borne out in the
>website comments.]
>http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc213.pdf
>
>Also, farmers lie to their customers who ask after
>their product. Farmer tell them it's grass fed but
>finishes his animals in feedlots on grains far away.
>
>[Some meat producers use "grass-fed" to describe
>animals that are raised in pens on industrial feed,
>including corn, and finished on rations of grass in
>feedlots far from home. A similar confusion still
>surrounds "free-range," which can refer to animals
>that roam where they please or to animals kept in
>barns and allowed to range in circumscribed yards.
>No one regulates the use of these terms, and given
>how many years it took to achieve a national
>definition of "organic," it may be a long time before
>anyone does.]
>http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/05/kummer.htm
>
>You can keep your grass fed beef, because you
>cannot show that it accrues less collateral deaths
>than the veg one might buy in a supermarket.

"Reynard" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:33:21 GMT, usual suspect >
wrote:
> >Reynard wrote:
> >> On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:10:50 GMT, usual suspect >
wrote:
> >>
> >>>Vegans and animal rights activists trivialize the collateral suffering
> >>>and death that results from their own food production.
> >>
> >> Ipse dixit and false.
> >
> >Your posting history on the issue proves it.
>
> Exactly.

Yes, exactly. You keep proving that you trivialize the collateral suffering
and death that results from your own food production. all the time. You do
an even more clumsy and ineffectual job of it than most deliberately stupid
"vegans".

"Reynard" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:33:21 GMT, usual suspect >
wrote:
> >Reynard wrote:
> >> On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:10:50 GMT, usual suspect >
wrote:
> >>
> >>>Vegans and animal rights activists trivialize the collateral suffering
> >>>and death that results from their own food production.
> >>
> >> Ipse dixit and false.
> >
> >Your posting history on the issue proves it.
>
> Exactly.

Yes, exactly. You keep proving that you trivialize the collateral suffering
and death that results from your own food production. all the time. You do
an even more clumsy and ineffectual job of it than most deliberately stupid
"vegans".

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 19:25:14 GMT, "Ted Bell" > wrote:
>"Reynard" > wrote in message ...
>> On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:33:21 GMT, usual suspect >wrote:
>> >Reynard wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:10:50 GMT, usual suspect >wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>Vegans and animal rights activists trivialize the collateral suffering
>> >>>and death that results from their own food production.
>> >>
>> >> Ipse dixit and false.
>> >
>> >Your posting history on the issue proves it.
>>
>> Exactly.
>
>Yes, exactly.

Thank you.

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 19:25:14 GMT, "Ted Bell" > wrote:
>"Reynard" > wrote in message ...
>> On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:33:21 GMT, usual suspect >wrote:
>> >Reynard wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:10:50 GMT, usual suspect >wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>Vegans and animal rights activists trivialize the collateral suffering
>> >>>and death that results from their own food production.
>> >>
>> >> Ipse dixit and false.
>> >
>> >Your posting history on the issue proves it.
>>
>> Exactly.
>
>Yes, exactly.

Thank you.

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:52:18 GMT, wrote:

>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:16:26 +0000, Reynard > wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:10:29 GMT, wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:42:27 +0000, Reynard > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:10:50 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Vegans and animal rights activists trivialize the collateral suffering
>>>>>and death that results from their own food production.
>>>>
>>>>Ipse dixit and false.
>>>
>>> Grass raised animal products contribute to less wildlife
>>> deaths, better wildlife habitat, and better lives for livestock
>>> than soy or rice products. ·
>>
>>No, it doesn't. Grass fed beef accumulates collateral
>>deaths like any other beef.
>
> Thanks for proving him right. You not only have tried to
>trivialize the death that results from your own food production,
>buy you obviously want to ignore it completely and talk about
>something else.

You'll find that all of the below concerns collateral deaths
and doesn't trivialise them at all, Harrison.

>>[The Animal Damage Control (ADC) program
>>is administered by the U.S. Department of
>>Agriculture under its Animal and Plant Health
>>Inspection Service (APHIS). One of ADC's
>>biggest and most controversial activities is killing
>>coyotes and other predators, primarily to protect
>>western livestock.
>>
>>Under pressure from ranchers, the U.S. government
>>exterminates tens of thousands of predator and
>>"nuisance" animals each year. In 1989, a partial list
>>of animals killed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
>>Animal Damage Control Program included 86,502
>>coyotes, 7,158 foxes, 236 black bears, 1,220 bobcats,
>>and 80 wolves. In 1988, 4.6 million birds, 9,000
>>beavers, 76,000 coyotes, 5,000 raccoons, 300 black
>>bears, and 200 mountain lions, among others, were
>>killed. Some 400 pet dogs and 100 cats were also
>>inadvertently killed. Extermination methods used
>>include poisoning, shooting, gassing, and burning
>>animals in their dens.]
>>http://www.ti.org/adcreport.html
>>
>>Also, though a customer might switch to grass
>>fed beef on the understanding that he would be
>>reducing the collateral deaths associated with
>>his food, evidence from U.S.D.A shows that
>>" an animal could be fed 85% grain for 60 days
>>and still qualify under these guidelines" as grass
>>fed beef. That being so, grass fed beef accrues
>>collateral death from the feed grown to feed
>>them, just like any other steer in the feedlot.
>>
>>[Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the
>>most commented upon topic in this docket. We
>>will not belabor all the points of concern which
>>are addressed but will focus on the areas of
>>concern to our cooperative of growers. While
>>Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method
>>IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS
>>NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that
>>you need to define both as what they ARE since
>>that is what is motivating the consumer.
>>
>>While the intent of this language would suggest
>>that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished,
>>especially in Feedlots, the language as written is
>>not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing
>>80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at
>>the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef
>>animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for
>>70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be
>>fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under
>>these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with
>>consumer expectations as is borne out in the
>>website comments.]
>>http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc213.pdf
>>
>>Also, farmers lie to their customers who ask after
>>their product. Farmer tell them it's grass fed but
>>finishes his animals in feedlots on grains far away.
>>
>>[Some meat producers use "grass-fed" to describe
>>animals that are raised in pens on industrial feed,
>>including corn, and finished on rations of grass in
>>feedlots far from home. A similar confusion still
>>surrounds "free-range," which can refer to animals
>>that roam where they please or to animals kept in
>>barns and allowed to range in circumscribed yards.
>>No one regulates the use of these terms, and given
>>how many years it took to achieve a national
>>definition of "organic," it may be a long time before
>>anyone does.]
>>http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/05/kummer.htm
>>
>>You can keep your grass fed beef, because you
>>cannot show that it accrues less collateral deaths
>>than the veg one might buy in a supermarket.

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:52:18 GMT, wrote:

>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:16:26 +0000, Reynard > wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:10:29 GMT, wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:42:27 +0000, Reynard > wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:10:50 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Vegans and animal rights activists trivialize the collateral suffering
>>>>>and death that results from their own food production.
>>>>
>>>>Ipse dixit and false.
>>>
>>> Grass raised animal products contribute to less wildlife
>>> deaths, better wildlife habitat, and better lives for livestock
>>> than soy or rice products. ·
>>
>>No, it doesn't. Grass fed beef accumulates collateral
>>deaths like any other beef.
>
> Thanks for proving him right. You not only have tried to
>trivialize the death that results from your own food production,
>buy you obviously want to ignore it completely and talk about
>something else.

You'll find that all of the below concerns collateral deaths
and doesn't trivialise them at all, Harrison.

>>[The Animal Damage Control (ADC) program
>>is administered by the U.S. Department of
>>Agriculture under its Animal and Plant Health
>>Inspection Service (APHIS). One of ADC's
>>biggest and most controversial activities is killing
>>coyotes and other predators, primarily to protect
>>western livestock.
>>
>>Under pressure from ranchers, the U.S. government
>>exterminates tens of thousands of predator and
>>"nuisance" animals each year. In 1989, a partial list
>>of animals killed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
>>Animal Damage Control Program included 86,502
>>coyotes, 7,158 foxes, 236 black bears, 1,220 bobcats,
>>and 80 wolves. In 1988, 4.6 million birds, 9,000
>>beavers, 76,000 coyotes, 5,000 raccoons, 300 black
>>bears, and 200 mountain lions, among others, were
>>killed. Some 400 pet dogs and 100 cats were also
>>inadvertently killed. Extermination methods used
>>include poisoning, shooting, gassing, and burning
>>animals in their dens.]
>>http://www.ti.org/adcreport.html
>>
>>Also, though a customer might switch to grass
>>fed beef on the understanding that he would be
>>reducing the collateral deaths associated with
>>his food, evidence from U.S.D.A shows that
>>" an animal could be fed 85% grain for 60 days
>>and still qualify under these guidelines" as grass
>>fed beef. That being so, grass fed beef accrues
>>collateral death from the feed grown to feed
>>them, just like any other steer in the feedlot.
>>
>>[Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the
>>most commented upon topic in this docket. We
>>will not belabor all the points of concern which
>>are addressed but will focus on the areas of
>>concern to our cooperative of growers. While
>>Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method
>>IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS
>>NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that
>>you need to define both as what they ARE since
>>that is what is motivating the consumer.
>>
>>While the intent of this language would suggest
>>that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished,
>>especially in Feedlots, the language as written is
>>not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing
>>80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at
>>the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef
>>animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for
>>70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be
>>fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under
>>these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with
>>consumer expectations as is borne out in the
>>website comments.]
>>http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc213.pdf
>>
>>Also, farmers lie to their customers who ask after
>>their product. Farmer tell them it's grass fed but
>>finishes his animals in feedlots on grains far away.
>>
>>[Some meat producers use "grass-fed" to describe
>>animals that are raised in pens on industrial feed,
>>including corn, and finished on rations of grass in
>>feedlots far from home. A similar confusion still
>>surrounds "free-range," which can refer to animals
>>that roam where they please or to animals kept in
>>barns and allowed to range in circumscribed yards.
>>No one regulates the use of these terms, and given
>>how many years it took to achieve a national
>>definition of "organic," it may be a long time before
>>anyone does.]
>>http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/05/kummer.htm
>>
>>You can keep your grass fed beef, because you
>>cannot show that it accrues less collateral deaths
>>than the veg one might buy in a supermarket.

"Reynard" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:10:29 GMT, wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:42:27 +0000, Reynard > wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:10:50 GMT, usual suspect >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Vegans and animal rights activists trivialize the collateral suffering
>>>>and death that results from their own food production.
>>>
>>>Ipse dixit and false.
>>
>> Grass raised animal products contribute to less wildlife
>> deaths, better wildlife habitat, and better lives for livestock
>> than soy or rice products. ·
>
> No, it doesn't. Grass fed beef accumulates collateral
> deaths like any other beef.
>
> [The Animal Damage Control (ADC) program
> is administered by the U.S. Department of
> Agriculture under its Animal and Plant Health
> Inspection Service (APHIS). One of ADC's
> biggest and most controversial activities is killing
> coyotes and other predators, primarily to protect
> western livestock.
============================
Well then fool. It's then proper to say that ALL veggies, even hand grown,
window box ones are doused with massive amounts of chemicals and sprays.
I see what you like about this idea, it's easier to lump all foods into one
category. Thanks for the inspriation, killer.




snip rest of ignorant spew....

Stop changing the spelling of your stupid pseudonym back to the misspelling.
It's Retard, you retard.

"Retard" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 19:25:14 GMT, "Ted Bell" >
wrote:
> >"Retard" > wrote in message
...
> >> On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:33:21 GMT, usual suspect
>wrote:
> >> >Reynard wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:10:50 GMT, usual suspect
>wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>Vegans and animal rights activists trivialize the collateral
suffering
> >> >>>and death that results from their own food production.
> >> >>
> >> >> Ipse dixit and false.
> >> >
> >> >Your posting history on the issue proves it.
> >>
> >> Exactly.
> >
> >Yes, exactly. You keep proving that you trivialize the collateral
suffering
> >and death that results from your own food production. all the time. You
do
> >an even more clumsy and ineffectual job of it than most deliberately
stupid
> >"vegans".

>
> Thank you.

I don't know why you'd thank me for pointing out that you trivialize
collateral suffering. It's not something of which you should be proud. You
shouldn't be proud of being clumsy and ineffectual, either.

Stop changing the spelling of your stupid pseudonym back to the misspelling.
It's Retard, you retard.

"Retard" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 19:25:14 GMT, "Ted Bell" >
wrote:
> >"Retard" > wrote in message
...
> >> On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:33:21 GMT, usual suspect
>wrote:
> >> >Reynard wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:10:50 GMT, usual suspect
>wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>Vegans and animal rights activists trivialize the collateral
suffering
> >> >>>and death that results from their own food production.
> >> >>
> >> >> Ipse dixit and false.
> >> >
> >> >Your posting history on the issue proves it.
> >>
> >> Exactly.
> >
> >Yes, exactly. You keep proving that you trivialize the collateral
suffering
> >and death that results from your own food production. all the time. You
do
> >an even more clumsy and ineffectual job of it than most deliberately
stupid
> >"vegans".

>
> Thank you.

I don't know why you'd thank me for pointing out that you trivialize
collateral suffering. It's not something of which you should be proud. You
shouldn't be proud of being clumsy and ineffectual, either.

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 21:31:09 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote:
>"Reynard" > wrote in message ...
>> On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:10:29 GMT, wrote:
>>>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:42:27 +0000, Reynard > wrote:
>>>>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:10:50 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Vegans and animal rights activists trivialize the collateral suffering
>>>>>and death that results from their own food production.
>>>>
>>>>Ipse dixit and false.
>>>
>>> Grass raised animal products contribute to less wildlife
>>> deaths, better wildlife habitat, and better lives for livestock
>>> than soy or rice products. ·
>>
>> No, it doesn't. Grass fed beef accumulates collateral
>> deaths like any other beef.
>>
>> [The Animal Damage Control (ADC) program
>> is administered by the U.S. Department of
>> Agriculture under its Animal and Plant Health
>> Inspection Service (APHIS). One of ADC's
>> biggest and most controversial activities is killing
>> coyotes and other predators, primarily to protect
>> western livestock.
>============================
>Well then fool. It's then proper to say that ALL veggies, even hand grown,
>window box ones are doused with massive amounts of chemicals and sprays.

Non sequitur. You cannot conclude that, because grass fed
beef accumulates collateral deaths, then ALL vegetable
products accumulate them. Your conclusion doesn't logically
follow from your premise.

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 21:31:09 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote:
>"Reynard" > wrote in message ...
>> On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:10:29 GMT, wrote:
>>>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:42:27 +0000, Reynard > wrote:
>>>>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:10:50 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Vegans and animal rights activists trivialize the collateral suffering
>>>>>and death that results from their own food production.
>>>>
>>>>Ipse dixit and false.
>>>
>>> Grass raised animal products contribute to less wildlife
>>> deaths, better wildlife habitat, and better lives for livestock
>>> than soy or rice products. ·
>>
>> No, it doesn't. Grass fed beef accumulates collateral
>> deaths like any other beef.
>>
>> [The Animal Damage Control (ADC) program
>> is administered by the U.S. Department of
>> Agriculture under its Animal and Plant Health
>> Inspection Service (APHIS). One of ADC's
>> biggest and most controversial activities is killing
>> coyotes and other predators, primarily to protect
>> western livestock.
>============================
>Well then fool. It's then proper to say that ALL veggies, even hand grown,
>window box ones are doused with massive amounts of chemicals and sprays.

Non sequitur. You cannot conclude that, because grass fed
beef accumulates collateral deaths, then ALL vegetable
products accumulate them. Your conclusion doesn't logically
follow from your premise.

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 21:31:09 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote:
>"Reynard" > wrote in message ...
>> On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:10:29 GMT, wrote:
>>>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:42:27 +0000, Reynard > wrote:
>>>>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:10:50 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Vegans and animal rights activists trivialize the collateral suffering
>>>>>and death that results from their own food production.
>>>>
>>>>Ipse dixit and false.
>>>
>>> Grass raised animal products contribute to less wildlife
>>> deaths, better wildlife habitat, and better lives for livestock
>>> than soy or rice products. ·
>>
>> No, it doesn't. Grass fed beef accumulates collateral
>> deaths like any other beef.
>>
>> [The Animal Damage Control (ADC) program
>> is administered by the U.S. Department of
>> Agriculture under its Animal and Plant Health
>> Inspection Service (APHIS). One of ADC's
>> biggest and most controversial activities is killing
>> coyotes and other predators, primarily to protect
>> western livestock.
>============================
>Well then fool. It's then proper to say that ALL veggies, even hand grown,
>window box ones are doused with massive amounts of chemicals and sprays.

Non sequitur. You cannot conclude that, because grass fed
beef accumulates collateral deaths, then ALL vegetable
products accumulate them. Your conclusion doesn't logically
follow from your premise.

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 22:04:54 GMT, "Jonathan Ball" > wrote:
>"Reynard" > wrote in message ...
>> On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 19:25:14 GMT, "Jonathan Ball" >wrote:
>> >"Reynard" > wrote in message ...
>> >> On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:33:21 GMT, usual suspect >wrote:
>> >> >Reynard wrote:
>> >> >> On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:10:50 GMT, usual suspect >wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>Vegans and animal rights activists trivialize the collateral
>> >> >>>suffering and death that results from their own food production.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Ipse dixit and false.
>> >> >
>> >> >Your posting history on the issue proves it.
>> >>
>> >> Exactly.
>> >
>> >Yes, exactly.

Thank you.

"Reynard" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 21:31:09 GMT, "rick etter" > wrote:
>>"Reynard" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:10:29 GMT, wrote:
>>>>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:42:27 +0000, Reynard >
>>>>wrote:
>>>>>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:10:50 GMT, usual suspect >
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Vegans and animal rights activists trivialize the collateral suffering
>>>>>>and death that results from their own food production.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ipse dixit and false.
>>>>
>>>> Grass raised animal products contribute to less wildlife
>>>> deaths, better wildlife habitat, and better lives for livestock
>>>> than soy or rice products. ·
>>>
>>> No, it doesn't. Grass fed beef accumulates collateral
>>> deaths like any other beef.
>>>
>>> [The Animal Damage Control (ADC) program
>>> is administered by the U.S. Department of
>>> Agriculture under its Animal and Plant Health
>>> Inspection Service (APHIS). One of ADC's
>>> biggest and most controversial activities is killing
>>> coyotes and other predators, primarily to protect
>>> western livestock.
>>============================
>>Well then fool. It's then proper to say that ALL veggies, even hand
>>grown,
>>window box ones are doused with massive amounts of chemicals and sprays.
>
> Non sequitur. You cannot conclude that, because grass fed
> beef accumulates collateral deaths, then ALL vegetable
> products accumulate them. Your conclusion doesn't logically
> follow from your premise.
=====================
It's your logic that is off, killer. Your make the staement that all
grass-fed beef involves killing coyotes/predators, when that is not true.
By your (il)logic then, because some veggies are doused with chemicals from
seed to store, then all veggies are doused with chemicals from seed to
store. Or even better, let's use the millions of birds killed by ADC to
protect veggie crops. Because birds are killed to protect some crops, then
all crops kill birds for protection.

**** off, stupid shitbag Ray.

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 19:38:25 +0000, Reynard > wrote:

>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:52:18 GMT, wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:16:26 +0000, Reynard > wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:10:29 GMT, wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:42:27 +0000, Reynard > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:10:50 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Vegans and animal rights activists trivialize the collateral suffering
>>>>>>and death that results from their own food production.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ipse dixit and false.
>>>>
>>>> Grass raised animal products contribute to less wildlife
>>>> deaths, better wildlife habitat, and better lives for livestock
>>>> than soy or rice products. ·
>>>
>>>No, it doesn't. Grass fed beef accumulates collateral
>>>deaths like any other beef.
>>
>> Thanks for proving him right. You not only have tried to
>>trivialize the death that results from your own food production,
>>buy you obviously want to ignore it completely and talk about
>>something else.
>
>You'll find that all of the below concerns collateral deaths
>and doesn't trivialise them at all, Harrison.

"that results from their own food production"

>>>[The Animal Damage Control (ADC) program
>>>is administered by the U.S. Department of
>>>Agriculture under its Animal and Plant Health
>>>Inspection Service (APHIS). One of ADC's
>>>biggest and most controversial activities is killing
>>>coyotes and other predators, primarily to protect
>>>western livestock.
>>>
>>>Under pressure from ranchers, the U.S. government
>>>exterminates tens of thousands of predator and
>>>"nuisance" animals each year. In 1989, a partial list
>>>of animals killed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
>>>Animal Damage Control Program included 86,502
>>>coyotes, 7,158 foxes, 236 black bears, 1,220 bobcats,
>>>and 80 wolves. In 1988, 4.6 million birds, 9,000
>>>beavers, 76,000 coyotes, 5,000 raccoons, 300 black
>>>bears, and 200 mountain lions, among others, were
>>>killed. Some 400 pet dogs and 100 cats were also
>>>inadvertently killed. Extermination methods used
>>>include poisoning, shooting, gassing, and burning
>>>animals in their dens.]
>>>http://www.ti.org/adcreport.html
>>>
>>>Also, though a customer might switch to grass
>>>fed beef on the understanding that he would be
>>>reducing the collateral deaths associated with
>>>his food, evidence from U.S.D.A shows that
>>>" an animal could be fed 85% grain for 60 days
>>>and still qualify under these guidelines" as grass
>>>fed beef. That being so, grass fed beef accrues
>>>collateral death from the feed grown to feed
>>>them, just like any other steer in the feedlot.
>>>
>>>[Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the
>>>most commented upon topic in this docket. We
>>>will not belabor all the points of concern which
>>>are addressed but will focus on the areas of
>>>concern to our cooperative of growers. While
>>>Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method
>>>IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS
>>>NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that
>>>you need to define both as what they ARE since
>>>that is what is motivating the consumer.
>>>
>>>While the intent of this language would suggest
>>>that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished,
>>>especially in Feedlots, the language as written is
>>>not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing
>>>80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at
>>>the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef
>>>animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for
>>>70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be
>>>fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under
>>>these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with
>>>consumer expectations as is borne out in the
>>>website comments.]
>>>http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc213.pdf
>>>
>>>Also, farmers lie to their customers who ask after
>>>their product. Farmer tell them it's grass fed but
>>>finishes his animals in feedlots on grains far away.
>>>
>>>[Some meat producers use "grass-fed" to describe
>>>animals that are raised in pens on industrial feed,
>>>including corn, and finished on rations of grass in
>>>feedlots far from home. A similar confusion still
>>>surrounds "free-range," which can refer to animals
>>>that roam where they please or to animals kept in
>>>barns and allowed to range in circumscribed yards.
>>>No one regulates the use of these terms, and given
>>>how many years it took to achieve a national
>>>definition of "organic," it may be a long time before
>>>anyone does.]
>>>http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/05/kummer.htm
>>>
>>>You can keep your grass fed beef, because you
>>>cannot show that it accrues less collateral deaths
>>>than the veg one might buy in a supermarket.

On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 19:38:25 +0000, Reynard > wrote:

>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:52:18 GMT, wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:16:26 +0000, Reynard > wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:10:29 GMT, wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:42:27 +0000, Reynard > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:10:50 GMT, usual suspect > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Vegans and animal rights activists trivialize the collateral suffering
>>>>>>and death that results from their own food production.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ipse dixit and false.
>>>>
>>>> Grass raised animal products contribute to less wildlife
>>>> deaths, better wildlife habitat, and better lives for livestock
>>>> than soy or rice products. ·
>>>
>>>No, it doesn't. Grass fed beef accumulates collateral
>>>deaths like any other beef.
>>
>> Thanks for proving him right. You not only have tried to
>>trivialize the death that results from your own food production,
>>buy you obviously want to ignore it completely and talk about
>>something else.
>
>You'll find that all of the below concerns collateral deaths
>and doesn't trivialise them at all, Harrison.

"that results from their own food production"

>>>[The Animal Damage Control (ADC) program
>>>is administered by the U.S. Department of
>>>Agriculture under its Animal and Plant Health
>>>Inspection Service (APHIS). One of ADC's
>>>biggest and most controversial activities is killing
>>>coyotes and other predators, primarily to protect
>>>western livestock.
>>>
>>>Under pressure from ranchers, the U.S. government
>>>exterminates tens of thousands of predator and
>>>"nuisance" animals each year. In 1989, a partial list
>>>of animals killed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
>>>Animal Damage Control Program included 86,502
>>>coyotes, 7,158 foxes, 236 black bears, 1,220 bobcats,
>>>and 80 wolves. In 1988, 4.6 million birds, 9,000
>>>beavers, 76,000 coyotes, 5,000 raccoons, 300 black
>>>bears, and 200 mountain lions, among others, were
>>>killed. Some 400 pet dogs and 100 cats were also
>>>inadvertently killed. Extermination methods used
>>>include poisoning, shooting, gassing, and burning
>>>animals in their dens.]
>>>http://www.ti.org/adcreport.html
>>>
>>>Also, though a customer might switch to grass
>>>fed beef on the understanding that he would be
>>>reducing the collateral deaths associated with
>>>his food, evidence from U.S.D.A shows that
>>>" an animal could be fed 85% grain for 60 days
>>>and still qualify under these guidelines" as grass
>>>fed beef. That being so, grass fed beef accrues
>>>collateral death from the feed grown to feed
>>>them, just like any other steer in the feedlot.
>>>
>>>[Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the
>>>most commented upon topic in this docket. We
>>>will not belabor all the points of concern which
>>>are addressed but will focus on the areas of
>>>concern to our cooperative of growers. While
>>>Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method
>>>IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS
>>>NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that
>>>you need to define both as what they ARE since
>>>that is what is motivating the consumer.
>>>
>>>While the intent of this language would suggest
>>>that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished,
>>>especially in Feedlots, the language as written is
>>>not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing
>>>80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at
>>>the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef
>>>animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for
>>>70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be
>>>fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under
>>>these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with
>>>consumer expectations as is borne out in the
>>>website comments.]
>>>http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc213.pdf
>>>
>>>Also, farmers lie to their customers who ask after
>>>their product. Farmer tell them it's grass fed but
>>>finishes his animals in feedlots on grains far away.
>>>
>>>[Some meat producers use "grass-fed" to describe
>>>animals that are raised in pens on industrial feed,
>>>including corn, and finished on rations of grass in
>>>feedlots far from home. A similar confusion still
>>>surrounds "free-range," which can refer to animals
>>>that roam where they please or to animals kept in
>>>barns and allowed to range in circumscribed yards.
>>>No one regulates the use of these terms, and given
>>>how many years it took to achieve a national
>>>definition of "organic," it may be a long time before
>>>anyone does.]
>>>http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/05/kummer.htm
>>>
>>>You can keep your grass fed beef, because you
>>>cannot show that it accrues less collateral deaths
>>>than the veg one might buy in a supermarket.

Reynard wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:10:50 GMT, usual suspect >
wrote:
>
> >Vegans and animal rights activists trivialize the collateral
suffering
> >and death that results from their own food production.
>
> Ipse dixit and false.

Like you'd know. Dumbass.

Reynard wrote:
> On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:10:50 GMT, usual suspect >
wrote:
>
> >Vegans and animal rights activists trivialize the collateral
suffering
> >and death that results from their own food production.
>
> Ipse dixit and false.

Like you'd know. Dumbass.

Stop changing the spelling of your stupid pseudonym back to the misspelling.
It's Retard, you retard.

"Retard" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 22:04:54 GMT, Ted Bell >
wrote:
> >"Retard" > wrote in message
...
> >> On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 19:25:14 GMT, Ted Bell
>wrote:
> >> >"Retard" > wrote in message
...
> >> >> On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:33:21 GMT, usual suspect
>wrote:
> >> >> >Retard wrote:
> >> >> >> On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 17:10:50 GMT, usual suspect
>wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>>Vegans and animal rights activists trivialize the collateral
> >> >> >>>suffering and death that results from their own food production.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Ipse dixit and false.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Your posting history on the issue proves it.
> >> >>
> >> >> Exactly.
> >> >
> >> >Yes, exactly. You keep proving that you trivialize the collateral
suffering
> >> >and death that results from your own food production. all the time.
You do
> >> >an even more clumsy and ineffectual job of it than most deliberately
stupid
> >> >"vegans".
>
>
> Thank you.

Whatever floats your boat, munchkin.

> Such an argument, which I now call "Objecting to the 1001st Death," relies
> ENTIRELY on moral relativism. It avoids personal culpability for one's
> actions and ultimately becomes a diversion from the issue vegans and ARAs
> raise about animal cruelty.

I'm not sure who wrote this nonsense, I have already pointed out the
fallacies.

1) if numerous farmers are engaged in the systematic killing of animals in
veggie fields (or elsewhere), whether their food is eaten by vegans or not,
then this simply supports the need for farmers to go vegan and stop such
practices

2) veganism isn't a numbers game, it is about making choices that seek to
reduce _animal exploitation_, and vegans acknowledge that collateral deaths
are a part of all human activities, we simply seek to avoid such where it is
_practical and possible_ - it is both practical and possible NOT to eat
meat, or reduce meat intake, however humans have to eat plant foods to be
healthy, and furthermore, increasing meat consumption further precipitates
an environmental catastrophy

3) pasture ranging cattle do not tiptoe through the meadows, they trample
other creatures and ingest them by the thousand in every mouth of grass,
they compete with other herbivores and produce clouds of methane, and 90% of
the plant energy they ingest doesn't go to the table

4) vegans advocate veganic agriculture, free of any pesticides and dangerous
machinery - a veganic food supply would cause minimal collateral death, and
is free of animal exploitation - the same cannot be said for meat

5) all of the above points are factual, whereas there is no factual basis
for the claim that eating beef lowers total numbers of animal deaths

6) "moral relativism" is a nonsense concept - I would rather live with
people who want less suffering and explotation, even if that only amounted
to 1 death less, that 1 life is all that animal has, and even if no animals
were saved, it would still be a worthy ambition

If enough people were vegans, then that would in turn create sufficient
market to produce veganic food. All arguments that point to there being
avoidable animal suffering and exploitation _strengthen the vegan argument_.
They do not weaken it, as suggested by this thread and others similar.

John

John Coleman wrote:
> > Such an argument, which I now call "Objecting to the 1001st Death,"
relies
> > ENTIRELY on moral relativism. It avoids personal culpability for
one's
> > actions and ultimately becomes a diversion from the issue vegans
and ARAs
> > raise about animal cruelty.
>
> I'm not sure who wrote this nonsense, I have already pointed out the
> fallacies.

No, you haven't. First, you haven't identified any. Second, this
thread just started, and Mr. Suspect only posted the material for the
first time 3 days ago, and you've never responded to it before.

Stop lying.

>
> 1) if numerous farmers are engaged in the systematic killing of
animals in
> veggie fields (or elsewhere), whether their food is eaten by vegans
or not,
> then this simply supports the need for farmers to go vegan and stop
such
> practices

What "need", you idiot?

>
> 2) veganism isn't a numbers game,

It shouldn't be, but virtually ALL "vegans" try to convert it into one,
once they realize they CANNOT win on principle (because they HAVE no
principle behind their weird belief.)

> it is about making choices that seek to reduce _animal exploitation_,

What does "reduce" mean, dummy? You just ACKNOWLEDGED that this is a
numbers game. Nice work.

> and vegans acknowledge that collateral deaths
> are a part of all human activities, we simply seek to avoid such
where it is
> _practical and possible_ - it is both practical and possible NOT to
eat
> meat, or reduce meat intake, however humans have to eat plant foods
to be
> healthy, and furthermore, increasing meat consumption further
precipitates
> an environmental catastrophy

What a giant, steaming load of crap.

"vegans" DO NOT truly acknowledge collateral deaths. To the extent
they engage in a false acknowledgment of it, they do what you just did:

1) try to turn the issue into a numbers game
2) WEAKLY rationalize their UTTER INACTION when confronted with the
slaughter in which they are deeply morally complicit
3) try to blame someone else


> 3) pasture ranging cattle do not tiptoe through the meadows, they
trample
> other creatures

prove it

> and ingest them by the thousand in every mouth of grass,

What silly hyperbole!

> they compete with other herbivores and produce clouds of methane, and
90% of
> the plant energy they ingest doesn't go to the table

That last bit is laughably irrelevant.


> 4) vegans advocate veganic agriculture,

No, they don't. They CLAIM to do so, but when it comes to putting
their money where their fat yaps are, they don't come through.

> free of any pesticides and dangerous
> machinery - a veganic food supply would cause minimal collateral
death, and
> is free of animal exploitation - the same cannot be said for meat

There is nothing stopping "vegans" from eating only "veganic" (stupid
tautology) food. Why don't they do it? Oh, right, I almost forgot: a
loathsome passivity, and a non-stop inclination to pass the buck and
point fingers to excuse their own monstrous moral failure.

>
> 5) all of the above points are factual,

No, they are not; they are your hot-air opinion, nothing more.

> whereas there is no factual basis
> for the claim that eating beef lowers total numbers of animal deaths

There is indeed a theoretical basis for it, and it almost certainly is
true for some people who eat grass-fed beef.

>
> 6) "moral relativism" is a nonsense concept

No, it isn't. It's just terribly inconvenient for YOU.

> - I would rather live with
> people who want less suffering and explotation, even if that only
amounted
> to 1 death less, that 1 life is all that animal has, and even if no
animals
> were saved, it would still be a worthy ambition

You would rather live with a lot of other sanctimonious hypocrites,
like yourself, who jerk one another off while mumbling faux-pious
platitudes.

>
> If enough people were vegans,

As said earlier, there's nothing stopping "vegans" from growing their
own "veganic" (gag) food right now; nothing, that is, except their own
****ing laziness and moral turpitude.


> then that would in turn create sufficient
> market to produce veganic food.

ONCE AGAIN, we see the classic "vegan" tendency to blame others for
their own monstrous moral failure. The reason you cheerfully go along
with the slaughter of animals in the course of the production of the
food you eat is because others won't become willfully stupid along with
you, right? Your total abdication of responsibility is sickening.

> All arguments that point to there being
> avoidable animal suffering and exploitation _strengthen the vegan
argument_.

No, they don't; not when the animal suffering and exploitation is
something YOU cause, when you needn't do it.

> They do not weaken it, as suggested by this thread and others
similar.

They certainly do.

You, sir, are an animal rights passivist!

"Dutch" > wrote in message
...
> > 1) if numerous farmers are engaged in the systematic killing of animals
in
> > veggie fields (or elsewhere), whether their food is eaten by vegans or
> > not,
> > then this simply supports the need for farmers to go vegan and stop such
> > practices
>
> Perhaps so, however the fact remains that "veganism" as expressed in the
> real world does NOT deal with this issue, therefore the moral conclusions
> based on "veganism" are fundamentally flawed.

It does, it asks people to go vegan, so can farmers! It promotes veganic
farming. If others fail to take up these ideas, that is their fault, not
veganisms.

> > 2) veganism isn't a numbers game,
>
> "Objecting to the 1001st Death" is simply an expression, it does not
intend
> to reflect a specific number of deaths.

It absolutely implies a numbers game, yet it provides no credible or
authoitative numerical facts.

> I agree it's about that, but to be valid it must also address the issue of
> animal_death in an honest and forthright manner, which translates to an
> acknowledgement that reducing _animal exploitation_ is not necessarily
> synonymous with reducing _animal deaths_.

This is not a point. Reducing animal exploitation is also not synonymous
with increasing animal death. Veganism is based on the idea of compassion
for animals irrespective of the scenario, diet is only 1 facet.

> This is the big loophole in "veganism", _practical and possible_ are
> flexible terms, therefore if a "vegan" decides that it is not practical to
> always purchase animal-friendly produce, or indeed if it's not practical
or
> possible to even discover what those are, than as long as he obeys the
basic
> rule of non-consumption of animal *products, he can declare himself
morally
> upright. This is the real fallacy in all this, the "vegan's" belief that
> being "vegan" is necessary and sufficient to be a morally upright person.

Veganism starts with not eating animal products as a basic, and it does
indeed leave much to ones own judgement. I do not regard this as a flaw.
Veganism is inclusive and tries not to be too dogmatic.

> It is also practical and possible NOT to eat rice, a crop notorious for
> being high in collateral animal deaths.

Sure, vegans can choose not to eat rice if they want to and still be vegans.
However collateral death is acknowledged as unavoidable in all human
activity. Where possible it should be reduced. It is hard to establish
numbers, hence the lack of rules.

> That may have the outcome of increasing animal deaths, depending on the
> sources of the meat and the plant food used to replace it.

where are the numbers?

> Humans do not need to eat anything close to the amount of food of any type
> that most of us do, so anyone who eats more than that minimal amount is
> guilty of the exact same sin as you accuse meat-eaters of.

I agree, over eating is unvegan. No one is accused of any "sin" in veganism.

> Eliminating it altogether courts all forms of disasters as well.

How?

> 90% of the plant energy they ingest would be unavailable to humans any
other
> way.

Plant trees. Much pastureland used to be forest.

> It is completely unsubstantiated that "veganic" farming would be a
workable
> solution to feeding the human population.

There is no reason it would not work for most.

> That's a strawman, certain animal products can easily be shown to cause
> fewer animal deaths than certain plant based products.
> http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm

Exceptions mislead!

> animal products <full stop> If I offer a vegan a moose steak that is known
> to have caused 1/1000th of an animal death in place of a
rice/soy/carrot/pea
> concoction that has caused some unknown amount of death, he would never
> choose the moose.

This is hypothetical, no such numbers exist.

> It has never been established that the death toll in agriculture is
> avoidable.

I agree, agriculture should be abandoned as much as it can. Where we can we
should plant trees and grow fruit and nuts, and grow veg that is picked
carefully by hand. Through most of time there was no agriculture.

> In fact the whole idea of veganism is pie-in-the-sky twaddle.

It is quiet practical and achievable with commendable results. We can put
men on the moon, build cities and easily have more compassion for other
beings.

John

"John Coleman" > wrote in message
...
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
>> > 1) if numerous farmers are engaged in the systematic killing of animals
> in
>> > veggie fields (or elsewhere), whether their food is eaten by vegans or
>> > not,
>> > then this simply supports the need for farmers to go vegan and stop
>> > such
>> > practices
>>
>> Perhaps so, however the fact remains that "veganism" as expressed in the
>> real world does NOT deal with this issue, therefore the moral conclusions
>> based on "veganism" are fundamentally flawed.
>
> It does, it asks people to go vegan, so can farmers! It promotes veganic
> farming. If others fail to take up these ideas, that is their fault, not
> veganisms.

You have it wrong John, we're accountable for the lifestyles we actually
live, not the lifestyles we imagine. My kharma includes the lives of animals
in livestock barns and feedlots, not the lives of imaginary animals that
spend their lives in idyllic, stress-free conditions and die completely
painlessly.


>> > 2) veganism isn't a numbers game,
>>
>> "Objecting to the 1001st Death" is simply an expression, it does not
> intend
>> to reflect a specific number of deaths.
>
> It absolutely implies a numbers game, yet it provides no credible or
> authoitative numerical facts.

You're just being silly. All it says is that many animals die in agriculture
that are not addressed by the vegan in his simplistic moral equation, "I
consume no animal products=I harm no animals".

>> I agree it's about that, but to be valid it must also address the issue
>> of
>> animal_death in an honest and forthright manner, which translates to an
>> acknowledgement that reducing _animal exploitation_ is not necessarily
>> synonymous with reducing _animal deaths_.
>
> This is not a point. Reducing animal exploitation is also not synonymous
> with increasing animal death. Veganism is based on the idea of compassion
> for animals irrespective of the scenario, diet is only 1 facet.

That was obfuscation, you illustrated my point.

>> This is the big loophole in "veganism", _practical and possible_ are
>> flexible terms, therefore if a "vegan" decides that it is not practical
>> to
>> always purchase animal-friendly produce, or indeed if it's not practical
> or
>> possible to even discover what those are, than as long as he obeys the
> basic
>> rule of non-consumption of animal *products, he can declare himself
> morally
>> upright. This is the real fallacy in all this, the "vegan's" belief that
>> being "vegan" is necessary and sufficient to be a morally upright person.
>
> Veganism starts with not eating animal products as a basic, and it does
> indeed leave much to ones own judgement. I do not regard this as a flaw.

People are notoriously blind to flaws in their own beliefs. This *is* a flaw
because it almost always introduces a false sense in vegans.

> Veganism is inclusive

Vegans exclude anyone who eats meat from their little morally superior club.

> and tries not to be too dogmatic

The only time vegans are not dogmatic is when they are cutting themselves
slack for not following the rule of non-animal product consumption.

<snips not noted>

>> It is also practical and possible NOT to eat rice, a crop notorious for
>> being high in collateral animal deaths.
>
> Sure, vegans can choose not to eat rice if they want to and still be
> vegans.

You completely missed the point. YOU said "it is both practical and possible
NOT to eat meat" as if to say that because a step is "practical and
possible", and it reduces animal deaths, that it OUGHT TO be taken. Yet
vegans freely consume rice, even though "it is both practical and possible
NOT to eat rice" AND rice causes animal deaths. Can you not see the
hypocrisy?

> However collateral death is acknowledged as unavoidable in all human
> activity. Where possible it should be reduced.

"it is both practical and possible NOT to eat rice"

> It is hard to establish
> numbers,

It's not hard to extrapolate in general terms.

> hence the lack of rules.

You don't know the number of pigs that die because I have a couple of strips
of bacon with my breakfast on the weekend, but you still have a rule against
it.

>> That may have the outcome of increasing animal deaths, depending on the
>> sources of the meat and the plant food used to replace it.
>
> where are the numbers?

You just said that it's hard to establish numbers. I agree, but it's not
hard to extrapolate in general terms. A 30lb salmon represents an animal
death. If small animals are taken into account, then 30lb of tofu likely
represents at least one animal death also, when you consider all that goes
into the cultivating, planting, spraying, harvesting and processing of soya
beans. The equation is more startling when larger animals are considered.

>> Humans do not need to eat anything close to the amount of food of any
>> type
>> that most of us do, so anyone who eats more than that minimal amount is
>> guilty of the exact same sin as you accuse meat-eaters of.
>
> I agree, over eating is unvegan.

I disagree, overeating is not "un-vegan", it is not an issue on ANY vegan
publication I know of.

> No one is accused of any "sin" in veganism.

Really, eating a moose steak is not a "sin" in veganism?

>> Eliminating it altogether courts all forms of disasters as well.
>
> How?

A huge proportion of the plant material in the human food chain is processed
through animals, because it is not edible for humans. A large proportion of
the land used to produce this plant material is arid, non-arable, untended,
or too mountainous for growing. The very lives of many of the worlds
populations depends on raising animals.

>> 90% of the plant energy they ingest would be unavailable to humans any
> other
>> way.
>
> Plant trees. Much pastureland used to be forest.

People can't eat trees.

>> It is completely unsubstantiated that "veganic" farming would be a
> workable
>> solution to feeding the human population.
>
> There is no reason it would not work for most.

That's a pie-in-the-sky assertion that cannot be taken seriously.

>> That's a strawman, certain animal products can easily be shown to cause
>> fewer animal deaths than certain plant based products.
>> http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm
>
> Exceptions mislead!

It is no exception to refer to pastured animals. Free-range meat is
available and produced in great quantities in other parts of the world.

>> animal products <full stop> If I offer a vegan a moose steak that is
>> known
>> to have caused 1/1000th of an animal death in place of a
> rice/soy/carrot/pea
>> concoction that has caused some unknown amount of death, he would never
>> choose the moose.
>
> This is hypothetical, no such numbers exist.

Yes they do. If I eat a 6oz steak from a moose with a carcass weight of
1500lb, I am responsible for 1/3000 of an animal death. Just because your
<gag> tempeh steak </gag> has no visible animal content does not mean it
does not carry a legacy of at least that small amount of animal death.

>> It has never been established that the death toll in agriculture is
>> avoidable.
>
> I agree, agriculture should be abandoned as much as it can. Where we can
> we
> should plant trees and grow fruit and nuts, and grow veg that is picked
> carefully by hand. Through most of time there was no agriculture.
>
>> In fact the whole idea of veganism is pie-in-the-sky twaddle.
>
> It is quiet practical and achievable with commendable results. We can put
> men on the moon, build cities and easily have more compassion for other
> beings.

I think you are already living on the moon John.

"John Coleman" > wrote in message
...
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
>> > 1) if numerous farmers are engaged in the systematic killing of animals
> in
>> > veggie fields (or elsewhere), whether their food is eaten by vegans or
>> > not,
>> > then this simply supports the need for farmers to go vegan and stop
>> > such
>> > practices
>>
>> Perhaps so, however the fact remains that "veganism" as expressed in the
>> real world does NOT deal with this issue, therefore the moral conclusions
>> based on "veganism" are fundamentally flawed.
>
> It does, it asks people to go vegan, so can farmers! It promotes veganic
> farming. If others fail to take up these ideas, that is their fault, not
> veganisms.

You have it wrong John, we're accountable for the lifestyles we actually
live, not the lifestyles we imagine. My kharma includes the lives of animals
in livestock barns and feedlots, not the lives of imaginary animals that
spend their lives in idyllic, stress-free conditions and die completely
painlessly.


>> > 2) veganism isn't a numbers game,
>>
>> "Objecting to the 1001st Death" is simply an expression, it does not
> intend
>> to reflect a specific number of deaths.
>
> It absolutely implies a numbers game, yet it provides no credible or
> authoitative numerical facts.

You're just being silly. All it says is that many animals die in agriculture
that are not addressed by the vegan in his simplistic moral equation, "I
consume no animal products=I harm no animals".

>> I agree it's about that, but to be valid it must also address the issue
>> of
>> animal_death in an honest and forthright manner, which translates to an
>> acknowledgement that reducing _animal exploitation_ is not necessarily
>> synonymous with reducing _animal deaths_.
>
> This is not a point. Reducing animal exploitation is also not synonymous
> with increasing animal death. Veganism is based on the idea of compassion
> for animals irrespective of the scenario, diet is only 1 facet.

That was obfuscation, you illustrated my point.

>> This is the big loophole in "veganism", _practical and possible_ are
>> flexible terms, therefore if a "vegan" decides that it is not practical
>> to
>> always purchase animal-friendly produce, or indeed if it's not practical
> or
>> possible to even discover what those are, than as long as he obeys the
> basic
>> rule of non-consumption of animal *products, he can declare himself
> morally
>> upright. This is the real fallacy in all this, the "vegan's" belief that
>> being "vegan" is necessary and sufficient to be a morally upright person.
>
> Veganism starts with not eating animal products as a basic, and it does
> indeed leave much to ones own judgement. I do not regard this as a flaw.

People are notoriously blind to flaws in their own beliefs. This *is* a flaw
because it almost always introduces a false sense in vegans.

> Veganism is inclusive

Vegans exclude anyone who eats meat from their little morally superior club.

> and tries not to be too dogmatic

The only time vegans are not dogmatic is when they are cutting themselves
slack for not following the rule of non-animal product consumption.

<snips not noted>

>> It is also practical and possible NOT to eat rice, a crop notorious for
>> being high in collateral animal deaths.
>
> Sure, vegans can choose not to eat rice if they want to and still be
> vegans.

You completely missed the point. YOU said "it is both practical and possible
NOT to eat meat" as if to say that because a step is "practical and
possible", and it reduces animal deaths, that it OUGHT TO be taken. Yet
vegans freely consume rice, even though "it is both practical and possible
NOT to eat rice" AND rice causes animal deaths. Can you not see the
hypocrisy?

> However collateral death is acknowledged as unavoidable in all human
> activity. Where possible it should be reduced.

"it is both practical and possible NOT to eat rice"

> It is hard to establish
> numbers,

It's not hard to extrapolate in general terms.

> hence the lack of rules.

You don't know the number of pigs that die because I have a couple of strips
of bacon with my breakfast on the weekend, but you still have a rule against
it.

>> That may have the outcome of increasing animal deaths, depending on the
>> sources of the meat and the plant food used to replace it.
>
> where are the numbers?

You just said that it's hard to establish numbers. I agree, but it's not
hard to extrapolate in general terms. A 30lb salmon represents an animal
death. If small animals are taken into account, then 30lb of tofu likely
represents at least one animal death also, when you consider all that goes
into the cultivating, planting, spraying, harvesting and processing of soya
beans. The equation is more startling when larger animals are considered.

>> Humans do not need to eat anything close to the amount of food of any
>> type
>> that most of us do, so anyone who eats more than that minimal amount is
>> guilty of the exact same sin as you accuse meat-eaters of.
>
> I agree, over eating is unvegan.

I disagree, overeating is not "un-vegan", it is not an issue on ANY vegan
publication I know of.

> No one is accused of any "sin" in veganism.

Really, eating a moose steak is not a "sin" in veganism?

>> Eliminating it altogether courts all forms of disasters as well.
>
> How?

A huge proportion of the plant material in the human food chain is processed
through animals, because it is not edible for humans. A large proportion of
the land used to produce this plant material is arid, non-arable, untended,
or too mountainous for growing. The very lives of many of the worlds
populations depends on raising animals.

>> 90% of the plant energy they ingest would be unavailable to humans any
> other
>> way.
>
> Plant trees. Much pastureland used to be forest.

People can't eat trees.

>> It is completely unsubstantiated that "veganic" farming would be a
> workable
>> solution to feeding the human population.
>
> There is no reason it would not work for most.

That's a pie-in-the-sky assertion that cannot be taken seriously.

>> That's a strawman, certain animal products can easily be shown to cause
>> fewer animal deaths than certain plant based products.
>> http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm
>
> Exceptions mislead!

It is no exception to refer to pastured animals. Free-range meat is
available and produced in great quantities in other parts of the world.

>> animal products <full stop> If I offer a vegan a moose steak that is
>> known
>> to have caused 1/1000th of an animal death in place of a
> rice/soy/carrot/pea
>> concoction that has caused some unknown amount of death, he would never
>> choose the moose.
>
> This is hypothetical, no such numbers exist.

Yes they do. If I eat a 6oz steak from a moose with a carcass weight of
1500lb, I am responsible for 1/3000 of an animal death. Just because your
<gag> tempeh steak </gag> has no visible animal content does not mean it
does not carry a legacy of at least that small amount of animal death.

>> It has never been established that the death toll in agriculture is
>> avoidable.
>
> I agree, agriculture should be abandoned as much as it can. Where we can
> we
> should plant trees and grow fruit and nuts, and grow veg that is picked
> carefully by hand. Through most of time there was no agriculture.
>
>> In fact the whole idea of veganism is pie-in-the-sky twaddle.
>
> It is quiet practical and achievable with commendable results. We can put
> men on the moon, build cities and easily have more compassion for other
> beings.

I think you are already living on the moon John.

"John Coleman" > wrote in message
...
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
>> > 1) if numerous farmers are engaged in the systematic killing of animals
> in
>> > veggie fields (or elsewhere), whether their food is eaten by vegans or
>> > not,
>> > then this simply supports the need for farmers to go vegan and stop
>> > such
>> > practices
>>
>> Perhaps so, however the fact remains that "veganism" as expressed in the
>> real world does NOT deal with this issue, therefore the moral conclusions
>> based on "veganism" are fundamentally flawed.
>
> It does, it asks people to go vegan, so can farmers! It promotes veganic
> farming. If others fail to take up these ideas, that is their fault, not
> veganisms.
=================
Yet vegan provide no incentive to change to this practice of farming. All
they have is a mouth that runs off about what others are doing. Pretending
that there is some mythical ideal out there 'somewhere' doesn't do anything
to improve your diet right here, right now. It's only a strawman used to
pretend that you care.


>
>> > 2) veganism isn't a numbers game,
>>
>> "Objecting to the 1001st Death" is simply an expression, it does not
> intend
>> to reflect a specific number of deaths.
>
> It absolutely implies a numbers game, yet it provides no credible or
> authoitative numerical facts.
=====================
yet they have been provided. Always snipped out by the likes of you....


>
>> I agree it's about that, but to be valid it must also address the issue
>> of
>> animal_death in an honest and forthright manner, which translates to an
>> acknowledgement that reducing _animal exploitation_ is not necessarily
>> synonymous with reducing _animal deaths_.
>
> This is not a point. Reducing animal exploitation is also not synonymous
> with increasing animal death. Veganism is based on the idea of compassion
> for animals irrespective of the scenario, diet is only 1 facet.
================
1 facet that you cannot even reduce you impact on yourself, because you
dogmatically follow your simple rule for your simple mind! what a hoot!


>
>> This is the big loophole in "veganism", _practical and possible_ are
>> flexible terms, therefore if a "vegan" decides that it is not practical
>> to
>> always purchase animal-friendly produce, or indeed if it's not practical
> or
>> possible to even discover what those are, than as long as he obeys the
> basic
>> rule of non-consumption of animal *products, he can declare himself
> morally
>> upright. This is the real fallacy in all this, the "vegan's" belief that
>> being "vegan" is necessary and sufficient to be a morally upright person.
>
> Veganism starts with not eating animal products as a basic, and it does
> indeed leave much to ones own judgement. I do not regard this as a flaw.
> Veganism is inclusive and tries not to be too dogmatic.
====================
ROTFLMAO It's the very definition os such as practiced here on usenet!


>
>> It is also practical and possible NOT to eat rice, a crop notorious for
>> being high in collateral animal deaths.
>
> Sure, vegans can choose not to eat rice if they want to and still be
> vegans.
> However collateral death is acknowledged as unavoidable in all human
> activity. Where possible it should be reduced.
=====================
And you have been shown that it is possible, and reasonable to reduce your
bloody footprints by including the right kind of meats. But then, since all
you have is a simple rule for your simple mind, 'eat no meat,' you have to
focus only on what you think others are doing.


It is hard to establish
> numbers, hence the lack of rules.
>
>> That may have the outcome of increasing animal deaths, depending on the
>> sources of the meat and the plant food used to replace it.
>
> where are the numbers?
==================
Always snipped out, un-noted of course. Why is that? Numbers have been
posted many, many times showing the massive deaths that occur in crop
production. Why do you continue to ignore tham, and focus only on what
others eat, hypocrite?


>
>> Humans do not need to eat anything close to the amount of food of any
>> type
>> that most of us do, so anyone who eats more than that minimal amount is
>> guilty of the exact same sin as you accuse meat-eaters of.
>
> I agree, over eating is unvegan. No one is accused of any "sin" in
> veganism.
>
>> Eliminating it altogether courts all forms of disasters as well.
>
> How?
>
>> 90% of the plant energy they ingest would be unavailable to humans any
> other
>> way.
>
> Plant trees. Much pastureland used to be forest.
=================
Before that most was cropland. The forests were not origninally cut down
for ranches stupid. The early settlers cleared land for crops and lumber.
There was no market for large scale meat operations, dolt. Families
typically had what animals they needed to work the land and provide for
their own food.

>
>> It is completely unsubstantiated that "veganic" farming would be a
> workable
>> solution to feeding the human population.
>
> There is no reason it would not work for most.
==================
It's still machine intensive you ignorant dolt.


>
>> That's a strawman, certain animal products can easily be shown to cause
>> fewer animal deaths than certain plant based products.
>> http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm
>
> Exceptions mislead!
====================
No, they prove the nonsense of veganism. vegans keep claiming that all
vegan diets are better than any meat-included diet. The whole house of
cards comes tumbling down arond your feet, killer.


>
>> animal products <full stop> If I offer a vegan a moose steak that is
>> known
>> to have caused 1/1000th of an animal death in place of a
> rice/soy/carrot/pea
>> concoction that has caused some unknown amount of death, he would never
>> choose the moose.
>
> This is hypothetical, no such numbers exist.
=====================
What a load of BS. What number do you want? There is 1, the moose, fool!
He provides thousands of meals! Prove that your tofu substitute meats
cause less than 1, fool. Come on, show your claims! Soy processing into
tofu is an intensive process, despite your continued claims. massive inputs
from the petro-chemical industry are required from seeding to putting the
fake crap on your plate! Destruction and animal deaths around the world,
not just where you eat the final product. You are seriously terminally
ignorant if you wish to dispute that.


>
>> It has never been established that the death toll in agriculture is
>> avoidable.
>
> I agree, agriculture should be abandoned as much as it can. Where we can
> we
> should plant trees and grow fruit and nuts, and grow veg that is picked
> carefully by hand. Through most of time there was no agriculture.
========================
You'd be destroying the natural habitat of an area. Very few areas are
natural fruit and nut trees, killer.


>
>> In fact the whole idea of veganism is pie-in-the-sky twaddle.
>
> It is quiet practical and achievable with commendable results. We can put
> men on the moon, build cities and easily have more compassion for other
> beings.
======================
If it's so easy, why are you here, contributing to unnecessary animal death
and suffering for nothing more than your entertainment?


>
> John
>
>
>
>

"John Coleman" > wrote in message
...
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> ...
>> > 1) if numerous farmers are engaged in the systematic killing of animals
> in
>> > veggie fields (or elsewhere), whether their food is eaten by vegans or
>> > not,
>> > then this simply supports the need for farmers to go vegan and stop
>> > such
>> > practices
>>
>> Perhaps so, however the fact remains that "veganism" as expressed in the
>> real world does NOT deal with this issue, therefore the moral conclusions
>> based on "veganism" are fundamentally flawed.
>
> It does, it asks people to go vegan, so can farmers! It promotes veganic
> farming. If others fail to take up these ideas, that is their fault, not
> veganisms.
=================
Yet vegan provide no incentive to change to this practice of farming. All
they have is a mouth that runs off about what others are doing. Pretending
that there is some mythical ideal out there 'somewhere' doesn't do anything
to improve your diet right here, right now. It's only a strawman used to
pretend that you care.


>
>> > 2) veganism isn't a numbers game,
>>
>> "Objecting to the 1001st Death" is simply an expression, it does not
> intend
>> to reflect a specific number of deaths.
>
> It absolutely implies a numbers game, yet it provides no credible or
> authoitative numerical facts.
=====================
yet they have been provided. Always snipped out by the likes of you....


>
>> I agree it's about that, but to be valid it must also address the issue
>> of
>> animal_death in an honest and forthright manner, which translates to an
>> acknowledgement that reducing _animal exploitation_ is not necessarily
>> synonymous with reducing _animal deaths_.
>
> This is not a point. Reducing animal exploitation is also not synonymous
> with increasing animal death. Veganism is based on the idea of compassion
> for animals irrespective of the scenario, diet is only 1 facet.
================
1 facet that you cannot even reduce you impact on yourself, because you
dogmatically follow your simple rule for your simple mind! what a hoot!


>
>> This is the big loophole in "veganism", _practical and possible_ are
>> flexible terms, therefore if a "vegan" decides that it is not practical
>> to
>> always purchase animal-friendly produce, or indeed if it's not practical
> or
>> possible to even discover what those are, than as long as he obeys the
> basic
>> rule of non-consumption of animal *products, he can declare himself
> morally
>> upright. This is the real fallacy in all this, the "vegan's" belief that
>> being "vegan" is necessary and sufficient to be a morally upright person.
>
> Veganism starts with not eating animal products as a basic, and it does
> indeed leave much to ones own judgement. I do not regard this as a flaw.
> Veganism is inclusive and tries not to be too dogmatic.
====================
ROTFLMAO It's the very definition os such as practiced here on usenet!


>
>> It is also practical and possible NOT to eat rice, a crop notorious for
>> being high in collateral animal deaths.
>
> Sure, vegans can choose not to eat rice if they want to and still be
> vegans.
> However collateral death is acknowledged as unavoidable in all human
> activity. Where possible it should be reduced.
=====================
And you have been shown that it is possible, and reasonable to reduce your
bloody footprints by including the right kind of meats. But then, since all
you have is a simple rule for your simple mind, 'eat no meat,' you have to
focus only on what you think others are doing.


It is hard to establish
> numbers, hence the lack of rules.
>
>> That may have the outcome of increasing animal deaths, depending on the
>> sources of the meat and the plant food used to replace it.
>
> where are the numbers?
==================
Always snipped out, un-noted of course. Why is that? Numbers have been
posted many, many times showing the massive deaths that occur in crop
production. Why do you continue to ignore tham, and focus only on what
others eat, hypocrite?


>
>> Humans do not need to eat anything close to the amount of food of any
>> type
>> that most of us do, so anyone who eats more than that minimal amount is
>> guilty of the exact same sin as you accuse meat-eaters of.
>
> I agree, over eating is unvegan. No one is accused of any "sin" in
> veganism.
>
>> Eliminating it altogether courts all forms of disasters as well.
>
> How?
>
>> 90% of the plant energy they ingest would be unavailable to humans any
> other
>> way.
>
> Plant trees. Much pastureland used to be forest.
=================
Before that most was cropland. The forests were not origninally cut down
for ranches stupid. The early settlers cleared land for crops and lumber.
There was no market for large scale meat operations, dolt. Families
typically had what animals they needed to work the land and provide for
their own food.

>
>> It is completely unsubstantiated that "veganic" farming would be a
> workable
>> solution to feeding the human population.
>
> There is no reason it would not work for most.
==================
It's still machine intensive you ignorant dolt.


>
>> That's a strawman, certain animal products can easily be shown to cause
>> fewer animal deaths than certain plant based products.
>> http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm
>
> Exceptions mislead!
====================
No, they prove the nonsense of veganism. vegans keep claiming that all
vegan diets are better than any meat-included diet. The whole house of
cards comes tumbling down arond your feet, killer.


>
>> animal products <full stop> If I offer a vegan a moose steak that is
>> known
>> to have caused 1/1000th of an animal death in place of a
> rice/soy/carrot/pea
>> concoction that has caused some unknown amount of death, he would never
>> choose the moose.
>
> This is hypothetical, no such numbers exist.
=====================
What a load of BS. What number do you want? There is 1, the moose, fool!
He provides thousands of meals! Prove that your tofu substitute meats
cause less than 1, fool. Come on, show your claims! Soy processing into
tofu is an intensive process, despite your continued claims. massive inputs
from the petro-chemical industry are required from seeding to putting the
fake crap on your plate! Destruction and animal deaths around the world,
not just where you eat the final product. You are seriously terminally
ignorant if you wish to dispute that.


>
>> It has never been established that the death toll in agriculture is
>> avoidable.
>
> I agree, agriculture should be abandoned as much as it can. Where we can
> we
> should plant trees and grow fruit and nuts, and grow veg that is picked
> carefully by hand. Through most of time there was no agriculture.
========================
You'd be destroying the natural habitat of an area. Very few areas are
natural fruit and nut trees, killer.


>
>> In fact the whole idea of veganism is pie-in-the-sky twaddle.
>
> It is quiet practical and achievable with commendable results. We can put
> men on the moon, build cities and easily have more compassion for other
> beings.
======================
If it's so easy, why are you here, contributing to unnecessary animal death
and suffering for nothing more than your entertainment?


>
> John
>
>
>
>

John Coleman wrote:

>>Such an argument, which I now call "Objecting to the 1001st Death," relies
>>ENTIRELY on moral relativism. It avoids personal culpability for one's
>>actions and ultimately becomes a diversion from the issue vegans and ARAs
>>raise about animal cruelty.
>
>
> I'm not sure who wrote this nonsense, I have already pointed out the
> fallacies.

No, you haven't.

>
> 1) if numerous farmers are engaged in the systematic killing of animals in
> veggie fields (or elsewhere), whether their food is eaten by vegans or not,
> then this simply supports the need for farmers to go vegan and stop such
> practices

There is no "need" for farmers to "go 'vegan'", except
in your warped ideology.

You can't escape the fact that you are blaming the
farmer for YOUR failure to live as you claim to live:
"cruelty free". Your claim is false, and you know it;
when you stand by the claim, you become a liar.

>
> 2) veganism isn't a numbers game

As I've demonstrated numerous times, it very much IS a
numbers game. First, "vegans" begin by believing the
classic Denying the Antecedent fallacy:

if I eat meat, I cause the suffering and death of
animals

I do not eat meat;

therefore, I do not cause the suffering and death
of animals

Don't bother denying it; ALL "vegans" begin by
believing this fallacy. When it is pointed out to them
that it IS a fallacy, leading to the inescapable
conclusion that refraining from consuming animal
products does NOT mean one leads a "cruelty free"
lifestyle, they ALL retreat to a numbers game: they
begin claiming, without support, that they cause fewer
instances of animal death and suffering.

>
> 3) pasture ranging cattle do not tiptoe through the meadows, they trample
> other creatures

Prove it.

>
> 4) vegans advocate veganic agriculture, free of any pesticides and dangerous
> machinery

Their "advocacy" is ineffectual and does not absolve
them of responsibility for being cheerful accomplices
in the non-"veganic" (that's not even a word) slaughter
of animals in agriculture.

>
> 5) all of the above points are factual

No, they aren't. They're spin; blatant propagandizing
based on half truths at best.

>
> 6) "moral relativism" is a nonsense concept

It certainly is! That's why you should stop embracing it.

John Coleman wrote:

>>Such an argument, which I now call "Objecting to the 1001st Death," relies
>>ENTIRELY on moral relativism. It avoids personal culpability for one's
>>actions and ultimately becomes a diversion from the issue vegans and ARAs
>>raise about animal cruelty.
>
>
> I'm not sure who wrote this nonsense, I have already pointed out the
> fallacies.

No, you haven't.

>
> 1) if numerous farmers are engaged in the systematic killing of animals in
> veggie fields (or elsewhere), whether their food is eaten by vegans or not,
> then this simply supports the need for farmers to go vegan and stop such
> practices

There is no "need" for farmers to "go 'vegan'", except
in your warped ideology.

You can't escape the fact that you are blaming the
farmer for YOUR failure to live as you claim to live:
"cruelty free". Your claim is false, and you know it;
when you stand by the claim, you become a liar.

>
> 2) veganism isn't a numbers game

As I've demonstrated numerous times, it very much IS a
numbers game. First, "vegans" begin by believing the
classic Denying the Antecedent fallacy:

if I eat meat, I cause the suffering and death of
animals

I do not eat meat;

therefore, I do not cause the suffering and death
of animals

Don't bother denying it; ALL "vegans" begin by
believing this fallacy. When it is pointed out to them
that it IS a fallacy, leading to the inescapable
conclusion that refraining from consuming animal
products does NOT mean one leads a "cruelty free"
lifestyle, they ALL retreat to a numbers game: they
begin claiming, without support, that they cause fewer
instances of animal death and suffering.

>
> 3) pasture ranging cattle do not tiptoe through the meadows, they trample
> other creatures

Prove it.

>
> 4) vegans advocate veganic agriculture, free of any pesticides and dangerous
> machinery

Their "advocacy" is ineffectual and does not absolve
them of responsibility for being cheerful accomplices
in the non-"veganic" (that's not even a word) slaughter
of animals in agriculture.

>
> 5) all of the above points are factual

No, they aren't. They're spin; blatant propagandizing
based on half truths at best.

>
> 6) "moral relativism" is a nonsense concept

It certainly is! That's why you should stop embracing it.

> >> > 2) veganism isn't a numbers game,
> >>
> >> "Objecting to the 1001st Death" is simply an expression, it does
not
> > intend
> >> to reflect a specific number of deaths.
> >
> > It absolutely implies a numbers game, yet it provides no credible or
> > authoitative numerical facts.
> =====================
> yet they have been provided. Always snipped out by the likes of
you....

As far as numbers go, usual has posted in
alt.food.vegan proof that at it's very best the
meat industry has a 2.5:1 crop:finalproduct
ratio. Vegan foods of coarse have a 1:1.

As far as animal deaths from non-veganic
farming goes, at best the meat industry
causes 2.5 times the cds.

> > Veganism starts with not eating animal products as a basic, and it
does
> > indeed leave much to ones own judgement. I do not regard this as a
flaw.
> > Veganism is inclusive and tries not to be too dogmatic.
> ====================
> ROTFLMAO It's the very definition os such as practiced here on
usenet!

Why do you have to keep on being reminded
that veganism is not a religion?

> >> It is completely unsubstantiated that "veganic" farming would be a
> > workable
> >> solution to feeding the human population.
> >
> > There is no reason it would not work for most.
> ==================
> It's still machine intensive you ignorant dolt.

No it's not. Veganic farming, I believe uses
compassionate harvesting (=manual, usually).

> What a load of BS. What number do you want? There is 1, the moose,
fool!
> He provides thousands of meals! Prove that your tofu substitute
meats
> cause less than 1, fool. Come on, show your claims! Soy processing
into
> tofu is an intensive process, despite your continued claims. massive
inputs
> from the petro-chemical industry are required from seeding to putting
the
> fake crap on your plate! Destruction and animal deaths around the
world,
> not just where you eat the final product. You are seriously
terminally
> ignorant if you wish to dispute that.

If you are going to compare a wild moose with something,
compare it to similar wildcrafted vegan food, like wild
raspberries, or wild apples, or wild nuts, etc. 0 cds for
everyone. Woops, I forgot, you killed the moose!
1 cd for you.



--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/
A huge directory listing over 700 veg recipe sites.
Has a fun 'Jump to a Randon Link' button.