Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
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 | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
|||
"Rubin" > wrote in message news:%npue.94892$xm3.86809@attbi_s21... > > "rick" > wrote in message > ink.net... >> >> "Rubin" > wrote in message >> news:CFoue.94776$xm3.45171@attbi_s21... >>> >> snippage... >> >> >> >>>> >>> >>> 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", >> ===================== >> Problem is, there really is no 'health' vegan. Veganism is >> NOT a diet. It is a philosophy, a way of life. >> Diet plays no more or less a part than any other aspect of >> your life. >> >> >> >> >> >> 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. >>> >>> >> >> > Note the "quotation marks" and the "supposed health benefits", > then get back to me. ================ The message was more for rupert... Unfortunately there are many loons that believe that it is a diet.... Or, they want it to be because they are too lazy to actually be inconvenienced that much to be real vegans, but think it's really cool to be "vegan" so they co-opt the word and meaning. > > |
|
|||
|
|||
rick wrote:
> "Rupert" > wrote in message > ups.com... > >> >>Rudy Canoza wrote: >> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>The main point of veganism is to boycott factory-farming, >>>>which causes >>>>animals to lead miserable lives. >>>> >>>>The animals who live on factory farms have to be fed with >>>>plant >>>>products, the production of which will cause the death of >>>>wildlife. >>>>Animal products are an inefficient use of land, >>> >>>False. You have no useful definition of efficiency to >>>support that claim. It's purely a value judgment, not >>>a reasoned finding. >>> >> >>Well, more land is required to produce a given quantity of >>animal >>protein than same quantity of plant protein. >>====================== > > What research do you have that can prove this? And, which is the > definition of environmental destruction? That would be crops, > for the sarcasm impaired.... Animals can and do, live and grow > quite well on land that cannot be used for crops without massive > inputs from the petro-chemical industry. I don't have a problem with accepting that raising livestock uses more land than raising a nutritionally equivalent amount of vegetable produce. It's beside the point. The point is, minimizing physical resource use is not the definition of efficiency. I'm waiting to see if Rupert can begin to figure out why it isn't. I'm not very hopeful he will. |
|
|||
|
|||
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ink.net... > rick wrote: > >> "Rupert" > wrote in message >> ups.com... >> >>> >>>Rudy Canoza wrote: >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>The main point of veganism is to boycott factory-farming, >>>>>which causes >>>>>animals to lead miserable lives. >>>>> >>>>>The animals who live on factory farms have to be fed with >>>>>plant >>>>>products, the production of which will cause the death of >>>>>wildlife. >>>>>Animal products are an inefficient use of land, >>>> >>>>False. You have no useful definition of efficiency to >>>>support that claim. It's purely a value judgment, not >>>>a reasoned finding. >>>> >>> >>>Well, more land is required to produce a given quantity of >>>animal >>>protein than same quantity of plant protein. >>>====================== >> >> What research do you have that can prove this? And, which is >> the definition of environmental destruction? That would be >> crops, for the sarcasm impaired.... Animals can and do, live >> and grow quite well on land that cannot be used for crops >> without massive inputs from the petro-chemical industry. > > I don't have a problem with accepting that raising livestock > uses more land than raising a nutritionally equivalent amount > of vegetable produce. ====================== The difference is that he said "animal protein". That does not by necessity require it to be a farmed animal. How does he calculate the 'required' amount of land that supports any number of different types of animals that can be used for food? Now, maybe he can weasel word his way around and say 'produce' means only farmed animals, but nature 'produced' this animal protein just as well. so, I wasn't limiting myself to livestock, since his statement did not. It's beside > the point. The point is, minimizing physical resource use is > not the definition of efficiency. I'm waiting to see if Rupert > can begin to figure out why it isn't. I'm not very hopeful he > will. =============== Don't hold your breath.... |
|
|||
|
|||
rick wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message > ink.net... > >>rick wrote: >> >> >>>"Rupert" > wrote in message groups.com... >>> >>> >>>>Rudy Canoza wrote: >>>> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>The main point of veganism is to boycott factory-farming, >>>>>>which causes >>>>>>animals to lead miserable lives. >>>>>> >>>>>>The animals who live on factory farms have to be fed with >>>>>>plant >>>>>>products, the production of which will cause the death of >>>>>>wildlife. >>>>>>Animal products are an inefficient use of land, >>>>> >>>>>False. You have no useful definition of efficiency to >>>>>support that claim. It's purely a value judgment, not >>>>>a reasoned finding. >>>>> >>>> >>>>Well, more land is required to produce a given quantity of >>>>animal >>>>protein than same quantity of plant protein. >>>>====================== >>> >>>What research do you have that can prove this? And, which is >>>the definition of environmental destruction? That would be >>>crops, for the sarcasm impaired.... Animals can and do, live >>>and grow quite well on land that cannot be used for crops >>>without massive inputs from the petro-chemical industry. >> >>I don't have a problem with accepting that raising livestock >>uses more land than raising a nutritionally equivalent amount >>of vegetable produce. > > ====================== > The difference is that he said "animal protein". That does not > by necessity require it to be a farmed animal. For all practical purposes, though, it will be. I think the numbers actually get worse for the meat side if you're going to talk about hunted game. It takes more land set aside for wildlife to produce a given amount of animal protein by hunting than it takes to achieve the same amount by animal husbandry. Again, it's not really the point. > How does he > calculate the 'required' amount of land that supports any number > of different types of animals that can be used for food? Now, > maybe he can weasel word his way around and say 'produce' means > only farmed animals, but nature 'produced' this animal protein > just as well. so, I wasn't limiting myself to livestock, since > his statement did not. > > > > It's beside > >>the point. The point is, minimizing physical resource use is >>not the definition of efficiency. I'm waiting to see if Rupert >>can begin to figure out why it isn't. I'm not very hopeful he >>will. > > =============== > Don't hold your breath.... > > > |
|
|||
|
|||
rick wrote: > "Rupert" > wrote in message > ups.com... > > > > > > 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. > =========== > Really? I didn't see any such request. Try USDA fool... > "...All cattle start out eating grass; three-fourths of them are > "finished" (grown to maturity) in feedlots..." > http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets...able/index.asp > > > 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. > ======================== > You already claimed to have done that research. You provide your > data, killer. > see below... > No, I didn't. I claimed to have read some information about intensive rearing of animals. "Factory-farming" sounds like a pretty reasonable description to me. I don't need to point you to all the descriptions of it in the literature. You claimed crop production was more deserving of the title "factory-farming". Fine. The onus is on you to prove it. > > > > >> > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > 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. > ==================== > No, you haven't. You've spewed vegan propaganda without any > data. Show your proof, fool. Aterall, you claimed to have done > all the research. > I have pointed out that intensively reared animals suffer considerably. I have pointed out that most animal food production requires more plant production than plant food production. And I have linked to an article which discusses Davis' ruminant-pasture model of food production, and compares it to a vegan model. If you feel there's a contention I've made which isn't adequately supported by all of this, tell me what it is. > > > > >> > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > 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, > ===================== > You haven't proven that all animals "suffer" in these ways, > killer. It has been proven though that your crops kill massive > numbers of animals in very brutal, very inhumane ways. > It's also been proven that factory-farmed animals live lives with a great deal of misery and suffering in them, more suffering than would be involved in being killed by a combine harvester, or even a more protacted death from chemicals. > cause more suffering than being killed in a relatively short > > time by a combine harvester. > ============================== > LOL Forget all those chemical applications already, killer? > Tell us how having your guts turn to mush over several days is a > "humane" way to die... > > > > > > > > >> > > >> >> 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? > ================= > Then you do eat some meats, eh? No. > Again, you have failed to answer > the question. Why the complete ban/avoidance/whatever you want > to call it, of ALL meats? > You're asking me why I don't eat meat? I don't particularly want to, and I don't see any reason why I should. > > > > > Do you have some evidence that the production of the meat you > > eat > > causes fewer deaths than the production of vegetables? > > ========================== > SUre, come on down and see them. You can even pet them if you > like. They are pasture raised, no hormones, no antibiotics, no > feed crops. They are not confined, though they do have a > 3-sided barn for shelter when they want. The chickens next door > run freely through our back yard, and again, then do have a coop, > but are left to roam on their own. > The beef I eat from these animals replaces 100s of 1000s o > calories that YOU get from mono-culture factory farming. I count > the number of animals daths for my meat by 100s of meals per > death. You're lucky if you an say 100s of deaths per meal. > I would be interested to know where you got that last figure from. Pasture forage production does involve the deaths of some animals. You would have to take those into account as well. There is some discussion of the issue in the article I linked to. But sure, maybe you are in a position where you can ethically eat some meat. Fine. More power to you. > > >> > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > 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, > ============================ > No, you have repeated a vegan ly. There is NO requirment to grow > crops for animals, fool. None. > Most animals do require crops to be grown to feed them, and most animal food production does require more plant production than plant food production. There are exceptions. > > 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. > ========================= > Yes, I have killer. Many times, and long before you arrived. > But then, you should know that, since afterall, you did all that > research, right killer? > You really are quite bizarre. You think that somehow my claim to have made an informed decision to become vegan entails that I should have gone through all the Usenet archives to find out what arguments you have offered in the past? If you want to convince me, just present me with the arguments. > > > > > >> > >> 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. > ================= > Kinda sounded like you, didn't it? Where's your proof, fool? > No, it didn't really sound much like me. I'm not that hostile and insulting, and I also usually only make claims that I can support by argument. Where's my proof of what? > > > > >> > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > 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. > ============= > see below, i did your "research" for you... > > 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. > ==================== > For what "need"? There is no survial need to use a computer. > Your selfish interest in entertainemnt is part of, and drives, > and ever increasing demand for more power generation and > communications. You "could" make a difference, according to your > vegan argument, by eliminating all useage of your computer and > communications. No, I couldn't. My family would still use the computer and pay for the internet connection. The amount of suffering caused would be the same. > You won't, because, as has been proven, a > concern for animals is not really what you are about. If it > were, you wouldn't be tracking your bloody footprints all over > the world. > > > > > >> > >> > > >> >> > >> >> 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. > ============================== > ROTFLMAO And what data did they provide for you? Obviously > none! > Wrong. > > 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. > ===================== > Because you have yet to support that claim with any data, fool. Also wrong. > You claimed you cause ewer animals to suffer and die. Prove it! > I gave my arguments once again above. > > > > >> > >> > > >> >> > >> >> 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. > ====================== > Then yu are even more stupid than I thought. > > > > 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. > ==================== > And you have yet to support that claim. I'll wait. Make up any > numbers you like.... > I have supported the claim. I've even linked to an article which has got a few numbers in it. > > > 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. > ================ > hen you didn't look, did you? > Yes, I did. Still waiting for your suggestions. > > > > >> > > >> >> 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. > ================== > Yet are not doing that, and have failed to prove you even try. > How about an argument for why I'm not doing that? > > 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. > ================ > Your crop production ALWAYS does... > No. Buying plant products isn't necessarily contributing to cruel farming practices more than you have to. > 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? > ================ > Becaause it has been presented many times. I you wee really open > minded and looking for real answers, you'd find it. > I see. You refuse to actually present the suggestion or provide a link to it, but the burden is still on me to go through the usenet archives and find it. Well, I have had a look, and I may have another one. But do you have any particular reason for not just presenting the suggestion? I've asked you quite a few times now. > > > > >> 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. > ==================== > And you'e more interested in remaining an ignorant, brainwashed > loon, eh? > Oh, for heaven's sake. Why don't you just provide some suggestions? It's pathetic. [rest deleted] |
|
|||
|
|||
rick wrote: > "Rupert" > wrote in message > oups.com... > > > > > > rick wrote: > >> "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.... > > > > No, I'm not. > ================= > Yes, you are, You've provided no such proof of your claims, and > by posting here you have proven that causing unnecessary animal > deaths are of no concern to you. > > No, I haven't. If you're not prepared to accept my statement about what I desire, fine. I really couldn't care less. > > > >> 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. > >> > > > > This isn't an argument. > ===================== > LOL And yours is where? > My argument for what? I've made arguments for my contentions. > > > > >> > >> > > >> >> > 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..... > >> > > > > Yes, I can. I did it in a different post. > ================== > No, you didn't. You can't prove a ly, killer. > That's not an argument. > > > > >> > >> > > >> >> >> > 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 try to live in accordance with the principle. As I say, I'm > > interested to hear any suggestions you have about what's > > involved in > > living up to it, but you refuse to take my expressions of > > interest at > > face value and instead prefer just to spew abuse. Not very > > constructive. > =============== > Because you have yet to show any real interest, killer. You keep > repeating the same tired old lys over and over. > Actually, I have shown some interest. I'm getting very bored of waiting for you to actually provide the suggestions. > > > > >> > >> 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. > >> > > > > No, it's because I have some doubts that boycotting commercial > > agriculture falls within the extent of "making every reasonable > > effort". > ===================== > LOL Of course you do, it would require that you be > inconvenienced, eh killer? > Yes, it would require that I be inconvenienced. That doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't fall within the extent of "making every reasonable effort". But it doesn't mean that it does, either. As I say, I have my doubts. Maybe you can offer some reason why I shouldn't have these doubts. > Some efforts go beyond making every reasonable effort. Maybe > > these doubts are unfounded. Feel free to argue the point. I > > would also > > be interested in any thoughts you may have about how I can grow > > all my > > own food in my back garden. > ================= > You can't. And more to the point, you won't. You're too > convenience, consumer oriented... > Well, if I can't, obviously I won't, and obviously it will be because I can't, rather than because I'm too "convenience, consumer oriented". > > > > >> 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. > > > > Yes, I did make the argument, and you haven't demonstrated that > > I fail > > to abide by it. > ======================= > LOL You've been told there are meats that cause ar less death > and suffering than your veggies. You refuse to look up anything > about it. > Yes, I've been told, and I've asked for some evidence. I have looked up something about it. If anyone wants to point me in the way of more information, that's great. > > > > >> 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. > >> > > > > But I make every reasonable effort to minimize the animal > > suffering to > > which I contribute. > ==================== > No, fool, you don't. You just proved that yet again.... > That's not an 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. > >> ===================== > >> LOL What a hoot! As opposed to say fake tofu meats? You > >> really > >> atre this brainwashed, aren't you? > >> > > > > Not necessarily as opposed to that, I was thinking more as > > opposed to > > vegetables and pulses. Whatever. All I said was I'd like to see > > more > > evidence. A pretty reasonable demand, wouldn't you say? Have > > you got > > any? > ===================== > You aren't trying to read, are you? > Evidence that fishing causes fewer deaths per serving of food than vegetables and pulses. Yes, I have been looking for this, and I haven't seen any yet. Feel free to link to where it's been provided. > > > > >> > >> > 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. > >> > > > > Any evidence? > > =========== > see below, 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? > >> > > > > I didn't say I had done all the research needed. I said I had > > obtained > > some information and acted on the basis of it. Instead of > > iterating > > this utterly trivial point ad nauseam, why don't you actually > > respond > > to my requests for evidence? > ====================== > Why don't you actually support your claims with data? Afterall, > you made the claims. I did. > See below for some data, killer. > > > > > >> > >> > > >> >> 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... > >> > > > > I'm looking into the possibility of growing my own vegetables. > ================= > Looking, not doing, figures... > > > > >> > > >> >> 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. > >> > > > > Right. I see. Well, perhaps you can answer my requests for > > evidence > > that your other suggestions actually will reduce my > > contribution to > > animal suffering. > =========================== > You aren't even looking, are you? See, you prove that point > every post. > Yes, I am. I haven't seen any evidence yet. > > > > >> > >> > > >> >> > 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 > > And I still haven't seen any detailed evidence that some forms of meat production cause fewer deaths than crop production, unless it was at one of those sites, which I'll have a look at. |
|
|||
|
|||
Rudy Canoza wrote: > Rupert wrote: > > > > Rudy Canoza wrote: > > > >>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. > > > > > > My claim is not that I don't contribute the death and suffering of > > animals. It is that I contribute as little as possible. > > But you have no basis for that claim. Yes, I do. I've been defending it. > Furthermore, it > is a certainty that when you FIRST became a "vegan", > you *did* believe that you weren't causing any animal > death or suffering. > No, it's not. And, also, as far as I can tell it's irrelevant. > The point is, the ONLY thing you have done is refrain > from consuming animal parts. That abstention tells you > NOTHING about how many animals you injure or kill, but > the abstention is all you have. > No, I have the information I've read. It leads me to believe that by being vegan I'm reducing my contribution to animal suffering. I'm waiting for people to provide contrary evidence. > For example, you have no clue, no ****ing clue at all, > if a kilogram of rice causes more, fewer or the same > number of deaths as a kilogram of wheat. Even assuming > you eat a strictly vegetarian diet, different vegetable > products have different collateral death tolls, and you > have NO IDEA which ones are high-CD and which are > low-CD. Furthermore, you have no intention of trying > to find out. > Yes, I do. > Like every smug "vegan" everywhere, you assume that not > consuming animal parts, in and of itself, *means* that > you are causing the least harm. Your smug complacency > is disgusting. > I don't assume it, I believe I have reasonable evidence for it. I'm sorry if it disgusts you. > > > > > >>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. > >> > > > > > > I have some idea. I'm always happy to find out more, and to hear > > suggestions for how I can further reduce my contribution to animal > > suffering. > > > > > >>>>>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 DeGrazia who uses the word "reasonable", > > And you happily, and desperately, grab at it. > I quote his principle and say I believe in it. Is there a problem with that? > > > and it's hard to avoid > > using vague words altogether, language being what it is. > > Oh, it's hard all right, but language has nothing to do > with it. It's the philosophical incoherence of > "veganism" that's the problem, not language. > I've yet to see any evidence for the philosophical incoherence of ethical veganism. > > > For a moral > > principle to have some chance of being free from counterexample, there > > usually has to be a certain amount of vagueness built into it. > > > > I don't have *precise* criteria for what's reasonable, but I can say > > *some* things about what the word does and doesn't mean. > > You can't say anything meaningful. Yes, I can and I do. |
|
|||
|
|||
rick wrote: > "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. > Point taken. For *most* 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? > ================= > 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. > Actually, what I claimed was that I had looked at some information, and felt I had good reason to think that veganism was probably the best way to minimize my contribution to animal suffering. Also, I have linked to an article which has some numbers in it. > > > > >> 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? > No, it doesn't answer my argument for the reasons I gave. > > 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 > > |
|
|||
|
|||
Rubin wrote: > "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? > I would like to know where you got those figures from, especially bearing in mind that most animal food production requires additional plant food production. > 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. Yes, I do. > 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. > Yes, but I think I have reason to believe a vegan diet minimizes the contribution to suffering. > 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. |
|
|||
|
|||
Rudy Canoza wrote: > Rupert wrote: > > > > > Rudy Canoza wrote: > > > wrote: > >> > >> > >>>The main point of veganism is to boycott factory-farming, which causes > >>>animals to lead miserable lives. > >>> > >>>The animals who live on factory farms have to be fed with plant > >>>products, the production of which will cause the death of wildlife. > >>>Animal products are an inefficient use of land, > >> > >>False. You have no useful definition of efficiency to > >>support that claim. It's purely a value judgment, not > >>a reasoned finding. > >> > > > > > > Well, more land is required to produce a given quantity of animal > > protein than same quantity of plant protein. > > So what? Minimizing land use per unit of nutrient > produced is not the measure of efficiency at all. > We're talking, or should be, about *economic* > efficiency of resource use, not physical efficiency. > Why? [rest deleted] |
|
|||
|
|||
Found scrawled in the outhouse on 22 Jun 2005 16:14:33 -0700, "Rupert"
> wrote: > > >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: <snip for brevity> >> >> 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. That is a complete fabrication. All animal food production can be done free-range. Not hogs, you say? Then take a good look at the boom in hogs gone feral in this country. Here is just one site, http://www.conservation.state.mo.us/...e/hogs/threat/ I certainly don't recommend eating feral hogs routinely. I am merely pointing out to you that hogs do not have to be fed plant-based supplemental feed. They will, quite literally, eat anything! Sheep, cattle, goats, chickens, ducks, geese *all* will graze, with the latter three also acting as natural pest deterrents. What additional plant production do you believe is needed for them? Focus on the word *needed*. >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? Well, you made the claim that veganism minimizes animal suffering. I believe it is up to you to offer the statistics and cites to support your original claim. What I did was give you an actual illustration of the process of producing that vegan staple, the almighty soy bean. Guess you didn't know just how lethal those little suckers really are. >> 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. What utter nonsense! You should be ashamed, Rupert! That is nothing more that AR propaganda that vegans use to bolster their empty claims of less collateral death and destruction. Have you ever been to a commercial hog operation? The pens are all large enough for them to stand up, lay down, turn around, walk around, etc.. In a farrow to finish operation the sows have their piglets in a pen with an apparatus that allows the piglets to suckle without her killing them. I told you they would eat anything, including their young. When they are a little older the piglets go into the grow and finish pens. >They >are deprived of straw and other sources of amusement. They suffer >greatly from boredom. Do you know what amuses a pig, Rupert? It isn't straw. How do you know when a pig is bored? Maybe we should get them cable TV. If you had ever been to a commercial operation you might be surprised to hear a radio going all the time. Not for the hogs; for the hands taking care of the hogs. How do they "suffer" from boredom, Rupert? > 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. You are grasping at straws here, Rupert. Very thin ones. The kind that come from PETA, ALF & ELF. The tails are not docked. Pig tails curl over their backs. Pig tails are rendered into dog treats. They do NOT stand on mesh or slats. The weight of a market-ready hog cannot be supported by wire and wood slats. You must be thinking of puppy mills. Hog operation floors are always cement slabs. There is nothing unnatural about cement. It is as hard as the ground hogs will pack in a small farm pig sty. Poor air quality? You really haven't been in a confinement house, huh? Hogs must be kept at moderate temperature. They can't stand excessive heat or cold. The buildings are all equipped with huge exhaust fans and air intake fans at regular spaces along the building wall and roof. There is heat, either forced air or under-slab elements. Accumulation of waste??? Never. Do you know what a honey wagon is? How about the "pond"? Guess what that stuff makes, Rupert. Go ahead. Don't know? How about fertilizer! Abused at loading and unloading by whom? The farm hands? No, they are prodded to move along but beating them up is not an option if you want a healthy pig at market. The majority of their "abuse" comes from their fellow hogs in transit, loading and unloading. Hogs have notoriously short fuses. They also bite. > Furthermore it takes >eight pounds of protein in hog feed to generate a pound of pork. Eight pounds of protein in a hundred pounds of hog feed, Rupert. That will generate 100 pounds of pork. What is the source of that protein? Could it be, is it just about anything? Usually it is a grain source but left to their own devices hogs will get their protein from fish, fowl or anything else with a heartbeat. >> 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. > Why not? Because you say so, therefore it must be true? You wanted a vegan alternative to grain production destruction. Here it is: Get a milk cow, a steer, a lamb, some chickens, a fishing pole, a gun and a hunting license. Get 35 acres of good pasture land with a natural source of water. Fence it off so the critters don't get run over on the road. Put up shelters for them for bad weather and shade for hot. Take 15 of those 35 acres and borrow a horse and plow and hand-till the ground for putting in wheat or oats. You will use that grain for 2 things: feed for you and the animals in the winter; straw for warmth. And you will hand sow and hand harvest that wheat so that you can make sure that your scythe doesn't chop up any of the field creatures. Until your steer and lamb grow out you will use fish and chickens/fowl (the roosters) for meat. You will shoot yourself a nice deer or elk in season, dress it out, freeze it or jerk it and use that as another source of meat. You will milk your cow (you must breed her). On the remaining acreage, that which is not being used as pasture, you will plant a vegetable garden. It must be huge enough to supply all of your veggies from one canning season to another. You will have to learn to can. Make sure you have a section for seed vegetables, so that you can harvest their seeds for the next planting. With your veggies and grain you can make all the non-meat food you want, by hand. But you are going to be so exhausted from doing all of this work by yourself that, whoops! you forgot to build yourself a house. Or if the land came with one, you didn't have time to do the laundry, cook meals, clean the house, mend the clothes, wash the dishes.... Now, there is your alternative to consequential animal deaths in a loaf of bread. All it will cost you is your start-up; say, $150k (without a house) to $500k (for a house and a full time maid). Go now and sin no more, vegan. |
|
|||
|
|||
Found scrawled in the outhouse on Wed, 22 Jun 2005 21:09:10 GMT, "rick" >
wrote: > >"Leslie" > wrote in message .. . >> 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: >=============== >Great stuff, but let's face it, it won't mean a thing to the >braindead vegans on usenet. Their brainwashing is complete, and >they have nothing left with which to think for themselves.... Thanks. Sadly, I think you're right. Oh well. Cheers 2 U, Leslie "Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the former.".... Albert Einstein |
|
|||
|
|||
Found scrawled in the outhouse on Wed, 22 Jun 2005 15:00:08 -0700, "Dutch" >
wrote: >"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: <snip> > >Very Strong work Leslie. Now multiply that X9 for me, my farm is 640 acres. > Thanks Dutch. What are your row crops? Soybeans really are up, but you probably watch the market. The most comforting thought is that all the stupid vegans will go sterile from the soy chemicals and we won't have to listen to them whine anymore. Cheers 2 U, Leslie "Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the former.".... Albert Einstein |
|
|||
|
|||
Rupert wrote:
> > Rudy Canoza wrote: > >>Rupert wrote: >> >>>Rudy Canoza wrote: >>> >>> >>>>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. >>> >>> >>>My claim is not that I don't contribute the death and suffering of >>>animals. It is that I contribute as little as possible. >> >>But you have no basis for that claim. > > > Yes, I do. I've been defending it. No, you have no basis for it. You are NOT contributing as little as possible, and you aren't even trying to determine how you might. You also are blind to the possiblity that some consumption pattern that DOES include animal parts might actually be lower than what you're consuming now. You get a warm fuzzy feeling from blurting out some horseshit about "as little as possible" without actually investigating to see if you are. The entire position is poorly conceived and incoherent. > > >>Furthermore, it >>is a certainty that when you FIRST became a "vegan", >>you *did* believe that you weren't causing any animal >>death or suffering. >> > > > No, it's not. Yes, it is. You DID think that refraining from consuming animal parts meant you weren't harming any animals. > And, also, as far as I can tell it's irrelevant. It's highly relevant: you're still engaged in the same illogical thinking. You still blindly and stupidly believe that following a rule - "don't consume animal parts" - somehow translates to being "more moral". >>The point is, the ONLY thing you have done is refrain >>from consuming animal parts. That abstention tells you >>NOTHING about how many animals you injure or kill, but >>the abstention is all you have. >> > > > No, I have the information I've read. I doubt it. In any case, you've failed to act on it. > It leads me to believe that by > being vegan I'm reducing my contribution to animal suffering. You're not minimizing it. You have no morally acceptable explanation for why you're not, either. > I'm waiting for people to provide contrary evidence. I've given it to you. > >>For example, you have no clue, no ****ing clue at all, >>if a kilogram of rice causes more, fewer or the same >>number of deaths as a kilogram of wheat. Even assuming >>you eat a strictly vegetarian diet, different vegetable >>products have different collateral death tolls, and you >>have NO IDEA which ones are high-CD and which are >>low-CD. Furthermore, you have no intention of trying >>to find out. >> > > > Yes, I do. No, you don't. Stop lying. There were two statements in the You don't have a clue about relative harm caused by different vegetables, and you don't have any intention of finding out. >>Like every smug "vegan" everywhere, you assume that not >>consuming animal parts, in and of itself, *means* that >>you are causing the least harm. Your smug complacency >>is disgusting. >> > > > I don't assume it, I believe I have reasonable evidence for it. No, you don't have ANY evidence for it. Refraining from consuming animal parts has nothing whatever to do with causing the least harm in choosing those things you DO consume. But refraining from consuming animal parts is ALL you're doing. You aren't minimizing harm, and you aren't even trying to find out how you might minimize it. > I'm sorry if it disgusts you. > > >>> >>>>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. >>>> >>> >>> >>>I have some idea. I'm always happy to find out more, and to hear >>>suggestions for how I can further reduce my contribution to animal >>>suffering. >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>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 DeGrazia who uses the word "reasonable", >> >>And you happily, and desperately, grab at it. >> > > > I quote his principle and say I believe in it. Is there a problem with > that? Yes. It's unexamined, and you're grasping at a catch-all excuse. >>>and it's hard to avoid >>>using vague words altogether, language being what it is. >> >>Oh, it's hard all right, but language has nothing to do >>with it. It's the philosophical incoherence of >>"veganism" that's the problem, not language. >> > > > I've yet to see any evidence for the philosophical incoherence of > ethical veganism. You have seen it. You don't get it. I've been showing it to you for several posts now. You claim to be minimizing something you believe, irrationally, to be bad, but: - you can't coherently explain why it's bad - you aren't minimizing it in your own life - you have no coherent explanation for why you stopped where you did in your efforts to reduce harm Following a rule is not being ethical, especially when that rule is unrelated to any moral principle. >>>For a moral >>>principle to have some chance of being free from counterexample, there >>>usually has to be a certain amount of vagueness built into it. >>> >>>I don't have *precise* criteria for what's reasonable, but I can say >>>*some* things about what the word does and doesn't mean. >> >>You can't say anything meaningful. > > > Yes, I can and I do. You can't, and you don't. All you do is congratulate yourself for your smug complacency. |
|
|||
|
|||
Rupert wrote:
> > Rubin wrote: > >> > >>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. > > > Yes, I do. No, you don't. Stop lying. > >>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. >> > > > Yes, but I think I have reason to believe a vegan diet minimizes the > contribution to suffering. No, and here we see what your real motive is: self-aggrandizement. You are attempting to claim you are virtuous, "more moral", by comparing yourself with others. Virtue NEVER consists in making an odious comparison with others. Virtue ONLY consists in abiding by moral principles. You aren't doing it. Refraining from consuming animal parts is not abiding by moral principles; it's following a dimwitted rule. You are not minimizing. You could make some kind of change in your consumption and cause fewer deaths. >>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. > > |
|
|||
|
|||
Rupert wrote:
> > Rudy Canoza wrote: > >>Rupert wrote: >> >> >>>Rudy Canoza wrote: >>> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>The main point of veganism is to boycott factory-farming, which causes >>>>>animals to lead miserable lives. >>>>> >>>>>The animals who live on factory farms have to be fed with plant >>>>>products, the production of which will cause the death of wildlife. >>>>>Animal products are an inefficient use of land, >>>> >>>>False. You have no useful definition of efficiency to >>>>support that claim. It's purely a value judgment, not >>>>a reasoned finding. >>>> >>> >>> >>>Well, more land is required to produce a given quantity of animal >>>protein than same quantity of plant protein. >> >>So what? Minimizing land use per unit of nutrient >>produced is not the measure of efficiency at all. >>We're talking, or should be, about *economic* >>efficiency of resource use, not physical efficiency. >> > > > Why? Because it's the only kind that's meaningful for human choice. Why do you think crude physical efficiency is relevant? Who cares how much total land is used? Why *would* anyone care? |
|
|||
|
|||
Rupert wrote:
> > rick wrote: > >>"Rupert" > wrote in message roups.com... >> >>> 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. >> >>======================== >>You already claimed to have done that research. You provide your >>data, killer. >>see below... >> > > > No, I didn't. I claimed to have read some information about intensive > rearing of animals. That information isn't going to help you minimize animal death and suffering. > "Factory-farming" sounds like a pretty reasonable > description to me. I don't need to point you to all the descriptions of > it in the literature. You claimed crop production was more deserving of > the title "factory-farming". Fine. The onus is on you to prove it. > > >>>>>>>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. >> >>==================== >>No, you haven't. You've spewed vegan propaganda without any >>data. Show your proof, fool. Aterall, you claimed to have done >>all the research. >> > > > I have pointed out that intensively reared animals suffer considerably. You didn't define suffering. You didn't show how you know they suffer. Rick is right - you went looking for "vegan" propaganda, found it, and now claim to have done "research". > I have pointed out that most animal food production requires more plant > production than plant food production. And I have linked to an article > which discusses Davis' ruminant-pasture model of food production, and > compares it to a vegan model. > > If you feel there's a contention I've made which isn't adequately > supported by all of this, tell me what it is. It's this: your claim that being "vegan" is ipso facto the death-and-harm minimizing stance. Your bogus "research" doesn't support that claim. It can't. >>>>>>>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, >> >>===================== >>You haven't proven that all animals "suffer" in these ways, >>killer. It has been proven though that your crops kill massive >>numbers of animals in very brutal, very inhumane ways. >> > > > It's also been proven that factory-farmed animals live lives with a > great deal of misery and suffering in them, more suffering than would > be involved in being killed by a combine harvester, or even a more > protacted death from chemicals. No, that hasn't been proved at all. You haven't even tried. >> cause more suffering than being killed in a relatively short >> >>>time by a combine harvester. >> >>============================== >>LOL Forget all those chemical applications already, killer? >>Tell us how having your guts turn to mush over several days is a >>"humane" way to die... >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>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? >> >>================= >>Then you do eat some meats, eh? > > > No. But it is easily conceivable that subtracting some high-CD vegetable from your diet, and replacing it with meat from a large ruminant, could reduce your personal death toll. Hence, you aren't minimizing. > > >>Again, you have failed to answer >>the question. Why the complete ban/avoidance/whatever you want >>to call it, of ALL meats? >> > > > You're asking me why I don't eat meat? I don't particularly want to, > and I don't see any reason why I should. If your goal is allegedly to minimize harm, perhaps you should consider adding some meat to your diet to replace some high-death vegetables. We know why you don't eat meat: because you think it elevates you morally, and you like to tell the world how virtuous you are. This isn't about actually *being* virtuous, because if it were, you'd quickly understand that following a principle-free consumption rule doesn't make you virtuous. Instead, what it's about is bragging to the world how virtuous you are. >>>Do you have some evidence that the production of the meat you >>>eat causes fewer deaths than the production of vegetables? >>>========================== >> >>SUre, come on down and see them. You can even pet them if you >>like. They are pasture raised, no hormones, no antibiotics, no >>feed crops. They are not confined, though they do have a >>3-sided barn for shelter when they want. The chickens next door >>run freely through our back yard, and again, then do have a coop, >>but are left to roam on their own. >>The beef I eat from these animals replaces 100s of 1000s o >>calories that YOU get from mono-culture factory farming. I count >>the number of animals daths for my meat by 100s of meals per >>death. You're lucky if you an say 100s of deaths per meal. >> > > > I would be interested to know where you got that last figure from. If you buy a bag of rice that comes from paddies where thousands of animals were killed, every person eating rice from those paddies shares in the moral responsibility for all of the thousands of deaths. The deaths are not divisible. Rice farming is especially lethal. Birds, rodents, amphibians, and reptiles are all killed. When a paddy is flooded, burrowing animals and small birds and perhaps some reptiles are killed. When the paddy is later drained, water-loving animals that have taken up residence in it are killed. When the harvesting machinery goes through the paddy, animals are killed. In several hundred acres of rice farmland, thousands of animals are killed. > > Pasture forage production does involve the deaths of some animals. You > would have to take those into account as well. There is some discussion > of the issue in the article I linked to. This is not about a counting game. You may not conclude that you are more moral than meat eaters because you believe you cause fewer deaths than they cause. It should be about adhering to moral principles. But you don't. You try to make your virtue dependent on a comparison with others. > > But sure, maybe you are in a position where you can ethically eat some > meat. Fine. More power to you. > > >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>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, >> >>============================ >>No, you have repeated a vegan ly. There is NO requirment to grow >>crops for animals, fool. None. >> > > > Most animals do require crops to be grown to feed them, and most animal > food production does require more plant production than plant food > production. There are exceptions. You're missing his point. There is no hard and fast requirement to grow crops for animal feed AT ALL. Meat can be produced without growing any crops for feed. >> 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. >> >>========================= >>Yes, I have killer. Many times, and long before you arrived. >>But then, you should know that, since afterall, you did all that >>research, right killer? >> > > > You really are quite bizarre. You think that somehow my claim to have > made an informed decision to become vegan It was not and still is not an informed decision. It is based on bad data, flawed moral reasoning, and willful blindness. > entails that I should have > gone through all the Usenet archives to find out what arguments you > have offered in the past? If you want to convince me, just present me > with the arguments. >>>I believe I have a moral obligation to minimize my contribution >>>to >>>animal suffering. >> >>================== >>Yet are not doing that, and have failed to prove you even try. >> > > > How about an argument for why I'm not doing that? Because you could substitute some quantity of a lower-CD vegetable for a higher-CD one you currently consume. You can't possibly believe the current strictly vegetarian diet you consume is the least-harm one from among all strictly vegetarian diets. You have no rational basis for believing it to be: you don't know how much harm each element of your diet causes. >>> I do my best to live up to it. The context is lost, but if by "it" you mean a commitment to cause the least harm, then NO, you do not do your best, as I just showed. >>>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. >> >>================ >>Your crop production ALWAYS does... >> > > > No. Buying plant products isn't necessarily contributing to cruel > farming practices more than you have to. Yes, it is. You don't have to buy at all. You could, if you wanted, produce all your own "harm-free" foods. By buying, you necessarily are consuming some harm-causing foods...and you don't have any idea how much harm; nor do you make any effort to find out. >>> 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? >> >>================ >>Becaause it has been presented many times. I you wee really open >>minded and looking for real answers, you'd find it. >> > > > I see. You refuse to actually present the suggestion or provide a link > to it, but the burden is still on me to go through the usenet archives > and find it. Well, I have had a look, and I may have another one. But > do you have any particular reason for not just presenting the > suggestion? I've asked you quite a few times now. I've given you an implied answer: learn how much harm each vegetable you consume causes, then eliminate the high-harm ones from your diet. You won't do it; you want someone else to do the heavy lifting for you. > > >>>>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. >> >>==================== >>And you'e more interested in remaining an ignorant, brainwashed >>loon, eh? >> > > > Oh, for heaven's sake. Why don't you just provide some suggestions? > It's pathetic. > > [rest deleted] > |
|
|||
|
|||
Found scrawled in the outhouse on Thu, 23 Jun 2005 01:25:13 GMT, Rudy Canoza
> wrote: >Rupert wrote: > >> >> Dutch wrote: <snip for brevity> >> >> 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. >> Rupert, I did submit a proposal requiring about 35 acres and quite a bit of funding. It would be *possible* for you to entirely do without grocery stores for food; but it's not a realistic probability because of the number of variables. For example, the cow gets sick and needs penicillin. There goes your milk supply for 30 days. You get an early, devastating frost and there goes your veggie garden. You get a wheat/oat fungus and there goes your feed for your livestock. To build your house and sheds you must use lumber. How many creatures are killed, maimed or done out of their nests in that process? You see, you can't get entirely away from collateral damage or death in the course of trying to survive. It was never meant to be that black and white. You can't count on the vagaries of weather, disease and natural disasters like floods or tornados. Accept your role. Believe me, non-vegans will respect you for accepting your responsibility. And you can respect yourself for being honest. Fair warning: that will be my last effort to bring you into reality nicely and reasonably. Further stubborn adherence to the common vegan misconceptions about contributory destruction may trigger my less pleasant side. Cheers 2 U, Leslie "Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the former.".... Albert Einstein |
|
|||
|
|||
Found scrawled in the outhouse on 22 Jun 2005 19:05:55 -0700, "Rupert"
> wrote: > > >Rudy Canoza wrote: >> Rupert wrote: >> >> > >> > Dutch wrote: >> > >> >>"Rupert" > wrote >> >> >> >>> >> >>>Dutch wrote: >> >>> >> > wrote <snip> >> >> 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. > >My claim is not that I don't contribute the death and suffering of >animals. It is that I contribute as little as possible. What is the quantitative measure of that, Rupert? >> 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. >> > >I have some idea. I'm always happy to find out more, and to hear >suggestions for how I can further reduce my contribution to animal >suffering. > First you have to determine the numbers in *your* contribution. Then you have to decide *what* areas you can modify by how much and in what way. <snip> Cheers 2 U, Leslie "Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the former.".... Albert Einstein |
|
|||
|
|||
"Leslie" > wrote in message news > Found scrawled in the outhouse on Wed, 22 Jun 2005 15:00:08 -0700, "Dutch" > > > wrote: > >>"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: > <snip> >> >>Very Strong work Leslie. Now multiply that X9 for me, my farm is 640 >>acres. >> > Thanks Dutch. What are your row crops? Soybeans really are up, but you > probably watch the > market. The most comforting thought is that all the stupid vegans will go > sterile from the > soy chemicals and we won't have to listen to them whine anymore. Durham wheat, 50/50 summer fallow. |
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
> The main point of veganism is to boycott factory-farming, No, it is not. The word vegan (pronounced vee-gun, sometimes mispronounced vay-gun) was originally derived from vegetarian in 1944 when Elsie Shrigley and Donald Watson, frustrated that the term "vegetarianism" had come to include the eating of dairy products, founded the UK Vegan Society. The word starts and ends with the first three and last two letters of vegetarian, representing that veganism begins with vegetarianism and then takes it to its logical conclusion. Therefore the term vegan was originally coined to differentiate those vegetarians who (primarily for ethical or environmental reasons) sought to eliminate all animal products in all areas of their lives from those who simply avoided eating meat. A few vegans see use of the word as a noun as offensive, and prefer to be referred to using the adjectival form; they think that "he is a vegan" is wrong, but "he or she is a vegan person" is correct. Those who are vegans for ethical reasons today generally oppose the violence and cruelty they see as involved in the (non-vegan) food, clothing and other industries. By extension, cruelty and exploitation are ideally avoided in all human activities and relationships between humans as well as with non-human animals. Though vegans are often accused of placing more importance on non-human animals than on their fellow humans, most vegans are aware of human rights issues and seek to avoid companies and organizations that exploit others and to be "ethical consumers"; many find themselves becoming increasingly active in the fight for human rights as a direct result of embracing veganism. Animal products such as leather, silk or wool are avoided. Soap must be made of vegetable oil instead of animal. Toothpaste and hair products, etc., must not be tested by animal experiments such as the Draize or the LD50 tests. The group argued that the elimination of exploitation of any kind was necessary in order to bring about a more reasonable and humane society. From its inception, veganism was defined as a "philosophy" and "way of living." It was never intended to be merely a diet and, still today, describes a lifestyle and belief system that revolves around a reverence for life. - Joanne Stepaniak (author of The Vegan Sourcebook). http://www.answers.com/topic/vegan > which causes > animals to lead miserable lives. So do combines, tractors, plows, and other implements of death, I mean agriculture, but you continue to eat foods which cause deaths in such horrendous fashion. > The animals who live on factory farms have to be fed with plant > products, the production of which will cause the death of wildlife. > Animal products are an inefficient use of land, Can you eat and digest grass? > so their production > will cause more death of wildlife than the production of plant products > to be fed directly to human beings. Try eating hay lately, numbnuts? > 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: No, it isn't. The author doesn't address the substance of Davis' thesis, but only moves goalposts (e.g., changing the subject from animal deaths to conditions in which animals are raised) and interjects a completely irrelevant issue (i.e., animals "prevented from existing") while ceding via his argument that animal deaths should be reported per capita rather than aggregately that he and his fellow vegans DO kill animals. Davis' thesis remains intact. |
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
Rupert 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. No, it's simplistic and emotive. See my previous post to you. > It doesn't matter > very much what it actually refers to, Because it's so emotive; that's it's only value. > I was just surprised that he > thought this was a correct application of the word. It is. > 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. What's more likely to cause the most suffering: 1. Internal bleeding from poisoning (pesticides, herbicides) 2. Being run over by a tractor 3. Being crushed by a plow 4. Being sliced and diced by various tractor implements 5. Drowning (from irrigation) 6. Suffocation (which happens to aquatic life when rice fields are drained) 7. Being burned alive (straw is often burned after harvest) You object to animals being killed when they'll be eaten. You probably don't mind that many more animals rot in fields after being killed by the means listed above or are left vulnerable to predation because their cover (plant crops) has been removed at harvest. The difference between the two kinds of animal death is this: a steer killed for meals has enough meat for thousands of meals while thousands of animals die just to produce your grains and legumes and produce. So on the one hand, someone will eat a fraction of an animal while you contribute to thousands of animal deaths with each meal. Oh yeah, you also smugly pat yourself on the back for not eating any of them. >>>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, You should be, you wanton animal killer. |
|
|||
|
|||
Rupert wrote:
>>>>>The main point of veganism is to boycott factory-farming, >>>>>which >>>>>causes >>>>>animals to lead miserable lives. >>>> >>>>======================= >>>>Problem for you is that vegans support massive fatory-farms, >>>>fool. All mono-cultue crop production is factory-farming, and >>>>it >>>>kills large numbers of animals, directly and indirectly. The >>>>only problem I see with Davis is that he only counts animals >>>>that >>>>are killed directly by crop farming. Your problem is that >>>>many >>>>more animals die per acre than are killed by machinery >>>>operations. Many more die at the end of the season from >>>>stavation and predation, because YOU forced their numbers to >>>>an >>>>unnaturally high level because of all the easy food and cover. >>>>You then take it all away when their numbers are the greatest, >>>>leaving them with nothing, killer. Too bad you're such a >>>>blood-thirsty ghoul, eh fool? >>>> >>>> >>> >>>I think you'll find "factory-farming" usually refers to the >>>intensive >>>rearing of animals. >> >>==================== >>Only because you wish it to be. > > Ah no, actually I think it's a simple fact about the correct usage of > words. But I could be wrong. You are. >>The fact remains that crop >>production causes massive, very brutal, very inhumane deaths to >>animals. > > I think on any reasonable assessment, Based on what? Have you ever visited any livestock operation, either intensive or small-scale? > they're not nearly as inhumane as > what is inflicted on animals by the factory-farming that I was talking > about. Based on what? Where have you learned so much about farming, much less "factory" farming? |
|
|||
|
|||
Rupert 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 -- that or else your definition of "vegan" is severely deficient. > Most animal products are the product of factory farming. So is most produce, and nearly all grains (save for maybe hand-harvested wild rice). > It is of > course true that by definition vegans boycott all animal products; my > point was simply that the main part of the case for veganism is the > case for boycotting factory-farm produce. That is NOT the "main part" of veganism. See previous post for explanation of vegan history and what the word means. > That gets you to > near-veganism. Not even close. > A lot of people do go further, yes, whether you accept > the rest of the case for full veganism depends on the individual. You're spinning, and very uneffectively. >>>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. That's a weak defense for reasons mentioned in one of my previous replies to you. >>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. The usual moral defence of veganism is that it is the > best way to minimize one's contribution to animal suffering. It's an unfounded claim. Veganism is based on a logical fallacy called "denying the antecedent." In a nutshell, you claim that you're not causing harm to animals because you don't eat meat. The truth, though, is that your diet contains foods which are grown in a manner which does kill animals, and in staggering numbers. > Nothing you have said disproves that. Nothing you've written has *proven* it, either, and that's where this debate starts and ends. >>>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 more animals would die. Do you consider a mouse's life to be as sacred as a cow's? >>>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 did so in a post to Derek earlier this morning, in reference to a few of the points Matheny tries to make. The thread is "Ping Skanky: WHAT valid arguments?" >>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. On what basis, ignoring the harm done to animals in the production of their food but which will never appear on their plates? That's not exactly a solid basis for ethics, especially the absolutist ones made by vegans. > I don't see that you've offered me any reason to think otherwise. Nor have you given anyone a reason to accept your peculiar belief. |
|
|||
|
|||
Rupert wrote:
<...> >>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. Don't engage in _tu quoque_ if you want to claim that one diet is ethical or even more ethical compared to others. > But it's not false if we're only talking about the amount of plant > production that would be necessary to support universal veganism. Have you studied food science or agriculture? I'm curious how you know so much about how many vegans the earth can support, etc. Anyway, (1) would be true regardless of how many vegans there are because we would still farm using pesticides (organic production also uses pesticides, so don't try to pull any BS about it) and mechanized equipment -- and on a larger scale. > 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. Being fed, given clean water, and watched closely for sound health is suffering? Do you think that list in my previous post is more "humane" treatment? 1. Internal bleeding from poisoning (pesticides, herbicides) 2. Being run over by a tractor 3. Being crushed by a plow 4. Being sliced and diced by various tractor implements 5. Drowning (from irrigation) 6. Suffocation (which happens to aquatic life when rice fields are drained) 7. Being burned alive (straw is often burned after harvest) >>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 think it's quite a reasonable interpretation of your argument. > I believe > that, on any reasonable interpretation of this principle, this will > require veganism or near-veganism. Funny that. You take an animal rights activist's ideas to heart and then justify veganism accordingly. That doesn't show much thought on your part, but the world does need followers. > It's not altogether clear to me that > it requires me to stop supporting commercial agriculture. You summarized DaGrazia thusly: Make every reasonable effort to avoid providing financial support to practices that cause or support unnecessary harm. Let me ask you which YOU consider more "necessary" between advancing medicine through vivisection and running over animals with combines, poisoning them, etc. <...> >>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. No, it doesn't. One large fish provides many meals. Catch your own and there's no bycatch. > I would want to see some more evidence that fishing will do any good. Meat from a 20-pound fish will dress out at about half that, providing ten pounds of meat. At a quarter pound per serving, you have 40 meals' worth of fish. One dead fish, 40 meals. How many animals die so you can have rice and beans? Better yet, tell us if you eat any of the fake meat products made from soy and/or gluten. > And one problem with hunting is that not all of the animals are killed, > some of them are just seriously maimed. Then practice your shot before you go hunting, only shoot what you can visually identify, and only shoot when you have confidence that you'll kill it. > So the amount of suffering and > death caused per serving of food is higher than it appears at first. No, you're straining with some very ridiculous excuses. > Where do you suggest I go hunting, anyway? In what area do you live? > Or where do you suggest I buy my meat? From a local producer of grazed ruminants. > And what is your evidence that this will actually *reduce* > the amount of animal death and suffering I contribute to? Where's YOUR evidence that your diet causes no or less animal suffering and death than anyone else's? |
|
|||
|
|||
Rupert wrote:
<...> >>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. You mean like these? http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vetext...AN_PigFarm.gif http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/undergrad/ag_eng16.jpg http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/ga...es/hogfarm.jpg http://www.ams.usda.gov/contracting/contract4.jpg Oh, the bloody ****ing horror! > They are deprived of straw and other sources of amusement. Evidence? > They suffer greatly from boredom. Evidence? > Their tails are docked without anaesthetic. Evidence? > They > stand on either wire mesh, slatted floors or concrete floors, which are > unnatural footings. Evidence? > They suffer from poor air quality due to poor > ventilation and accumulating waste products. Evidence? > They are often abused at > the loading and unloading stages of transport. Evidence? > Furthermore it takes > eight pounds of protein in hog feed to generate a pound of pork. ****ing lie! See the chart on the following pork feed page: http://tinyurl.com/85e6j A 20-25kg hog will feed for 40-50 days on 82-91kg of feed and gain about 32kg. That's not an 8:1 ratio, it's a ~3:1 ratio. ------ I know I asked for evidence above, but I already know what you'll produce. Your sources for all this disinformation are *activists*, not scientists. You even parrot their emotionally-charged terms about suffering and abuse. |
|
|||
|
|||
Rupert 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. Yes, it is. > I didn't say vegans only boycott factory farm produce. I > said the main point of veganism was to boycott factory farm produce. That is NOT the main point of veganism. >>therefore "factory farming" is not the issue, it's a red herring. > > Intensive rearing of animals *is* (the main part of) the issue. No, it is not. Vegans object to the consumption of ANY animal product. They don't care than animals are wantonly killed (see PeTA's recent controversy over their own paid staff animal abusers), they only care that they're eaten. >>Vegans don't boycott factory farming, they boycott meat and other "animal >>products". > > In particular, they boycott products from intensively reared animals. No, they abstain from ALL animal products. > My claim was that this is the main motivation for their diet and that > there is a strong moral case for it. There is NO moral case for any of veganism's claims, particularly the kind of BS propaganda you've been fed about animal production. Activists take exceptions and portray them as the rule. Accordingly, their literature is filled with photos of horrid abuse (many of the pics, though, have been used in their literature for 20+ years) and emotive accounts. In many of the cases of extreme abuse, the livestock operators were convicted of cruelty charges. That doesn't mean ALL operators are guilty of those offenses -- the overwhelming majority of them are very conscientious and want healthy animals because they're more profitable. >>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. Ipse dixit and tu quoque. > I am being perfectly rational and open-minded. No, you aren't. You opened a can of worms by using an emotive pejorative about certain ag practices. > The only reason you have > that impression is because of your prejudice against vegans. And you don't have your own set of prejudices based on your impressions from reading activist literature? Have you tried to investigate whether their claims were true or not before buying into their propaganda? > Anyway, > when you've defended your criticism of the article with argument I'll > take it seriously, but not before, obviously. Aren't you holding him to a different standard than you hold AR propagandists like DaGrazia? >>>>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? You've not demonstrated that you've reduced anything. Do you have any objective standard by which you can make such claims, or do you only have the subjective standard of saying, "I don't eat meat, therefore no animal died for my meal"? No? I didn't think so. |
|
|||
|
|||
Rupert wrote:
>>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. > > My claim is not that I don't contribute the death and suffering of > animals. It is that I contribute as little as possible. Without any objective evidence by which you or anyone else can measure. IOW, you merely BELIEVE you're doing the something beneficial. >>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. > > I have some idea. No, you have some FAITH. > I'm always happy to find out more, Did you investigate any of the claims of the activists before you swallowed their hook? |
|
|||
|
|||
Rupert wrote:
>>>The main point of veganism is to boycott factory-farming, which causes >>>animals to lead miserable lives. >>> >>>The animals who live on factory farms have to be fed with plant >>>products, the production of which will cause the death of wildlife. >>>Animal products are an inefficient use of land, >> >>False. You have no useful definition of efficiency to >>support that claim. It's purely a value judgment, not >>a reasoned finding. > > Well, more land is required to produce a given quantity of animal > protein than same quantity of plant protein. Wrong. Most of the land upon which cattle are grazed is unsuitable for crop production. The cattle convert grasses and scrub -- which is all of no use to humans with one stomach -- into protein which humans CAN eat. They also do it more efficiently without need of combines, plows, water for irrigation, pesticides, etc. |
|
|||
|
|||
Rupert wrote:
>>You already claimed to have done that research. You provide your >>data, killer. >>see below... > > No, I didn't. I claimed to have read some information about intensive > rearing of animals. From activists. > "Factory-farming" sounds like a pretty reasonable > description to me. I don't need to point you to all the descriptions of > it in the literature. But please do so we can see which specific activist group(s) you're parroting. >>No, you haven't. You've spewed vegan propaganda without any >>data. Show your proof, fool. Aterall, you claimed to have done >>all the research. > > I have pointed out that intensively reared animals suffer considerably. Without evidence. I just linked to photos of horrendous "factory" pork farms. Where are the small pens, lack of sun or straw, etc.? > I have pointed out that most animal food production requires more plant > production than plant food production. And ignored rebuttal that grains and legumes fed to livestock are generally unfit for human consumption. > And I have linked to an article > which discusses Davis' ruminant-pasture model of food production, and > compares it to a vegan model. That article doesn't significantly deal with Davis' thesis. > If you feel there's a contention I've made which isn't adequately > supported by all of this, tell me what it is. 1. That some kinds of agriculture are "factory" and others aren't. 2. That the activists are correct that the exceptions are the rule. 3. That animals suffer inordinate abuse from modern farming methods. 4. That veganism causes less animals to die than any other diet. 5. That the solution to all man's problems is based on meat. I'll add more if I remember them later. >>But then, you should know that, since afterall, you did all that >>research, right killer? > > You really are quite bizarre. You think that somehow my claim to have > made an informed decision to become vegan entails that I should have > gone through all the Usenet archives to find out what arguments you > have offered in the past? If you want to convince me, just present me > with the arguments. I'm convinced your decision was uninformed: you read vegan/AR propaganda and swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. You never once sought out any other side of the story (much less the accurate one). |
|
|||
|
|||
Rupert wrote:
> > 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 not true. It's not true by looking at virtually any "vegan" web page; it's not true by looking up definitions of "veganism"; it's not true by reading the posts of self-identified "vegans" in usenet. EVERYTHING points to the fact that "vegans" consider *any* consumption of animal parts to be immoral. They aren't concerned with the quality of the welfare of the animal up to the time of death, nor with the humaneness (or lack thereof) of the method of slaughter. They consider the use of animals for human benefit to be _per se_ immoral. > That's a claim about the *main* (not the only) motivation behind > veganism. Your claim is FALSE, and you have no support for it. It's just what you would like to believe. > And it *is* the main point of veganism for me. Who are you to > tell me otherwise? Because you clearly are a liar. Furthermore, if avoidance of factory-farmed meat really was your motivation, you easily could find and eat non-factory-farmed meat and fish. It's readily available. But you abstain from all animal flesh. I note you haven't said you abstain from all animal products, so you aren't really even "vegan". "vegans" don't wear wool or leather, don't use feather (down) pillows, don't have leather upholstery, don't eat honey (stolen from bees), and don't use cosmetics tested on animals (although they greedily use medicines that were tested on animals in the initial safety tests). That's just a partial list of things "vegans" avoid. A couple of years ago, a "vegan" nitwit in alt.food.vegan announced, pompously, that she no longer ate canned black olives after hearing (she didn't attempt to verify it) that the black brine in the can contained squid ink. THAT is "veganism": the avoidance of all animal-derived products. >>>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. No, it isn't. You clearly have not researched the origins of "veganism" before glomming onto the word to describe yourself. >>>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. No. You said it yourself above: "It is of course true that ***by definition*** vegans boycott all animal products" [emphasis added]. > My claim was that this is the main motivation for their diet and that > there is a strong moral case for it. Your claim is FALSE - it is not the main motivation. There may be a moral case for opposing intensive (factory) animal husbandry, but "vegans" aren't making it; they object fully to the consumption of free-range livestock. >>>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. You have not adequately examined that a meat-including diet *might* cause less animal suffering than your strictly vegetarian (but undoubtedly *not* "vegan") diet. >>>>>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? It's been given to you. Certain vegetable products cause multiple deaths - if you buy a bag of rice, you incur responsibility for ALL of the deaths caused by the harvesting of the crop from which that bag is derived - while the meat from one large pasture-fed ruminant, meat that can feed many people, results in ONE 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. So don't consume meat from animals that was fed human-grown produce. Eat grass-fed (only) beef, long-line-caught fish, hunted game. >>>>>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. You don't give that impression at all. > The only reason you have > that impression is because of your prejudice against vegans. No, mostly it's because you're trotting out the same stale "vegan" arguments he and I have seen in these groups for at least six years. > 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? That belief is not what is nonsense; the nonsense comes from your unsupported belief that abstaining from eating meat is, in and of itself, sufficient to achieve that goal. That is what you're doing; in fact, abstaining from meat, any meat, is ALL you're doing. You're not doing anything else to try to reduce the animal suffering your consumption causes. Your sense of your virtue is based entirely on an invidious comparison with others. That isn't virtue at all. Virtue consists solely in identifying moral principles and then abiding by them. Virtue is determined WITHOUT REGARD to what others are doing, but you are very much concerned with making a comparison. It is only a reduction *relative to others* that motivates you, not an absolute 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? It's been given to you repeatedly: consuming some humanely raised and slaughtered meat can easily lead to causing fewer deaths and less suffering than following a strictly vegetarian diet. > > >>>I don't >>>see that you've offered me any reason to think otherwise. >> >>I have, you can't hear. > > > No, you haven't. Yes, he has. So have I. |
|
|||
|
|||
>>
>> 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? >> > > I would like to know where you got those figures from, especially > bearing in mind that most animal food production requires additional > plant food production. From the current thread, discussing number of voles/mice per acre and the number of cattle per acre, though I guess you can fit more chickens per acre than cows. And cattle require NO addition feed other than pasture in many cases. ALL large scale food plant farms use something detrimental to animal welfare, from fertilizers to *icides to the machinery required to plant, tend and harvest. > >> 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. > > Yes, I do. OK, lets hear it. > >> 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. >> > > Yes, but I think I have reason to believe a vegan diet minimizes the > contribution to suffering. And I have reason to think it doesn't. Just removes it from your sight. > >> 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. Aren't you going to claim you aren't preaching? |
|
|||
|
|||
"Rupert" > wrote in message oups.com... > > > rick wrote: >> "Rupert" > wrote in message snippage... >> >> >> >> 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. >> > > Point taken. For *most* animal food production. ================= Point missed. There is still no 'requirement' to feed them any crop foods, and many of them do not get any. > >> >> > 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. >> > > Actually, what I claimed was that I had looked at some > information, and > felt I had good reason to think that veganism was probably the > best way > to minimize my contribution to animal suffering. Also, I have > linked to > an article which has some numbers in it. ===================== Which doesn't back up your claim to have made a difference. > >> >> > >> >> 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? >> > > No, it doesn't answer my argument for the reasons I gave. ================== LOL You've been given the info. That you wish to remain willfully ignorant is plain to see. > >> >> 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 >> > > |
|
|||
|
|||
"Rupert" > wrote in message oups.com... > > > rick wrote: >> "Rupert" > wrote in message >> oups.com... snips... >> >> > 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.... >> > >> > No, I'm not. >> ================= >> Yes, you are, You've provided no such proof of your claims, >> and >> by posting here you have proven that causing unnecessary >> animal >> deaths are of no concern to you. >> >> > > No, I haven't. If you're not prepared to accept my statement > about what > I desire, fine. I really couldn't care less. ====================== Nor could we about your 'desires'. What we are discussing are your actions. Actions that have no relationship to your stated 'desires.' > >> > >> >> 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. >> >> >> > >> > This isn't an argument. >> ===================== >> LOL And yours is where? >> > > My argument for what? I've made arguments for my contentions. ==================== And have never backed them up, killer. > >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > 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..... >> >> >> > >> > Yes, I can. I did it in a different post. >> ================== >> No, you didn't. You can't prove a ly, killer. >> > > That's not an argument. ================= You lied, period. That's why you are now engaged in changing the subject, eh fool? > >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > 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 try to live in accordance with the principle. As I say, >> > I'm >> > interested to hear any suggestions you have about what's >> > involved in >> > living up to it, but you refuse to take my expressions of >> > interest at >> > face value and instead prefer just to spew abuse. Not very >> > constructive. >> =============== >> Because you have yet to show any real interest, killer. You >> keep >> repeating the same tired old lys over and over. >> > > Actually, I have shown some interest. I'm getting very bored of > waiting > for you to actually provide the suggestions. ================== You've been given them fool. You refuse, as any brainwashed fool would, to even read them, much less acknowledge them. > >> >> > >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> >> > >> > No, it's because I have some doubts that boycotting >> > commercial >> > agriculture falls within the extent of "making every >> > reasonable >> > effort". >> ===================== >> LOL Of course you do, it would require that you be >> inconvenienced, eh killer? >> > > Yes, it would require that I be inconvenienced. That doesn't > necessarily mean that it doesn't fall within the extent of > "making > every reasonable effort". ========================== But you have already proven that you DO NOT make anywhere near a reasonable effort, killer. But it doesn't mean that it does, either. As > I say, I have my doubts. Maybe you can offer some reason why I > shouldn't have these doubts. ================ been given, you continue to wave your hands and pretend it doesn't exist. > >> Some efforts go beyond making every reasonable effort. Maybe >> > these doubts are unfounded. Feel free to argue the point. I >> > would also >> > be interested in any thoughts you may have about how I can >> > grow >> > all my >> > own food in my back garden. >> ================= >> You can't. And more to the point, you won't. You're too >> convenience, consumer oriented... >> > > Well, if I can't, obviously I won't, and obviously it will be > because I > can't, rather than because I'm too "convenience, consumer > oriented". ================== Yes, because you have proven that already, fool. > >> >> > >> >> 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. >> > >> > Yes, I did make the argument, and you haven't demonstrated >> > that >> > I fail >> > to abide by it. >> ======================= >> LOL You've been told there are meats that cause ar less death >> and suffering than your veggies. You refuse to look up >> anything >> about it. >> > > Yes, I've been told, and I've asked for some evidence. I have > looked up > something about it. If anyone wants to point me in the way of > more > information, that's great. > >> >> > >> >> 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. >> >> >> > >> > But I make every reasonable effort to minimize the animal >> > suffering to >> > which I contribute. >> ==================== >> No, fool, you don't. You just proved that yet again.... >> > > That's not an argument. ==================== Far more than your supposed "effort", killer. That's your whole agument so-far, and yet you can't even do anything close to minimizing you bloody footprints, fool. > >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > 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? >> >> >> > >> > Not necessarily as opposed to that, I was thinking more as >> > opposed to >> > vegetables and pulses. Whatever. All I said was I'd like to >> > see >> > more >> > evidence. A pretty reasonable demand, wouldn't you say? Have >> > you got >> > any? >> ===================== >> You aren't trying to read, are you? >> > > Evidence that fishing causes fewer deaths per serving of food > than > vegetables and pulses. Yes, I have been looking for this, and I > haven't > seen any yet. Feel free to link to where it's been provided. ================ Provide your links that says they don't. You made that claim, back it up. > >> >> > >> >> >> >> > 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. >> >> >> > >> > Any evidence? >> > =========== >> see below, 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? >> >> >> > >> > I didn't say I had done all the research needed. I said I >> > had >> > obtained >> > some information and acted on the basis of it. Instead of >> > iterating >> > this utterly trivial point ad nauseam, why don't you >> > actually >> > respond >> > to my requests for evidence? >> ====================== >> Why don't you actually support your claims with data? >> Afterall, >> you made the claims. > > > I did. ==================== And have yet to provide any proof.... > >> See below for some data, killer. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> 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... >> >> >> > >> > I'm looking into the possibility of growing my own >> > vegetables. >> ================= >> Looking, not doing, figures... >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> 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. >> >> >> > >> > Right. I see. Well, perhaps you can answer my requests for >> > evidence >> > that your other suggestions actually will reduce my >> > contribution to >> > animal suffering. >> =========================== >> You aren't even looking, are you? See, you prove that point >> every post. >> > > Yes, I am. I haven't seen any evidence yet. ================= Of course you don't. The brainwashed never do.... > >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > 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 >> > > > And I still haven't seen any detailed evidence that some forms > of meat > production cause fewer deaths than crop production, unless it > was at > one of those sites, which I'll have a look at. > |
|
|||
|
|||
"Rupert" > wrote in message oups.com... > > > rick wrote: >> "Rupert" > wrote in message >> ups.com... >> > >> > >> > 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. >> =========== >> Really? I didn't see any such request. Try USDA fool... >> "...All cattle start out eating grass; three-fourths of them >> are >> "finished" (grown to maturity) in feedlots..." >> http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets...able/index.asp >>================ Dodge noted, rupert.... >> >> 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. >> ======================== >> You already claimed to have done that research. You provide >> your >> data, killer. >> see below... >> > > No, I didn't. I claimed to have read some information about > intensive > rearing of animals. "Factory-farming" sounds like a pretty > reasonable > description to me. I don't need to point you to all the > descriptions of > it in the literature. ===================== Not literature you fool, propaganda. You claimed crop production was more deserving of > the title "factory-farming". Fine. The onus is on you to prove > it. > ======================= Yet you've been shown over and over how crop production is far more "factory" than meat production. The onus is on you to prove your ignorant claims. You've made many wide claims, and as yet have never backed ANY o them up. Why is that killer? Too stupid, or you just don't have anything? >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > 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. >> ==================== >> No, you haven't. You've spewed vegan propaganda without any >> data. Show your proof, fool. Aterall, you claimed to have >> done >> all the research. >> > > I have pointed out that intensively reared animals suffer > considerably. ================ And you have continued to refuse to provide any PROOF of this statement, fool. Again, why is that? Too stupid, or you just don't have anything? > I have pointed out that most animal food production requires > more plant > production than plant food production. ====================== And again, you've been told that there is NO requirment to feed crops to animals. And I have linked to an article > which discusses Davis' ruminant-pasture model of food > production, and > compares it to a vegan model. ===================== An ignorant propaganda piece that means nothing. Provide real data, rom real sources, killer. > > If you feel there's a contention I've made which isn't > adequately > supported by all of this, tell me what it is. ================= Every thing you have said so far, fool. You have NEVER backed up ANY of your ignorant spew... > >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > 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, >> ===================== >> You haven't proven that all animals "suffer" in these ways, >> killer. It has been proven though that your crops kill >> massive >> numbers of animals in very brutal, very inhumane ways. >> > > It's also been proven that factory-farmed animals live lives > with a > great deal of misery and suffering in them, ==================== Really? Wheb did you post that proof, fool? Never! more suffering than would > be involved in being killed by a combine harvester, or even a > more > protacted death from chemicals. ====================== ROTFLMAO What a maroon.... Tell me fool, how protacted a death is a bolt to the brain compared to haveing your guts turn to mush over several days? You truly are the ignorant fool you are posting as, aen't you? > >> cause more suffering than being killed in a relatively short >> > time by a combine harvester. >> ============================== >> LOL Forget all those chemical applications already, killer? >> Tell us how having your guts turn to mush over several days is >> a >> "humane" way to die... >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> 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? >> ================= >> Then you do eat some meats, eh? > > No. ================== Then as I said, there is a complete ban on ALL meats.... > >> Again, you have failed to answer >> the question. Why the complete ban/avoidance/whatever you >> want >> to call it, of ALL meats? >> > > You're asking me why I don't eat meat? I don't particularly > want to, > and I don't see any reason why I should. ====================== Nobody has said that you hae to fool. All we;re doing is pointing out the idiocy of your so-called minimization based solely on a simple rule for your simple mind. > >> >> > >> > Do you have some evidence that the production of the meat >> > you >> > eat >> > causes fewer deaths than the production of vegetables? >> > ========================== >> SUre, come on down and see them. You can even pet them if you >> like. They are pasture raised, no hormones, no antibiotics, >> no >> feed crops. They are not confined, though they do have a >> 3-sided barn for shelter when they want. The chickens next >> door >> run freely through our back yard, and again, then do have a >> coop, >> but are left to roam on their own. >> The beef I eat from these animals replaces 100s of 1000s o >> calories that YOU get from mono-culture factory farming. I >> count >> the number of animals daths for my meat by 100s of meals per >> death. You're lucky if you an say 100s of deaths per meal. >> > > I would be interested to know where you got that last figure > from. ================ Read the data fool. read about voles per acre. > > Pasture forage production does involve the deaths of some > animals. You > would have to take those into account as well. There is some > discussion > of the issue in the article I linked to. ================= And those would be what? Care to tell us? > > But sure, maybe you are in a position where you can ethically > eat some > meat. Fine. More power to you. ====================== There is no 'ethics' involved in eating meat fool! If there wee, based on animal death and suffering in total numbers, then you fail miserably! > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > 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, >> ============================ >> No, you have repeated a vegan ly. There is NO requirment to >> grow >> crops for animals, fool. None. >> > > Most animals do require crops to be grown to feed them, ====================== No ool, they do not 'require' crops to be fed to them... and most animal > food production does require more plant production than plant > food > production. There are exceptions. ====================== Nio fool, again there is no requirment.... > >> >> 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. >> ========================= >> Yes, I have killer. Many times, and long before you arrived. >> But then, you should know that, since afterall, you did all >> that >> research, right killer? >> > > You really are quite bizarre. You think that somehow my claim > to have > made an informed decision to become vegan entails that I should > have > gone through all the Usenet archives to find out what arguments > you > have offered in the past? If you want to convince me, just > present me > with the arguments. ====================== Dodge noted fool. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> 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. >> ================= >> Kinda sounded like you, didn't it? Where's your proof, fool? >> > > No, it didn't really sound much like me. I'm not that hostile > and > insulting, and I also usually only make claims that I can > support by > argument. ====================== I agree, you're far too stupid to emulate.... > > Where's my proof of what? ================ Of everything you have claimed so-far.... > >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > 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. >> ============= >> see below, i did your "research" for you... >> >> 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. >> ==================== >> For what "need"? There is no survial need to use a computer. >> Your selfish interest in entertainemnt is part of, and drives, >> and ever increasing demand for more power generation and >> communications. You "could" make a difference, according to >> your >> vegan argument, by eliminating all useage of your computer and >> communications. > > No, I couldn't. My family would still use the computer and pay > for the > internet connection. The amount of suffering caused would be > the same. ======================== ROTFLMAO Then how do you make any difference by banning meat? You really are just too stupid for this, aen't you. Afterall, it's the same argument, killer. > >> You won't, because, as has been proven, a >> concern for animals is not really what you are about. If it >> were, you wouldn't be tracking your bloody footprints all over >> the world. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> 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. >> ============================== >> ROTFLMAO And what data did they provide for you? Obviously >> none! >> > > Wrong. ================ Then provide the 'data' that they provided you, fool. Should be easy, right killer? > >> >> 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. >> ===================== >> Because you have yet to support that claim with any data, >> fool. > > Also wrong. ================== No, true. All you've done so far is make claims. You have yet to provide any proof for any of them. > >> You claimed you cause ewer animals to suffer and die. Prove >> it! >> > > I gave my arguments once again above. ================= No fool, you didn't. Provide your proof! > >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> 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. >> ====================== >> Then yu are even more stupid than I thought. >> >> >> > 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. >> ==================== >> And you have yet to support that claim. I'll wait. Make up >> any >> numbers you like.... >> > > I have supported the claim. I've even linked to an article > which has > got a few numbers in it. ======================= No fool, you have not provided anything. One ppopaganda article isn't proof. > >> >> > 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. >> ================ >> hen you didn't look, did you? >> > > Yes, I did. Still waiting for your suggestions. ============== No, you didn't... > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> 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. >> ================== >> Yet are not doing that, and have failed to prove you even try. >> > > How about an argument for why I'm not doing that? =========================== Why an 'argument?' You prove it with each and every inane post to usenet, killer. > >> >> 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. >> ================ >> Your crop production ALWAYS does... >> > > No. Buying plant products isn't necessarily contributing to > cruel > farming practices more than you have to. ================== ROTFLMAO > >> 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? >> ================ >> Becaause it has been presented many times. I you wee really >> open >> minded and looking for real answers, you'd find it. >> > > I see. You refuse to actually present the suggestion or provide > a link > to it, but the burden is still on me to go through the usenet > archives > and find it. Well, I have had a look, and I may have another > one. But > do you have any particular reason for not just presenting the > suggestion? I've asked you quite a few times now. ==================== Look fool. You made a crap-load of claims, none of which you have ever backed up with any data. When you do that, come on back. Until then, you're just another ignorant vegan wannabe that is too stupid, and too ignorant to know what they are talking about... > >> >> > >> >> 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. >> ==================== >> And you'e more interested in remaining an ignorant, >> brainwashed >> loon, eh? >> > > Oh, for heaven's sake. Why don't you just provide some > suggestions? > It's pathetic. ================= Why don't you provide some proof for your claims, fool. THAT'S what is pathetic... Especially when you snip out tons of data that tells you you have been lying.... > > [rest deleted] > |
|
|||
|
|||
Rudy Canoza wrote: > Rupert wrote: > > > > > rick wrote: > > > >>"Rupert" > wrote in message > roups.com... > >> > >>> 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. > >> > >>======================== > >>You already claimed to have done that research. You provide your > >>data, killer. > >>see below... > >> > > > > > > No, I didn't. I claimed to have read some information about intensive > > rearing of animals. > > That information isn't going to help you minimize > animal death and suffering. > Why not? > > "Factory-farming" sounds like a pretty reasonable > > description to me. I don't need to point you to all the descriptions of > > it in the literature. You claimed crop production was more deserving of > > the title "factory-farming". Fine. The onus is on you to prove it. > > > > > >>>>>>>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. > >> > >>==================== > >>No, you haven't. You've spewed vegan propaganda without any > >>data. Show your proof, fool. Aterall, you claimed to have done > >>all the research. > >> > > > > > > I have pointed out that intensively reared animals suffer considerably. > > You didn't define suffering. You didn't show how you > know they suffer. Rick is right - you went looking for > "vegan" propaganda, found it, and now claim to have > done "research". > Why is "research" in quotes? Is it a quote from me? You see, I don't think I ever actually said the word. I have read numerous descriptions of factory farms, such as those in Peter Singer, "Animal Liberation", 2nd ed., David DeGrazia, "Taking Animals Seriously", Mylan Engel, Jr., "The Immorality of Eating Meat", and have concluded on that basis that intensively farmed animals endure a considerable amount of suffering. > > > I have pointed out that most animal food production requires more plant > > production than plant food production. And I have linked to an article > > which discusses Davis' ruminant-pasture model of food production, and > > compares it to a vegan model. > > > > If you feel there's a contention I've made which isn't adequately > > supported by all of this, tell me what it is. > > It's this: your claim that being "vegan" is ipso facto > the death-and-harm minimizing stance. Your bogus > "research" doesn't support that claim. It can't. > I have supported that claim as follows: intensive farming methods cause considerable suffering, most animal food production requires more plant production than plant food production, and therefore causes more CDs, and furthermore, I linked to article which compares Davis' ruminant-pasture model of food production with a vegan model and concludes that it causes more deaths. Now, of course, I *might* be wrong in my estimate that I'm contributing to as little suffering and death as I can. But I've yet to see anyone provide practical suggestions for further reducing my contribution to suffering and death, together with evidence that it actually will. Mostly what I've seen has just been gratuitous abuse. > > >>>>>>>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, > >> > >>===================== > >>You haven't proven that all animals "suffer" in these ways, > >>killer. It has been proven though that your crops kill massive > >>numbers of animals in very brutal, very inhumane ways. > >> > > > > > > It's also been proven that factory-farmed animals live lives with a > > great deal of misery and suffering in them, more suffering than would > > be involved in being killed by a combine harvester, or even a more > > protacted death from chemicals. > > No, that hasn't been proved at all. You haven't even > tried. > I've done about as good a job of proving it as he did of proving his claim. Anyway, I've given you references now to descriptions of factory-farming on which I base my judgement. If you want to contest it, provide some argument. > > >> cause more suffering than being killed in a relatively short > >> > >>>time by a combine harvester. > >> > >>============================== > >>LOL Forget all those chemical applications already, killer? > >>Tell us how having your guts turn to mush over several days is a > >>"humane" way to die... > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>>>>>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? > >> > >>================= > >>Then you do eat some meats, eh? > > > > > > No. > > But it is easily conceivable that subtracting some > high-CD vegetable from your diet, and replacing it with > meat from a large ruminant, could reduce your personal > death toll. Hence, you aren't minimizing. > > > > > > >>Again, you have failed to answer > >>the question. Why the complete ban/avoidance/whatever you want > >>to call it, of ALL meats? > >> > > > > > > You're asking me why I don't eat meat? I don't particularly want to, > > and I don't see any reason why I should. > > If your goal is allegedly to minimize harm, perhaps you > should consider adding some meat to your diet to > replace some high-death vegetables. > The article I linked to leads me to doubt that that would actually further reduce the harm I cause. If you think I'm wrong, provide some evidence. > We know why you don't eat meat: because you think it > elevates you morally, and you like to tell the world > how virtuous you are. Unsupported abuse. > This isn't about actually > *being* virtuous, because if it were, you'd quickly > understand that following a principle-free consumption > rule doesn't make you virtuous. Instead, what it's > about is bragging to the world how virtuous you are. > More unsupported abuse. When have I done any bragging. I've outlined the ethical principles I follow, and the basis on which I decide the course of action which will best comply with them. What's the point of all this waffle? If you want to argue against my case, *argue* against it for Christ's sake. > > >>>Do you have some evidence that the production of the meat you > >>>eat causes fewer deaths than the production of vegetables? > >>>========================== > >> > >>SUre, come on down and see them. You can even pet them if you > >>like. They are pasture raised, no hormones, no antibiotics, no > >>feed crops. They are not confined, though they do have a > >>3-sided barn for shelter when they want. The chickens next door > >>run freely through our back yard, and again, then do have a coop, > >>but are left to roam on their own. > >>The beef I eat from these animals replaces 100s of 1000s o > >>calories that YOU get from mono-culture factory farming. I count > >>the number of animals daths for my meat by 100s of meals per > >>death. You're lucky if you an say 100s of deaths per meal. > >> > > > > > > I would be interested to know where you got that last figure from. > > If you buy a bag of rice that comes from paddies where > thousands of animals were killed, every person eating > rice from those paddies shares in the moral > responsibility for all of the thousands of deaths. The > deaths are not divisible. > I don't accept that. Each purchaser makes an expected contribution to the amount of deaths that occur. The expected contributions add up to produce the total expected contribution. > Rice farming is especially lethal. Birds, rodents, > amphibians, and reptiles are all killed. When a paddy > is flooded, burrowing animals and small birds and > perhaps some reptiles are killed. When the paddy is > later drained, water-loving animals that have taken up > residence in it are killed. When the harvesting > machinery goes through the paddy, animals are killed. > In several hundred acres of rice farmland, thousands of > animals are killed. > Okay, important stuff to know. Are more killed than wheat? As you pointed out, that would be worth me knowing. Why don't you tell me that, if you know. > > > > Pasture forage production does involve the deaths of some animals. You > > would have to take those into account as well. There is some discussion > > of the issue in the article I linked to. > > This is not about a counting game. You may not > conclude that you are more moral than meat eaters > because you believe you cause fewer deaths than they > cause. It should be about adhering to moral > principles. But you don't. You try to make your > virtue dependent on a comparison with others. > I've given the moral principle on which I base my dietary choices. I haven't said I'm more moral than anyone else; obviously I have no basis on which to conclude that, because I don't know about every aspect of other people's behaviour. As I say, I believe I'm morally obliged to make every reasonable effort not to provide financial support to practices that cause or support unnecessary harm. If you've got some practical suggestions for how I can do that I'm happy to hear them. > > > > > But sure, maybe you are in a position where you can ethically eat some > > meat. Fine. More power to you. > > > > > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>>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, > >> > >>============================ > >>No, you have repeated a vegan ly. There is NO requirment to grow > >>crops for animals, fool. None. > >> > > > > > > Most animals do require crops to be grown to feed them, and most animal > > food production does require more plant production than plant food > > production. There are exceptions. > > You're missing his point. There is no hard and fast > requirement to grow crops for animal feed AT ALL. Meat > can be produced without growing any crops for feed. > It can be, but it isn't very often. That was my point. > > >> 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. > >> > >>========================= > >>Yes, I have killer. Many times, and long before you arrived. > >>But then, you should know that, since afterall, you did all that > >>research, right killer? > >> > > > > > > You really are quite bizarre. You think that somehow my claim to have > > made an informed decision to become vegan > > It was not and still is not an informed decision. It > is based on bad data, flawed moral reasoning, and > willful blindness. > If you think the data is bad, point me to the better data. If you think there are flaws in the moral reasoning, point to them. If you think there is evidence of wilful blindness, show it. > > > entails that I should have > > gone through all the Usenet archives to find out what arguments you > > have offered in the past? If you want to convince me, just present me > > with the arguments. > > > >>>I believe I have a moral obligation to minimize my contribution > >>>to > >>>animal suffering. > >> > >>================== > >>Yet are not doing that, and have failed to prove you even try. > >> > > > > > > How about an argument for why I'm not doing that? > > Because you could substitute some quantity of a > lower-CD vegetable for a higher-CD one you currently > consume. You can't possibly believe the current > strictly vegetarian diet you consume is the least-harm > one from among all strictly vegetarian diets. You have > no rational basis for believing it to be: you don't > know how much harm each element of your diet causes. > Point taken. Well, can you point me to any useful information? > > >>> I do my best to live up to it. > > The context is lost, but if by "it" you mean a > commitment to cause the least harm, then NO, you do not > do your best, as I just showed. > I think I do about as well as I can. It's a process of striving for continual improvement. As you say, I should investigate which crops cause more harm than other crops. Do you have any helpful suggestions for where I can find the information? > > > >>>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. > >> > >>================ > >>Your crop production ALWAYS does... > >> > > > > > > No. Buying plant products isn't necessarily contributing to cruel > > farming practices more than you have to. > > Yes, it is. You don't have to buy at all. You could, > if you wanted, produce all your own "harm-free" foods. > By buying, you necessarily are consuming some > harm-causing foods...and you don't have any idea how > much harm; nor do you make any effort to find out. > Yes, I do. I'm making effort now. I'm asking you. If you don't know, I'll do my own research. > > >>> 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? > >> > >>================ > >>Becaause it has been presented many times. I you wee really open > >>minded and looking for real answers, you'd find it. > >> > > > > > > I see. You refuse to actually present the suggestion or provide a link > > to it, but the burden is still on me to go through the usenet archives > > and find it. Well, I have had a look, and I may have another one. But > > do you have any particular reason for not just presenting the > > suggestion? I've asked you quite a few times now. > > I've given you an implied answer: learn how much harm > each vegetable you consume causes, then eliminate the > high-harm ones from your diet. You won't do it; you > want someone else to do the heavy lifting for you. > Yes, I will do it. It's a good idea. And I will grow my own vegetables. I don't think I'll rent out a farm and grow all my own food, however. I think that's a bit above and beyond the call of duty. > > > > > > >>>>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. > >> > >>==================== > >>And you'e more interested in remaining an ignorant, brainwashed > >>loon, eh? > >> > > > > > > Oh, for heaven's sake. Why don't you just provide some suggestions? > > It's pathetic. > > > > [rest deleted] > > |
|
|||
|
|||
usual suspect wrote: > Rupert wrote: > >>You already claimed to have done that research. You provide your > >>data, killer. > >>see below... > > > > No, I didn't. I claimed to have read some information about intensive > > rearing of animals. > > From activists. > > > "Factory-farming" sounds like a pretty reasonable > > description to me. I don't need to point you to all the descriptions of > > it in the literature. > > But please do so we can see which specific activist group(s) you're > parroting. > See my reply to Rudy. > >>No, you haven't. You've spewed vegan propaganda without any > >>data. Show your proof, fool. Aterall, you claimed to have done > >>all the research. > > > > I have pointed out that intensively reared animals suffer considerably. > > Without evidence. I just linked to photos of horrendous "factory" pork > farms. Where are the small pens, lack of sun or straw, etc.? > Sorry, I couldn't see the link. I do have some evidence, see the references I gave in my reply to Rudy. > > I have pointed out that most animal food production requires more plant > > production than plant food production. > > And ignored rebuttal that grains and legumes fed to livestock are > generally unfit for human consumption. > No, I haven't ignored that rebuttal, it hasn't been made. While the point you made makes a difference to the calculation, are you really denying the claim? Can you show me your calculations? > > And I have linked to an article > > which discusses Davis' ruminant-pasture model of food production, and > > compares it to a vegan model. > > That article doesn't significantly deal with Davis' thesis. > Could you make a more specific criticism of it, please? > > If you feel there's a contention I've made which isn't adequately > > supported by all of this, tell me what it is. > > 1. That some kinds of agriculture are "factory" and others aren't. I didn't say this, and I don't really think there's any serious question about it. > 2. That the activists are correct that the exceptions are the rule. I didn't say this. I've given you my references. You tell me what's wrong with them. > 3. That animals suffer inordinate abuse from modern farming methods. I believe this is supported by the evidence I've referred to. > 4. That veganism causes less animals to die than any other diet. I didn't say this, I said it was one way to minimize your contribution to animal suffering. If you've got a suggestion for a better way, let's hear it. > 5. That the solution to all man's problems is based on meat. > I didn't say this. > I'll add more if I remember them later. > > >>But then, you should know that, since afterall, you did all that > >>research, right killer? > > > > You really are quite bizarre. You think that somehow my claim to have > > made an informed decision to become vegan entails that I should have > > gone through all the Usenet archives to find out what arguments you > > have offered in the past? If you want to convince me, just present me > > with the arguments. > > I'm convinced your decision was uninformed: you read vegan/AR propaganda > and swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. You never once sought out any > other side of the story (much less the accurate one). |
|
|||
|
|||
rick wrote: > "Rupert" > wrote in message > oups.com... > > > > > > rick wrote: > >> "Rupert" > wrote in message > >> ups.com... > >> > > >> > > >> > 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. > >> =========== > >> Really? I didn't see any such request. Try USDA fool... > >> "...All cattle start out eating grass; three-fourths of them > >> are > >> "finished" (grown to maturity) in feedlots..." > >> http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets...able/index.asp > >>================ > Dodge noted, rupert.... > > What dodge? Thank you for the reference. > > > >> > >> 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. > >> ======================== > >> You already claimed to have done that research. You provide > >> your > >> data, killer. > >> see below... > >> > > > > No, I didn't. I claimed to have read some information about > > intensive > > rearing of animals. "Factory-farming" sounds like a pretty > > reasonable > > description to me. I don't need to point you to all the > > descriptions of > > it in the literature. > ===================== > Not literature you fool, propaganda. > No, philosophical literature. > > You claimed crop production was more deserving of > > the title "factory-farming". Fine. The onus is on you to prove > > it. > > ======================= > Yet you've been shown over and over how crop production is far > more "factory" than meat production. No, I haven't. > The onus is on you to prove > your ignorant claims. You've made many wide claims, and as yet > have never backed ANY o them up. Why is that killer? Too > stupid, or you just don't have anything? > I have backed up the claims I've made. > > > >> > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > 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. > >> ==================== > >> No, you haven't. You've spewed vegan propaganda without any > >> data. Show your proof, fool. Aterall, you claimed to have > >> done > >> all the research. > >> > > > > I have pointed out that intensively reared animals suffer > > considerably. > ================ > And you have continued to refuse to provide any PROOF of this > statement, fool. Again, why is that? Too stupid, or you just > don't have anything? > I've provided some references in my reply to Rudy. > > > I have pointed out that most animal food production requires > > more plant > > production than plant food production. > ====================== > And again, you've been told that there is NO requirment to feed > crops to animals. > Not in every case, no. > > And I have linked to an article > > which discusses Davis' ruminant-pasture model of food > > production, and > > compares it to a vegan model. > ===================== > An ignorant propaganda piece that means nothing. Provide real > data, rom real sources, killer. > If you have specific criticisms to make of the article, make them. > > > > > If you feel there's a contention I've made which isn't > > adequately > > supported by all of this, tell me what it is. > ================= > Every thing you have said so far, fool. You have NEVER backed up > ANY of your ignorant spew... > False. > > > > >> > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > 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, > >> ===================== > >> You haven't proven that all animals "suffer" in these ways, > >> killer. It has been proven though that your crops kill > >> massive > >> numbers of animals in very brutal, very inhumane ways. > >> > > > > It's also been proven that factory-farmed animals live lives > > with a > > great deal of misery and suffering in them, > ==================== > Really? Wheb did you post that proof, fool? Never! > It's been proven. Not necessarily by me. But see the references I gave in my reply to Rudy. > > more suffering than would > > be involved in being killed by a combine harvester, or even a > > more > > protacted death from chemicals. > ====================== > ROTFLMAO What a maroon.... > Tell me fool, how protacted a death is a bolt to the brain > compared to haveing your guts turn to mush over several days? > You truly are the ignorant fool you are posting as, aen't you? > > > > > > >> cause more suffering than being killed in a relatively short > >> > time by a combine harvester. > >> ============================== > >> LOL Forget all those chemical applications already, killer? > >> Tell us how having your guts turn to mush over several days is > >> a > >> "humane" way to die... > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >> 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? > >> ================= > >> Then you do eat some meats, eh? > > > > No. > ================== > Then as I said, there is a complete ban on ALL meats.... > That's a funny way of saying "I don't eat any meat". But I don't eat any meat, no. > > > > >> Again, you have failed to answer > >> the question. Why the complete ban/avoidance/whatever you > >> want > >> to call it, of ALL meats? > >> > > > > You're asking me why I don't eat meat? I don't particularly > > want to, > > and I don't see any reason why I should. > ====================== > Nobody has said that you hae to fool. All we;re doing is > pointing out the idiocy of your so-called minimization based > solely on a simple rule for your simple mind. > Why is it idiotic? I'm trying to minimize my contribution to the suffering of animals. If you have any suggestions for how I can do it better, I'm happy to hear them. > > > > >> > >> > > >> > Do you have some evidence that the production of the meat > >> > you > >> > eat > >> > causes fewer deaths than the production of vegetables? > >> > ========================== > >> SUre, come on down and see them. You can even pet them if you > >> like. They are pasture raised, no hormones, no antibiotics, > >> no > >> feed crops. They are not confined, though they do have a > >> 3-sided barn for shelter when they want. The chickens next > >> door > >> run freely through our back yard, and again, then do have a > >> coop, > >> but are left to roam on their own. > >> The beef I eat from these animals replaces 100s of 1000s o > >> calories that YOU get from mono-culture factory farming. I > >> count > >> the number of animals daths for my meat by 100s of meals per > >> death. You're lucky if you an say 100s of deaths per meal. > >> > > > > I would be interested to know where you got that last figure > > from. > ================ > Read the data fool. read about voles per acre. > What data? > > > > > Pasture forage production does involve the deaths of some > > animals. You > > would have to take those into account as well. There is some > > discussion > > of the issue in the article I linked to. > ================= > And those would be what? Care to tell us? > Sorry, what do you mean by "those"? > > > > > But sure, maybe you are in a position where you can ethically > > eat some > > meat. Fine. More power to you. > ====================== > There is no 'ethics' involved in eating meat fool! If there wee, > based on animal death and suffering in total numbers, then you > fail miserably! > Can you demonstrate this? > > > > >> > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > 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, > >> ============================ > >> No, you have repeated a vegan ly. There is NO requirment to > >> grow > >> crops for animals, fool. None. > >> > > > > Most animals do require crops to be grown to feed them, > ====================== > No ool, they do not 'require' crops to be fed to them... > > > and most animal > > food production does require more plant production than plant > > food > > production. There are exceptions. > ====================== > Nio fool, again there is no requirment.... > Well, most animal food production does actually *involve* more plant production than plant food production. I don't think it's stretching language too much to say it requires it. The way it's actually done, it requires it. I'm afraid I'm not very clear on whether there's any significant point you wanted to make here. > > > > >> > >> 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. > >> ========================= > >> Yes, I have killer. Many times, and long before you arrived. > >> But then, you should know that, since afterall, you did all > >> that > >> research, right killer? > >> > > > > You really are quite bizarre. You think that somehow my claim > > to have > > made an informed decision to become vegan entails that I should > > have > > gone through all the Usenet archives to find out what arguments > > you > > have offered in the past? If you want to convince me, just > > present me > > with the arguments. > ====================== > Dodge noted fool. > What dodge? It's a reasonable request, isn't it? Shouldn't we be talking about your dodge? > > > > >> > >> > >> > > >> >> > >> >> 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. > >> ================= > >> Kinda sounded like you, didn't it? Where's your proof, fool? > >> > > > > No, it didn't really sound much like me. I'm not that hostile > > and > > insulting, and I also usually only make claims that I can > > support by > > argument. > ====================== > I agree, you're far too stupid to emulate.... > > > > > > Where's my proof of what? > ================ > Of everything you have claimed so-far.... > I've repeated it quite a number of times. Read my previous posts. > > > > >> > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > 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. > >> ============= > >> see below, i did your "research" for you... > >> > >> 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. > >> ==================== > >> For what "need"? There is no survial need to use a computer. > >> Your selfish interest in entertainemnt is part of, and drives, > >> and ever increasing demand for more power generation and > >> communications. You "could" make a difference, according to > >> your > >> vegan argument, by eliminating all useage of your computer and > >> communications. > > > > No, I couldn't. My family would still use the computer and pay > > for the > > internet connection. The amount of suffering caused would be > > the same. > ======================== > ROTFLMAO Then how do you make any difference by banning meat? > You really are just too stupid for this, aen't you. Afterall, > it's the same argument, killer. > By my not eating meat, less financial support is provided for cruel farming practices. That isn't the case here. > > > > >> You won't, because, as has been proven, a > >> concern for animals is not really what you are about. If it > >> were, you wouldn't be tracking your bloody footprints all over > >> the world. > >> > >> > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> 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. > >> ============================== > >> ROTFLMAO And what data did they provide for you? Obviously > >> none! > >> > > > > Wrong. > ================ > Then provide the 'data' that they provided you, fool. Should be > easy, right killer? > I've given the references. > > > > > >> > >> 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. > >> ===================== > >> Because you have yet to support that claim with any data, > >> fool. > > > > Also wrong. > ================== > No, true. All you've done so far is make claims. You have yet > to provide any proof for any of them. > No, actually, it's wrong. > > > > >> You claimed you cause ewer animals to suffer and die. Prove > >> it! > >> > > > > I gave my arguments once again above. > ================= > No fool, you didn't. Provide your proof! > I've repeated the arguments enough times. Read my posts. > > > > >> > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> 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. > >> ====================== > >> Then yu are even more stupid than I thought. > >> > >> > >> > 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. > >> ==================== > >> And you have yet to support that claim. I'll wait. Make up > >> any > >> numbers you like.... > >> > > > > I have supported the claim. I've even linked to an article > > which has > > got a few numbers in it. > ======================= > No fool, you have not provided anything. One ppopaganda article > isn't proof. > I have provided something, and if you want to dismiss the article, I think you should address the arguments contained in it. > > > > > >> > >> > 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. > >> ================ > >> hen you didn't look, did you? > >> > > > > Yes, I did. Still waiting for your suggestions. > ============== > No, you didn't... > > > > > > >> > >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >> 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. > >> ================== > >> Yet are not doing that, and have failed to prove you even try. > >> > > > > How about an argument for why I'm not doing that? > =========================== > Why an 'argument?' You prove it with each and every inane post > to usenet, killer. > Well, I'm not convinced of that, for the reasons I've given. > > > > >> > >> 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. > >> ================ > >> Your crop production ALWAYS does... > >> > > > > No. Buying plant products isn't necessarily contributing to > > cruel > > farming practices more than you have to. > ================== > ROTFLMAO > > > > > > >> 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? > >> ================ > >> Becaause it has been presented many times. I you wee really > >> open > >> minded and looking for real answers, you'd find it. > >> > > > > I see. You refuse to actually present the suggestion or provide > > a link > > to it, but the burden is still on me to go through the usenet > > archives > > and find it. Well, I have had a look, and I may have another > > one. But > > do you have any particular reason for not just presenting the > > suggestion? I've asked you quite a few times now. > ==================== > Look fool. You made a crap-load of claims, none of which you > have ever backed up with any data. When you do that, come on > back. Until then, you're just another ignorant vegan wannabe > that is too stupid, and too ignorant to know what they are > talking about... > And until you provide some arguments, you haven't given me any reason to change my views. > > > > >> > >> > > >> >> 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. > >> ==================== > >> And you'e more interested in remaining an ignorant, > >> brainwashed > >> loon, eh? > >> > > > > Oh, for heaven's sake. Why don't you just provide some > > suggestions? > > It's pathetic. > ================= > Why don't you provide some proof for your claims, fool. THAT'S > what is pathetic... > Especially when you snip out tons of data that tells you you have > been lying.... > I'm sorry, can you link to the post I snipped that contained all this data? > > > > > [rest deleted] > > |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
US vegan population doubles in only two years - Harris Interactive study | Vegan | |||
U.S. vegan population doubles in only two years! | Vegan | |||
New Years Day Black Eyed Peas and Greens | General Cooking | |||
Black Eyed Peas for New Years - Hopping John | Diabetic | |||
50 Years Later... ...black children are still choosing the white doll. | General Cooking |