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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #81 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rupert
 
Posts: n/a
Default



rick wrote:
> "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.'
>
>


Why not?

>
> >
> >> >
> >> >> 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.
>


Sorry, I'm not clear on your point. I've made arguments. If you think
there's something wrong with them, let me know what.

>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > 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?
>


That's still not an argument, and I didn't change the subject.

>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > 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.
>


Where have I been given 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.
>


How?

>
>
> 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.
>


Where has it been given?

>
> >
> >> 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.
>


Er, no, actually, I don't think I have. And I don't quite get the
"because" bit.

>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >> 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.
>


No, it's not my whole argument so far.

What do *you* think would be involved in minimizing my bloody
footprints? I've asked very politely over and over again. Why don't you
just tell me?

>
> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > 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.
>


No, I didn't make the claim. I asked for evidence that they do. It's a
perfectly reasonable request.

>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> > 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....
>


I have provided arguments. If you want to address them, go ahead.

>
> >
> >> 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 don't see it because it's not there. When you provide it, I'll
examine it.

>
> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > 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.
> >


  #82 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rupert
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Rudy Canoza wrote:
> 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.


I'm contribute almost as little as possible, and I am trying to
determine how I might do better.

If you actually have some constructive suggestions, I'll listen to
them.

> 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.


No, I'm not. But I want to see some evidence.

> 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.
>


No, I didn't.

>
> > 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".
>


I'm not engaged in any illogical thinking. I'm trying to minimize my
contribution to animal suffering. I believe that avoiding animal
products is the best way to do this.

>
> >>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.
>


No, I haven't.

>
> > 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.
>


What do *you* think I should do, in order to "make every reasonable
effort not to provide financial support to practices that cause or
support unnecessary harm"?

>
> > I'm waiting for people to provide contrary evidence.

>
> I've given it to you.
>


You've suggested I should investigate the CDs figures for different
plant products, and grow some of my own food. Those are good
suggestions. I'll act on them.

>
> >
> >>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.
>


I'm not 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.
>


I meant, I have some 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 do have reasonable evidence that avoiding animal products
considerably reduces the harm I contribute to. I am trying to find out
how I might further reduce the harm I cause.

>
> > 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.
>


It's not unexamined. He provided an argument for it and I thought the
argument was a good one. You can read about it in "Taking Animals
Seriously" if you want. It's not 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
>


It's not irrational to believe that animal suffering is bad. It's a
widely held, common-sense belief. I don't have to explain why it is the
case. I am trying to minimize my contribution to animal suffering, and
now these issues have been pointed out to me, I'm taking action.

> Following a rule is not being ethical, especially when
> that rule is unrelated to any moral principle.
>


I gave you the underlying 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.


No, actually I can and I do. And your second sentence is just
gratuitous, unfounded abuse.

  #83 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rupert
 
Posts: n/a
Default



usual suspect wrote:
> 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.
>


I have some evidence for it, which I've provided.

> >>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 have some evidence.

> > I'm always happy to find out more,

>
> Did you investigate any of the claims of the activists before you
> swallowed their hook?


I didn't get my information from activists.

  #84 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rupert
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Leslie wrote:
> 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.
>


I never suggested I could get away from collateral damage or death in
the course of trying to survive. I do believe, however, that there is a
moral obligation to make every reasonable effort to minimize one's
contribution to animal suffering. It seems to me that avoiding animal
products is a reasonable way of doing that. If you have any other
suggestions, I'd be happy to hear them.

> Cheers 2 U,
>
> Leslie
> "Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity.
> And I'm not sure about the former.".... Albert Einstein


  #85 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Rupert wrote:

>
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>>Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>>rick wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Rupert" > wrote in message
egroups.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?


Because it doesn't tell you how to pick and choose
among the things you DO eat so as to minimize your
death toll.


>>>"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.


They are quotes of derision.


> 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.


Those are all "vegan" propaganda. They are polemics,
not any kind of hard description.

And you SET OUT to read "vegan" propaganda, too,
because you *already* were set on that path. Your
readings were not honestly motivated; you wanted
confirmation for what you already believed, NOT
information.


>>>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.


But you still only are refraining from eating meat.
That, in and of itself, does not translate to consuming
the least-harm diet. You still need to examine what
you DO eat, and get rid of the relatively high-harm
foods. But you don't have any interest in doing that:
you've reached your vile comparative-virtue position,
and that's where you'll stop.

You aren't really interested in least harm. You are
interested in being able to point your finger at meat
eaters and say, "You cause more harm than I do." That
isn't virtue.

>
> 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.


I've given them to you several times, but you're not
interested. I knew before giving them to you, of
course, that you wouldn't be interested, because I know
you aren't really interestd in least harm; you're
interested in differentiating yourself from others.


>
>>>>>>>>>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.


You didn't do any kind of a job at all.


> 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.


1. The "descriptions" of factory farming were polemics,
written by extremists.

2. You have stopped at refraining from eating meat.
That is not, in and of itself, the least harm diet
you could follow. WITHIN a strictly vegetarian diet,
you still need to make choices. Not all vegetables
and fruits cause the same amount of harm.

3. Why are you stopping at diet? What about other
areas of consumption?


>>>>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.


No comment?


>>>>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.


There are other sources of meat besides Davis's
grass-fed ruminants.


>>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.


No, that is exactly what you're doing.


>>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.


It's implicit in where you have stopped your
consideration. You are only interested in invidious
comparisons.


> I've outlined
> the ethical principles I follow,


YOU AREN'T FOLLOWING ANY PRINCIPLE! You're following a
rule: "don't eat meat". That isn't a principle.


> 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.


I'm arguing against it. You are following a rule, not
a principle, and following the rule does not in and of
itself lead to least harm.


>>>>>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.


I don't care if you don't accept it or not. It's the
morally correct way of looking at it. If three men
commit a robbery in which an innocent person is killed,
the three are not each responsible for 1/3 of a death,
you idiot. Each is responsible for the entire death.
The alternative is that by adding members to the gang
of robbers, each robber ought to receive a lesser
sentence, because he caused a declining share of the
bad outcome. That's insane, and the law rejects it, as
it should.

This works for meat eaters, too. If the meat from a
medium sized turkey will feed a dozen people at
Thanksgiving dinner, the diners cannot say that each
caused 1/12 the death of the turkey. Each diner
*shares* in the entire death.


> Each purchaser makes an expected contribution to
> the amount of deaths that occur. The expected contributions add up to
> produce the total expected contribution.


No. The death is not divisible. If "vegans" know
about the collateral deaths, as they call claim to
know, then they all know _ex ante_ that the rice
production causes some multiple deaths. By choosing to
buy rice from that source, rather than growing their
own "death-free" rice, they share in the responsibility
for all of the 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.
>>

>
>
> Okay, important stuff to know.


But you didn't know it, yet you've been crowing about
having adopted a least-harm diet! You DON'T consume a
least-harm diet.


> 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.


Why don't you do your own ****ing research? This is
the problem with all "vegans": they make these wild
and entirely unsupported leaps of faith, on the basis
of horribly inadequate information. Then, they want
someone else to obtain the information for them. This
disgusting passivity is the second most offensive
characteristic of "vegans", following only their
sanctimonious hypocrisy.


>>>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.


You have not, because you aren't abiding by any moral
principle; you are merely following a rule. You have
attempted to persuade us that the rule is grounded in a
moral principle, but it isn't. The rule flows entirely
from the Denying the Antecedent fallacy I pointed out
to you earlier.


> I haven't said I'm more moral than anyone else;


You didn't need to say it.


> obviously I have no basis
> on which to conclude that, because I don't know about every aspect of
> other people's behaviour.


You DO conclude that, in this one dimension of
morality, you are virtuous and meat eaters are not.
Good for you that you recognize there are other
dimensions, but there is no real doubt that at least
when it comes to diet, you believe you are more moral
than meat eaters.


> 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.


Once again, you trying to camouflage a categorical bias
against meat, all meat, with some phony outrage over a
particular method of producing meat that you don't, in
fact, really understand. You aren't really concerned
with so-called "factory-farmed" meat; it's just MEAT,
period. You think eating meat is morally wrong.


> If you've got some practical suggestions for how I
> can do that I'm happy to hear them.


My suggestions all center on learning to think
rationally about something, doing your own homework,
and abandoning a philosophy that is entirely about
demonizing people who make different consumption choices.


>>>>>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.


But you have rejected ALL meat. It isn't the way it's
produced, it's the stuff itself. You subscribe to the
loathsome "vegan" belief that meat is murder.


>>>>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.


I have been already, for several posts. You just keep
handwaving it away. You're dishonest.


>>>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?


Why are you asking me? You should have thought of this
before leaping up onto your pedestal.


>>>>>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.


Not only don't you do as well as you can, you just
*admitted* you don't, above, with your "point taken"
comment.


> It's a process of striving for
> continual improvement.


It is, rather, what I have called in the past The
Irrational Search for Micrograms of Animal Parts. It
proves that, despite "vegan" claims not to be
committing the Denying the Antecedent fallacy, you are
all behaving as if you *do* still believe it.


> As you say, I should investigate which crops
> cause more harm than other crops.


Yes, you should have done it long before reaching your
invalid moral conclusions.


> Do you have any helpful suggestions
> for where I can find the information?


No.


>>
>>>>>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.


No, you don't.


> I'm making effort now. I'm asking you. If you don't know,
> I'll do my own research.


No, you won't.


>>>>>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.


No, you won't.


> 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.


You have no morally coherent explanation for why you
believe that. That's another way of saying you have no
morally coherent explanation for your stopping rule.
Evidently, causing some amount of animal death and
suffering is acceptable to you. You can't say why the
acceptable limit is N, but N + 1 is unacceptable.


>>>>>>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]
>>>

>
>




  #86 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rupert
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Based on the references I gave elsewhere.

  #87 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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

>
> Why not?

===============
Because you've proven that minimizing the death toll of animals
is not of any real conen to you. Spew about what you think
others are doing is all you have mentioned.


>
>>
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> 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.
>>

>
> Sorry, I'm not clear on your point. I've made arguments.

==================
ROTLMAO Stating the same old lys over and over isn't an
'argument', much less proof of your claims, fool. You really are
that dense, aren't you?


If you think
> there's something wrong with them, let me know what.

=================
Everything you have claimed so ar, 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?
>>

>
> That's still not an argument, and I didn't change the subject.

=================
What's with you and arguments? Do you really know what you're
trying to say? What I'm asking for fool, one again, is PROOF of
the claims your have made. You haven't provided squat, killer.


>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >> > 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.
>>

>
> Where have I been given them?

==================
You really should try to read for comprehension sometime killer.
Others have also given you ideas here. That you are too stupid
to understand anything that goes beyond your brainwashing seems
to be a problem of yours.


>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 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.
>>

>
> How?

==============
Yes, how do you think you're making any effort at minimizing
animals death and suffering? You've yet to provide proof of your
ignorant claims, 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.
>>

>
> Where has it been given?

===========
Try reading fool. That you can't put 2 and 2 together is your
problem.


>
>>
>> >
>> >> 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.
>>

>
> Er, no, actually, I don't think I have. And I don't quite get
> the
> "because" bit.

===============
Of course you don't. You don't get anything, except propaganda
and lys. I'm beginning to think you're more troll than anything
else. Nobody can be this willfully ignorant....


>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >> 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.
>>

>
> No, it's not my whole argument so far.

=================
So it is, you've provided no data to back up any claims, so all
you have is your argumentation....


>
> What do *you* think would be involved in minimizing my bloody
> footprints? I've asked very politely over and over again. Why
> don't you
> just tell me?

=================
You have been told, fool. Not only by me. Are you really this
stupid, or just trying really really hard?


>
>>
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > 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.
>>

>
> No, I didn't make the claim. I asked for evidence that they do.
> It's a
> perfectly reasonable request.

=================
No fool, you claimed that a vegan diet cause fewer deaths, and is
the reason you ban meat from your diet.


>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > 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....
>>

>
> I have provided arguments. If you want to address them, go
> ahead.

====================
Again, no proof. Thanks for proving again you have none,
killer...


>
>>
>> >
>> >> 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 don't see it because it's not there. When you provide it,
> I'll
> examine it.

=======================
It's been here fool.


>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > 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.
>> >

>



  #88 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Rupert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> Leslie wrote:
>> 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.
>>

>
> I never suggested I could get away from collateral damage or
> death in
> the course of trying to survive. I do believe, however, that
> there is a
> moral obligation to make every reasonable effort to minimize
> one's
> contribution to animal suffering.

=\=====================
Again, you are ailing miserably at this, fool.



It seems to me that avoiding animal
> products is a reasonable way of doing that. If you have any
> other
> suggestions, I'd be happy to hear them.

========================
No, you don't want any suggestions. You want to spew your hate
of others, killer. You focus only on what you think othes are
doing, yet do NOTHING in regards to your own actions. Proof one
is your continued inane posting to usenet, hypocrite.


>
>> Cheers 2 U,
>>
>> Leslie
>> "Only two things are infinite: the universe and human
>> stupidity.
>> And I'm not sure about the former.".... Albert Einstein

>



  #89 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Rupert wrote:

>
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>>Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Rupert wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Rudy Canoza 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.
>>>>
>>>>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.

>
>
> I'm contribute almost as little as possible, and I am trying to
> determine how I might do better.


Neither. The former you've admitted to being untrue
already, and the latter is simply a lie. You aren't
doing anything.


> If you actually have some constructive suggestions, I'll listen to
> them.


As I already said, I don't have any. I'm not really
interested in finding any, either, because the whole
thing is a fool's errand in pursuit of a nasty moral pose.


>>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.

>
>
> No, I'm not. But I want to see some evidence.


Yes, you are blind to it, and you don't really want to
see any evidence at all. You reject meat consumption
categorically, *not* because of any alleged defects in
particular methods of producing the stuff.


>>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.
>>

>
>
> No, I didn't.


Yes, you did. It's precisely why you don't know about
relative harm from different vegetables. You thought
that refraining from consuming meat meant, ipso facto,
no harm resulting from your diet. You've learned
otherwise, but you aren't ACTING as if you know it.


>>>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".
>>

>
>
> I'm not engaged in any illogical thinking.


Yes, you are. "veganism" as a moral response is
fundamentally illogical.


> I'm trying to minimize my
> contribution to animal suffering.


You're not. You're trying to adopt a pose, a stance.


> I believe that avoiding animal
> products is the best way to do this.


I've explained to you why it isn't.


>>>>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.
>>

>
>
> No, I haven't.


Yes, you have: you still consume some vegetables that
cause more harm than others you might substitute.


>>>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.
>>

>
>
> What do *you* think I should do, in order to "make every reasonable
> effort not to provide financial support to practices that cause or
> support unnecessary harm"?


I think, first, that you need to give some rigor to
your idea of "unnecessary". I know there isn't any
rigor to it now. Secondly, I think you should abandon
the pretense that it is some aspect of particular meat
production methods, e.g. "intensive farming", that is
the basis for your stance, and come out and admit that
you believe meat is _per se_ an immoral thing to
consume. Third, I think you should abandon the entire
endeavor, as it is not based on any valid ethical
principle, but is based rather on a wish to exalt
yourself relative to others, and that is no legitimate
virtue at all.


>>>I'm waiting for people to provide contrary evidence.

>>
>>I've given it to you.
>>

>
>
> You've suggested I should investigate the CDs figures for different
> plant products, and grow some of my own food. Those are good
> suggestions. I'll act on them.


No, you won't. It's such an obvious thing for an
honestly motivated person to have considered that your
failure already to have done so shows that your claim
to having been seeking the least harm diet is
thoroughly trashed.


>>>>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.
>>

>
>
> I'm not lying.


Yes, you are.


>>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.
>>

>
>
> I meant, I have some intention of finding out.


No, you don't have.


>>>>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 do have reasonable evidence that avoiding animal products
> considerably reduces the harm I contribute to.


You have some belief that it does, but "considerably
reduces" is FAR from minimizing.


> I am trying to find out
> how I might further reduce the harm I cause.


You aren't. You aren't doing anything more than post
to usenet.


>>>>>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.
>>

>
>
> It's not unexamined. He provided an argument for it


I'm not looking for an "argument" for reasonableness;
I'm looking for a meaningful definition of it. Neither
he nor you have given one.


> and I thought the
> argument was a good one. You can read about it in "Taking Animals
> Seriously" if you want. It's not a catch-all excuse.


Of course it is. Whatever is suggested that you find
too onerous, you can wave it away as "unreasonable".
You don't really mean reasonable at all; you mean
palatable.


>>>>>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
>>

>
>
> It's not irrational to believe that animal suffering is bad. It's a
> widely held, common-sense belief.


The first statement is not an explanation of why it IS
bad. It might be rational to believe it's bad,
provided you can give a rational explanation. You can't.

The second statement is another logical fallacy:
argumentum ad populum, or appeal to popularity. If
"widely held" is your criterion, than you ought to be
gobbling down McDonald's food, because hundreds of
millions of people eat the stuff.


> I don't have to explain why it is the case.


You should be able to explain it, if you're going to
base your moral decision on it.


> I am trying to minimize my contribution to animal suffering, and
> now these issues have been pointed out to me, I'm taking action.


You aren't. All you're doing is posting to usenet, and
asking me to provide you with information you ought to
have acquired and analyzed BEFORE pronouncing yourself
to be following a least-harm diet.


>>Following a rule is not being ethical, especially when
>>that rule is unrelated to any moral principle.
>>

>
>
> I gave you the underlying moral principle.


You gave me a principle that the rule you follow is
allegedly intended to promote, but as abiding by the
rule is ALL you're doing, and the rule is not really
derived from a principle at all, you are not then
following 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.

>
>
> No, actually I can and I do.


No, you don't.


> And your second sentence is just
> gratuitous, unfounded abuse.


It is abuse, but it is not gratuitous, nor is it
unfounded. It is very well founded. You are a
hypocrite, and a sanctimonious one at that.
Sanctimonious hypocrisy merits abuse.
  #90 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Rupert wrote:

>
> Leslie wrote:
>
>>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.
>>

>
>
> I never suggested I could get away from collateral damage or death in
> the course of trying to survive. I do believe, however, that there is a
> moral obligation to make every reasonable effort to minimize one's
> contribution to animal suffering. It seems to me that avoiding animal
> products is a reasonable way of doing that.


So now you admit that the crapola about "factory
farming" was a smokescreen. You aren't concerned with
the (alleged) evils of factory farming; you think meat
is _per se_ immoral.


> If you have any other
> suggestions, I'd be happy to hear them.


No, you wouldn't. You'd pay lip service to them just
as you've paid lip service to several other reasonable
suggestions.


  #91 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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



snip...


>> >> >
>> >> > 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.
> ===============

Yet you continue to spew your ignorant propaganda....





snip...


"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.

================
"philosophical literature" doesn't discuss factory farming fool.
Propaganda spew does....




>
>>
>> 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.

=================
LOL Where fool? Provide some sources other than because you say
so! You haven't backed up anything, hypocrite.



snip...



>> >>
>> >
>> > 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.

==================
Then it shouldn't be hard to repost them eh fool?



>
>>
>> > 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.
> ==============

In no case, dolt. The 'requirment' isn't there.



>>
>> 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.

=================
It's too stupid to even work with. But bing that, why is it that
that is the ONLY source you seem to be able to find?
Can't find any independent, reliable, non-activist sources?


>
>>
>> >
>> > 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.

===============
True. Your 'arguments' aren't proof, killer...




snip...


>> > 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.

================
Provide your references, fool....


>


snip...

>> >> >
>> >> > 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.

================
Then it's a total bam on meat. You claimed otherwise, then
proved yourself to be lying. Thanks, fool...


>
>>
>> >
>> >> 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.

======================
You've been given some. You reuse to read them appaently. Or
you're too stupid to understand...



>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > 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?

===================
Yep, you really ae too stupid to understand...



>
>>
>> >
>> > 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"?

================
All the extra deaths you claim, fool..


>
>>
>> >
>> > 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?

================
You prove it very nicely with every inane post, hypocrite.
Thanks for even more proof...


>


snip...

>> >
>> > 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.

=====================
And your citations for this data are where?


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.

==================
Only that you are lying, again, as usual. There is no
requirment. I guess that's just too simple for your simple mind,
eh killer?


>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> 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?

====================
You've done NOTHING to make an informed decision on fool, that's
the point! All you have is your simple rule for your simple
mind, 'eat no meat.' Nothing else. You annot support you
contentions, delusions, and outright lys, hypocrite




snip..

>>
>> >
>> > 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.
> ========================

You've repeated YOURSELF, fool. That is not proof! Post some
citations, or continue to be branded as the ignorant fool that
you have proven yourself to be so far, killer.




snip...

>> >
>> > 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.

=====================
It's exactly the same fool. Waving your hands doesn't make the
unnecessary death and suffering go away for your selfish
entertainment.





snip...

>> >> > 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.

====================
No, you have not, killer. Post your citations, or admit your are
the bufoon you prove you are...


>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> 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.

==================
No, actually it's right. You've provided zero citations or your
ignorant claims...


>
>>
>> >
>> >> 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.

=================
Arguments are not proof killer. man, you really are this stupid,
aren't you. Must be your diet....





snip...


>> > 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.
> =======================

Your article is not proof of your claims fool. Provide your
citations, hypocrite.




snip...

>> >> > 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.

===============
Of course you aren't. Your brainewashing won't allow it!



snip...


>> > 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.

=======================
I provide proof, not arguments fool. Try it sometime, killer...


>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >> 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?

================
ROTFLMAO SO you can snip it all again? What a hoot!!!


>
>>
>> >
>> > [rest deleted]
>> >

>



  #92 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rupert
 
Posts: n/a
Default



usual suspect wrote:
> 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.
>


It wasn't a question of engaging in "tu quoque", I was just
acknowledging a possible point that might be made. Why shouldn't I make
this point?

> > 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.
>


(1) is the claim that the number of animals killed who are actually
farmed for their food is greater than the number of collateral deaths
caused by the food production required for universal veganism. It would
not be true if there was 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.

>
> Being fed, given clean water, and watched closely for sound health is
> suffering?


I do believe animals suffer considerably on factory-farms. I have given
my references elsewhere.

> 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.
>


Well, you're wrong.

> > 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.
>


If you think there's a problem with my conclusions, tell me what it is.

> > 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.
>


The latter. It's necessary to provide food.

> <...>
> >>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.
>


If you're lucky enough to get a large fish.

> > 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.
>


Not very often. Only sometimes when I go out to restaurants.

> > 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?
>


North Sydney.

> > Or where do you suggest I buy my meat?

>
> From a local producer of grazed ruminants.
>


I'm not convinced that would reduce my contribution to animal
suffering, for reasons given in an article I linked to earlier.

> > 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?


Well, animal food production mostly requires more plant production than
plant food production. And I've linked to an article which argues that
even Davis' ruminant-pasture model wouldn't do as well as a vegan model.

  #93 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Rupert wrote:

>
> usual suspect wrote:
>
>>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.
>>

>
>
> It wasn't a question of engaging in "tu quoque", I was just
> acknowledging a possible point that might be made. Why shouldn't I make
> this point?
>
>
>>>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.
>>

>
>
> (1) is the claim that the number of animals killed who are actually
> farmed for their food is greater than the number of collateral deaths
> caused by the food production required for universal veganism. It would
> not be true if there was 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.

>>
>>Being fed, given clean water, and watched closely for sound health is
>>suffering?

>
>
> I do believe animals suffer considerably on factory-farms. I have given
> my references elsewhere.


Stop with the factory farms crapola. That isn't really
your objection. Your objection to meat is categorical;
it's to meat _per se_, not to any particular methods of
obtaining the stuff.



>>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.
>>

>
>
> Well, you're wrong.


No, he isn't. In fact, it's the best 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.
>>

>
>
> If you think there's a problem with my conclusions, tell me what it is.


I've told you several times. Mr. Suspect agrees with
my assessment.


>>>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.
>>

>
>
> The latter. It's necessary to provide food.


So you really aren't concerned with animal suffering.
Orders of magnitude more animals are killed and/or made
to suffer in crop agriculture than in medical research
and testing, and the overwhelming majority of the few
animals used in medical research and testing are used
and then euthanized relatively humanely.


>>
>>>>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.
>>

>
>
> If you're lucky enough to get a large fish.


One adult salmon, a very common fish, will feed dozens
of people.

We see, though, that you have an excuse ready-to-hand.
As always.


>>>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.
>>

>
>
> Not very often. Only sometimes when I go out to restaurants.
>
>
>>>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?
>>

>
>
> North Sydney.
>
>
>>>Or where do you suggest I buy my meat?

>>
>> From a local producer of grazed ruminants.
>>

>
>
> I'm not convinced that would reduce my contribution to animal
> suffering, for reasons given in an article I linked to earlier.


You haven't really given it honest consideration.
You've looked for excuses not to give it honest
consideration, because you're a priori biased against meat.


>>>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?

>
>
> Well, animal food production mostly requires more plant production than
> plant food production. And I've linked to an article which argues that
> even Davis' ruminant-pasture model wouldn't do as well as a vegan model.


Wrong answer. The question was about "less...than
anyone else's." But you earlier have said you are NOT
basing your conclusion on any kind of comparison with
others. Apparently you lied.
  #94 (permalink)   Report Post  
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Rupert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> usual suspect wrote:
>> 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.
>>

>
> It wasn't a question of engaging in "tu quoque", I was just
> acknowledging a possible point that might be made. Why
> shouldn't I make
> this point?
>
>> > 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.
>>

>
> (1) is the claim that the number of animals killed who are
> actually
> farmed for their food is greater than the number of collateral
> deaths
> caused by the food production required for universal veganism.
> It would
> not be true if there was universal veganism.

=================
See, again your focus is on everyone else! You cannot, and will
not examine your own diet/lifestyle objectivly. You won't
because you'll see it for the sham that it is. No one is
discussing what the rest of the world is doing, we're discussing
what *you* can do to live up to the so-called minimization you
claim to be striving for. By continueing to focus on everyone
else, you prove that you are not interested in what *you* an do.


>
>> > 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?

>
> I do believe animals suffer considerably on factory-farms. I
> have given
> my references elsewhere.

================
No, you have not. Quit lying, hypocrite...


>
>> 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.
>>

>
> Well, you're wrong.

================
It's exactly your diet/lifestyle, hypocrite. You pove that by
waving your hands at the unnecessay death and suffering you ause
or no more reason than your entertainment here.


>
>> > 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.
>>

>
> If you think there's a problem with my conclusions, tell me
> what it is.

===============
That by banning meat, you automatically reduce death and
suffering regardless of what you replace it with.


>
>> > 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.
>>

>
> The latter. It's necessary to provide food.

=================
No, it isn't. Food was grown for 1000s of years without massive
machines and the petro-chemical industry, fool. It's just what
*you* require because of your demand for cheap, conveninet
veggies, regardless of the costs to animals.


>
>> <...>
>> >>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.
>>

>
> If you're lucky enough to get a large fish.
>
>> > 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.
>>

>
> Not very often. Only sometimes when I go out to restaurants.

=================
Hypocrite...



>
>> > 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?
>>

>
> North Sydney.
>
>> > Or where do you suggest I buy my meat?

>>
>> From a local producer of grazed ruminants.
>>

>
> I'm not convinced that would reduce my contribution to animal
> suffering, for reasons given in an article I linked to earlier.

=====================
LOL Provide proof, fool, not propaganda...


>
>> > 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?

>
> Well, animal food production mostly requires more plant
> production than
> plant food production. And I've linked to an article which
> argues that
> even Davis' ruminant-pasture model wouldn't do as well as a
> vegan model.

======================
Again, you focus only on what fits everyone in the world, and
ignore what *you* could do, but are too stupid and brainwashed to
even look.


>



  #95 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Rupert" > wrote
> Leslie wrote:
>> 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.
>>

>
> I never suggested I could get away from collateral damage or death in
> the course of trying to survive.


The idea is rampant among vegans. Even if you now concede this point
"intellectually", the mindset you have embraced was formed without
considering this reality, and now it's firmly embedded in your
consciousness. Re-assessing these moral conclusions is going to take real
WORK on your part, involving digging deep and finding a reservoir of
strength of character.

> I do believe, however, that there is a
> moral obligation to make every reasonable effort to minimize one's
> contribution to animal suffering.


That's a very wishy-washy excuse for a moral principle. If you avoiding
harming humans with the same dedication you would have been locked up long
ago.

> It seems to me that avoiding animal
> products is a reasonable way of doing that.


It's a silly way, it's founded in a fallacy, it spawns all sorts of aberrant
and anti-social thinking, and a a diet of all vegan food is boring.

> If you have any other
> suggestions, I'd be happy to hear them.


OK, get off this "vegan" bandwagon, remove the blinders from your eyes and
rejoin the human race.




  #96 (permalink)   Report Post  
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Rupert" > wrote

> (1) is the claim that the number of animals killed who are actually
> farmed for their food is greater than the number of collateral deaths
> caused by the food production required for universal veganism. It would
> not be true if there was universal veganism.


You're living in a fantasy world. "Universal veganism" is never, ever going
to happen. Even if western culture adopted veganism, most of the world
relies on a mix of plant and animal products to survive, and most of it is
not "factory farmed".

[..]
>> >>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.
>>

>
> Well, you're wrong.


No, I'm not.

>> > 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.
>>

>
> If you think there's a problem with my conclusions, tell me what it is.


You're putting the cart before the horse.

>> > 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.
>>

>
> The latter. It's necessary to provide food.


No it's not, we could all quit our urban jobs and go hand-raise food. That's
about as likely as "universal veganism".


[..]

>> Where's YOUR evidence that your diet causes no or less animal suffering
>> and death than anyone else's?

>
> Well, animal food production mostly requires more plant production than
> plant food production. And I've linked to an article which argues that
> even Davis' ruminant-pasture model wouldn't do as well as a vegan model.


That so-called rebuttal could only be taken seriously by someone like you.


  #97 (permalink)   Report Post  
Renco
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> >>...(edited)...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.


====================
Wow, I guess that means when I buy some beef or chicken I'm not only
responsible for the death of that animal, but also the deaths of all the
other animals killed in the slaughterhouse. Just like, as you say, when
someone buys a bag of rice they are responsible for ALL of the deaths in the
rice paddies, not just the ones in the area it took to grow their rice in.
As you point out, "The deaths are not divisible". And also, when I buy my
meat I'm of course responsible for every single one of the cds in the fields
that produced any grain which may have been fed to the animals to fatten
them up. Ugh, I just never realized of that before!

And even if I eat just one measly little (commercially caught) fish, I'm
responsible for the deaths of all of the other fish (and whatever else) that
was caught / killed along with it in the net. Man this stuff really adds up!
I'm much more of a killer than I'd ever imagined! Rudy my friend, I
certainly don't have any desire to become a vegan, or a hunter (to reduce
the cds caused by my diet that way). But I do have to hand it to you - you
certainly have made me seriously consider becoming some kind of vegetarian
to help reduce all of the slaughterhouse collateral killing I'm responsible
for because of my meat eating. Thank you very much for opening up my eyes to
this. You da man! I've really learned something here today...

Sincerely,
Renco
================
Even more proof here, thanks Rudy!:
"Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
> ...(edited)....The death is not divisible. If "vegans" know
> about the collateral deaths, as they call claim to
> know, then they all know _ex ante_ that the rice
> production causes some multiple deaths. By choosing to
> buy rice from that source, rather than growing their
> own "death-free" rice, they share in the responsibility
> for all of the deaths. The deaths are not divisible.
>



  #98 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 03:17:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Rupert wrote:
>

[..]
>> Well, animal food production mostly requires more plant production than
>> plant food production. And I've linked to an article which argues that
>> even Davis' ruminant-pasture model wouldn't do as well as a vegan model.

>
>Wrong answer.


Then why did you write;

"If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll
lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
feed for the animals you eat.

The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
Jonathan Ball 22 May 2003 http://tinyurl.com/664t2

Not only have you given vegans a valid reason to
continue abstaining from meat on the basis that less
collateral deaths will occur, you've also given them
valid environmental and economic grounds to abstain
from it as well.

"What I mean is that in terms of the resources
expended for the amount of nutrition yielded, the
U.S. could easily substitute sufficient vegetable
products to come up with the "missing" protein and
calories if we suddenly stopped raising livestock.

Meat is expensive relative to vegetable produce. All
of the major meats consumed in the American diet -
beef, pork and poultry; lamb barely registers - are fed
cultivated agriculture products as animal feed, and the
resources that produce that animal feed could instead
produce vegetable food for direct human consumption.

There is a loss of energy in feeding livestock feed to
animals. It takes anywhere from 6 to 8 pounds of feed
to yield one additional *gross* pound of beef, for
example; the feed conversion ratio for broiler chickens
is a little under 2. Note that these ratios are gross; they
do not take into account that some of the weight gain
in the animal is not edible to humans. If you adjust for
that, the ratios are higher.

If Americans suddenly stopped eating meat entirely, and
all the animals were gone, no land or other productive
resources would be devoted to producing feed and other
materials for animals. It would take only a fraction of
those resources to produce the "missing" protein and
calories."
Jonathan Ball as Rudy Canoza 31 Mar 2005
http://tinyurl.com/5xs3b
  #99 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Derek wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 03:17:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>>Rupert wrote:
>>

>
> [..]
>
>>>Well, animal food production mostly requires more plant production than
>>>plant food production. And I've linked to an article which argues that
>>>even Davis' ruminant-pasture model wouldn't do as well as a vegan model.

>>
>>Wrong answer.

>
>
> Then why did you write;
>
> [...]
> Not only have you given vegans a valid reason to
> continue abstaining from meat on the basis that less
> collateral deaths will occur


No. I mean he gave the wrong answer in the sense that
he has now admitted he's trying to engage in a counting
game, and that's an invalid basis for morality. I said
as much, too, but you unethically snipped it out: "The
question was about 'less...than anyone else's.' But
you earlier have said you are NOT basing your
conclusion on any kind of comparison with others.
Apparently you lied."
  #100 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 02:20:58 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>Rupert wrote:
>

[..]
>> 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.

>
>But you still only are refraining from eating meat.
>That, in and of itself, does not translate to consuming
>the least-harm diet.


Then why did you write;

"If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll
lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
feed for the animals you eat.

The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
Jonathan Ball 22 May 2003 http://tinyurl.com/664t2

Not only have you given vegans a valid reason to
continue abstaining from meat on the basis that less
collateral deaths will occur, you've also given them
valid environmental and economic grounds to abstain
from it as well.

"What I mean is that in terms of the resources
expended for the amount of nutrition yielded, the
U.S. could easily substitute sufficient vegetable
products to come up with the "missing" protein and
calories if we suddenly stopped raising livestock.

Meat is expensive relative to vegetable produce. All
of the major meats consumed in the American diet -
beef, pork and poultry; lamb barely registers - are fed
cultivated agriculture products as animal feed, and the
resources that produce that animal feed could instead
produce vegetable food for direct human consumption.

There is a loss of energy in feeding livestock feed to
animals. It takes anywhere from 6 to 8 pounds of feed
to yield one additional *gross* pound of beef, for
example; the feed conversion ratio for broiler chickens
is a little under 2. Note that these ratios are gross; they
do not take into account that some of the weight gain
in the animal is not edible to humans. If you adjust for
that, the ratios are higher.

If Americans suddenly stopped eating meat entirely, and
all the animals were gone, no land or other productive
resources would be devoted to producing feed and other
materials for animals. It would take only a fraction of
those resources to produce the "missing" protein and
calories."
Jonathan Ball as Rudy Canoza 31 Mar 2005
http://tinyurl.com/5xs3b


  #101 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 12:59:43 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 03:17:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>Rupert wrote:
>>>
>>>>Well, animal food production mostly requires more plant production than
>>>>plant food production. And I've linked to an article which argues that
>>>>even Davis' ruminant-pasture model wouldn't do as well as a vegan model.
>>>
>>>Wrong answer.

>>
>> Then why did you write;
>>
>> [...]
>> Not only have you given vegans a valid reason to
>> continue abstaining from meat on the basis that less
>> collateral deaths will occur

>
>No.


Your quotes which you snipped away say
otherwise, liar Jon.

<unsnip>
"If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll
lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
feed for the animals you eat.

The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
Jonathan Ball 22 May 2003 http://tinyurl.com/664t2

Not only have you given vegans a valid reason to
continue abstaining from meat on the basis that less
collateral deaths will occur, you've also given them
valid environmental and economic grounds to abstain
from it as well.

"What I mean is that in terms of the resources
expended for the amount of nutrition yielded, the
U.S. could easily substitute sufficient vegetable
products to come up with the "missing" protein and
calories if we suddenly stopped raising livestock.

Meat is expensive relative to vegetable produce. All
of the major meats consumed in the American diet -
beef, pork and poultry; lamb barely registers - are fed
cultivated agriculture products as animal feed, and the
resources that produce that animal feed could instead
produce vegetable food for direct human consumption.

There is a loss of energy in feeding livestock feed to
animals. It takes anywhere from 6 to 8 pounds of feed
to yield one additional *gross* pound of beef, for
example; the feed conversion ratio for broiler chickens
is a little under 2. Note that these ratios are gross; they
do not take into account that some of the weight gain
in the animal is not edible to humans. If you adjust for
that, the ratios are higher.

If Americans suddenly stopped eating meat entirely, and
all the animals were gone, no land or other productive
resources would be devoted to producing feed and other
materials for animals. It would take only a fraction of
those resources to produce the "missing" protein and
calories."
Jonathan Ball as Rudy Canoza 31 Mar 2005
http://tinyurl.com/5xs3b
  #102 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 05:22:38 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Rupert wrote:

[..]
>> Yes, but I think I have reason to believe a vegan diet
>> minimizes the contribution to suffering.

>
>No


Then why did you write;

"If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll
lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
feed for the animals you eat.

The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
Jonathan Ball 22 May 2003 http://tinyurl.com/664t2

Not only have you given vegans a valid reason to
continue abstaining from meat on the basis that less
collateral deaths will occur, you've also given them
valid environmental and economic grounds to abstain
from it as well.

"What I mean is that in terms of the resources
expended for the amount of nutrition yielded, the
U.S. could easily substitute sufficient vegetable
products to come up with the "missing" protein and
calories if we suddenly stopped raising livestock.

Meat is expensive relative to vegetable produce. All
of the major meats consumed in the American diet -
beef, pork and poultry; lamb barely registers - are fed
cultivated agriculture products as animal feed, and the
resources that produce that animal feed could instead
produce vegetable food for direct human consumption.

There is a loss of energy in feeding livestock feed to
animals. It takes anywhere from 6 to 8 pounds of feed
to yield one additional *gross* pound of beef, for
example; the feed conversion ratio for broiler chickens
is a little under 2. Note that these ratios are gross; they
do not take into account that some of the weight gain
in the animal is not edible to humans. If you adjust for
that, the ratios are higher.

If Americans suddenly stopped eating meat entirely, and
all the animals were gone, no land or other productive
resources would be devoted to producing feed and other
materials for animals. It would take only a fraction of
those resources to produce the "missing" protein and
calories."
Jonathan Ball as Rudy Canoza 31 Mar 2005
http://tinyurl.com/5xs3b
  #103 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 02:49:48 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:

>Rupert wrote:
>

[..]
>> I'm trying to minimize my
>> contribution to animal suffering.

....
>> I believe that avoiding animal
>> products is the best way to do this.

>
>I've explained to you why it isn't.


Rather, you've explained why it IS, Jon.

"If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll
lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
feed for the animals you eat.

The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
Jonathan Ball 22 May 2003 http://tinyurl.com/664t2

Not only have you given vegans a valid reason to
continue abstaining from meat on the basis that less
collateral deaths will occur, you've also given them
valid environmental and economic grounds to abstain
from it as well.

"What I mean is that in terms of the resources
expended for the amount of nutrition yielded, the
U.S. could easily substitute sufficient vegetable
products to come up with the "missing" protein and
calories if we suddenly stopped raising livestock.

Meat is expensive relative to vegetable produce. All
of the major meats consumed in the American diet -
beef, pork and poultry; lamb barely registers - are fed
cultivated agriculture products as animal feed, and the
resources that produce that animal feed could instead
produce vegetable food for direct human consumption.

There is a loss of energy in feeding livestock feed to
animals. It takes anywhere from 6 to 8 pounds of feed
to yield one additional *gross* pound of beef, for
example; the feed conversion ratio for broiler chickens
is a little under 2. Note that these ratios are gross; they
do not take into account that some of the weight gain
in the animal is not edible to humans. If you adjust for
that, the ratios are higher.

If Americans suddenly stopped eating meat entirely, and
all the animals were gone, no land or other productive
resources would be devoted to producing feed and other
materials for animals. It would take only a fraction of
those resources to produce the "missing" protein and
calories."
Jonathan Ball as Rudy Canoza 31 Mar 2005
http://tinyurl.com/5xs3b
  #104 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 07:39:23 -0400, "Renco" > wrote:
>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote:


>> >>...(edited)...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.

>
>====================
>Wow, I guess that means when I buy some beef or chicken I'm not only
>responsible for the death of that animal, but also the deaths of all the
>other animals killed in the slaughterhouse. Just like, as you say, when
>someone buys a bag of rice they are responsible for ALL of the deaths in the
>rice paddies, not just the ones in the area it took to grow their rice in.
>As you point out, "The deaths are not divisible". And also, when I buy my
>meat I'm of course responsible for every single one of the cds in the fields
>that produced any grain which may have been fed to the animals to fatten
>them up. Ugh, I just never realized of that before!
>
>And even if I eat just one measly little (commercially caught) fish, I'm
>responsible for the deaths of all of the other fish (and whatever else) that
>was caught / killed along with it in the net.


[About 2.3 billion pounds of sea life were discarded in
the U.S. in 2000 alone, and thousands of the ocean's
most charismatic species - including sea turtles, marine
mammals, sharks and seabirds - are killed each year
by fishing nets, lines and hooks. These deaths have
implications for both marine populations and marine
food webs.

"Considering the documented decline in global fisheries,
this kind of waste is unacceptable. But because this
travesty is unseen by most people, it continues," said
Dr. Crowder.

Experts agree that bottom trawls are one of the worst
offenders, entrapping

**vast numbers of non-targeted animals.**

"The first time I was on a trawler, I was appalled to see
that for every pound of shrimp caught there were 20
pounds of sharks, rays, crabs, and starfish killed. The
shrimpers called this bycatch 'trawl trash' - I call it
'biodiversity'," noted Elliott Norse of the Marine
Conservation Biology Institute. "Of course I recognize
in some trawls it could be only one pound - in others
100 pounds for every pound of shrimp."

**This bycatch is not the only collateral damage**

associated with fishing. Many experts agreed that habitat
destruction that some fishing gears cause is even more
ecologically damaging than the harm caused by bycatch.]
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/*innews/destfish2003.htm

Jon will most likely find a way of blaming vegans for
bycatches as well if you give him enough time.

> Man this stuff really adds up!


And Rudy (Jonathan Ball) knows it;

"If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll
lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
feed for the animals you eat.

The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
Jonathan Ball 22 May 2003 http://tinyurl.com/664t2

Not only has he given vegans a valid reason to
continue abstaining from meat on the basis that less
collateral deaths will occur, he's also given them
valid environmental and economic grounds to abstain
from it as well.

"What I mean is that in terms of the resources
expended for the amount of nutrition yielded, the
U.S. could easily substitute sufficient vegetable
products to come up with the "missing" protein and
calories if we suddenly stopped raising livestock.

Meat is expensive relative to vegetable produce. All
of the major meats consumed in the American diet -
beef, pork and poultry; lamb barely registers - are fed
cultivated agriculture products as animal feed, and the
resources that produce that animal feed could instead
produce vegetable food for direct human consumption.

There is a loss of energy in feeding livestock feed to
animals. It takes anywhere from 6 to 8 pounds of feed
to yield one additional *gross* pound of beef, for
example; the feed conversion ratio for broiler chickens
is a little under 2. Note that these ratios are gross; they
do not take into account that some of the weight gain
in the animal is not edible to humans. If you adjust for
that, the ratios are higher.

If Americans suddenly stopped eating meat entirely, and
all the animals were gone, no land or other productive
resources would be devoted to producing feed and other
materials for animals. It would take only a fraction of
those resources to produce the "missing" protein and
calories."
Jonathan Ball as Rudy Canoza 31 Mar 2005
http://tinyurl.com/5xs3b

>I'm much more of a killer than I'd ever imagined! Rudy my friend, I
>certainly don't have any desire to become a vegan, or a hunter (to reduce
>the cds caused by my diet that way). But I do have to hand it to you - you
>certainly have made me seriously consider becoming some kind of vegetarian
>to help reduce all of the slaughterhouse collateral killing I'm responsible
>for because of my meat eating. Thank you very much for opening up my eyes to
>this. You da man! I've really learned something here today...
>
>Sincerely,
>Renco
>================
> Even more proof here, thanks Rudy!:
>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote:
>> ...(edited)....The death is not divisible. If "vegans" know
>> about the collateral deaths, as they call claim to
>> know, then they all know _ex ante_ that the rice
>> production causes some multiple deaths. By choosing to
>> buy rice from that source, rather than growing their
>> own "death-free" rice, they share in the responsibility
>> for all of the deaths. The deaths are not divisible.
>>

>


  #105 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dreck sobered up enough to
wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 02:20:58 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Rupert wrote:
>>

>
> [..]
>
>>>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.

>>
>>But you still only are refraining from eating meat.
>>That, in and of itself, does not translate to consuming
>>the least-harm diet.

>
>
> Then why did you write


Forget it, Dreck. I've explained to Rupert that the
counting game is an INVALID basis for claiming virtue.
I don't care who "wins" it; it's invalid.


  #106 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dreck sobered up enough to
write:

> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 12:59:43 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>>Derek wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 03:17:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Rupert wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Well, animal food production mostly requires more plant production than
>>>>>plant food production. And I've linked to an article which argues that
>>>>>even Davis' ruminant-pasture model wouldn't do as well as a vegan model.
>>>>
>>>>Wrong answer.
>>>
>>>Then why did you write;
>>>
>>>[...]
>>>Not only have you given vegans a valid reason to
>>>continue abstaining from meat on the basis that less
>>>collateral deaths will occur

>>
>>No.

>
>
> Your quotes


Are irrelevant. Who wins the counting game is
irrelevant. The counting game is INVALID as a basis
for claiming virtue.
  #107 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dreck sobered up enough to
write:

> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 05:22:38 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>>Rupert wrote:

>
> [..]
>
>>>Yes, but I think I have reason to believe a vegan diet
>>>minimizes the contribution to suffering.

>>
>>No

>
>
> Then why did you write


The counting game is INVALID as a basis for claiming
virtue.
  #108 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dreck sobered up enough to
write:

> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 02:49:48 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>
>>Rupert wrote:
>>

>
> [..]
>
>>>I'm trying to minimize my
>>>contribution to animal suffering.

>
> ...
>
>>>I believe that avoiding animal
>>>products is the best way to do this.

>>
>>I've explained to you why it isn't.

>
>
> Rather, you've explained why it IS, Jon.
>
> "If you insist on playing a stupid counting game,


The counting game is INVALID as a basis for claiming
virtue.
  #109 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:10:19 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 02:20:58 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>Rupert wrote:

>> [..]
>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>>>But you still only are refraining from eating meat.
>>>That, in and of itself, does not translate to consuming
>>>the least-harm diet.

>>
>> Then why did you write

>
>Forget it, Dreck.


Snipping and running already, Jon?

By your own testament, a vegan diet has less
collateral deaths associated with it, and it's both
more economical and environmentally friendly
than a meat eating diet, sow can you criticise
vegans for following such a when declaring they
follow it for those very same reasons, hypocrite?

<unsnip>
"If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll
lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
feed for the animals you eat.

The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
Jonathan Ball 22 May 2003 http://tinyurl.com/664t2

Not only have you given vegans a valid reason to
continue abstaining from meat on the basis that less
collateral deaths will occur, you've also given them
valid environmental and economic grounds to abstain
from it as well.

"What I mean is that in terms of the resources
expended for the amount of nutrition yielded, the
U.S. could easily substitute sufficient vegetable
products to come up with the "missing" protein and
calories if we suddenly stopped raising livestock.

Meat is expensive relative to vegetable produce. All
of the major meats consumed in the American diet -
beef, pork and poultry; lamb barely registers - are fed
cultivated agriculture products as animal feed, and the
resources that produce that animal feed could instead
produce vegetable food for direct human consumption.

There is a loss of energy in feeding livestock feed to
animals. It takes anywhere from 6 to 8 pounds of feed
to yield one additional *gross* pound of beef, for
example; the feed conversion ratio for broiler chickens
is a little under 2. Note that these ratios are gross; they
do not take into account that some of the weight gain
in the animal is not edible to humans. If you adjust for
that, the ratios are higher.

If Americans suddenly stopped eating meat entirely, and
all the animals were gone, no land or other productive
resources would be devoted to producing feed and other
materials for animals. It would take only a fraction of
those resources to produce the "missing" protein and
calories."
Jonathan Ball as Rudy Canoza 31 Mar 2005
http://tinyurl.com/5xs3b
  #110 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:13:26 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek Wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 02:49:48 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>Rupert wrote:

>> [..]
>>
>>>>I'm trying to minimize my
>>>>contribution to animal suffering.

>> ...
>>>>I believe that avoiding animal
>>>>products is the best way to do this.
>>>
>>>I've explained to you why it isn't.

>>
>> Rather, you've explained why it IS, Jon.
>>
>> "If you insist on playing a stupid counting game,

>
>The counting game is INVALID as a basis for claiming
>virtue.


Says he whose lifestyle and tastes for meat causes
the largest tally, but we're missing the point here.
Rupert says he's trying to minimize his contribution
to collateral deaths found in farming by abstaining
from farmed meat which inherently causes more
by virtue of the feeds given it. You claim to have
explained to him that a vegan diet doesn't cause
less harm, but your quotes which you've snipped
away say otherwise.
<unsnip>
"If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll
lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
feed for the animals you eat.

The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
Jonathan Ball 22 May 2003 http://tinyurl.com/664t2

Not only have you given vegans a valid reason to
continue abstaining from meat on the basis that less
collateral deaths will occur, you've also given them
valid environmental and economic grounds to abstain
from it as well.

"What I mean is that in terms of the resources
expended for the amount of nutrition yielded, the
U.S. could easily substitute sufficient vegetable
products to come up with the "missing" protein and
calories if we suddenly stopped raising livestock.

Meat is expensive relative to vegetable produce. All
of the major meats consumed in the American diet -
beef, pork and poultry; lamb barely registers - are fed
cultivated agriculture products as animal feed, and the
resources that produce that animal feed could instead
produce vegetable food for direct human consumption.

There is a loss of energy in feeding livestock feed to
animals. It takes anywhere from 6 to 8 pounds of feed
to yield one additional *gross* pound of beef, for
example; the feed conversion ratio for broiler chickens
is a little under 2. Note that these ratios are gross; they
do not take into account that some of the weight gain
in the animal is not edible to humans. If you adjust for
that, the ratios are higher.

If Americans suddenly stopped eating meat entirely, and
all the animals were gone, no land or other productive
resources would be devoted to producing feed and other
materials for animals. It would take only a fraction of
those resources to produce the "missing" protein and
calories."
Jonathan Ball as Rudy Canoza 31 Mar 2005
http://tinyurl.com/5xs3b



  #111 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:11:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 12:59:43 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 03:17:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>Rupert wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Well, animal food production mostly requires more plant production than
>>>>>>plant food production. And I've linked to an article which argues that
>>>>>>even Davis' ruminant-pasture model wouldn't do as well as a vegan model.
>>>>>
>>>>>Wrong answer.
>>>>
>>>>Then why did you write;
>>>>
>>>>[...]
>>>>Not only have you given vegans a valid reason to
>>>>continue abstaining from meat on the basis that less
>>>>collateral deaths will occur
>>>
>>>No.

>>
>> Your quotes

>
>Are irrelevant.


They show that you believe vegans win the counting
game you stupidly INSIST on using, Jon..

<unsnip>
"If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll
lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
feed for the animals you eat.

The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
Jonathan Ball 22 May 2003 http://tinyurl.com/664t2

Not only have you given vegans a valid reason to
continue abstaining from meat on the basis that less
collateral deaths will occur, you've also given them
valid environmental and economic grounds to abstain
from it as well.

"What I mean is that in terms of the resources
expended for the amount of nutrition yielded, the
U.S. could easily substitute sufficient vegetable
products to come up with the "missing" protein and
calories if we suddenly stopped raising livestock.

Meat is expensive relative to vegetable produce. All
of the major meats consumed in the American diet -
beef, pork and poultry; lamb barely registers - are fed
cultivated agriculture products as animal feed, and the
resources that produce that animal feed could instead
produce vegetable food for direct human consumption.

There is a loss of energy in feeding livestock feed to
animals. It takes anywhere from 6 to 8 pounds of feed
to yield one additional *gross* pound of beef, for
example; the feed conversion ratio for broiler chickens
is a little under 2. Note that these ratios are gross; they
do not take into account that some of the weight gain
in the animal is not edible to humans. If you adjust for
that, the ratios are higher.

If Americans suddenly stopped eating meat entirely, and
all the animals were gone, no land or other productive
resources would be devoted to producing feed and other
materials for animals. It would take only a fraction of
those resources to produce the "missing" protein and
calories."
Jonathan Ball as Rudy Canoza 31 Mar 2005
http://tinyurl.com/5xs3b
  #112 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dreck sobered up enough to
write:

> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:10:19 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>>Derek wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 02:20:58 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Rupert wrote:
>>>
>>>[..]
>>>
>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>But you still only are refraining from eating meat.
>>>>That, in and of itself, does not translate to consuming
>>>>the least-harm diet.
>>>
>>>Then why did you write

>>
>>Forget it, Dreck.

>
>
> Snipping and running already,


No running.

Forget it, Dreck. Winning the counting game is INVALID
as a basis for claiming virtue. Accept it.
  #113 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dreck sobered up enough to
write:

> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:13:26 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dreck sobered up enough to write:
>>
>>>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 02:49:48 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Rupert wrote:
>>>
>>>[..]
>>>
>>>
>>>>>I'm trying to minimize my
>>>>>contribution to animal suffering.
>>>
>>>...
>>>
>>>>>I believe that avoiding animal
>>>>>products is the best way to do this.
>>>>
>>>>I've explained to you why it isn't.
>>>
>>>Rather, you've explained why it IS, Jon.
>>>
>>> "If you insist on playing a stupid counting game,

>>
>>The counting game is INVALID as a basis for claiming
>>virtue.

>
>
> Says he whose lifestyle and tastes for meat causes
> the largest tally, but we're missing the point here.
> Rupert says he's trying to minimize his contribution
> to collateral deaths found in farming by abstaining
> from farmed meat


He's trying to win a counting game, and claim virtue
*relative to meat eaters*. He's not trying to minimize
at all. He's lying when he says he is. He is only
trying to "beat" meat eaters at a counting game. That
is not a basis for virtue.

He, and you, lose. **** off, Dreck.
  #114 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dreck sobered up enough to
write:

> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:11:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dreck sobered up enough to write:
>>
>>>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 12:59:43 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dreck sobered up enough to write:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 03:17:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Well, animal food production mostly requires more plant production than
>>>>>>>plant food production. And I've linked to an article which argues that
>>>>>>>even Davis' ruminant-pasture model wouldn't do as well as a vegan model.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Wrong answer.
>>>>>
>>>>>Then why did you write;
>>>>>
>>>>>[...]
>>>>>Not only have you given vegans a valid reason to
>>>>>continue abstaining from meat on the basis that less
>>>>>collateral deaths will occur
>>>>
>>>>No.
>>>
>>>Your quotes

>>
>>Are irrelevant.

>
>
> They show that you believe vegans win the counting
> game


The counting game is INVALID as a basis for claiming
virtue. You lose.
  #115 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:12:45 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> Derek wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 05:22:38 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>Rupert wrote:

>>
>>>>Yes, but I think I have reason to believe a vegan diet
>>>>minimizes the contribution to suffering.
>>>
>>>No

>>
>> Then why did you write


I see that once again you have snipped your quotes
which show Rupert is indeed correct, according to
YOU.

>The counting game is INVALID as a basis for claiming
>virtue.


That may be so if argued correctly, but the issue
here is whether Rupert's reasons for following
his chosen diet are valid. Your quotes show that
they are, which is why you keep dishonestly
snipping them away.

<unsnip>
"If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll
lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
feed for the animals you eat.

The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
Jonathan Ball 22 May 2003 http://tinyurl.com/664t2

Not only have you given vegans a valid reason to
continue abstaining from meat on the basis that less
collateral deaths will occur, you've also given them
valid environmental and economic grounds to abstain
from it as well.

"What I mean is that in terms of the resources
expended for the amount of nutrition yielded, the
U.S. could easily substitute sufficient vegetable
products to come up with the "missing" protein and
calories if we suddenly stopped raising livestock.

Meat is expensive relative to vegetable produce. All
of the major meats consumed in the American diet -
beef, pork and poultry; lamb barely registers - are fed
cultivated agriculture products as animal feed, and the
resources that produce that animal feed could instead
produce vegetable food for direct human consumption.

There is a loss of energy in feeding livestock feed to
animals. It takes anywhere from 6 to 8 pounds of feed
to yield one additional *gross* pound of beef, for
example; the feed conversion ratio for broiler chickens
is a little under 2. Note that these ratios are gross; they
do not take into account that some of the weight gain
in the animal is not edible to humans. If you adjust for
that, the ratios are higher.

If Americans suddenly stopped eating meat entirely, and
all the animals were gone, no land or other productive
resources would be devoted to producing feed and other
materials for animals. It would take only a fraction of
those resources to produce the "missing" protein and
calories."
Jonathan Ball as Rudy Canoza 31 Mar 2005
http://tinyurl.com/5xs3b


  #116 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dreck sobered up enough to
write:

> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:12:45 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dreck sobered up enough to write:
>>
>>>On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 05:22:38 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Rupert wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Yes, but I think I have reason to believe a vegan diet
>>>>>minimizes the contribution to suffering.
>>>>
>>>>No
>>>
>>>Then why did you write

>
>
> I see that once again you have snipped your quotes
> which show Rupert is indeed correct, according to
> YOU.
>
>
>>The counting game is INVALID as a basis for claiming
>>virtue.

>
>
> That may be so if argued correctly


It is so, and I have argued it correctly. Rupert is
lying. He isn't attempting to minimize, as I have
proved. He is trying to "win" an invalid counting game.

**** off, Dreck.
  #117 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:37:07 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:11:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 12:59:43 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>>>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 03:17:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Well, animal food production mostly requires more plant production than
>>>>>>>>plant food production. And I've linked to an article which argues that
>>>>>>>>even Davis' ruminant-pasture model wouldn't do as well as a vegan model.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Wrong answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Then why did you write;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>[...]
>>>>>>Not only have you given vegans a valid reason to
>>>>>>continue abstaining from meat on the basis that less
>>>>>>collateral deaths will occur
>>>>>
>>>>>No.
>>>>
>>>>Your quotes
>>>
>>>Are irrelevant.

>>
>> They show that you believe vegans win the counting
>> game

>
>The counting game is INVALID as a basis for claiming
>virtue.


That may be so if argued correctly, but the issue
here is whether Rupert's reasons for following
his chosen diet are valid. Your quotes show that
they are, which is why you keep dishonestly
snipping them away.

<unsnip>
"If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll
lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
feed for the animals you eat.

The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
Jonathan Ball 22 May 2003 http://tinyurl.com/664t2

Not only have you given vegans a valid reason to
continue abstaining from meat on the basis that less
collateral deaths will occur, you've also given them
valid environmental and economic grounds to abstain
from it as well.

"What I mean is that in terms of the resources
expended for the amount of nutrition yielded, the
U.S. could easily substitute sufficient vegetable
products to come up with the "missing" protein and
calories if we suddenly stopped raising livestock.

Meat is expensive relative to vegetable produce. All
of the major meats consumed in the American diet -
beef, pork and poultry; lamb barely registers - are fed
cultivated agriculture products as animal feed, and the
resources that produce that animal feed could instead
produce vegetable food for direct human consumption.

There is a loss of energy in feeding livestock feed to
animals. It takes anywhere from 6 to 8 pounds of feed
to yield one additional *gross* pound of beef, for
example; the feed conversion ratio for broiler chickens
is a little under 2. Note that these ratios are gross; they
do not take into account that some of the weight gain
in the animal is not edible to humans. If you adjust for
that, the ratios are higher.

If Americans suddenly stopped eating meat entirely, and
all the animals were gone, no land or other productive
resources would be devoted to producing feed and other
materials for animals. It would take only a fraction of
those resources to produce the "missing" protein and
calories."
Jonathan Ball as Rudy Canoza 31 Mar 2005
http://tinyurl.com/5xs3b
  #118 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:40:34 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:12:45 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 05:22:38 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>Rupert wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Yes, but I think I have reason to believe a vegan diet
>>>>>>minimizes the contribution to suffering.
>>>>>
>>>>>No
>>>>
>>>>Then why did you write

>>
>> I see that once again you have snipped your quotes
>> which show Rupert is indeed correct, according to
>> YOU.


Noted.

>>>The counting game is INVALID as a basis for claiming
>>>virtue.

>>
>> That may be so if argued correctly

>
>It is so, and I have argued it correctly. Rupert is
>lying. He isn't attempting to minimize, as I have
>proved. He is trying to "win" an invalid counting game.


He wins YOUR counting game and as such hoists
you on your own petard.

>**** off


Why don't you be honest with Rupert by agreeing
with him and explaining;

<unsnip>
"If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll
lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
feed for the animals you eat.

The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
Jonathan Ball 22 May 2003 http://tinyurl.com/664t2

Not only have you given vegans a valid reason to
continue abstaining from meat on the basis that less
collateral deaths will occur, you've also given them
valid environmental and economic grounds to abstain
from it as well.

"What I mean is that in terms of the resources
expended for the amount of nutrition yielded, the
U.S. could easily substitute sufficient vegetable
products to come up with the "missing" protein and
calories if we suddenly stopped raising livestock.

Meat is expensive relative to vegetable produce. All
of the major meats consumed in the American diet -
beef, pork and poultry; lamb barely registers - are fed
cultivated agriculture products as animal feed, and the
resources that produce that animal feed could instead
produce vegetable food for direct human consumption.

There is a loss of energy in feeding livestock feed to
animals. It takes anywhere from 6 to 8 pounds of feed
to yield one additional *gross* pound of beef, for
example; the feed conversion ratio for broiler chickens
is a little under 2. Note that these ratios are gross; they
do not take into account that some of the weight gain
in the animal is not edible to humans. If you adjust for
that, the ratios are higher.

If Americans suddenly stopped eating meat entirely, and
all the animals were gone, no land or other productive
resources would be devoted to producing feed and other
materials for animals. It would take only a fraction of
those resources to produce the "missing" protein and
calories."
Jonathan Ball as Rudy Canoza 31 Mar 2005
http://tinyurl.com/5xs3b

You lose, Jon, while all vegans win.
  #119 (permalink)   Report Post  
Derek
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:33:50 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:10:19 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 02:20:58 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>Rupert wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>But you still only are refraining from eating meat.
>>>>>That, in and of itself, does not translate to consuming
>>>>>the least-harm diet.
>>>>
>>>>Then why did you write
>>>
>>>Forget it, Dreck.

>>
>>
>> Snipping and running already,

>
>No running.


You certainly are; we can all see you run from
your past quotes on this issue which agree with
your opponent Rupert.

By your own testament, a vegan diet has less
collateral deaths associated with it, and it's both
more economical and environmentally friendly
than a meat eating diet, so how can you criticise
vegans for following such a diet when declaring
they follow it for those very same reasons you
explain, hypocrite?

<unsnip>
"If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll
lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
feed for the animals you eat.

The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
Jonathan Ball 22 May 2003 http://tinyurl.com/664t2

Not only have you given vegans a valid reason to
continue abstaining from meat on the basis that less
collateral deaths will occur, you've also given them
valid environmental and economic grounds to abstain
from it as well.

"What I mean is that in terms of the resources
expended for the amount of nutrition yielded, the
U.S. could easily substitute sufficient vegetable
products to come up with the "missing" protein and
calories if we suddenly stopped raising livestock.

Meat is expensive relative to vegetable produce. All
of the major meats consumed in the American diet -
beef, pork and poultry; lamb barely registers - are fed
cultivated agriculture products as animal feed, and the
resources that produce that animal feed could instead
produce vegetable food for direct human consumption.

There is a loss of energy in feeding livestock feed to
animals. It takes anywhere from 6 to 8 pounds of feed
to yield one additional *gross* pound of beef, for
example; the feed conversion ratio for broiler chickens
is a little under 2. Note that these ratios are gross; they
do not take into account that some of the weight gain
in the animal is not edible to humans. If you adjust for
that, the ratios are higher.

If Americans suddenly stopped eating meat entirely, and
all the animals were gone, no land or other productive
resources would be devoted to producing feed and other
materials for animals. It would take only a fraction of
those resources to produce the "missing" protein and
calories."
Jonathan Ball as Rudy Canoza 31 Mar 2005
http://tinyurl.com/5xs3b

>Forget it, Dreck. Winning the counting game is INVALID
>as a basis for claiming virtue.


That may be so if argued correctly, but the issue
here is whether Rupert's reasons for following
his chosen diet are valid. Your quotes show that
they are, which is why you keep dishonestly
snipping them away.
  #120 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dreck sobered up enough to
write:

> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:37:07 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dreck sobered up enough to write:
>>
>>>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:11:59 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dreck sobered up enough to write:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 12:59:43 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dreck sobered up enough to write:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 03:17:31 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Rupert wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Well, animal food production mostly requires more plant production than
>>>>>>>>>plant food production. And I've linked to an article which argues that
>>>>>>>>>even Davis' ruminant-pasture model wouldn't do as well as a vegan model.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Wrong answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Then why did you write;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>[...]
>>>>>>>Not only have you given vegans a valid reason to
>>>>>>>continue abstaining from meat on the basis that less
>>>>>>>collateral deaths will occur
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No.
>>>>>
>>>>>Your quotes
>>>>
>>>>Are irrelevant.
>>>
>>>They show that you believe vegans win the counting
>>>game

>>
>>The counting game is INVALID as a basis for claiming
>>virtue.

>
>
> That may be so if argued correctly


It is so, as I have argued it correctly. Thanks for
the concession. **** off now.
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
US vegan population doubles in only two years - Harris Interactive study Dr. Jai Maharaj[_2_] Vegan 1 10-08-2014 08:37 PM
U.S. vegan population doubles in only two years! Dr. Jai Maharaj[_1_] Vegan 41 26-08-2013 09:57 PM
New Years Day Black Eyed Peas and Greens [email protected] General Cooking 3 05-01-2012 05:59 AM
Black Eyed Peas for New Years - Hopping John Evelyn Diabetic 0 31-12-2008 09:27 PM
50 Years Later... ...black children are still choosing the white doll. [email protected] General Cooking 5 24-11-2008 07:23 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:05 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"