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 22-06-2005, 10:22 PM
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Dutch, ruperts message didn't show up on my server, so I'll
piggy-back on yours...

"Dutch" wrote in message
...

"Rupert" wrote


Dutch wrote:
wrote

[..]

I think you'll find "factory-farming" usually refers to the
intensive
rearing of animals. Have you got a justification for
calling
mono-culture crop production "factory-farming"?

Don't like people turning your pet pjoratives back on you eh?


Well, "factory-farming" is a simple descriptive term.

========================
Yes, it is, and as I explained, far more descriptive of crop
farming....



It carries much more baggage than that.

It doesn't matter
very much what it actually refers to, I was just surprised
that he
thought this was a correct application of the word.

==================
It's very correct, unless of course you have an agenda to promote
that doesn't have anything to do with reality, eh killer?



I realize that, because you don't fancy yourself as supporting
"factory farming".

Vegans typically have idealized views of themselves.

Anyway, I intended (correctly or otherwise) to use the word to
refer to
intensive rearing of animals. Furthermore this clearly
involves a lot
more suffering than what he was referring to.

===========================
LOL More suffering that slicing, dicing, shredding and having
your guts rotted out? You must be totally brainwashed, eh fool?
Do some meat animals 'suffer?' I'm sure that some probably do,
according to your definition. But they are not "ALL" meat
animals, fool.




Does it? How do you know? How much animal death and suffering
results from cultivation, planting, spraying, harvesting,
storage protection, etc, etc..

Anyway, it's all very well to abuse me for supporting these
practices,
but you don't offer any serious alternative to doing so. If
you had a
serious proposal for my further reducing the contribution I
make to
animal suffering then I would consider it.

Stop supporting commercial agriculture, it kills countless
billions
of animals. Anyway, it's you who proposed that killing
animals is
to be avoided, why should we now determine for you how you
are going to live up to it? Do your own homework.


I'm sorry, can you quote me as saying that buying products
whose
production involved the death of animals is absolutely
prohibited? I
don't think you can.

==================
Then why the ignorant prohibition on buying meat? Obviouly it
really has NOTHING to do with animal death and suffering, then,
eh killer?



I see, so it's fine to cause death and suffering of animals
when it fits conveniently into your chosen lifestyle but not
when it fits into mine.

What I do think is that we should make every
reasonable effort to minimize our contribution to the
suffering of
animals.

====================
Then why are you posting to usenet, killer?


And I have done my homework on that, I believe that the best
way to do it is to become vegan.

==============================
ROTFLMAO You've done zero homework fool. Propaganda doesn't
mean anything. Tell use how many animals died for your diet
prior to your conversion, and how many now die after your
conversion.


If you've got some suggestions for how
I can do better I'm happy to listen to them.

====================
You've been given them, killer. And if you HAD done your
homework, which you just exposed as a ly, you would know that
thee are alternatives.



A typical vegan could reduce the net amount of animal death and
suffering associated with his or her diet by the introduction
of some carefully selected meat, fish or game, a person who
supplements their diet by hunting or fishing for example. Also
a person who also grows much of their own food *and* consumes
meat probably does much better than that typical urban vegan.

Don't misunderstand, I am not suggesting you do these things, I
am just asking you to acknowledge that they are viable choices.

I'm not altogether convinced that the suggestion "stop
supporting
commerical agriculture" is entirely feasible for me. If you've
got some
ideas as to how I can do it I'm happy to listen to those, as
well.

====================
LOL You mean anything that won't be an inconvenience or violate
your simple rule for your simple mind, right killer?



Of course "feasible" is something you define for yourself. I
would like you to show me the respect to allow me to do the
same for myself.




  #17 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-06-2005, 10:54 PM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Rupert" wrote

Dutch wrote:
wrote
The main point of veganism is to boycott factory-farming, which causes
animals to lead miserable lives.


That's a lie, vegans boycott ALL forms of animal products,
not only "factory farmed" meat.


It's not a lie.


Yes, it is.

Most animal products are the product of factory farming.


And vegans boycott ALL meat, AND vegans consume factory farmed produce,
therefore "factory farming" is not the issue, it's a red herring.

It is of
course true that by definition vegans boycott all animal products;


Thank you.

my
point was simply that the main part of the case for veganism is the
case for boycotting factory-farm produce.


Vegans don't boycott factory farming, they boycott meat and other "animal
products".

That gets you to
near-veganism. A lot of people do go further, yes, whether you accept
the rest of the case for full veganism depends on the individual.


It depends on to what degree you buy into the fallacy that boycotting
"animal products" eliminates one's complicity in animal death and suffering.

The animals who live on factory farms have to be fed with plant
products, the production of which will cause the death of wildlife.


That's true, but meat can be obtained that requires little or
no plant supplementation. Vegans oppose all of it.


True. See this article for one possible defence of that.

http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...least-harm.pdf


That article is a mess.

And the
implication of that position is that it's "plant production" at
the root of much of the animal killing in agriculture, a fact
which confounds the moral presumptions of veganism.


No, it doesn't.


Yes it does.

The usual moral defence of veganism is that it is the
best way to minimize one's contribution to animal suffering. Nothing
you have said disproves that.


If I followed a vegan diet I could lessen the toll of animal death by
supplementing my diet with fresh fish or game, possibly even free-range
pastured meat.

Animal products are an inefficient use of land,


That depends on the land. A lot of land is not very arable
but ideal for pasture.

so their production
will cause more death of wildlife than the production of plant products
to be fed directly to human beings.


Not using non-arable land as pasture and grasses and raw
grains as the foundation of the human food chain would mean
a lot more intensive, (i.e. "factory") farming of plants.


So what?


So factory farming, intensive monoculture farming is damaging to the
envirnoment and responsible for a lot of animal death and suffering.

As for the argument that ruminant-pasture food production causes fewer
deaths than some forms of plant food production, the following article
is worth a look:

http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...least-harm.pdf


It's worth a look but not much more, it's full of fallacies,
diversionary arguments and unsupported assertions.


Would you care to elaborate on your critique of it?


I have done so in the past, but it's like wading knee-deep in molasses to
pore through. I will do so if I get the slightest indication that you are
listening, but I do not wish to cast pearls before swine, i.e if it appears
your mind is locked-down. That is currently the impression I have.

Vegetarian diets are quite good, and efficient, where vegans
go awry is falling for all the feelgood quasi-political nonsense.


What nonsense?


The nonsense that veganism elevates the adherent to a higher moral plane.

Some vegans claim that following a vegan diet is the
best way to minimize one's contribution to animal suffering.


You all do, and it's clearly not true.

I don't
see that you've offered me any reason to think otherwise.


I have, you can't hear.


  #18 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-06-2005, 11:00 PM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Leslie" wrote
Found scrawled in the outhouse on 22 Jun 2005 03:03:01 -0700, "Rupert"
wrote:

snip

Vegetarian diets are quite good, and efficient, where vegans
go awry is falling for all the feelgood quasi-political nonsense.


What nonsense? Some vegans claim that following a vegan diet is the
best way to minimize one's contribution to animal suffering. I don't
see that you've offered me any reason to think otherwise.


I believe Dutch and Rick have tried to tell you. It is logically and
numerically
impossible to claim that animal suffering can be minimized by going vegan.
Let me offer a
reasonable example:

In the production of crops, even on a smaller scale than the corporate
farms, you have
destruction of animals beginning with the preparation of the ground for
planting
(discing). Every field must be worked and, other than a small vegetable
garden in your
backyard, it is impractical in time and manpower, to hand-work a 70 acre
field for
planting preparation. Ergo, machinery. Go to your nearest John Deere
dealership and take a
look at the size of a tractor needed for a 70 acre crop. *Just* the
tractor; we'll get to
the other implements later.

After you have run the tractor and disc through your 70 acres the first
time, you must do
it a second time for 70 acres of never-tilled earth. While at the Deere
dealership, move
on to the implements and take a look at a 15 foot disc. They are equipped
with big steel
blades that bite at least 6 to 8 inches into the soil. Between the tractor
and the disc
you have, effectively, a giant tenderizer (tractor weight and wheels) that
slices and
dices after squashing.

Keep in mind that there is no guarantee that the voles, mice, bunnies,
prairie dogs,
ground squirrels, fox, badger, and other denning/underground dwelling
creatures have been
actually killed by your first pass. No, you might have a couple of hundred
assorted
creatures mortally wounded but not *yet* dead. Yes, they will die, of
shock.

Now that your 70 acres has been plowed you must prepare the ground for
your crop. Let's do
soy beans because they usually show up in a vegan diet. While you are
buying your seeds,
you also buy your chemical herbicide and fertilizer. If you don't have an
applicators
license, because this stuff *is* lethal, you hire it done by the local
co-op.

First, they come out to your field with the anhydrous ammonia. That is
your fertilizer.
Ever smell it? It will stop your heart and suffocate you if you don't use
a breathing
apparatus. Now think about it being applied right on top of or into the
animal dens
themselves. Very nasty way to die, assuming you had survivors of discing.
Lungs, eyes, and
skin burning, fighting for air and unable to get any that isn't filled
with the
anhydrous...

Okay. Now you must get ready for the seed you bought. That means going
into the 70 acres
for a third time with a harrow bed, to pulverize the disced up dirt clods
into finer,
tillable ground for planting. The co-op then goes in after harrowing with
the herbicide
application. It has a skull and crossbones on the label for a good reason.
The applicator,
if he has followed the manufacturers statistical data sheet (MSDS), will
be in a "moon
suit". He's covered head to toe, goggled, and wearing a gas mask or other
device to
breath. You use a chemical herbicide because it would take you a month to
go in and pull
weeds by hand, and you have to get your crop in, or go broke.

You are ready to plant now. For a *fifth* time a tractor and implement
have gone into the
70 acres, this time with that seed you bought and a 12 row planter. Look
at the implement
again. Here, this will help:

http://www.deere.com/en_US/deerecom/usa_canada.html
(click on agriculture)

WOW. You just noticed at the Deere site that soy beans are waaaay up, so
you really have
to get going. Of course, being sort of conscientious, you have bought the
most minimally
inoculated but disease resistant seed possible. Yep, your seed has all its
shots, which is
why you don't want to handle it much without gloves. It will also kill any
animal that
eats it and quite a few bugs, too. "Virgin" soy seed doesn't exist
anymore. It's all been
manipulated.

You plant, it grows. The crop is looking good. Oh NO! Those pesky bugs!
So, it's down to
the co-op for a pesticide to kill the bugs that have been identified by
your local USDA
extension office. They tell you what chemical to use. They spray it on
and, voila! No more
bugs...no more birds, no more mice, no more bunnies. They are either
killed slowly by the
poison or, if not dead, then sterilized.

That's okay. Your crop is looking damned good! The market price is high
and you might make
some money on soybeans. Oh, crap! Weeds!! Not many but enough to be
irritating. Well, you
don't have a cultivator so you hire Mexican labor to go in and "walk" the
beans. Three
bucks an hour and all the pot they can haul away (ditch weed grows wild
and resists
everything). Now your 70 looks pristine, from above.

Harvest time!!! You drag out the combine (see Deere implements again) and
tractor and go
to work. It grabs the bean plant, yanks it out, separates the beans from
the foliage, puts
the beans in the grain tank, grinds up the rest of the plant and shoots it
out the back.
The names of the parts of a combine are pretty self-explanatory: threshing
rotor, cleaning
fan, chaffer, sieve, etc. End of any animal who might have made an above
ground nest for
themselves.

But you've got your $7.00 a bushel beans out for all the vegans who "don't
want to kill
animals for food". At that price, who is going to care if a few thousand
birds, squirrels,
mice, or moles (and their babies) got squished, sliced, diced, ground,
tumbled, terrified
by the rumble and noise, badly injured, and left to die?

Now do you see why the vegan claim of less- or cruelty free is an empty
one? If the vegans
place a value on a single life of a single creature, then using soy in
whatever form
renders that value meaningless.

Moreover, this kind of wholesale destruction for crop production is far
more "inhumane"
than the factory farming of a large hog operation. The hogs aren't sliced
and diced,
squished, starved, out of water, or evicted from their "nests". A HUMAN is
there every
single day to feed them, water them, call the vet, clean up after them,
and even talk to
them. Their slaughter, when it's time, is quick. Their meat is nutritious.
Every part is
used. Not like the waste left behind the combine, made of chemicalized
soy.

Does this answer your argument?


Very Strong work Leslie. Now multiply that X9 for me, my farm is 640 acres.


  #19 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 22-06-2005, 11:55 PM
Rupert
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Dutch wrote:
"Rupert" wrote


Dutch wrote:
wrote

[..]

I think you'll find "factory-farming" usually refers to the intensive
rearing of animals. Have you got a justification for calling
mono-culture crop production "factory-farming"?

Don't like people turning your pet pjoratives back on you eh?


Well, "factory-farming" is a simple descriptive term.


It carries much more baggage than that.

It doesn't matter
very much what it actually refers to, I was just surprised that he
thought this was a correct application of the word.


I realize that, because you don't fancy yourself as supporting "factory
farming".

Vegans typically have idealized views of themselves.


Well, be that as it may, I have provided you with no further evidence
for this view. I was surprised to hear monoculture-crop production
referred to as "factory farming", because I have always heard this
phrase used to refer to the intensive farming of animals. If he's right
about the correct application of the word (which I'm not convinced of),
then so be it. I have no problem with the idea that I support "factory
farming", so construed. What I *desire* about myself - not "fancy about
myself" - is that I contribute to as little animal suffering as
possible. If anyone thinks that's not the case, I'm interested to hear
what he has to say on the matter.

Anyway, I intended (correctly or otherwise) to use the word to refer to
intensive rearing of animals. Furthermore this clearly involves a lot
more suffering than what he was referring to.


Does it? How do you know? How much animal death and suffering results from
cultivation, planting, spraying, harvesting, storage protection, etc, etc..


(1) The number of animals involved is greater, and
(2) The suffering inflicted on each animal is greater.

Perhaps (1) is false when we take into account all the animals killed
by the plant production necessitated by animal food production. But
it's not false if we're only talking about the amount of plant
production that would be necessary to support universal veganism. Davis
estimates the death toll at 1.8 billion. More animals than that are
killed in animal food production. And each animal suffers considerably
more.

Anyway, it's all very well to abuse me for supporting these practices,
but you don't offer any serious alternative to doing so. If you had a
serious proposal for my further reducing the contribution I make to
animal suffering then I would consider it.

Stop supporting commercial agriculture, it kills countless billions
of animals. Anyway, it's you who proposed that killing animals is
to be avoided, why should we now determine for you how you
are going to live up to it? Do your own homework.


I'm sorry, can you quote me as saying that buying products whose
production involved the death of animals is absolutely prohibited? I
don't think you can.


I see, so it's fine to cause death and suffering of animals when it fits
conveniently into your chosen lifestyle but not when it fits into mine.


That's not a very reasonable interpretation of my argument. I believe
in a principle enunciated by David DeGrazia in "Taking Animals
Seriously": Make every reasonable effort to avoid providing financial
support to practices that cause or support unnecessary harm. I believe
that, on any reasonable interpretation of this principle, this will
require veganism or near-veganism. It's not altogether clear to me that
it requires me to stop supporting commercial agriculture. That depends
on what's involved in "making every reasonable effort". I am
open-minded on this matter. Maybe you can persuade me that "making
every reasonable effort" does require that I stop supporting commercial
agriculture. Or maybe you can persuade me that I should accept some
more stringent moral principle, which would require me to stop
supporting commercial agriculture. Go for it. But it requires some
argument.

What I do think is that we should make every
reasonable effort to minimize our contribution to the suffering of
animals. And I have done my homework on that, I believe that the best
way to do it is to become vegan. If you've got some suggestions for how
I can do better I'm happy to listen to them.


A typical vegan could reduce the net amount of animal death and suffering
associated with his or her diet by the introduction of some carefully
selected meat, fish or game, a person who supplements their diet by hunting
or fishing for example.


Fishing? Fishing involves a fairly high death rate per serving of food.
I would want to see some more evidence that fishing will do any good.
And one problem with hunting is that not all of the animals are killed,
some of them are just seriously maimed. So the amount of suffering and
death caused per serving of food is higher than it appears at first.
Where do you suggest I go hunting, anyway? Or where do you suggest I
buy my meat? And what is your evidence that this will actually *reduce*
the amount of animal death and suffering I contribute to?

Also a person who also grows much of their own food
*and* consumes meat probably does much better than that typical urban vegan.


Consumes what sort of meat?

Growing more of my own food seems like a better proposal. I'll consider
that one.

Don't misunderstand, I am not suggesting you do these things, I am just
asking you to acknowledge that they are viable choices.


Sure they are. But I'm not sure you've offered any practical
suggestions that will definitely reduce my contribution to animal death
and suffering, except possibly growing some of my own food.

I'm not altogether convinced that the suggestion "stop supporting
commerical agriculture" is entirely feasible for me. If you've got some
ideas as to how I can do it I'm happy to listen to those, as well.


Of course "feasible" is something you define for yourself. I would like you
to show me the respect to allow me to do the same for myself.


There is a limit to the reasonable application of words. There is no
reasonable sense in which it is "unfeasible" to become vegan. It is
feasible for me to reduce the extent to which I support commerical
agriculture, but to stop supporting it - well, I'd just be interested
to hear how you propose I would go about doing that.

  #20 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-06-2005, 12:04 AM
Rupert
 
Posts: n/a
Default



rick wrote:
Dutch, ruperts message didn't show up on my server, so I'll
piggy-back on yours...

"Dutch" wrote in message
...

"Rupert" wrote


Dutch wrote:
wrote

[..]

I think you'll find "factory-farming" usually refers to the
intensive
rearing of animals. Have you got a justification for
calling
mono-culture crop production "factory-farming"?

Don't like people turning your pet pjoratives back on you eh?


Well, "factory-farming" is a simple descriptive term.

========================
Yes, it is, and as I explained, far more descriptive of crop
farming....


Well, I wasn't very convinced by what you said.



It carries much more baggage than that.

It doesn't matter
very much what it actually refers to, I was just surprised
that he
thought this was a correct application of the word.

==================
It's very correct, unless of course you have an agenda to promote
that doesn't have anything to do with reality, eh killer?


Well, feel free to support your case.



I realize that, because you don't fancy yourself as supporting
"factory farming".

Vegans typically have idealized views of themselves.

Anyway, I intended (correctly or otherwise) to use the word to
refer to
intensive rearing of animals. Furthermore this clearly
involves a lot
more suffering than what he was referring to.

===========================
LOL More suffering that slicing, dicing, shredding and having
your guts rotted out?


Yes.

You must be totally brainwashed, eh fool?
Do some meat animals 'suffer?' I'm sure that some probably do,
according to your definition. But they are not "ALL" meat
animals, fool.


Just the great majority of them.





Does it? How do you know? How much animal death and suffering
results from cultivation, planting, spraying, harvesting,
storage protection, etc, etc..

Anyway, it's all very well to abuse me for supporting these
practices,
but you don't offer any serious alternative to doing so. If
you had a
serious proposal for my further reducing the contribution I
make to
animal suffering then I would consider it.

Stop supporting commercial agriculture, it kills countless
billions
of animals. Anyway, it's you who proposed that killing
animals is
to be avoided, why should we now determine for you how you
are going to live up to it? Do your own homework.

I'm sorry, can you quote me as saying that buying products
whose
production involved the death of animals is absolutely
prohibited? I
don't think you can.

==================
Then why the ignorant prohibition on buying meat? Obviouly it
really has NOTHING to do with animal death and suffering, then,
eh killer?


I believe that the most practical way to minimize one's contribution to
animal suffering is to be vegan. Perhaps there are also some ways of
doing this that involve buying some meat. I'm interested to hear any
evidence you have about this matter.



I see, so it's fine to cause death and suffering of animals
when it fits conveniently into your chosen lifestyle but not
when it fits into mine.

What I do think is that we should make every
reasonable effort to minimize our contribution to the
suffering of
animals.

====================
Then why are you posting to usenet, killer?


It's not clear to me that posting to usenet contributes to the
suffering of animals.


And I have done my homework on that, I believe that the best
way to do it is to become vegan.

==============================
ROTFLMAO You've done zero homework fool. Propaganda doesn't
mean anything. Tell use how many animals died for your diet
prior to your conversion, and how many now die after your
conversion.


There was some discussion of this issue in the article I linked to.


If you've got some suggestions for how
I can do better I'm happy to listen to them.

====================
You've been given them, killer.


This is simply a lie. Stop evading the question and answer it.

And if you HAD done your
homework, which you just exposed as a ly, you would know that
thee are alternatives.



A typical vegan could reduce the net amount of animal death and
suffering associated with his or her diet by the introduction
of some carefully selected meat, fish or game, a person who
supplements their diet by hunting or fishing for example. Also
a person who also grows much of their own food *and* consumes
meat probably does much better than that typical urban vegan.

Don't misunderstand, I am not suggesting you do these things, I
am just asking you to acknowledge that they are viable choices.

I'm not altogether convinced that the suggestion "stop
supporting
commerical agriculture" is entirely feasible for me. If you've
got some
ideas as to how I can do it I'm happy to listen to those, as
well.

====================
LOL You mean anything that won't be an inconvenience or violate
your simple rule for your simple mind, right killer?


No.



Of course "feasible" is something you define for yourself. I
would like you to show me the respect to allow me to do the
same for myself.




  #21 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-06-2005, 12:14 AM
Rupert
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Leslie wrote:
Found scrawled in the outhouse on 22 Jun 2005 03:03:01 -0700, "Rupert"
wrote:

snip

Vegetarian diets are quite good, and efficient, where vegans
go awry is falling for all the feelgood quasi-political nonsense.


What nonsense? Some vegans claim that following a vegan diet is the
best way to minimize one's contribution to animal suffering. I don't
see that you've offered me any reason to think otherwise.


I believe Dutch and Rick have tried to tell you. It is logically and numerically
impossible to claim that animal suffering can be minimized by going vegan. Let me offer a
reasonable example:

In the production of crops, even on a smaller scale than the corporate farms, you have
destruction of animals beginning with the preparation of the ground for planting
(discing). Every field must be worked and, other than a small vegetable garden in your
backyard, it is impractical in time and manpower, to hand-work a 70 acre field for
planting preparation. Ergo, machinery. Go to your nearest John Deere dealership and take a
look at the size of a tractor needed for a 70 acre crop. *Just* the tractor; we'll get to
the other implements later.

After you have run the tractor and disc through your 70 acres the first time, you must do
it a second time for 70 acres of never-tilled earth. While at the Deere dealership, move
on to the implements and take a look at a 15 foot disc. They are equipped with big steel
blades that bite at least 6 to 8 inches into the soil. Between the tractor and the disc
you have, effectively, a giant tenderizer (tractor weight and wheels) that slices and
dices after squashing.

Keep in mind that there is no guarantee that the voles, mice, bunnies, prairie dogs,
ground squirrels, fox, badger, and other denning/underground dwelling creatures have been
actually killed by your first pass. No, you might have a couple of hundred assorted
creatures mortally wounded but not *yet* dead. Yes, they will die, of shock.

Now that your 70 acres has been plowed you must prepare the ground for your crop. Let's do
soy beans because they usually show up in a vegan diet. While you are buying your seeds,
you also buy your chemical herbicide and fertilizer. If you don't have an applicators
license, because this stuff *is* lethal, you hire it done by the local co-op.

First, they come out to your field with the anhydrous ammonia. That is your fertilizer.
Ever smell it? It will stop your heart and suffocate you if you don't use a breathing
apparatus. Now think about it being applied right on top of or into the animal dens
themselves. Very nasty way to die, assuming you had survivors of discing. Lungs, eyes, and
skin burning, fighting for air and unable to get any that isn't filled with the
anhydrous...

Okay. Now you must get ready for the seed you bought. That means going into the 70 acres
for a third time with a harrow bed, to pulverize the disced up dirt clods into finer,
tillable ground for planting. The co-op then goes in after harrowing with the herbicide
application. It has a skull and crossbones on the label for a good reason. The applicator,
if he has followed the manufacturers statistical data sheet (MSDS), will be in a "moon
suit". He's covered head to toe, goggled, and wearing a gas mask or other device to
breath. You use a chemical herbicide because it would take you a month to go in and pull
weeds by hand, and you have to get your crop in, or go broke.

You are ready to plant now. For a *fifth* time a tractor and implement have gone into the
70 acres, this time with that seed you bought and a 12 row planter. Look at the implement
again. Here, this will help:

http://www.deere.com/en_US/deerecom/usa_canada.html
(click on agriculture)

WOW. You just noticed at the Deere site that soy beans are waaaay up, so you really have
to get going. Of course, being sort of conscientious, you have bought the most minimally
inoculated but disease resistant seed possible. Yep, your seed has all its shots, which is
why you don't want to handle it much without gloves. It will also kill any animal that
eats it and quite a few bugs, too. "Virgin" soy seed doesn't exist anymore. It's all been
manipulated.

You plant, it grows. The crop is looking good. Oh NO! Those pesky bugs! So, it's down to
the co-op for a pesticide to kill the bugs that have been identified by your local USDA
extension office. They tell you what chemical to use. They spray it on and, voila! No more
bugs...no more birds, no more mice, no more bunnies. They are either killed slowly by the
poison or, if not dead, then sterilized.

That's okay. Your crop is looking damned good! The market price is high and you might make
some money on soybeans. Oh, crap! Weeds!! Not many but enough to be irritating. Well, you
don't have a cultivator so you hire Mexican labor to go in and "walk" the beans. Three
bucks an hour and all the pot they can haul away (ditch weed grows wild and resists
everything). Now your 70 looks pristine, from above.

Harvest time!!! You drag out the combine (see Deere implements again) and tractor and go
to work. It grabs the bean plant, yanks it out, separates the beans from the foliage, puts
the beans in the grain tank, grinds up the rest of the plant and shoots it out the back.
The names of the parts of a combine are pretty self-explanatory: threshing rotor, cleaning
fan, chaffer, sieve, etc. End of any animal who might have made an above ground nest for
themselves.

But you've got your $7.00 a bushel beans out for all the vegans who "don't want to kill
animals for food". At that price, who is going to care if a few thousand birds, squirrels,
mice, or moles (and their babies) got squished, sliced, diced, ground, tumbled, terrified
by the rumble and noise, badly injured, and left to die?

Now do you see why the vegan claim of less- or cruelty free is an empty one?


No. Additional plant production is required for animal food production.
I don't see that you've argued against the claim that veganism
minimizes your contribution to animal suffering. Do you believe you
have plausible figures for the death toll required for a vegan diet and
for a meat-based diet? Why don't you give them?

If the vegans
place a value on a single life of a single creature, then using soy in whatever form
renders that value meaningless.

Moreover, this kind of wholesale destruction for crop production is far more "inhumane"
than the factory farming of a large hog operation. The hogs aren't sliced and diced,
squished, starved, out of water, or evicted from their "nests".


They are kept in small crates too narrow from them to turn around. They
are deprived of straw and other sources of amusement. They suffer
greatly from boredom. Their tails are docked without anaesthetic. They
stand on either wire mesh, slatted floors or concrete floors, which are
unnatural footings. They suffer from poor air quality due to poor
ventilation and accumulating waste products. They are often abused at
the loading and unloading stages of transport. Furthermore it takes
eight pounds of protein in hog feed to generate a pound of pork.

A HUMAN is there every
single day to feed them, water them, call the vet, clean up after them, and even talk to
them. Their slaughter, when it's time, is quick. Their meat is nutritious. Every part is
used. Not like the waste left behind the combine, made of chemicalized soy.

Does this answer your argument?


No.

Cheers 2 U,

Leslie
"Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity.
And I'm not sure about the former.".... Albert Einstein


  #22 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-06-2005, 12:25 AM
Rupert
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Dutch wrote:
"Rupert" wrote

Dutch wrote:
wrote
The main point of veganism is to boycott factory-farming, which causes
animals to lead miserable lives.

That's a lie, vegans boycott ALL forms of animal products,
not only "factory farmed" meat.


It's not a lie.


Yes, it is.


No, it's not. I didn't say vegans only boycott factory farm produce. I
said the main point of veganism was to boycott factory farm produce.
That's a claim about the *main* (not the only) motivation behind
veganism. And it *is* the main point of veganism for me. Who are you to
tell me otherwise?

Most animal products are the product of factory farming.


And vegans boycott ALL meat, AND vegans consume factory farmed produce,


I'm not convinced that using "factory farming" to cover monoculture
crop production is a reasonable use of the term. If we decide that it
is, substitute "animal products derived from intensively reared
animals" for "factory farm produce". What does a word matter.

therefore "factory farming" is not the issue, it's a red herring.


Intensive rearing of animals *is* (the main part of) the issue.

It is of
course true that by definition vegans boycott all animal products;


Thank you.

my
point was simply that the main part of the case for veganism is the
case for boycotting factory-farm produce.


Vegans don't boycott factory farming, they boycott meat and other "animal
products".


In particular, they boycott products from intensively reared animals.
My claim was that this is the main motivation for their diet and that
there is a strong moral case for it.

That gets you to
near-veganism. A lot of people do go further, yes, whether you accept
the rest of the case for full veganism depends on the individual.


It depends on to what degree you buy into the fallacy that boycotting
"animal products" eliminates one's complicity in animal death and suffering.


It depends on to what degree you accept that boycotting "animal
products" *reduces* your contribution to animal suffering - and I
haven't seen any reason to think otherwise yet.


The animals who live on factory farms have to be fed with plant
products, the production of which will cause the death of wildlife.

That's true, but meat can be obtained that requires little or
no plant supplementation. Vegans oppose all of it.


True. See this article for one possible defence of that.

http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...least-harm.pdf


That article is a mess.


Make a specific criticism of it.

And the
implication of that position is that it's "plant production" at
the root of much of the animal killing in agriculture, a fact
which confounds the moral presumptions of veganism.


No, it doesn't.


Yes it does.

The usual moral defence of veganism is that it is the
best way to minimize one's contribution to animal suffering. Nothing
you have said disproves that.


If I followed a vegan diet I could lessen the toll of animal death by
supplementing my diet with fresh fish or game, possibly even free-range
pastured meat.


What's your evidence that that would lessen the toll of animal death?

Animal products are an inefficient use of land,

That depends on the land. A lot of land is not very arable
but ideal for pasture.

so their production
will cause more death of wildlife than the production of plant products
to be fed directly to human beings.

Not using non-arable land as pasture and grasses and raw
grains as the foundation of the human food chain would mean
a lot more intensive, (i.e. "factory") farming of plants.


So what?


So factory farming, intensive monoculture farming is damaging to the
envirnoment and responsible for a lot of animal death and suffering.


Yes, but animal food production for the most part entails more
environmental damage and more animal suffering.

As for the argument that ruminant-pasture food production causes fewer
deaths than some forms of plant food production, the following article
is worth a look:

http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...least-harm.pdf

It's worth a look but not much more, it's full of fallacies,
diversionary arguments and unsupported assertions.


Would you care to elaborate on your critique of it?


I have done so in the past, but it's like wading knee-deep in molasses to
pore through. I will do so if I get the slightest indication that you are
listening, but I do not wish to cast pearls before swine, i.e if it appears
your mind is locked-down. That is currently the impression I have.


I am being perfectly rational and open-minded. The only reason you have
that impression is because of your prejudice against vegans. Anyway,
when you've defended your criticism of the article with argument I'll
take it seriously, but not before, obviously.

Vegetarian diets are quite good, and efficient, where vegans
go awry is falling for all the feelgood quasi-political nonsense.


What nonsense?


The nonsense that veganism elevates the adherent to a higher moral plane.


Why is it nonsense to suppose that it is ethically better to reduce
your contribution to animal suffering?

Some vegans claim that following a vegan diet is the
best way to minimize one's contribution to animal suffering.


You all do, and it's clearly not true.


Why not?

I don't
see that you've offered me any reason to think otherwise.


I have, you can't hear.


No, you haven't. You've begun to gesture in the direction of an
argument in this post by making some unsupported assertions that eating
a small amount of meat, fish and game will further reduce the animal
death toll. Just describe the diet which you think causes less
suffering than a vegan diet, and *give evidence that it does*.

  #23 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-06-2005, 02:00 AM
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Rupert" wrote in message
oups.com...


rick wrote:
Dutch, ruperts message didn't show up on my server, so I'll
piggy-back on yours...

"Dutch" wrote in message
...

"Rupert" wrote


Dutch wrote:
wrote

[..]

I think you'll find "factory-farming" usually refers to
the
intensive
rearing of animals. Have you got a justification for
calling
mono-culture crop production "factory-farming"?

Don't like people turning your pet pjoratives back on you
eh?


Well, "factory-farming" is a simple descriptive term.

========================
Yes, it is, and as I explained, far more descriptive of crop
farming....


Well, I wasn't very convinced by what you said.

====================
Only because you're brainwashing has your mind closed. Try to
reute what you have been told, don't just say nah, nah, nah,
killer.





It carries much more baggage than that.

It doesn't matter
very much what it actually refers to, I was just surprised
that he
thought this was a correct application of the word.

==================
It's very correct, unless of course you have an agenda to
promote
that doesn't have anything to do with reality, eh killer?


Well, feel free to support your case.

================
LOL I already did, fool. You have yet to support your
contentions. vegans never do, and never will, because all you
have is a simple rule for your simple minds....





I realize that, because you don't fancy yourself as
supporting
"factory farming".

Vegans typically have idealized views of themselves.

Anyway, I intended (correctly or otherwise) to use the word
to
refer to
intensive rearing of animals. Furthermore this clearly
involves a lot
more suffering than what he was referring to.

===========================
LOL More suffering that slicing, dicing, shredding and having
your guts rotted out?


Yes.

================
Show it then, fool.



You must be totally brainwashed, eh fool?
Do some meat animals 'suffer?' I'm sure that some probably
do,
according to your definition. But they are not "ALL" meat
animals, fool.


Just the great majority of them.

==================
Then why the complete ban on all meats, killer? Your veggies
kill far more animals than the meats I eat.







Does it? How do you know? How much animal death and
suffering
results from cultivation, planting, spraying, harvesting,
storage protection, etc, etc..

Anyway, it's all very well to abuse me for supporting
these
practices,
but you don't offer any serious alternative to doing so.
If
you had a
serious proposal for my further reducing the
contribution I
make to
animal suffering then I would consider it.

Stop supporting commercial agriculture, it kills countless
billions
of animals. Anyway, it's you who proposed that killing
animals is
to be avoided, why should we now determine for you how you
are going to live up to it? Do your own homework.

I'm sorry, can you quote me as saying that buying products
whose
production involved the death of animals is absolutely
prohibited? I
don't think you can.

==================
Then why the ignorant prohibition on buying meat? Obviouly
it
really has NOTHING to do with animal death and suffering,
then,
eh killer?


I believe that the most practical way to minimize one's
contribution to
animal suffering is to be vegan.

====================
A contention that you have never proen, or even tried to support
with any data.


Perhaps there are also some ways of
doing this that involve buying some meat. I'm interested to
hear any
evidence you have about this matter.

===============
No you aren't. You'e a closed-minded fool that makes claims that
you cannot support.





I see, so it's fine to cause death and suffering of animals
when it fits conveniently into your chosen lifestyle but not
when it fits into mine.

What I do think is that we should make every
reasonable effort to minimize our contribution to the
suffering of
animals.

====================
Then why are you posting to usenet, killer?


It's not clear to me that posting to usenet contributes to the
suffering of animals.

=======================
O course it isn't clear to you, killer. Anything that
contradicts your fantasy is just ignored. So much or all that
research you did on your lifestylr choices and animal death and
suffering fool. Ty looking up power poduction and communications
as a start, killer.




And I have done my homework on that, I believe that the best
way to do it is to become vegan.

==============================
ROTFLMAO You've done zero homework fool. Propaganda doesn't
mean anything. Tell use how many animals died for your diet
prior to your conversion, and how many now die after your
conversion.


There was some discussion of this issue in the article I linked
to.

==================
No fool, YOU claimed that the best way was to be vegan, because
YOU researched it! It's quite obvious that that was a ly. You
have researched nothing! You read a few propaganda sites and
declare yourself vituous... What a hoot!




If you've got some suggestions for how
I can do better I'm happy to listen to them.

====================
You've been given them, killer.


This is simply a lie. Stop evading the question and answer it.

================
No it is not a ly, fool. You claimed to have done the research,
and it's now benn proven that you lied. If yu had, you would
easily find what we ae talking about.



And if you HAD done your
homework, which you just exposed as a ly, you would know that
thee are alternatives.



A typical vegan could reduce the net amount of animal death
and
suffering associated with his or her diet by the
introduction
of some carefully selected meat, fish or game, a person who
supplements their diet by hunting or fishing for example.
Also
a person who also grows much of their own food *and*
consumes
meat probably does much better than that typical urban
vegan.

Don't misunderstand, I am not suggesting you do these
things, I
am just asking you to acknowledge that they are viable
choices.

I'm not altogether convinced that the suggestion "stop
supporting
commerical agriculture" is entirely feasible for me. If
you've
got some
ideas as to how I can do it I'm happy to listen to those,
as
well.

====================
LOL You mean anything that won't be an inconvenience or
violate
your simple rule for your simple mind, right killer?


No.
================

Yes, obviously. Because of everything in your life that causes
massive animal death and suffering, all YOU cry about is those
that eat meat. Something YOU have no control over. You focus on
what others are doing because it is far easier than actually
doing anything in YOUR life to make a real difference.




Of course "feasible" is something you define for yourself. I
would like you to show me the respect to allow me to do the
same for myself.




  #24 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-06-2005, 02:15 AM
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Rupert" wrote in message
oups.com...


Dutch wrote:
"Rupert" wrote


Dutch wrote:
wrote

[..]

I think you'll find "factory-farming" usually refers to
the intensive
rearing of animals. Have you got a justification for
calling
mono-culture crop production "factory-farming"?

Don't like people turning your pet pjoratives back on you
eh?


Well, "factory-farming" is a simple descriptive term.


It carries much more baggage than that.

It doesn't matter
very much what it actually refers to, I was just surprised
that he
thought this was a correct application of the word.


I realize that, because you don't fancy yourself as supporting
"factory
farming".

Vegans typically have idealized views of themselves.


Well, be that as it may, I have provided you with no further
evidence
for this view. I was surprised to hear monoculture-crop
production
referred to as "factory farming", because I have always heard
this
phrase used to refer to the intensive farming of animals. If
he's right
about the correct application of the word (which I'm not
convinced of),
then so be it. I have no problem with the idea that I support
"factory
farming", so construed. What I *desire* about myself - not
"fancy about
myself" - is that I contribute to as little animal suffering as
possible.

=================
You're lying again.... Afterall, here you are spweing your
nonsense on usenet again, killer.


If anyone thinks that's not the case, I'm interested to hear
what he has to say on the matter.

===============
No you're not. You wave your hands and pretend that anything
that doesn't fit your brainwashing doesn't exist.



Anyway, I intended (correctly or otherwise) to use the word
to refer to
intensive rearing of animals. Furthermore this clearly
involves a lot
more suffering than what he was referring to.


Does it? How do you know? How much animal death and suffering
results from
cultivation, planting, spraying, harvesting, storage
protection, etc, etc..


(1) The number of animals involved is greater, and
(2) The suffering inflicted on each animal is greater.
Perhaps (1) is false when we take into account all the animals
killed
by the plant production necessitated by animal food production.

======================
Just use those that die for people food, killer. Once you admit
that massive death and suffering occurs for your cheap,
convenient veggies, you've lost....


But
it's not false if we're only talking about the amount of plant
production that would be necessary to support universal
veganism. Davis
estimates the death toll at 1.8 billion. More animals than that
are
killed in animal food production. And each animal suffers
considerably
more.

=======================
Where do you get this ly from, killer? Can you back up the
statement that all meat animals suffer more than any animal
killed for your veggies? Didn't think so.....



Anyway, it's all very well to abuse me for supporting
these practices,
but you don't offer any serious alternative to doing so.
If you had a
serious proposal for my further reducing the contribution
I make to
animal suffering then I would consider it.

Stop supporting commercial agriculture, it kills countless
billions
of animals. Anyway, it's you who proposed that killing
animals is
to be avoided, why should we now determine for you how you
are going to live up to it? Do your own homework.

I'm sorry, can you quote me as saying that buying products
whose
production involved the death of animals is absolutely
prohibited? I
don't think you can.


I see, so it's fine to cause death and suffering of animals
when it fits
conveniently into your chosen lifestyle but not when it fits
into mine.


That's not a very reasonable interpretation of my argument. I
believe
in a principle enunciated by David DeGrazia in "Taking Animals
Seriously": Make every reasonable effort to avoid providing
financial
support to practices that cause or support unnecessary harm.

=======================
Really? Then why do you ignore that sentiment, killer?


I believe
that, on any reasonable interpretation of this principle, this
will
require veganism or near-veganism. It's not altogether clear to
me that
it requires me to stop supporting commercial agriculture.

===============
That's only because it's too convenient for you to continue it,
just as your entertainment comes befor actually caring about
animals.

That depends
on what's involved in "making every reasonable effort". I am
open-minded on this matter. Maybe you can persuade me that
"making
every reasonable effort" does require that I stop supporting
commercial
agriculture. Or maybe you can persuade me that I should accept
some
more stringent moral principle, which would require me to stop
supporting commercial agriculture. Go for it. But it requires
some
argument.

====================
You're the one that made the argument, and you are the one that
fails to abide by it. Read above... You continue to support, no
make that reward, those that provide you with cheap, convenient
food and entertainment at the cost of animal death and suffering.



What I do think is that we should make every
reasonable effort to minimize our contribution to the
suffering of
animals. And I have done my homework on that, I believe that
the best
way to do it is to become vegan. If you've got some
suggestions for how
I can do better I'm happy to listen to them.


A typical vegan could reduce the net amount of animal death
and suffering
associated with his or her diet by the introduction of some
carefully
selected meat, fish or game, a person who supplements their
diet by hunting
or fishing for example.


Fishing? Fishing involves a fairly high death rate per serving
of food.

=====================
LOL What a hoot! As opposed to say fake tofu meats? You really
atre this brainwashed, aren't you?


I would want to see some more evidence that fishing will do any
good.
And one problem with hunting is that not all of the animals are
killed,
some of them are just seriously maimed.

=============================
Far less than the number for your veggies, killer.


So the amount of suffering and
death caused per serving of food is higher than it appears at
first.

=====================
And still no where near your death toll, fool.



Where do you suggest I go hunting, anyway? Or where do you
suggest I
buy my meat? And what is your evidence that this will actually
*reduce*
the amount of animal death and suffering I contribute to?

====================
Again, you have proven that you lied when you claimed to have
done all the research needed. Not a surprise now, is it?



Also a person who also grows much of their own food
*and* consumes meat probably does much better than that
typical urban vegan.


Consumes what sort of meat?

Growing more of my own food seems like a better proposal. I'll
consider
that one.

================
No you won't. You're too convenience oriented...


Don't misunderstand, I am not suggesting you do these things,
I am just
asking you to acknowledge that they are viable choices.


Sure they are. But I'm not sure you've offered any practical
suggestions that will definitely reduce my contribution to
animal death
and suffering, except possibly growing some of my own food.

===============
Then you are either blind, stupid, ignorant or too far
brainwashed to understand, killer.



I'm not altogether convinced that the suggestion "stop
supporting
commerical agriculture" is entirely feasible for me. If
you've got some
ideas as to how I can do it I'm happy to listen to those, as
well.


Of course "feasible" is something you define for yourself. I
would like you
to show me the respect to allow me to do the same for myself.


There is a limit to the reasonable application of words. There
is no
reasonable sense in which it is "unfeasible" to become vegan.
It is
feasible for me to reduce the extent to which I support
commerical
agriculture, but to stop supporting it - well, I'd just be
interested
to hear how you propose I would go about doing that.


Here are some sites, with info on specific areas and
pesticides. Animals die.
http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm
http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm
http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html
http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/news...00/nitrate.htm
http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/P...carbofuran.htm
http://www.nwf.org/internationalwildlife/hawk.html
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm
http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/p...eFactSheet.pdf
http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_Wildl...on/pg7f2b6.htm
http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html
http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com.../leastharm.htm
http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html
http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/
http://ipm.ncsu.edu/wildlife/small_grains_wildlife.html
http://www.gbr.wwf.org.au/content/problem/sugarcane.htm
http://www.wildlifetrustofindia.org/...ele_poison.htm
http://species.fws.gov/bio_rhin.html
http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html
http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html
http://www.hornedlizards.org/hornedlizards/help.html
http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/bulletins/b-5093.html
http://www.orst.edu/dept/ncs/newsarc...00/nitrate.htm
http://www.orst.edu/instruct/fw251/n...riculture.html
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn35/pn35p6.html
http://www.greenenergyohio.org/defau...iew&pageID=135
http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/capandtrade/power.pdf
http://www.nirs.org/licensedtokill/L...xecsummary.pdf
http://www.towerkill.com/index.html
http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/issues/towers/towers.htm
http://www.abcbirds.org/policy/towerkill.htm
http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/pae/es_ma...ticle_22.mhtml
http://www.netwalk.com/~vireo/devastatingtoll.html
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...7697992.htm?1c
http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/energy...00-01-019.html
http://www.repp.org/repp_pubs/articl.../04impacts.htm
http://www.wvrivers.org/anker-upshur.htm
http://www.fisheries.org/html/Public...nts/ps_2.shtml
http://www.powerscorecard.org/issue_...cfm?issue_id=5
http://www.safesecurevital.org/artic...012012004.html

http://www.cgfi.org/materials/key_pu...oxic_Tools.pdf
http://www.ontarioprofessionals.com/organic.htm
http://hgic.clemson.edu/factsheets/HGIC2756.htm
http://www.biotech-info.net/deadly_chemicals.html
http://www.agnr.umd.edu/ipmnet/4-2art1.htm
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environmen...ing_annex1.pdf




Since your non-animal clothing isn't cruelty-free either,
here's a couple to cover some problems with cotton.
http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html
http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/
http://www.gbr.wwf.org.au/content/problem/cotton.htm

To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a field,
here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that there
can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field.
http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache...state.edu/pubs
/natres/06507.pdf+%22voles+per+acre%22+field&hl=en&ie=UTF8
http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf
http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html
http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html


To cover your selfish pleasure of using usenet, and
maintaining a web page on same, here's are a couple
dealing with power and communications.
http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html
http://www.towerkill.com/index.html


  #25 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-06-2005, 02:19 AM
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Rupert" wrote in message
oups.com...


Leslie wrote:
Found scrawled in the outhouse on 22 Jun 2005 03:03:01 -0700,
"Rupert"
wrote:

snip

Vegetarian diets are quite good, and efficient, where
vegans
go awry is falling for all the feelgood quasi-political
nonsense.

What nonsense? Some vegans claim that following a vegan diet
is the
best way to minimize one's contribution to animal suffering.
I don't
see that you've offered me any reason to think otherwise.


I believe Dutch and Rick have tried to tell you. It is
logically and numerically
impossible to claim that animal suffering can be minimized by
going vegan. Let me offer a
reasonable example:

In the production of crops, even on a smaller scale than the
corporate farms, you have
destruction of animals beginning with the preparation of the
ground for planting
(discing). Every field must be worked and, other than a small
vegetable garden in your
backyard, it is impractical in time and manpower, to hand-work
a 70 acre field for
planting preparation. Ergo, machinery. Go to your nearest John
Deere dealership and take a
look at the size of a tractor needed for a 70 acre crop.
*Just* the tractor; we'll get to
the other implements later.

After you have run the tractor and disc through your 70 acres
the first time, you must do
it a second time for 70 acres of never-tilled earth. While at
the Deere dealership, move
on to the implements and take a look at a 15 foot disc. They
are equipped with big steel
blades that bite at least 6 to 8 inches into the soil. Between
the tractor and the disc
you have, effectively, a giant tenderizer (tractor weight and
wheels) that slices and
dices after squashing.

Keep in mind that there is no guarantee that the voles, mice,
bunnies, prairie dogs,
ground squirrels, fox, badger, and other denning/underground
dwelling creatures have been
actually killed by your first pass. No, you might have a
couple of hundred assorted
creatures mortally wounded but not *yet* dead. Yes, they will
die, of shock.

Now that your 70 acres has been plowed you must prepare the
ground for your crop. Let's do
soy beans because they usually show up in a vegan diet. While
you are buying your seeds,
you also buy your chemical herbicide and fertilizer. If you
don't have an applicators
license, because this stuff *is* lethal, you hire it done by
the local co-op.

First, they come out to your field with the anhydrous ammonia.
That is your fertilizer.
Ever smell it? It will stop your heart and suffocate you if
you don't use a breathing
apparatus. Now think about it being applied right on top of or
into the animal dens
themselves. Very nasty way to die, assuming you had survivors
of discing. Lungs, eyes, and
skin burning, fighting for air and unable to get any that
isn't filled with the
anhydrous...

Okay. Now you must get ready for the seed you bought. That
means going into the 70 acres
for a third time with a harrow bed, to pulverize the disced up
dirt clods into finer,
tillable ground for planting. The co-op then goes in after
harrowing with the herbicide
application. It has a skull and crossbones on the label for a
good reason. The applicator,
if he has followed the manufacturers statistical data sheet
(MSDS), will be in a "moon
suit". He's covered head to toe, goggled, and wearing a gas
mask or other device to
breath. You use a chemical herbicide because it would take you
a month to go in and pull
weeds by hand, and you have to get your crop in, or go broke.

You are ready to plant now. For a *fifth* time a tractor and
implement have gone into the
70 acres, this time with that seed you bought and a 12 row
planter. Look at the implement
again. Here, this will help:

http://www.deere.com/en_US/deerecom/usa_canada.html
(click on agriculture)

WOW. You just noticed at the Deere site that soy beans are
waaaay up, so you really have
to get going. Of course, being sort of conscientious, you have
bought the most minimally
inoculated but disease resistant seed possible. Yep, your seed
has all its shots, which is
why you don't want to handle it much without gloves. It will
also kill any animal that
eats it and quite a few bugs, too. "Virgin" soy seed doesn't
exist anymore. It's all been
manipulated.

You plant, it grows. The crop is looking good. Oh NO! Those
pesky bugs! So, it's down to
the co-op for a pesticide to kill the bugs that have been
identified by your local USDA
extension office. They tell you what chemical to use. They
spray it on and, voila! No more
bugs...no more birds, no more mice, no more bunnies. They are
either killed slowly by the
poison or, if not dead, then sterilized.

That's okay. Your crop is looking damned good! The market
price is high and you might make
some money on soybeans. Oh, crap! Weeds!! Not many but enough
to be irritating. Well, you
don't have a cultivator so you hire Mexican labor to go in and
"walk" the beans. Three
bucks an hour and all the pot they can haul away (ditch weed
grows wild and resists
everything). Now your 70 looks pristine, from above.

Harvest time!!! You drag out the combine (see Deere implements
again) and tractor and go
to work. It grabs the bean plant, yanks it out, separates the
beans from the foliage, puts
the beans in the grain tank, grinds up the rest of the plant
and shoots it out the back.
The names of the parts of a combine are pretty
self-explanatory: threshing rotor, cleaning
fan, chaffer, sieve, etc. End of any animal who might have
made an above ground nest for
themselves.

But you've got your $7.00 a bushel beans out for all the
vegans who "don't want to kill
animals for food". At that price, who is going to care if a
few thousand birds, squirrels,
mice, or moles (and their babies) got squished, sliced, diced,
ground, tumbled, terrified
by the rumble and noise, badly injured, and left to die?

Now do you see why the vegan claim of less- or cruelty free is
an empty one?


No. Additional plant production is required for animal food
production.

=======================
No, fool, it is not required. There is NO requirment to feed
crops to cattle for beef.


I don't see that you've argued against the claim that veganism
minimizes your contribution to animal suffering. Do you believe
you
have plausible figures for the death toll required for a vegan
diet and
for a meat-based diet? Why don't you give them?

=================
Hey wait a minute, YOU claimed to have done all the research and
made this determination! Where's your numbers? Oh, right, you
lied. You have nothing.



If the vegans
place a value on a single life of a single creature, then
using soy in whatever form
renders that value meaningless.

Moreover, this kind of wholesale destruction for crop
production is far more "inhumane"
than the factory farming of a large hog operation. The hogs
aren't sliced and diced,
squished, starved, out of water, or evicted from their
"nests".


They are kept in small crates too narrow from them to turn
around. They
are deprived of straw and other sources of amusement. They
suffer
greatly from boredom. Their tails are docked without
anaesthetic. They
stand on either wire mesh, slatted floors or concrete floors,
which are
unnatural footings. They suffer from poor air quality due to
poor
ventilation and accumulating waste products. They are often
abused at
the loading and unloading stages of transport. Furthermore it
takes
eight pounds of protein in hog feed to generate a pound of
pork.

A HUMAN is there every
single day to feed them, water them, call the vet, clean up
after them, and even talk to
them. Their slaughter, when it's time, is quick. Their meat is
nutritious. Every part is
used. Not like the waste left behind the combine, made of
chemicalized soy.

Does this answer your argument?


No.

================
Brainwashing too tight, eh killer?


See, I told you Leslie....



Cheers 2 U,

Leslie
"Only two things are infinite: the universe and human
stupidity.
And I'm not sure about the former.".... Albert Einstein






  #26 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-06-2005, 02:25 AM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Rupert wrote:


Dutch wrote:

"Rupert" wrote


Dutch wrote:

wrote

[..]


I think you'll find "factory-farming" usually refers to the intensive
rearing of animals. Have you got a justification for calling
mono-culture crop production "factory-farming"?

Don't like people turning your pet pjoratives back on you eh?


Well, "factory-farming" is a simple descriptive term.


It carries much more baggage than that.


It doesn't matter
very much what it actually refers to, I was just surprised that he
thought this was a correct application of the word.


I realize that, because you don't fancy yourself as supporting "factory
farming".

Vegans typically have idealized views of themselves.



Well, be that as it may, I have provided you with no further evidence
for this view. I was surprised to hear monoculture-crop production
referred to as "factory farming", because I have always heard this
phrase used to refer to the intensive farming of animals. If he's right
about the correct application of the word (which I'm not convinced of),
then so be it. I have no problem with the idea that I support "factory
farming", so construed. What I *desire* about myself - not "fancy about
myself" - is that I contribute to as little animal suffering as
possible. If anyone thinks that's not the case, I'm interested to hear
what he has to say on the matter.


You have ZERO basis for your belief that you
"contribute to as little animal suffering as possible",
other than the fact that you don't eat meat. You are
committing a logical fallacy: the fallacy of Denying
the Antecedent.

If I eat meat, I cause the death and suffering of
animals.

I don't eat meat;

therefore, I don't cause the death and suffering of
animals.

This is plainly false: you can cause the death and
suffering of animals in LOTS of ways other than by
killing them to eat them. GIVEN that *all* you have
done is refrain from (or stop) eating meat, you have NO
IDEA how many animals you cause to suffer and die in
other ways than eating them: you haven't bothered to
check.


Anyway, I intended (correctly or otherwise) to use the word to refer to
intensive rearing of animals.


RAISING of animals, you dummy. We rear children; we
raise animals and crops.


Furthermore this clearly involves a lot
more suffering than what he was referring to.


Does it? How do you know? How much animal death and suffering results from
cultivation, planting, spraying, harvesting, storage protection, etc, etc..



(1) The number of animals involved is greater, and
(2) The suffering inflicted on each animal is greater.

Perhaps (1) is false when we take into account all the animals killed
by the plant production necessitated by animal food production. But
it's not false if we're only talking about the amount of plant
production that would be necessary to support universal veganism. Davis
estimates the death toll at 1.8 billion. More animals than that are
killed in animal food production. And each animal suffers considerably
more.


Anyway, it's all very well to abuse me for supporting these practices,
but you don't offer any serious alternative to doing so. If you had a
serious proposal for my further reducing the contribution I make to
animal suffering then I would consider it.

Stop supporting commercial agriculture, it kills countless billions
of animals. Anyway, it's you who proposed that killing animals is
to be avoided, why should we now determine for you how you
are going to live up to it? Do your own homework.

I'm sorry, can you quote me as saying that buying products whose
production involved the death of animals is absolutely prohibited? I
don't think you can.


I see, so it's fine to cause death and suffering of animals when it fits
conveniently into your chosen lifestyle but not when it fits into mine.



That's not a very reasonable interpretation of my argument. I believe
in a principle enunciated by David DeGrazia in "Taking Animals
Seriously": Make every reasonable effort to avoid providing financial
support to practices that cause or support unnecessary harm. I believe
that, on any reasonable interpretation of this principle, this will
require veganism or near-veganism.


You clearly have created lots of wiggle room for
yourself with the vague word "reasonable". You have no
standard for deciding what's reasonable.


It's not altogether clear to me that
it requires me to stop supporting commercial agriculture. That depends
on what's involved in "making every reasonable effort". I am
open-minded on this matter. Maybe you can persuade me that "making
every reasonable effort" does require that I stop supporting commercial
agriculture. Or maybe you can persuade me that I should accept some
more stringent moral principle, which would require me to stop
supporting commercial agriculture. Go for it. But it requires some
argument.


What I do think is that we should make every
reasonable effort to minimize our contribution to the suffering of
animals. And I have done my homework on that, I believe that the best
way to do it is to become vegan. If you've got some suggestions for how
I can do better I'm happy to listen to them.


A typical vegan could reduce the net amount of animal death and suffering
associated with his or her diet by the introduction of some carefully
selected meat, fish or game, a person who supplements their diet by hunting
or fishing for example.



Fishing? Fishing involves a fairly high death rate per serving of food.
I would want to see some more evidence that fishing will do any good.
And one problem with hunting is that not all of the animals are killed,
some of them are just seriously maimed. So the amount of suffering and
death caused per serving of food is higher than it appears at first.
Where do you suggest I go hunting, anyway? Or where do you suggest I
buy my meat? And what is your evidence that this will actually *reduce*
the amount of animal death and suffering I contribute to?


Also a person who also grows much of their own food
*and* consumes meat probably does much better than that typical urban vegan.



Consumes what sort of meat?

Growing more of my own food seems like a better proposal. I'll consider
that one.


Don't misunderstand, I am not suggesting you do these things, I am just
asking you to acknowledge that they are viable choices.



Sure they are. But I'm not sure you've offered any practical
suggestions that will definitely reduce my contribution to animal death
and suffering, except possibly growing some of my own food.


I'm not altogether convinced that the suggestion "stop supporting
commerical agriculture" is entirely feasible for me. If you've got some
ideas as to how I can do it I'm happy to listen to those, as well.


Of course "feasible" is something you define for yourself. I would like you
to show me the respect to allow me to do the same for myself.



There is a limit to the reasonable application of words. There is no
reasonable sense in which it is "unfeasible" to become vegan. It is
feasible for me to reduce the extent to which I support commerical
agriculture, but to stop supporting it - well, I'd just be interested
to hear how you propose I would go about doing that.

  #28 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-06-2005, 02:47 AM
Rupert
 
Posts: n/a
Default



rick wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message
oups.com...


rick wrote:
Dutch, ruperts message didn't show up on my server, so I'll
piggy-back on yours...

"Dutch" wrote in message
...

"Rupert" wrote


Dutch wrote:
wrote

[..]

I think you'll find "factory-farming" usually refers to
the
intensive
rearing of animals. Have you got a justification for
calling
mono-culture crop production "factory-farming"?

Don't like people turning your pet pjoratives back on you
eh?


Well, "factory-farming" is a simple descriptive term.
========================
Yes, it is, and as I explained, far more descriptive of crop
farming....


Well, I wasn't very convinced by what you said.

====================
Only because you're brainwashing has your mind closed. Try to
reute what you have been told, don't just say nah, nah, nah,
killer.


Well, the only fact you provided was that beef cattle start out on
pasture. I asked for a reference on this. But, however that may be, it
hardly proves your case. To prove your case, you would need to examine
the details of crop production and intensive rearing of animals and
compare them, and demonstrate that the former deserved the label
"factory farming" more than the latter. You didn't do this.





It carries much more baggage than that.

It doesn't matter
very much what it actually refers to, I was just surprised
that he
thought this was a correct application of the word.
==================
It's very correct, unless of course you have an agenda to
promote
that doesn't have anything to do with reality, eh killer?


Well, feel free to support your case.

================
LOL I already did, fool. You have yet to support your
contentions. vegans never do, and never will, because all you
have is a simple rule for your simple minds....


You made an attempt to support your case, but I wasn't that impressed
with it so far. I have provided arguments for my contentions. If you
want to address them, go ahead.





I realize that, because you don't fancy yourself as
supporting
"factory farming".

Vegans typically have idealized views of themselves.

Anyway, I intended (correctly or otherwise) to use the word
to
refer to
intensive rearing of animals. Furthermore this clearly
involves a lot
more suffering than what he was referring to.
===========================
LOL More suffering that slicing, dicing, shredding and having
your guts rotted out?


Yes.

================
Show it then, fool.



I believe that being confined for most of your life in cages or stalls
that are too narrow for you to turn around, and being subject to
unanaesthetized branding, dehorning, debeaking, castration, and tail
docking, cause more suffering than being killed in a relatively short
time by a combine harvester.


You must be totally brainwashed, eh fool?
Do some meat animals 'suffer?' I'm sure that some probably
do,
according to your definition. But they are not "ALL" meat
animals, fool.


Just the great majority of them.

==================
Then why the complete ban on all meats, killer? Your veggies
kill far more animals than the meats I eat.


What complete ban on all meats?

Do you have some evidence that the production of the meat you eat
causes fewer deaths than the production of vegetables?







Does it? How do you know? How much animal death and
suffering
results from cultivation, planting, spraying, harvesting,
storage protection, etc, etc..

Anyway, it's all very well to abuse me for supporting
these
practices,
but you don't offer any serious alternative to doing so.
If
you had a
serious proposal for my further reducing the
contribution I
make to
animal suffering then I would consider it.

Stop supporting commercial agriculture, it kills countless
billions
of animals. Anyway, it's you who proposed that killing
animals is
to be avoided, why should we now determine for you how you
are going to live up to it? Do your own homework.

I'm sorry, can you quote me as saying that buying products
whose
production involved the death of animals is absolutely
prohibited? I
don't think you can.
==================
Then why the ignorant prohibition on buying meat? Obviouly
it
really has NOTHING to do with animal death and suffering,
then,
eh killer?


I believe that the most practical way to minimize one's
contribution to
animal suffering is to be vegan.

====================
A contention that you have never proen, or even tried to support
with any data.


I have pointed out that veganism avoids support of intensive rearing of
animals, I have pointed out that animal food production requires more
plant production than plant food production, and I have linked to an
article that discusses Davis' model of ruminant-pasture food production
and compares it with a vegan model. You, on the other hand, have never
supported your contention that it is possible to cause less suffering
than that caused by a vegan diet by eating some meat. You might be
right in this, but you have never proven it, or even tried to support
it with any data.


Perhaps there are also some ways of
doing this that involve buying some meat. I'm interested to
hear any
evidence you have about this matter.

===============
No you aren't. You'e a closed-minded fool that makes claims that
you cannot support.


Um, yeah. Really intelligent. Really cogent argument. Keep up the good
work.





I see, so it's fine to cause death and suffering of animals
when it fits conveniently into your chosen lifestyle but not
when it fits into mine.

What I do think is that we should make every
reasonable effort to minimize our contribution to the
suffering of
animals.
====================
Then why are you posting to usenet, killer?


It's not clear to me that posting to usenet contributes to the
suffering of animals.

=======================
O course it isn't clear to you, killer. Anything that
contradicts your fantasy is just ignored. So much or all that
research you did on your lifestylr choices and animal death and
suffering fool. Ty looking up power poduction and communications
as a start, killer.


Well, maybe I will. But perhaps first you could address this point for
me: How do I contribute to power production and communications
infrastructure by posting to usenet? My family would use this computer
regardless of whether I posted to usenet.




And I have done my homework on that, I believe that the best
way to do it is to become vegan.
==============================
ROTFLMAO You've done zero homework fool. Propaganda doesn't
mean anything. Tell use how many animals died for your diet
prior to your conversion, and how many now die after your
conversion.


There was some discussion of this issue in the article I linked
to.

==================
No fool, YOU claimed that the best way was to be vegan, because
YOU researched it! It's quite obvious that that was a ly. You
have researched nothing! You read a few propaganda sites and
declare yourself vituous... What a hoot!


I'm sorry, I'm not following you here. I didn't read a few propaganda
sites, I read a few philosophy books. I don't see how you've refuted my
claim that I obtained some information and decided on the basis of it
that veganism would reduce my contribution to animal suffering.




If you've got some suggestions for how
I can do better I'm happy to listen to them.
====================
You've been given them, killer.


This is simply a lie. Stop evading the question and answer it.

================
No it is not a ly, fool. You claimed to have done the research,
and it's now benn proven that you lied. If yu had, you would
easily find what we ae talking about.



I read some information about modern farming techniques, and concluded
on that basis that veganism would contribute less to animal suffering.
I have read about Davis' model for pasture-ruminant production, but I
have my doubts that contributing to such production would reduce my
contribution to animal suffering, for reasons outlined in the article I
linked to. I haven't come across any other suggestions for reducing my
contribution to animal suffering beyond what I do by going vegan.
Perhaps this reflects poorly on the amount of research I've done.
Whatever. You claimed that you had given me some suggestions, and this
is simply false. I'm still waiting for you to give me some. It's
getting very boring.


And if you HAD done your
homework, which you just exposed as a ly, you would know that
thee are alternatives.



A typical vegan could reduce the net amount of animal death
and
suffering associated with his or her diet by the
introduction
of some carefully selected meat, fish or game, a person who
supplements their diet by hunting or fishing for example.
Also
a person who also grows much of their own food *and*
consumes
meat probably does much better than that typical urban
vegan.

Don't misunderstand, I am not suggesting you do these
things, I
am just asking you to acknowledge that they are viable
choices.

I'm not altogether convinced that the suggestion "stop
supporting
commerical agriculture" is entirely feasible for me. If
you've
got some
ideas as to how I can do it I'm happy to listen to those,
as
well.
====================
LOL You mean anything that won't be an inconvenience or
violate
your simple rule for your simple mind, right killer?


No.
================

Yes, obviously. Because of everything in your life that causes
massive animal death and suffering, all YOU cry about is those
that eat meat.


I believe I have a moral obligation to minimize my contribution to
animal suffering. I do my best to live up to it. I don't think I've
been "crying" about those who eat meat, but I do think it's a shame
that some people contribute to cruel farming practices more than they
have to, and meat-eating frequently involves this. I am open to
conviction about whether eating some meat might be compatible with
minimizing one's contribution to animal suffering. I'm still waiting
for someone to provide a practical suggestion for further reducing my
contribution to animal suffering together with evidence that it will
actually do this. It's a simple enough request. Why don't you respond
to it instead of engaging in gratuitous abuse?

Something YOU have no control over. You focus on
what others are doing because it is far easier than actually
doing anything in YOUR life to make a real difference.



Yeah. Right. Whatever you say. As I say, I'll be interested to hear any
suggestions you have for how I can make more of a difference than I
already have. But I'm beginning to suspect you're more interested in
just tossing out insults.



Of course "feasible" is something you define for yourself. I
would like you to show me the respect to allow me to do the
same for myself.



  #29 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-06-2005, 02:55 AM
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Rupert" wrote in message
oups.com...


Dutch wrote:
"Rupert" wrote

Dutch wrote:
wrote
The main point of veganism is to boycott factory-farming,
which causes
animals to lead miserable lives.

That's a lie, vegans boycott ALL forms of animal products,
not only "factory farmed" meat.


It's not a lie.


Yes, it is.


No, it's not. I didn't say vegans only boycott factory farm
produce. I
said the main point of veganism was to boycott factory farm
produce.
That's a claim about the *main* (not the only) motivation
behind
veganism. And it *is* the main point of veganism for me. Who
are you to
tell me otherwise?

Most animal products are the product of factory farming.


And vegans boycott ALL meat, AND vegans consume factory farmed
produce,


I'm not convinced that using "factory farming" to cover
monoculture
crop production is a reasonable use of the term. If we decide
that it
is, substitute "animal products derived from intensively reared
animals" for "factory farm produce". What does a word matter.

therefore "factory farming" is not the issue, it's a red
herring.


Intensive rearing of animals *is* (the main part of) the issue.

It is of
course true that by definition vegans boycott all animal
products;


Thank you.

my
point was simply that the main part of the case for veganism
is the
case for boycotting factory-farm produce.


Vegans don't boycott factory farming, they boycott meat and
other "animal
products".


In particular, they boycott products from intensively reared
animals.
My claim was that this is the main motivation for their diet
and that
there is a strong moral case for it.

That gets you to
near-veganism. A lot of people do go further, yes, whether
you accept
the rest of the case for full veganism depends on the
individual.


It depends on to what degree you buy into the fallacy that
boycotting
"animal products" eliminates one's complicity in animal death
and suffering.


It depends on to what degree you accept that boycotting "animal
products" *reduces* your contribution to animal suffering - and
I
haven't seen any reason to think otherwise yet.


The animals who live on factory farms have to be fed with
plant
products, the production of which will cause the death of
wildlife.

That's true, but meat can be obtained that requires little
or
no plant supplementation. Vegans oppose all of it.

True. See this article for one possible defence of that.

http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...least-harm.pdf


That article is a mess.


Make a specific criticism of it.

And the
implication of that position is that it's "plant
production" at
the root of much of the animal killing in agriculture, a
fact
which confounds the moral presumptions of veganism.


No, it doesn't.


Yes it does.

The usual moral defence of veganism is that it is the
best way to minimize one's contribution to animal suffering.
Nothing
you have said disproves that.


If I followed a vegan diet I could lessen the toll of animal
death by
supplementing my diet with fresh fish or game, possibly even
free-range
pastured meat.


What's your evidence that that would lessen the toll of animal
death?

Animal products are an inefficient use of land,

That depends on the land. A lot of land is not very arable
but ideal for pasture.

so their production
will cause more death of wildlife than the production of
plant products
to be fed directly to human beings.

Not using non-arable land as pasture and grasses and raw
grains as the foundation of the human food chain would mean
a lot more intensive, (i.e. "factory") farming of plants.


So what?


So factory farming, intensive monoculture farming is damaging
to the
envirnoment and responsible for a lot of animal death and
suffering.


Yes, but animal food production for the most part entails more
environmental damage and more animal suffering.

==================
Absolute BS.



As for the argument that ruminant-pasture food production
causes fewer
deaths than some forms of plant food production, the
following article
is worth a look:

http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...least-harm.pdf

It's worth a look but not much more, it's full of
fallacies,
diversionary arguments and unsupported assertions.


Would you care to elaborate on your critique of it?


I have done so in the past, but it's like wading knee-deep in
molasses to
pore through. I will do so if I get the slightest indication
that you are
listening, but I do not wish to cast pearls before swine, i.e
if it appears
your mind is locked-down. That is currently the impression I
have.


I am being perfectly rational and open-minded. The only reason
you have
that impression is because of your prejudice against vegans.
Anyway,
when you've defended your criticism of the article with
argument I'll
take it seriously, but not before, obviously.

Vegetarian diets are quite good, and efficient, where
vegans
go awry is falling for all the feelgood quasi-political
nonsense.

What nonsense?


The nonsense that veganism elevates the adherent to a higher
moral plane.


Why is it nonsense to suppose that it is ethically better to
reduce
your contribution to animal suffering?

================
Nice little strawman killer. He didn't say that, and I haven't
read anybody that has. What is nonsense is to assume that being
vegan automatically means you've achieved any kind of reduction.



Some vegans claim that following a vegan diet is the
best way to minimize one's contribution to animal suffering.


You all do, and it's clearly not true.


Why not?

I don't
see that you've offered me any reason to think otherwise.


I have, you can't hear.


No, you haven't. You've begun to gesture in the direction of an
argument in this post by making some unsupported assertions
that eating
a small amount of meat, fish and game will further reduce the
animal
death toll. Just describe the diet which you think causes less
suffering than a vegan diet, and *give evidence that it does*.

====================
No fool, it's YOUR contention that a vegan diet must automatially
cause fewer deaths, and YOU have claimed to do the research.
Show it to us now, killer. Afraid to? Or is it that you lied
when you claimed to have done all that research, eh fool?






Here are some sites, with info on specific areas and
pesticides. Animals die.
http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm
http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm
http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html
http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html
http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/news...00/nitrate.htm
http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/P...carbofuran.htm
http://www.nwf.org/internationalwildlife/hawk.html
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm
http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/p...eFactSheet.pdf
http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_Wildl...on/pg7f2b6.htm
http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html
http://www.wildlifedamagecontrol.com.../leastharm.htm
http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html
http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/
http://ipm.ncsu.edu/wildlife/small_grains_wildlife.html
http://www.gbr.wwf.org.au/content/problem/sugarcane.htm
http://www.wildlifetrustofindia.org/...ele_poison.htm
http://species.fws.gov/bio_rhin.html
http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html
http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html
http://www.hornedlizards.org/hornedlizards/help.html
http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/bulletins/b-5093.html
http://www.orst.edu/dept/ncs/newsarc...00/nitrate.htm
http://www.orst.edu/instruct/fw251/n...riculture.html
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn35/pn35p6.html
http://www.greenenergyohio.org/defau...iew&pageID=135
http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html
http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/capandtrade/power.pdf
http://www.nirs.org/licensedtokill/L...xecsummary.pdf
http://www.towerkill.com/index.html
http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/issues/towers/towers.htm
http://www.abcbirds.org/policy/towerkill.htm
http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/pae/es_ma...ticle_22.mhtml
http://www.netwalk.com/~vireo/devastatingtoll.html
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...7697992.htm?1c
http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/energy...00-01-019.html
http://www.repp.org/repp_pubs/articl.../04impacts.htm
http://www.wvrivers.org/anker-upshur.htm
http://www.fisheries.org/html/Public...nts/ps_2.shtml
http://www.powerscorecard.org/issue_...cfm?issue_id=5
http://www.safesecurevital.org/artic...012012004.html

http://www.cgfi.org/materials/key_pu...oxic_Tools.pdf
http://www.ontarioprofessionals.com/organic.htm
http://hgic.clemson.edu/factsheets/HGIC2756.htm
http://www.biotech-info.net/deadly_chemicals.html
http://www.agnr.umd.edu/ipmnet/4-2art1.htm
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environmen...ing_annex1.pdf




Since your non-animal clothing isn't cruelty-free either,
here's a couple to cover some problems with cotton.
http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html
http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/
http://www.gbr.wwf.org.au/content/problem/cotton.htm

To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a field,
here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that there
can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field.
http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache...state.edu/pubs
/natres/06507.pdf+%22voles+per+acre%22+field&hl=en&ie=UTF8
http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf
http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html
http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html


To cover your selfish pleasure of using usenet, and
maintaining a web page on same, here's are a couple
dealing with power and communications.
http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html
http://www.towerkill.com/index.html


  #30 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-06-2005, 02:56 AM
Rubin
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Rupert" wrote in message
oups.com...


Dutch wrote:
"Rupert" wrote

Dutch wrote:
wrote
The main point of veganism is to boycott factory-farming, which
causes
animals to lead miserable lives.

That's a lie, vegans boycott ALL forms of animal products,
not only "factory farmed" meat.


It's not a lie.


Yes, it is.


No, it's not. I didn't say vegans only boycott factory farm produce. I
said the main point of veganism was to boycott factory farm produce.
That's a claim about the *main* (not the only) motivation behind
veganism. And it *is* the main point of veganism for me. Who are you to
tell me otherwise?

Most animal products are the product of factory farming.


And vegans boycott ALL meat, AND vegans consume factory farmed produce,


I'm not convinced that using "factory farming" to cover monoculture
crop production is a reasonable use of the term. If we decide that it
is, substitute "animal products derived from intensively reared
animals" for "factory farm produce". What does a word matter.

therefore "factory farming" is not the issue, it's a red herring.


Intensive rearing of animals *is* (the main part of) the issue.

It is of
course true that by definition vegans boycott all animal products;


Thank you.

my
point was simply that the main part of the case for veganism is the
case for boycotting factory-farm produce.


Vegans don't boycott factory farming, they boycott meat and other "animal
products".


In particular, they boycott products from intensively reared animals.
My claim was that this is the main motivation for their diet and that
there is a strong moral case for it.

That gets you to
near-veganism. A lot of people do go further, yes, whether you accept
the rest of the case for full veganism depends on the individual.


It depends on to what degree you buy into the fallacy that boycotting
"animal products" eliminates one's complicity in animal death and
suffering.


It depends on to what degree you accept that boycotting "animal
products" *reduces* your contribution to animal suffering - and I
haven't seen any reason to think otherwise yet.


The animals who live on factory farms have to be fed with plant
products, the production of which will cause the death of wildlife.

That's true, but meat can be obtained that requires little or
no plant supplementation. Vegans oppose all of it.

True. See this article for one possible defence of that.

http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...least-harm.pdf


That article is a mess.


Make a specific criticism of it.

And the
implication of that position is that it's "plant production" at
the root of much of the animal killing in agriculture, a fact
which confounds the moral presumptions of veganism.


No, it doesn't.


Yes it does.

The usual moral defence of veganism is that it is the
best way to minimize one's contribution to animal suffering. Nothing
you have said disproves that.


If I followed a vegan diet I could lessen the toll of animal death by
supplementing my diet with fresh fish or game, possibly even free-range
pastured meat.


What's your evidence that that would lessen the toll of animal death?

Animal products are an inefficient use of land,

That depends on the land. A lot of land is not very arable
but ideal for pasture.

so their production
will cause more death of wildlife than the production of plant
products
to be fed directly to human beings.

Not using non-arable land as pasture and grasses and raw
grains as the foundation of the human food chain would mean
a lot more intensive, (i.e. "factory") farming of plants.


So what?


So factory farming, intensive monoculture farming is damaging to the
envirnoment and responsible for a lot of animal death and suffering.


Yes, but animal food production for the most part entails more
environmental damage and more animal suffering.

As for the argument that ruminant-pasture food production causes
fewer
deaths than some forms of plant food production, the following
article
is worth a look:

http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob...least-harm.pdf

It's worth a look but not much more, it's full of fallacies,
diversionary arguments and unsupported assertions.


Would you care to elaborate on your critique of it?


I have done so in the past, but it's like wading knee-deep in molasses to
pore through. I will do so if I get the slightest indication that you are
listening, but I do not wish to cast pearls before swine, i.e if it
appears
your mind is locked-down. That is currently the impression I have.


I am being perfectly rational and open-minded. The only reason you have
that impression is because of your prejudice against vegans. Anyway,
when you've defended your criticism of the article with argument I'll
take it seriously, but not before, obviously.

Vegetarian diets are quite good, and efficient, where vegans
go awry is falling for all the feelgood quasi-political nonsense.

What nonsense?


The nonsense that veganism elevates the adherent to a higher moral plane.


Why is it nonsense to suppose that it is ethically better to reduce
your contribution to animal suffering?

Some vegans claim that following a vegan diet is the
best way to minimize one's contribution to animal suffering.


You all do, and it's clearly not true.


Why not?

I don't
see that you've offered me any reason to think otherwise.


I have, you can't hear.


No, you haven't. You've begun to gesture in the direction of an
argument in this post by making some unsupported assertions that eating
a small amount of meat, fish and game will further reduce the animal
death toll. Just describe the diet which you think causes less
suffering than a vegan diet, and *give evidence that it does*.


OK, think of it this way. The ONLY way to even come close to causing, or
contributing to, animal deaths is this: To live in the wilds somewhere, no
fire (possible forest fire), no electronics, liqueur, cigarettes, bug spray,
ad infinitum. The only thing you could eat would be some leaves, nuts,
berries etc., but not too much, animals compete for those same resources.
Maybe you could eat carrion, if you really wanted to.

Obviously, that is not feasible, as well as being pretty damn silly. So
your choice becomes: an industry that kills 1000s of animals per acre to
feed the minority, or an industry that kills dozens (tops) per acre for the
majority?

Now, you next main problem with the "suffering", vegan side or meat eater
side. You have no way to prove that all, or even a majority, of livestock,
suffer at all. By the same token, meat eaters use figures skewed or spun to
make their side look better. Terms like "up to" and "as many as". No
problem at all, the choice is an individuals to make. Preaching only makes
people dig their heels in.

You must admit crop production causes death and suffering, as any meat eater
will tell you some animals suffer because of their decisions. There is no
way to avoid it, from either side.

I have no problem with the "health vegan", that uses the diet for supposed
health benefits, they usually aren't preachy. It is the hippie vegans that
act like Jahova Witnesses and try to convert you using half the facts, and
half of those wrong, that make my ass pucker.




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
US vegan population doubles in only two years - Harris Interactive study Dr. Jai Maharaj[_2_] Vegan 1 10-08-2014 08:37 PM
U.S. vegan population doubles in only two years! Dr. Jai Maharaj[_1_] Vegan 41 26-08-2013 09:57 PM
New Years Day Black Eyed Peas and Greens [email protected] General Cooking 3 05-01-2012 04:59 AM
Black Eyed Peas for New Years - Hopping John Evelyn Diabetic 0 31-12-2008 08:27 PM
50 Years Later... ...black children are still choosing the white doll. [email protected] General Cooking 5 24-11-2008 06:23 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:59 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017