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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #16 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-04-2005, 03:20 AM
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Sprang" wrote in message
...
In article
.net,
"rick" wrote:

What's the point of trolling

=====================
Like most veg*ns here, you have no idea of the meaning of the
word, do you?


I used the right word.

====================
No, you didn't.



Your post was not responsive but rather an attempt at
provocation.

======================
No, my first post was an honest question. One that you have kept
running from, by calling names instead, eh killer?
There, you like that better? You keep tying to use the name of
the site, rather than the contents to say something. Problem is,
the site is about not eating meat, not less.


That was
my first post in these newsgroups, and your reply appears to be
one that
you could have posted to, well, just about ANY post in either
of the
newsgroups this thread is in. So what is that?

Do you reply to every single vegetarian-sounding post in every
newsgroup,
repeating the same thing? Why not join some women's forums,
rick, and
lecture on the benefits of tampons over pads?
======================

Trolling are you? I see you are still doing all you can to not
discuss what I asked.



I just don't get what could motivate such action. Particularly
when you
make such extreme assumptions about people.

==================
LOL


Troll.

==============
Yes, you are, killer.



  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-04-2005, 03:30 AM
Sprang
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article .net,
"rick" wrote:

As promoted here by usenet vegans it is only about following a
simple rule for simple minds, eat no meat. Their delusions are
that only by not eating meat that they cause no, fewer, less
deaths of animals.


"Usenet vegans??" So, being a vegan and this being my first post on usenet,
that lumps me in with these people you know so well, right?

Hardlt practical though, is it? If one wanted to contribute to
less death, and still remain the consumer oriented person they
are now, then the real choice is to choose meats that cause less
death and suffering. Growing any significant amounts o your own
food would seriously cut into your consumerism.


Oh, dear. Wouldn't that be horrific? I guess you don't know these usenet
vegans as well as you seem to think. The ones I know are less
consumeristic. Life must be so awful for them!

Who says people have to be completely absolutist about every
thing they
think might do some good? Many pacifists agree with American
involvement in
WWII. The name of the site, lessmeat.com, kinda indicates that
it is not
about absolutism, no?


Couldn't really answer this, right?

Vegetarianism is simply a non-action, not a basic ethical
principle of life.

=================
But veganism is. Notice the words Dutch used, vegans... That
is ALL about an ethical way of life. Diet being no more, and no
less important than any othe aspect of you life.


There you go again, attacking straw men. I posted the original post in this
thread, and I said nothing about absolutism, and neither does the website I
mentioned. You are arguing with some third party not participating in this
thread.

And on another note, if everyone were to stop eating meat,
fewer animals
would die (including all the animals killed feeding those meat
animals).

================
You have proof of that of course...


It takes more grain to produce meat than to produce grain. More than half
of America's crop production is fed to livestock.

If
all six billion of us were to eat free-range or hunted meat,
there would be
no wild game, all the ranges would be irreversibly compromised,
and all
life on Earth would probably be in trouble.

======================
LOL As opposed to the environmental damage from mono-culture
crop production?


Who's advocating mono-culture crop production? Not me! Not the website!
Only you, setting up your straw man.

Mono-culture crop production feeds most livestock.

Which of those is a better
lifestyle to advocate to others?

=====================
Eating the proper meats. You realize that all beef cows in the
US are already pasture fed for most of their lives, and even then
not all of them go to feedlots don't you?


Do you realize that most U.S. (mono-crop) agriculture goes to livestock?

Besides that, plants do not provide the b12 that you need.


Oh, I guess I'm dead then, right? Or is it that ten cents a day I spend on
super-duper, vegetarian vitamin supplements?

And no, those vegetarian supplements are not vegan. Do I need to remind you
again that nobody except you is arguing for absolutism?
  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-04-2005, 03:32 AM
Sprang
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article .net,
"rick" wrote:

That was
my first post in these newsgroups, and your reply appears to be
one that
you could have posted to, well, just about ANY post in either
of the
newsgroups this thread is in. So what is that?


Um... you forgot to answer this part. Convenient.
  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-04-2005, 04:12 AM
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Sprang" wrote in message
...
In article
.net,
"rick" wrote:

That was
my first post in these newsgroups, and your reply appears to
be
one that
you could have posted to, well, just about ANY post in
either
of the
newsgroups this thread is in. So what is that?


Um... you forgot to answer this part. Convenient.

===============
Hey dishonest snipper, you never tried to discuss what I asked
first, how conveninet, eh troll?


  #20 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-04-2005, 04:13 AM
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:50:19 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


wrote
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 23:26:28 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:



A demand for exact statistics is an attempt at disinformation.


That's ridiculous. Sounds to me like you just cannot provide them.

First, we would need to know how many pounds of brown rice per acre,
then figure out how many animal deaths per pound of brown rice.


No you don't, it is sufficient to know if such deaths occur at all, and
if they occur in small or large numbers.


No, it isn't sufficient.

This is not a counting game.
Here are a couple of links where the topic is discussed.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...ba873733af8008


Ok, a google post is hardly good evidence. What do you think I am, an
illiterate farmhand?


http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm


ahem:

http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob.../leastharm.htm

In his article, “Least Harm,” Steven Davis (2003) accepts the common
moral intuition that we should cause the least harm (the “least harm
principle”) but challenges the empirical claim that vegetarian diets
do in fact cause the least harm. Davis argues the number of wild
animals (mice, rabbits, amphibians, birds, and other species) who are
killed in crop production from “plowing, disking, harrowing, planting,
cultivating, applying herbicides and pesticides as well as harvesting”
is greater than the number of wild animals and farmed animals who die
in ruminant-pasture production. Given the least harm principle, Davis
concludes the collective adoption of an omnivorous diet consisting
both of free-range ruminant meat and vegetarian fare would be more
ethical than that of a strictly vegetarian (vegan) diet.[2]

While eating animals who are grazed rather than intensively confined
would vastly improve the welfare of farmed animals given their current
mistreatment, Davis does not succeed in showing this is preferable to
vegetarianism. First, Davis makes a mathematical error in using total
rather than per capita estimates of animals killed; second, he focuses
on the number of animals killed in ruminant and crop production
systems and ignores important considerations about the welfare of
animals under both systems; and third, he does not consider the number
of animals who are prevented from existing under the two systems.
After correcting for these errors, Davis’s argument makes a strong
case for, rather than against, adopting a vegetarian diet.

and etc....


Then we would need to figure out how many animal deaths there
are per pound of meat, depending on which kind of animal it is.


Again estimates are adequate to form a rational conclusion.


No, they aren't. Please provide real numbers.

What is
irrational, and disingenuous, is to refuse to consider collateral deaths
based on an absence of exact numbers.


You are projecting.


What I mean is, what is the average amout of beef, pork, chicken
that meat eaters eat.


Ethics is never based on averages, it's based on individual actions.
A person who substitutes X amount of fresh salmon in place of
Y amount of commercially produced rice or soya-based substitute is
probably enhancing their health and causing fewer animal deaths.


I think you are not familiar with rational thought.


Obvioulsy, chicken eaters cause more
animal deaths than beef eaters, but most people eat a combination.


It's equally obvious to me that regular consumers of free-range or hunted
meat, or freshly caught fish cause fewer animal deaths than most urban
vegans.


It;s on you to prove it.


without those numbers, it's all fluff.


The idea of collateral deaths in agriculture is not fluff, it's a
dagger in the heart of radical veganism.



Or maybe you are just a nut case with nothing better to do.




  #21 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-04-2005, 04:20 AM
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Sprang" wrote in message
...
In article
.net,
"rick" wrote:

As promoted here by usenet vegans it is only about following a
simple rule for simple minds, eat no meat. Their delusions
are
that only by not eating meat that they cause no, fewer, less
deaths of animals.


"Usenet vegans??" So, being a vegan and this being my first
post on usenet,
that lumps me in with these people you know so well, right?

======================
Nice to know that you're that easy to get to troll. Talk like
duck.... quack quack...




Hardlt practical though, is it? If one wanted to contribute
to
less death, and still remain the consumer oriented person they
are now, then the real choice is to choose meats that cause
less
death and suffering. Growing any significant amounts o your
own
food would seriously cut into your consumerism.


Oh, dear. Wouldn't that be horrific? I guess you don't know
these usenet
vegans as well as you seem to think. The ones I know are less
consumeristic. Life must be so awful for them!
=======================

ROTLMAO What a hoot!!! You're here on usenet, so I KNOW you
spend no time growing ANY of your own food in any amount that
makes a diference. Thanks fo proving it, again...



Who says people have to be completely absolutist about every
thing they
think might do some good? Many pacifists agree with American
involvement in
WWII. The name of the site, lessmeat.com, kinda indicates
that
it is not
about absolutism, no?


Couldn't really answer this, right?
=====================

Yes, I did fool. The title has no meaning to what the site is
about. Or, maybe you haven't really read it?


Vegetarianism is simply a non-action, not a basic ethical
principle of life.

=================
But veganism is. Notice the words Dutch used, vegans...
That
is ALL about an ethical way of life. Diet being no more, and
no
less important than any othe aspect of you life.


There you go again, attacking straw men. I posted the original
post in this
thread, and I said nothing about absolutism, and neither does
the website I
mentioned. You are arguing with some third party not
participating in this
thread.

======================
Yes, the site you posted does. It's all about eating NO meat,
not less. I you'd read the actually site, and not the title you
might understand that.



And on another note, if everyone were to stop eating meat,
fewer animals
would die (including all the animals killed feeding those
meat
animals).

================
You have proof of that of course...


It takes more grain to produce meat than to produce grain. More
than half
of America's crop production is fed to livestock.

======================
ROTLMAO You have proof of that claim, right?



If
all six billion of us were to eat free-range or hunted meat,
there would be
no wild game, all the ranges would be irreversibly
compromised,
and all
life on Earth would probably be in trouble.

======================
LOL As opposed to the environmental damage from mono-culture
crop production?


Who's advocating mono-culture crop production? Not me! Not the
website!
Only you, setting up your straw man.

======================
Yes, you are, and yes the site does. It promotes easy convenient
veggies and NO meat. No other way to get that food other than
mono-cultue crops, fool.



Mono-culture crop production feeds most livestock.

=================
You have proof again of this claim too, right killer?



Which of those is a better
lifestyle to advocate to others?

=====================
Eating the proper meats. You realize that all beef cows in
the
US are already pasture fed for most of their lives, and even
then
not all of them go to feedlots don't you?


Do you realize that most U.S. (mono-crop) agriculture goes to
livestock?

==================
WHere's you proof of that claim fool? Saying it over and over
doesn't make it so.



Besides that, plants do not provide the b12 that you need.


Oh, I guess I'm dead then, right? Or is it that ten cents a day
I spend on
super-duper, vegetarian vitamin supplements?

=====================
WHich cause animals to die, and environemnetal damage, killer.
Tell me again how killing those animals and leaving them to rot
is better than eating one animal once in awhile. Can you do that
hypocrite?



And no, those vegetarian supplements are not vegan. Do I need
to remind you
again that nobody except you is arguing for absolutism?

===============
The site you posted does. Try reading it, fool.


  #22 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-04-2005, 04:26 AM
Sprang
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article .net,
"rick" wrote:

That was
my first post in these newsgroups, and your reply appears to
be
one that
you could have posted to, well, just about ANY post in
either
of the
newsgroups this thread is in. So what is that?


Um... you forgot to answer this part. Convenient.


Still forgot to answer this. So what's the deal with jumping me like that?
Troll.

===============
Hey dishonest snipper, you never tried to discuss what I asked
first, how conveninet, eh troll?


I answered it in another part of this thread, as you know.

You are advocating nothing, and are advocating against some mysterious
absolutist who is not participating in this thread. I am advocating that
vegetarianism is comparatively better than the status quo for most people.
  #23 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-04-2005, 04:27 AM
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:50:19 -0700, "Dutch"
wrote:


wrote
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 23:26:28 -0700, "Dutch"
wrote:



A demand for exact statistics is an attempt at disinformation.


That's ridiculous. Sounds to me like you just cannot provide
them.

=================
LOL Then whee's you proof. The whole argument rests on the
claims from veg*ns thet they somehow cause either no animals, or
fewer animals for their diet. They've never provided any [proof
of those claims at all. Others have, however, presented many
many site to prove that you diet can and does kill millions upon
millions of animals in far more brutal, inhumane ways that food
animals experience.



First, we would need to know how many pounds of brown rice
per acre,
then figure out how many animal deaths per pound of brown
rice.


No you don't, it is sufficient to know if such deaths occur at
all, and
if they occur in small or large numbers.


No, it isn't sufficient.

====================
LOL Of course not, as long as you keep your eyes closed and your
delusions intact...



This is not a counting game.
Here are a couple of links where the topic is discussed.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...ba873733af8008


Ok, a google post is hardly good evidence. What do you think I
am, an
illiterate farmhand?


http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm


ahem:

http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob.../leastharm.htm

In his article, “Least Harm,” Steven Davis (2003) accepts the
common
moral intuition that we should cause the least harm (the “least
harm
principle”) but challenges the empirical claim that vegetarian
diets
do in fact cause the least harm. Davis argues the number of
wild
animals (mice, rabbits, amphibians, birds, and other species)
who are
killed in crop production from “plowing, disking, harrowing,
planting,
cultivating, applying herbicides and pesticides as well as
harvesting”
is greater than the number of wild animals and farmed animals
who die
in ruminant-pasture production. Given the least harm
principle, Davis
concludes the collective adoption of an omnivorous diet
consisting
both of free-range ruminant meat and vegetarian fare would be
more
ethical than that of a strictly vegetarian (vegan) diet.[2]

While eating animals who are grazed rather than intensively
confined
would vastly improve the welfare of farmed animals given their
current
mistreatment, Davis does not succeed in showing this is
preferable to
vegetarianism. First, Davis makes a mathematical error in using
total
rather than per capita estimates of animals killed; second, he
focuses
on the number of animals killed in ruminant and crop production
systems and ignores important considerations about the welfare
of
animals under both systems; and third, he does not consider the
number
of animals who are prevented from existing under the two
systems.
After correcting for these errors, Davis’s argument makes a
strong
case for, rather than against, adopting a vegetarian diet.

and etc....


Then we would need to figure out how many animal deaths
there
are per pound of meat, depending on which kind of animal it
is.


Again estimates are adequate to form a rational conclusion.


No, they aren't. Please provide real numbers.

==================
You fist, killer.



What is
irrational, and disingenuous, is to refuse to consider
collateral deaths
based on an absence of exact numbers.


You are projecting.

==============
You're dodging....



What I mean is, what is the average amout of beef, pork,
chicken
that meat eaters eat.


Ethics is never based on averages, it's based on individual
actions.
A person who substitutes X amount of fresh salmon in place of
Y amount of commercially produced rice or soya-based substitute
is
probably enhancing their health and causing fewer animal
deaths.


I think you are not familiar with rational thought.

======================
You wouldn't know, that's obvious...




Obvioulsy, chicken eaters cause more
animal deaths than beef eaters, but most people eat a
combination.


It's equally obvious to me that regular consumers of free-range
or hunted
meat, or freshly caught fish cause fewer animal deaths than
most urban
vegans.


It;s on you to prove it.


without those numbers, it's all fluff.


The idea of collateral deaths in agriculture is not fluff, it's
a
dagger in the heart of radical veganism.



Or maybe you are just a nut case with nothing better to do.

=================
Wow, what a refutation! Got any more proff like that one? What
a maroon....






  #24 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-04-2005, 04:37 AM
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Sprang" wrote in message
...
In article
.net,
"rick" wrote:

That was
my first post in these newsgroups, and your reply appears
to
be
one that
you could have posted to, well, just about ANY post in
either
of the
newsgroups this thread is in. So what is that?

Um... you forgot to answer this part. Convenient.


Still forgot to answer this. So what's the deal with jumping me
like that?
Troll.

======================
The problem is your question rambles and never really means
anything that I can tell.
So, what's you excuse for not answering questions and then
demanding that others do?



===============
Hey dishonest snipper, you never tried to discuss what I asked
first, how conveninet, eh troll?


I answered it in another part of this thread, as you know.

================
No, I don't...


You are advocating nothing, and are advocating against some
mysterious
absolutist who is not participating in this thread.

=====================
Not mysterious at all fool. The site you posted was all about
absolutes. Try reading it.



I am advocating that
vegetarianism is comparatively better than the status quo for
most people.

====================
And I'm advocating that selecting the right meats is better than
that. Diference is, I provide data to prove what I post, not
just claims.



  #25 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-04-2005, 04:40 AM
Sprang
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article .net,
"rick" wrote:

There you go again, attacking straw men. I posted the original
post in this
thread, and I said nothing about absolutism, and neither does
the website I
mentioned. You are arguing with some third party not
participating in this
thread.

======================
Yes, the site you posted does. It's all about eating NO meat,
not less. I you'd read the actually site, and not the title you
might understand that.


First, if you're arguing with the site, then why are you replying to me? My
original post had nothing to do with attacking you or with anything but
providing a resource to existing vegetarians. Your attacking me out of
nowhere makes you... hm, how about... meat industry apologist. I guess I
have to come up with some name to call you, since you think it is so
important.

Second, did you read this site you keep claiming I haven't? Are you sure
this is absolutist rhetoric?
http://www.lessmeat.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9

It takes more grain to produce meat than to produce grain. More
than half
of America's crop production is fed to livestock.

======================
ROTLMAO You have proof of that claim, right?


I guess I'll have to do the research for you tomorrow, meat industry
apologist. It has been a while since I looked into that, but that's the
number I remember. Or do you already have an idea of how much grain in the
U.S goes to livestock? I'm sure it's on the USDA website somewhere.

Good night, meat industry apologist.


  #26 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-04-2005, 04:46 AM
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Sprang" wrote in message
...
In article
.net,
"rick" wrote:

There you go again, attacking straw men. I posted the
original
post in this
thread, and I said nothing about absolutism, and neither
does
the website I
mentioned. You are arguing with some third party not
participating in this
thread.

======================
Yes, the site you posted does. It's all about eating NO meat,
not less. I you'd read the actually site, and not the title
you
might understand that.


First, if you're arguing with the site, then why are you
replying to me?

======================
Because you posted.


My
original post had nothing to do with attacking you or with
anything but
providing a resource to existing vegetarians.

===============
A source ull o lys and delusions.

Your attacking me out of
nowhere makes you... hm, how about... meat industry apologist.
I guess I
have to come up with some name to call you, since you think it
is so
important.
====================

No, it shopuld tell you to read what you post.


Second, did you read this site you keep claiming I haven't? Are
you sure
this is absolutist rhetoric?
http://www.lessmeat.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9
=======================

Yes, tell me where it promotes eating 'less' meat rather than
'no' meat, killer.


It takes more grain to produce meat than to produce grain.
More
than half
of America's crop production is fed to livestock.

======================
ROTLMAO You have proof of that claim, right?


I guess I'll have to do the research for you tomorrow, meat
industry
apologist. It has been a while since I looked into that, but
that's the
number I remember. Or do you already have an idea of how much
grain in the
U.S goes to livestock? I'm sure it's on the USDA website
somewhere.

==================
Then provide it, fool. Remember your quote above....


Good night, meat industry apologist.

=================
Sure thing fool. Problem for you is that I don't buy meat from
this massive factory farmed meat industry you guys like to spew
about...



  #27 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-04-2005, 05:37 AM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:50:19 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


wrote
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 23:26:28 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:



A demand for exact statistics is an attempt at disinformation.


That's ridiculous. Sounds to me like you just cannot provide them.


http://home.datawest.net/esn-recover...ts%20presented
19. Ignore facts presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a
variant of the 'play dumb' rule.

First, we would need to know how many pounds of brown rice per acre,
then figure out how many animal deaths per pound of brown rice.


No you don't, it is sufficient to know if such deaths occur at all, and
if they occur in small or large numbers.


No, it isn't sufficient.


Yes, it certainly is. We do NOT live in a "count-by-numbers" world.
Collateral deaths are a *fact* in agriculture, a fact wholly disregarded
in vegan ideology.

This is not a counting game.
Here are a couple of links where the topic is discussed.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...ba873733af8008


Ok, a google post is hardly good evidence. What do you think I am, an
illiterate farmhand?


The post is credible, it is evidence.

http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...-LeastHarm.htm


ahem:

-snip-
and etc....


Predictable.

Matheny's bag of strawmen does not dissuade from the conclusions
as presented by Davis et al, actual scientists. Pastured ruminents
represents a legitimate refutation to the vegan theorem.

Then we would need to figure out how many animal deaths there
are per pound of meat, depending on which kind of animal it is.


Again estimates are adequate to form a rational conclusion.


No, they aren't. Please provide real numbers.


More disinformation, demanding numbers, waving arms, do not
make the truth evaporate.

What is
irrational, and disingenuous, is to refuse to consider collateral deaths
based on an absence of exact numbers.


You are projecting.


You are in denial, no doubt experiencing cognitive dissonance.

What I mean is, what is the average amout of beef, pork, chicken
that meat eaters eat.


Ethics is never based on averages, it's based on individual actions.
A person who substitutes X amount of fresh salmon in place of
Y amount of commercially produced rice or soya-based substitute is
probably enhancing their health and causing fewer animal deaths.


I think you are not familiar with rational thought.


No you don't think, or you'd have shaken the sawdust out of your head
already.

Obvioulsy, chicken eaters cause more
animal deaths than beef eaters, but most people eat a combination.


It's equally obvious to me that regular consumers of free-range or hunted
meat, or freshly caught fish cause fewer animal deaths than most urban
vegans.


It;s on you to prove it.


No it's not, the evidence is sufficient to disprove the theory,
reducing animal products does not, per se, reduce animal
deaths. Collateral deaths causes that theory to collapse. A
single large animal is one death, a kilo of rice may be many.

without those numbers, it's all fluff.


The idea of collateral deaths in agriculture is not fluff, it's a
dagger in the heart of radical veganism.



Or maybe you are just a nut case with nothing better to do.


If you are a typical vegan, I am undoubtedly wasting my time,
but it's my time after all.


  #28 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-04-2005, 05:46 AM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Sprang" wrote
In article , "Dutch"
wrote:

It's equally obvious to me that regular consumers of free-range or hunted
meat, or freshly caught fish cause fewer animal deaths than most urban
vegans.


So that's the point of that post? Well, that is simply a straw man.
Vegetarianism is generally a secondary ethical choice, not a primary one.
Comparing a urban vegan to a rancher is not realistic.


What do you mean "not realistic"?

If one's sole moral priority were to kill fewer things, one would
immediately commit suicide.


No, one would do that if one's goal were to stop killing things completely.

Barring that, one would eat a vegetarian diet
of carefully harvested plant materials.


That's one possibility. What proportion of vegans do that?

But one certainly wouldn't kill
some animals to prevent killing others;


Why not, if the net result were fewer deaths? I thought that was
the goal of veganism.

not if one could just pick one's
own fruit and vegetables and such.


And if one could not?

Who says people have to be completely absolutist about every thing they
think might do some good?


Vegans tend to think that way, very simplistically.

Many pacifists agree with American involvement in
WWII. The name of the site, lessmeat.com, kinda indicates that it is not
about absolutism, no?


The name implies that, but the content of the site is same-old trite
vegan dogma.

Vegetarianism is simply a non-action, not a basic ethical principle of
life.


It's not a non-action, vegans substitute other food for the nutrient dense
food they abstain from, *and* they never calculate the cost of that
exchange fairly and honestly.

And on another note, if everyone were to stop eating meat, fewer animals
would die


That may be true, but if instead somewhat fewer people ate meat,
and many people ate less, from different sources, depending on the
availability, the fewest animals of all would die.

(including all the animals killed feeding those meat animals). If
all six billion of us were to eat free-range or hunted meat, there would
be
no wild game, all the ranges would be irreversibly compromised, and all
life on Earth would probably be in trouble. Which of those is a better
lifestyle to advocate to others?


Who is being absolutist now?


  #29 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-04-2005, 07:13 AM
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 21:37:12 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 15:50:19 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:


wrote
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 23:26:28 -0700, "Dutch" wrote:



A demand for exact statistics is an attempt at disinformation.


That's ridiculous. Sounds to me like you just cannot provide them.


http://home.datawest.net/esn-recover...ts%20presented
19. Ignore facts presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a
variant of the 'play dumb' rule.


Ignores request for facts, stupidly thinks that a goodle post is hard
evidence. It is on you to prove it. That is how it works in logic
and debate. If you cannot prove it then it's just all fluff.


However, that article you linked to also had the link to its own
rebuttal, which did present some hard numbers.

In other words, the rebuttal article was solid, and the one you
quoted was ridiculous.
  #30 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-04-2005, 12:18 PM
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 23:40:02 -0400, Sprang wrote:
In article .net,
"rick" wrote:

[..]
It takes more grain to produce meat than to produce grain. More
than half
of America's crop production is fed to livestock.

======================
ROTLMAO You have proof of that claim, right?


I guess I'll have to do the research for you tomorrow, meat industry
apologist. It has been a while since I looked into that, but that's the
number I remember. Or do you already have an idea of how much
grain in the U.S goes to livestock?


'..according to FAO (199lc) the cereal grains consumed
directly per capita are just a small fraction of the total per
capita cereal grains consumption (directly and indirectly)
in the United States. In fact, of the total domestic
consumption of cereal grains 72% are used to feed
livestock, 11% are for direct human consumption, and the
remaining 17% are used by the food industry to produce
different food products and alcoholic beverages. Therefore,
almost 90% of the cereal grains are consumed indirectly
by Americans. A similar pattern occurs for soybeans
and oil seeds. A large fraction of soybeans is used for
feeding livestock, either directly or in the form of
by-products (bean meal) of soy oil production, and in the
food industry to produce soy oil for human consumption.'
http://dieoff.org/page55.htm


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
(2007-07-11) Survey on the RFC site: Are you a Picky Eater? Chatty Cathy General Cooking 13 12-07-2007 05:10 PM
After the Deletion of Google Answers U Got Questions Fills the Gap Answering and Asking the Tough Questions Linux Flash Drives General Cooking 0 07-05-2007 06:38 PM
rec.food.sourdough FAQ Questions and Answers Darrell Greenwood Sourdough 0 16-10-2004 05:28 AM
rec.food.sourdough FAQ Questions and Answers Darrell Greenwood Sourdough 0 28-09-2004 05:17 AM
Questions and answers C. James Strutz Vegan 84 23-02-2004 11:09 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:04 PM.

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

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017