 |
|
| Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|||
|
|||
Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dreck sobered up enough to
write: > On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:40:34 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>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 >>> >>>>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 He loses, as do you. The counting game is INVALID, so it doesn't matter who "wins" it. **** off now. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dreck sobered up enough to
write: > On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:33:50 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dreck sobered up enough to write: >> >>>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:10:19 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>> >>>>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dreck sobered up enough to write: >>>> >>>>>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 not. No running. The counting game is INVALID as a basis for claiming virtue, so it is irrelevant who "wins" it. **** off now. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:35:52 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> 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 > >He's trying to win a counting game, and claim virtue >*relative to meat eaters*. A game that you set out and always lose. And YOU call ME stupid? >He's not trying to minimize at all. He says he is, and you have no rational reason to reject that claim. >He's lying when he says he is. He's clearly telling the truth, and by your own admission he's achieving exactly what he's setting out to do. >He is only trying to "beat" meat eaters at a >counting game. Then maybe you *ought* to set your own side (meat eaters) straight on this issue once and for all, nebbish, because any carpenter at the keyboard/vegan can punish them while playing THEIR counting game. Don't forget that your major premise is that vegans are initially ignorant of the facts concerning collateral deaths, so you've only yourselves to blame when you introduce them, only to ****ing start counting them. You're all ****ing idiots without a ****ing clue, and you're making it worse for them by staying silent. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:57:24 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> 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 > >It is so Then let's get on with the issue being raised here, namely, that Rupert's diet accrues less harm than a meat-centred diet. You've asserted that it doesn't in this thread, but your earlier quotes clearly assert that it does; <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 > **** off now. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:59:48 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> 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 > >not. No running. Sprinting for the door, more like. >The counting game is INVALID as a basis for claiming >virtue Then let's get on with the issue being raised here, namely, that Rupert's diet accrues less harm than a meat-centred diet. You've asserted that it doesn't in this thread, but your earlier quotes clearly assert that it does; <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 >**** off now. I'm not ready yet. Dinner is two hours away, and it's just too hot to sit around in the garden today. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:58:45 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> 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 >>>> >>>>>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 > >He loses By your own hand, he wins. <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. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dreck sobered up enough to
write: > On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:35:52 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>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*. > > > A game that you set out No, a game that I reject and show is irrelevant to the proper issues. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dreck sobered up enough to
write: > On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:57:24 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>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 > > > Then let's get No "let's". YOU get the **** out. You've lost. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dreck sobered up enough to
write: > On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:59:48 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dreck sobered up enough to write: >> >>>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:33:50 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>> >>>>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dreck sobered up enough to write: >>>> >>>>>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:10:19 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dreck sobered up enough to write: >>>>>> >>>>>>>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 >> >>not. No running. The counting game is INVALID as a basis for claiming >>virtue > > > Then let's get No "let's". YOU get the **** out. You lost. **** off now. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dreck sobered up enough to
write: > On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:58:45 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dreck sobered up enough to write: >> >>>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:40:34 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>> >>>>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 >>>>> >>>>>>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 >> >>He loses > > > By your own hand He loses by anyone's hand. The counting game is irrelevant, and INVALID to establish virtue. **** off now. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 15:32:20 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:35:52 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>Derek wrote: >>>>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 >>> >>>He's trying to win a counting game, and claim virtue >>>*relative to meat eaters*. >> >> A game that you set out > >No <unsnip> A game that you set out and always lose. And YOU call ME stupid? >He's not trying to minimize at all. He says he is, and you have no rational reason to reject that claim. >He's lying when he says he is. He's clearly telling the truth, and by your own admission he's achieving exactly what he's setting out to do. >He is only trying to "beat" meat eaters at a >counting game. Then maybe you *ought* to set your own side (meat eaters) straight on this issue once and for all, nebbish, because any carpenter at the keyboard/vegan can punish them while playing THEIR counting game. Don't forget that your major premise is that vegans are initially ignorant of the facts concerning collateral deaths, so you've only yourselves to blame when you introduce them, only to ****ing start counting them. You're all ****ing idiots without a ****ing clue, and you're making it worse for them by staying silent. <endsnip> Couldn't face the task in commenting on that, could you, nebbish? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dreck sobered up enough to
write: > On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 15:32:20 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dreck sobered up enough to write: >> >>>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:35:52 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>> >>>>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*. >>> >>>A game that you set out >> >>No > > No. The counting game is irrelevant, and INVALID as a basis for declaring virtue. Give it up, Dreck. Then **** off. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 15:33:39 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:57:24 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>Derek wrote: >>>>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 >>> >>>It is so >> >> Then let's get > >No "let's". YOU get the **** out. I'm sure you'd prefer that I did so you can then continue lying to people who aren't aware of your past thoughts on this issue, but I'm here, so deal with it and start explaining why you've lied, Jon. > You've lost. Rather, you have, because by your own admission Rupert's diet accrues less harm than a meat-centred diet. You've asserted that it doesn't in this thread, but your earlier quotes clearly assert that it does; <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 |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 15:35:58 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:58:45 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>Derek wrote: >>>>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 >>>>>> >>>>>>>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 >>> >>>He loses By your own hand, he wins. <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. >**** off now. Nope, I'm not done yet. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 15:43:18 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 15:32:20 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>Derek wrote: >>>>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:35:52 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>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 >>>>> >>>>>He's trying to win a counting game, and claim virtue >>>>>*relative to meat eaters*. >>>> >>>>A game that you set out >>> >>>No <unsnip> A game that you set out and always lose. And YOU call ME stupid? >He's not trying to minimize at all. He says he is, and you have no rational reason to reject that claim. >He's lying when he says he is. He's clearly telling the truth, and by your own admission he's achieving exactly what he's setting out to do. >He is only trying to "beat" meat eaters at a >counting game. Then maybe you *ought* to set your own side (meat eaters) straight on this issue once and for all, nebbish, because any carpenter at the keyboard/vegan can punish them while playing THEIR counting game. Don't forget that your major premise is that vegans are initially ignorant of the facts concerning collateral deaths, so you've only yourselves to blame when you introduce them, only to ****ing start counting them. You're all ****ing idiots without a ****ing clue, and you're making it worse for them by staying silent. <endsnip> Couldn't face the task in commenting on that, could you, nebbish? Well, despite that failure on your part I think I've proved my point and shown Rupert that YOU believe his chosen diet accrues the least harm. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 15:34:57 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:59:48 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>Derek wrote: >>>>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 >>> >>>not. No running. The counting game is INVALID as a basis for claiming >>>virtue >> >> Then let's get > >No "let's". You can't face the task or concede that by your own hand Rupert is correct. What a way to carry on; you should thoroughly ashamed of yourself. >YOU get the **** out. You lost. > >**** off now. heh heh heh. You wish. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dreck sobered up enough to
write: > On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 15:33:39 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dreck sobered up enough to write: >> >>>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:57:24 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>> >>>>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 >>> >>>Then let's get >> >>No "let's". YOU get the **** out. > > > I'm sure you'd prefer You've lost. I can type, and copy-and-paste, faster than you. You're ****ed. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dreck sobered up enough to
write: > On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 15:35:58 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dreck sobered up enough to write: >> >>>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:58:45 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>> >>>>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dreck sobered up enough to write: >>>> >>>>>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:40:34 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>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 >>>> >>>>He loses >>**** off now. > > > Nope, I'm not done yet. You were done over six years ago. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dreck sobered up enough to
write: > [shite] This is why you're held in contempt by everyone, Dreck, on all sides of all issues: you keep flogging a dead horse. You're DONE. You aren't saying anything new, and you had your nuts cut off (not that they did you any good; David is the father of "your" kids) on the shite you keep harping on. You're done. You're trying to make something of the counting game, and there's nothing to be made of it. Rupert is, despite his lame denials, trying to establish his virtue based on a comparison with others, and it can't be done - a comparison with other is NEVER the basis for claiming virtue. It's long past time for you to admit it and let it drop, but your rotten character won't let you. **** off, you dole-scounging, cat-killing shitbag. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 16:46:34 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>> [shite] Snipping everything away only shows you cannot face the task in dealing with the issue of your contradictory quotes, nebbish. And trying to bring in other matters won't throw me off either, coward. You have no valid argument against the vegan or me, and your quotes show that you're in a Hell of a mess here when criticising vegans for not doing something to reduce the farmer's collateral deaths while YOU in fact declare that they do. By your own hand a vegan diet accrues the least, so any vegan who feels obligated to follow the least harm diet as described by you IS doing exactly what they set out to do. You can't win on this, and you know it. Read on. A Case for Ethical Vegetarianism by Jonathan Ball. Jonathan Ball, currently posting under the name 'Rudy Canoza', constantly "puts down" vegans for what he regards as their "shabby, atrocious reasoning behind their choices." "We put down "vegans" for the shabby, atrocious reasoning behind their choices. I don't give a **** what you eat. I do care if you give bullshit reasons for why you eat as you do." Jonathan Ball as Rudy Canoza 1 Apr 2005 http://tinyurl.com/6o953 He "cares" if vegans "give bullshit reasons for WHY [they] eat as [they] do," yet he himself makes the case for ethical veganism in several areas, including environmental ethics and the collateral deaths issue associated with a vegan diet. While making the case for ethical veganism on environmental grounds, he readily concedes that due to feed conversion ratios, "There is a loss of energy in feeding livestock feed to animals." He also concedes that, "Meat is expensive relative to vegetable produce", and that, "the resources that produce that animal feed could instead produce vegetable food for direct human consumption." "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 Environmentally, then, as well as economically, the "bullshit reasons for WHY [they] eat as [they] do" make perfect sense, rather, and displays sound reasoning. He certainly has no valid quarrel with vegans there. Concerning the collateral deaths in crop production issue, Jon makes the case for adopting a vegan diet yet again. While vegans readily accept the fact that collateral deaths in crop production sometimes occur, and while they are powerless to stop farmers from causing them, their choice to abstain from farmed meat does reduce them from what they would be if they did consume meat, and Jon makes this fact clear in the following statement he made back in 2003. "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 As we can see, Jon concedes, "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." Bearing in mind that ethical vegans don't want to cause deaths in the first place, let alone cause more by buying meat from a store, Jon's above statement makes their case for adopting a vegan diet yet again. For the second time he shows that the "bullshit reasons for WHY [they] eat as [they] do" aren't bullshit reasons after all, at least, not in his view. Concerning the raising of livestock, Jon concedes, as animal rights advocates have always insisted, that ; "IF one believes that the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude than ANY benefit they might derive from "decent lives", then logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the ethically superior choice." Jonathan Ball as Dieter 22 Jun 2004 http://tinyurl.com/539vv He goes on to write, "You KNOW I don't believe that, ****wit.", and that is true, for he doesn't believe that animals hold or ought to be granted the right against him from being farmed and slaughtered. Nevertheless, from the animal rights advocate's point of view he refers to in that paragraph (If "one"), who views animal rights as self-evident, just as self-evident as Jefferson once described human rights in his declaration of independence; "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable [inalienable] rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." he has no valid argument against them or the "one" on those grounds, either. In fact, he makes the case for ethical veganism better than most vegans do. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Derek wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 16:46:34 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > >>>[shite] > > > Snipping everything away Snipping your irrelevant desperation away is morally correct. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 16:35:39 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>You've lost. > >I can type, and copy-and-paste, faster than you. Cripes! I guess that MUST mean I HAVE lost. >You're ****ed. We both know that that's nowhere near the truth. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Derek wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 16:35:39 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > > >>You've lost. >> >>I can type, and copy-and-paste, faster than you. > > > Cripes! I guess that MUST mean I HAVE lost. It means you're going to lose this little time-wasting meaningless contest. > > >>You're ****ed. > > > We both know that that's nowhere near the truth. We ALL know it is exactly the truth. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 17:22:28 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 16:35:39 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> >>>You've lost. >>> >>>I can type, and copy-and-paste, faster than you. >> >> Cripes! I guess that MUST mean I HAVE lost. > >It means you're going to lose this little time-wasting >meaningless contest. If Rupert and others can see by your quotes that you've already conceded to the fact that a vegan diet accrues less collateral deaths than a typical meat-centric diet, especially while you continue to assert that the opposite is true from time to time when attacking them here, then my time has not been wasted, and you've been made to look a liar and a fool. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rupert wrote:
<...> >>>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? 1. Because it's fraudulent propaganda from activists. 2. Because reading is a passive activity does NOTHING to minimize animal suffering and death. >>>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? Because you've not researched anything. You've read polemics written by activists and swallowed their distortions and lies without ever "researching" to see how much (or little) of their claims are true. > Is it a quote from me? You see, I don't > think I ever actually said the word. > > I have read numerous descriptions of factory farms, such as those in > Peter Singer, "Animal Liberation", 2nd ed., A polemic. Singer is an activist, NOT a scientist. He's not interested in truth. He's pushing an agenda. > David DeGrazia, "Taking Animals Seriously", Another polemic. DeGrazia is an activist, not a scientist. He's not interested in truth. He's pushing an agenda. > Mylan Engel, Jr., "The Immorality of Eating Meat", Another polemic. Engel is an activist, not a scientist. He's not interested in truth. He's pushing an agenda. > and have concluded on that basis On the basis of three activists. Not on the basis of investigating whether or not their claims are true or not. Look at these links. These are your "factory" pork farms. Tell me where you see these claims you made the other day: They are kept in small crates too narrow from them to turn around. They are deprived of straw and other sources of amusement. They suffer greatly from boredom. They stand on either wire mesh, slatted floors or concrete floors, which are unnatural footings. They suffer from poor air quality due to poor ventilation and accumulating waste products. They are often abused at the loading and unloading stages of transport. http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vetext...AN_PigFarm.gif http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/undergrad/ag_eng16.jpg http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/ga...es/hogfarm.jpg http://www.ams.usda.gov/contracting/contract4.jpg If the links won't open directly in your browser, cut and paste each one in so you can tell us where you see ANYTHING of the sort of conditions you stupidly parroted. And while I'm quoting back from that post, please address this other ****ing lie you repeated: Furthermore it takes eight pounds of protein in hog feed to generate a pound of pork. I replied back to you: ****ing lie! See the chart on the following pork feed page: http://tinyurl.com/85e6j A 20-25kg hog will feed for 40-50 days on 82-91kg of feed and gain about 32kg. That's not an 8:1 ratio, it's a ~3:1 ratio. > that intensively farmed animals endure > a considerable amount of suffering. You have NO ****ING CLUE what farming conditions are like aside from what you've read from biased, agenda-driven activists. Look at those pics above and tell me how those animals appear to be suffering, numbnuts. You have two choices: continue lying about things of which you're ignorant or investigate the claims of BOTH sides and see which is closer to telling the truth. Hint: it's *NOT* the activists. >>>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, Unproven claim. Worse, your "sources" are activists. > 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. Matheny is an activist with a group called Vegan Action. He's not a scientist, which is abundantly clear from reading his response to Davis' thesis. Here's something I wrote about Matheny's article when we discussed it last year: ------ After making some terrible strawman arguments, Matheny concludes: The type of ruminant production Davis proposes is a world apart from the omnivorism prevalent in the United States. I, for one, would be delighted if U.S. animal agriculture would shift toward Davis’s proposed system, as it would greatly improve the lives of farmed animals now intensively confined. In fact, even a shift from eating intensively-confined chicken to eating intensively-confined beef would be a vast improvement. Rather than explaining where and how a veg-n diet causes fewer animal casualties, he simply says it is so. Davis did pre- and post-harvest surveys of one crop. How many has Matheny, or any other vegan activist, done? ------ > Now, of course, I *might* be wrong You are. > 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 gave you at least three very reasonable alternatives yesterday. >>>It's also been proven that factory-farmed animals live lives with a >>>great deal of misery and suffering in them, more suffering than would >>>be involved in being killed by a combine harvester, or even a more >>>protacted death from chemicals. >> >>No, that hasn't been proved at all. You haven't even >>tried. > > I've done about as good a job of proving it as he did of proving his > claim. Anyway, I've given you references now to descriptions of > factory-farming on which I base my judgement. If you want to contest > it, provide some argument. You've yet to offer ANY argument or evidence for your claims that abuse is pervasive in ANY form of livestock production. Look at the pics linked above. Those are normal "factory" farm conditions. Tell us exactly how those images match those painted by your activist sources. >>>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. Non sequitur. You already cause thousands and thousands of animals to die. Why would you object to only one more? BTW, your Matheny article concluded: The type of ruminant production Davis proposes is a world apart from the omnivorism prevalent in the United States. I, for one, would be delighted if U.S. animal agriculture would shift toward Davis’s proposed system, as it would greatly improve the lives of farmed animals now intensively confined. In fact, even a shift from eating intensively-confined chicken to eating intensively-confined beef would be a vast improvement. > If you think I'm wrong, provide some > evidence. See Matheny's conclusion above. >>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. That's not abuse. Your ethics are centered upon what you put in your mouth, which is a peculiar and questionable basis for one's ethics. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rupert wrote:
>>>>You already claimed to have done that research. You provide your >>>>data, killer. >>>>see below... >>> >>>No, I didn't. I claimed to have read some information about intensive >>>rearing of animals. >> >> From activists. Established. >>>"Factory-farming" sounds like a pretty reasonable >>>description to me. I don't need to point you to all the descriptions of >>>it in the literature. >> >>But please do so we can see which specific activist group(s) you're >>parroting. > > See my reply to Rudy. I did. >>>>No, you haven't. You've spewed vegan propaganda without any >>>>data. Show your proof, fool. Aterall, you claimed to have done >>>>all the research. >>> >>>I have pointed out that intensively reared animals suffer considerably. >> >>Without evidence. I just linked to photos of horrendous "factory" pork >>farms. Where are the small pens, lack of sun or straw, etc.? > > Sorry, I couldn't see the link. http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vetext...AN_PigFarm.gif http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/undergrad/ag_eng16.jpg http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/ga...es/hogfarm.jpg http://www.ams.usda.gov/contracting/contract4.jpg I'll post them in every damn reply to you until you admit you've seen them and until you explain how those "factory" farm conditions are in any way congruent with the absurd descriptions you've parroted from your activist propaganda. > I do have some evidence, No, you do NOT have evidence. You're repeating activists. Activists are not evidence. They're biased. They put an agenda ahead of the truth. You've accepted their BS propaganda at face value instead of doing any research to see if it's true. >>>I have pointed out that most animal food production requires more plant >>>production than plant food production. >> >>And ignored rebuttal that grains and legumes fed to livestock are >>generally unfit for human consumption. > > No, I haven't ignored that rebuttal, it hasn't been made. I believe Dutch made it, or he at least noted that most grazing land isn't suitable for crop production. > While the > point you made makes a difference to the calculation, are you really > denying the claim? Absolutely. It is often claimed that feeding cereals to animals and then eating the animals is much less efficient than eating the cereals directly (Millward, 1999). Frequently gross calculations about animal production and grain use are made. For example production figures have been presented to show that it requires 2 kg, 4 kg and 6 kg of grain to produce 1 kg of poultry, pork and beef respectively (Khush, 2001). The implication is that this is an inefficient use of scarce food materials. However this is a rather simplistic analysis and takes little account of the actual forms and types of grains used and of the mechanisms of animal nutrition and production using modern techniques. All animal and human nutrition ultimately depends upon only five basic types of raw materials, all of plant origin; forages, oilseeds, cereals, fruits and vegetables. These five classes of materials must feed both humans and animals. A very large proportion of the five basic classes of food raw materials cannot be utilised directly by humans especially forages and many other feed ingredients are actually inedible by-products of human food manufacturing. Humans as omnivores require foods of both animal and plant origin for optimum growth and development. Forages which include pasture, silages, hay and straw are produced in very large quantities and cannot be utilized by humans at all in their native state. Consequently ruminants play an important role in the ecosystem as they can digest these high fibre forages which humans cannot utilise and convert them into valuable human food products such as meat and milk. Ruminants are also an important source of non-food items such as leather and wool. It should also be emphasised that many animal feeds for non-ruminants such as pigs and poultry actually contain a large amount of raw materials which are basically inedible for humans. ...Modern ruminant production also relies less and less on feeding animals human food-grade cereals. For example dairy rations can be, and frequently are, produced without any cereal components whatsoever. Dairy cows can be adequately fed upon a forage source, usually silage or fresh grass together with a manufactured concentrate feed that does not necessarily contain any human food-grade cereals. http://www.afma.co.za/AFMA_Template/20034.htm See also: http://www.eugrainlegumes.org/summary/ > Can you show me your calculations? I addressed your particular claim about hogs requiring 8 pounds of grain to make a pound of meat. Can you show ME a calculation? Here's one I found on the following feed company website: http://tinyurl.com/85e6j A 20-25kg hog will feed for 40-50 days on 82-91kg of feed and gain about 32kg. That's not an 8:1 ratio, it's a ~3:1 ratio. I've also addressed the issue of other livestock including the infamous lie attributable to John Robbins and perpetuated by urban vegan idiots that it takes sixteen ****ing pounds of grain to make a pound of meat: The length of time that cattle spend in feedlots on high grain diets is variable. A calf typically starts life in March to May and remains with the cow on pasture or range until October or November. The calf may then be moved to a feedlot or may be maintained on a forage feeding program until a year later when it is moved to a feedlot as a yearling. Thus, beef cattle generally enter feedlots at weights of 450 to 650 pounds (calves), or 650 to 900 pounds (yearlings). For example, calves may enter the feedlot at 500 pounds and be marketed at about 1,100 pounds. Yearlings may enter the feedlot at 750 pounds and be marketed at about 1,200 pounds, while heavy yearlings enter at about 900 pounds and are marketed at about 1,200 pounds. How much grain and protein supplement are required to produce a pound of retail beef? * 1,200-pound beef cows marketed at 7 years of age have consumed a total of 840 pounds of protein supplement (120 pounds per year). * 500-pound feedlot calves fed to 1,100 pounds consume 6.5 pounds of total feed (80 percent grain and protein supplement) per pound of gain. * 750-pound feedlot yearlings fed to 1,200 pounds consume 7.2 pounds of total feed (90 percent grain and protein supplement) per pound of gain. * Yield of retail beef per pound of live weight is .45 pound (.35 pound for cows). Thus, it takes 2 pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of retail beef from beef cows and 3.6 pounds for heavy yearlings. For lighter weight yearlings and calves, the figures are 5.4 pounds and 6.3 pounds. These calculations do not consider the fertilizer value of the manure and urine provided by cattle during grazing and finishing. Contrary to some published claims, it does not take 16 pounds of grain to produce a pound of beef (Robbins 1987). Since beef cows are a major source of ground beef, a value between 3 and 4 pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of ground beef would be appropriate. Only by assuming that beef animals are fed diets composed largely of grains from birth to market weight could a value as great as 16 pounds be obtained. Those familiar with the beef industry know that this does not occur. In fact, cattle do not require any grain for the production of meat; the microbes in the rumen manufacture high-quality protein from nonprotein nitrogen. http://tinyurl.com/93mwm The ratios are similar for other livestock. It doesn't take other mammals two or three times as many calories as it takes us to gain a pound. >>>If you feel there's a contention I've made which isn't adequately >>>supported by all of this, tell me what it is. >> >>1. That some kinds of agriculture are "factory" and others aren't. > > I didn't say this, and I don't really think there's any serious > question about it. *I* think there's a serious question about it. Farming has always been a "factory" operation. The current (leftist) opposition to large-scale farming is based on opposition to free enterprise and technology. The animal rights argument is a veneer over the misanthropy of the activists opposing such farming practices. >>2. That the activists are correct that the exceptions are the rule. > > I didn't say this. You don't have to. I'm familiar with their claims. You've accepted their presentation as factual. It isn't. Look at the pics of the "factory" farms above and tell me how they square with the grotesque mental images the activists painted for you. > I've given you my references. They're not good references. > You tell me what's wrong with them. For starters, they're biased and polemic. They also portray the most egregious exceptions as the norm, rather than portraying the norm. That's because their goal is to get you to emote and take sides, not to give you an accurate picture. The accurate pictures are linked above. Go on, take a good look. >>3. That animals suffer inordinate abuse from modern farming methods. > > I believe this is supported by the evidence I've referred to. You've only told us that you've read activist literature. You have not supported anything with any evidence. Quote me Singer, I'll show you pictures. Quote me DeGrazia, I'll show you pictures. Quote me Robbins, and I'll give you links to information like that above showing that he's a complete fraud when it comes to issues relating to agriculture. >>4. That veganism causes less animals to die than any other diet. > > I didn't say this, I said it was one way to minimize your contribution > to animal suffering. Ipse dixit and unproven. > If you've got a suggestion for a better way, let's > hear it. Read my replies to your posts from yesterday. >>5. That the solution to all man's problems is based on meat. > > I didn't say this. You don't have to because the writers of all your "evidence" do. You really don't want to hang your philosophical hat on Singer's and DeGrazia's writings. >>I'll add more if I remember them later. >> >> >>>>But then, you should know that, since afterall, you did all that >>>>research, right killer? >>> >>>You really are quite bizarre. You think that somehow my claim to have >>>made an informed decision to become vegan entails that I should have >>>gone through all the Usenet archives to find out what arguments you >>>have offered in the past? If you want to convince me, just present me >>>with the arguments. >> >>I'm convinced your decision was uninformed: you read vegan/AR propaganda >>and swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. You never once sought out any >>other side of the story (much less the accurate one). Established. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rupert wrote:
>>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 sure as hell didn't demand any evidence from Singer, DeGrazia, et al, when reading their propaganda. You were gullible enough to believe them despite the following "evidence" of so-called "factory" farming: http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vetext...AN_PigFarm.gif http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/undergrad/ag_eng16.jpg http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/ga...es/hogfarm.jpg http://www.ams.usda.gov/contracting/contract4.jpg How do these pics jibe with how those activists describe such farms? |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. That's not evidence of anything except that I was correct in assessing you as a parrot of vegan/AR activists. >>>>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. Where? >>>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. Singer, DeGrazia, et al, are vegan/AR activists. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rupert wrote:
> Based on the references I gave elsewhere. Singer, DeGrazia, et al, are not references. They're activists. Their literature is propaganda. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rupert wrote:
<...> >>>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'm not interest in your faith and beliefs. > I have given my references elsewhere. Those aren't references. Those are activist books. Here's your evidence. Tell me how these pics compare to the polemical images painted by your activist sources: http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vetext...AN_PigFarm.gif http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/undergrad/ag_eng16.jpg http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/ga...es/hogfarm.jpg http://www.ams.usda.gov/contracting/contract4.jpg >>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) Well, dummy? Which of these facts of modern agriculture are congruent with your pseudo-philosophy? >>>>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 right. You don't give a rat's arse about rats or any other animals; you only care about animals when other people choose to eat them. >>>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 already have, and the gist of it's contained in the above paragraph. You bought into activist propaganda without seeing how much of it's even true. (None of 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. So you consider it more "necessary" to do the following to animals so you can have "vegan" meals than to humanely euthanize animals after testing medications which benefit both humans and other animals: 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) There are other ways of obtaining food without killing animals, including growing your own and foraging. There aren't many other ways of testing medications or procedures without killing animals. But thanks anyway for showing your true colors: you don't really object to harming animals, you only care that other people eat them or improve their lives through research. >>>>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. Ditch the lame excuses. Throw back small fish if you catch one. Catch and release works. http://www.catchandreleasefound.org/home.html Or if you don't want to go fishing yourself, you can purchase fish which is caught sustainably: http://www.seafoodchoices.com/newsle...eature.1.shtml http://www.ccchfa.org/ http://www.davesalbacore.com/ >>>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. You should stop doing that. You're wasting resources. From a recent post: ---- GLUTEN Average wheat flour contains about 13% protein, and gluten accounts for 80% of that. A pound of vital gluten, then, would require over 9.5 pounds of flour. It would then have to be hydrated if it were purchased already processed. Much of the weight of seitan is going to be water, but one uses a tremendous amount of water when washing out the starch to make seitan on one's own. No matter how you cut it, it's wasteful of grain and water resources and requires more water and grain per pound than a turkey would. See also: http://tinyurl.com/crax7 http://www.smallgrains.org/springwh/mar99/import.htm http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives...7736.Bc.r.html TOFU Tofu is mostly water. According to the following article, one pound of soybeans should yield 3.5-4 pounds of tofu. The recipe itself yields 22-26 ounces depending how much water is pressed out (soft vs firm). The weight of the water input is >13x the weight of the soybeans -- 11 cups of water is just over 2.6 liters, or 5.72 pounds of water by weight. A cup of soybeans weighs seven ounces -- less than 1/2 pound. Recipe: http://www.motherearthnews.com/libra...ctober/The_Boo... soybean volume:weight conversion: http://www.fareshare.net/conversions...to-weight.html ------ >>>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. You're an urbanite. >>>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. Matheny's article doesn't address that issue, and he concludes: The type of ruminant production Davis proposes is a world apart from the omnivorism prevalent in the United States. I, for one, would be delighted if U.S. animal agriculture would shift toward Davis’s proposed system, as *it would greatly improve the lives of farmed animals* now intensively confined. In fact, *even a shift from eating intensively-confined chicken to eating intensively-confined beef would be a vast improvement*. My emphasis. >>>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. Try again and this time try to answer the question I asked. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Derek wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 17:22:28 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>Derek wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 16:35:39 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>> >>> >>>>You've lost. >>>> >>>>I can type, and copy-and-paste, faster than you. >>> >>>Cripes! I guess that MUST mean I HAVE lost. >> >>It means you're going to lose this little time-wasting >>meaningless contest. > > > If Rupert and others can see by your quotes that > you've already conceded to the fact that a vegan > diet accrues less collateral deaths than a typical > meat-centric diet I don't care if he sees it or not. It's meaningless. He STILL isn't minimizing by ONLY refraining from eating meat; he's only causing fewer than the typical meat eater. But he *claims* to want to minimize. It's obvious he's trying only to establish some difference between himself and meat eaters. It's equally obvious that he was "vegan" *first*, and began seeking a rationale for it later. I don't think he'll stick around here long. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Derek" > wrote > 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, Better than a "typical" meat-inclusive diet, which is faint praise... It fails to be better "categorically*, and that's the problem. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 19:38:25 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 17:22:28 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>Derek wrote: >>>>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 16:35:39 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>> >>>>>You've lost. >>>>> >>>>>I can type, and copy-and-paste, faster than you. >>>> >>>>Cripes! I guess that MUST mean I HAVE lost. >>> >>>It means you're going to lose this little time-wasting >>>meaningless contest. >> >> If Rupert and others can see by your quotes that >> you've already conceded to the fact that a vegan >> diet accrues less collateral deaths than a typical >> meat-centric diet > >I don't care if he sees it or not. Yes, you do, because it crashes your little attack on him to the floor, hypocrite. Jeeze, can't you come up with something better than this stinking collateral death red herring? By your own hand a typical vegan diet accrues less than a typical meat-centric one, and we aren't to blame for them, so what possible use are they to your argument against vegans anyway? >I don't think he'll stick around here long. Probably not now I've shown him you've always been in complete agreement with him, time-waster. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Derek wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 19:38:25 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>Derek wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 17:22:28 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>> >>>>Derek wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 16:35:39 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>You've lost. >>>>>> >>>>>>I can type, and copy-and-paste, faster than you. >>>>> >>>>>Cripes! I guess that MUST mean I HAVE lost. >>>> >>>>It means you're going to lose this little time-wasting >>>>meaningless contest. >>> >>>If Rupert and others can see by your quotes that >>>you've already conceded to the fact that a vegan >>>diet accrues less collateral deaths than a typical >>>meat-centric diet >> >>I don't care if he sees it or not. > > > Yes, you do, No, I don't. I've fully addressed his nonsense claims. He is NOT minimizing, which is what he claims to be trying to do; I've shown that. He IS trying to claim a moral victory over meat eaters merely for "winning" a meaningless contest; I've made clear to him why the contest is meaningless in the context of establishing one's virtue. It was easy to concede that vegetarians "win" the meaningless counting game, Dreck, BECAUSE it is meaningless. Because I am honest, I would have admitted it anyway, but it was a minor concession in the circumstance. You're just going to have to accept it, ******: the counting game is meaningless, and it absolutely doesn't matter who "wins" it. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 21:59:51 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote: >> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 19:38:25 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>Derek wrote: >>>>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 17:22:28 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 16:35:39 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>You've lost. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I can type, and copy-and-paste, faster than you. >>>>>> >>>>>>Cripes! I guess that MUST mean I HAVE lost. >>>>> >>>>>It means you're going to lose this little time-wasting >>>>>meaningless contest. >>>> >>>>If Rupert and others can see by your quotes that >>>>you've already conceded to the fact that a vegan >>>>diet accrues less collateral deaths than a typical >>>>meat-centric diet >>> >>>I don't care if he sees it or not. >> >> Yes, you do, > >No, I don't. I've fully addressed his nonsense claims. By your own hand, his claim in that his diet typically accrues the least harm when compared to a typical meat-centric diet is established as true. > He is NOT minimizing, which is what he claims to be >trying to do; I've shown that. By abstaining from farmed meat, he does exactly what he tells you he's set out to do: reduce collateral deaths from what they would be if he followed a meat-centric diet. >He IS trying to claim a >moral victory over meat eaters merely for "winning" a >meaningless contest; I've made clear to him why the >contest is meaningless in the context of establishing >one's virtue. Then why haven't you discussed the two components required for measuring virtue, Jon? You attacked him. that's all. You haven't made any attempt to explain the meaning and tools required for measuring virtue. >It was easy to concede that vegetarians "win" the >meaningless counting game, Dreck, BECAUSE it is >meaningless. Because I am honest, I would have >admitted it anyway, but it was a minor concession in >the circumstance. > >You're just going to have to accept it, ******: the >counting game is meaningless, and it absolutely doesn't >matter who "wins" it. I agree. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Derek" > wrote > On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:37:07 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: [..] >>The counting game is INVALID as a basis for claiming >>virtue. > > That may be so if argued correctly... What nonsense, the truth of something does not depend on how it's argued. This shows up in your claim that you are not complicit in the deaths of animals in agriculture and medicine. You lack a basic understanding of reality. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 15:19:22 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote >> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:37:07 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >[..] >>>The counting game is INVALID as a basis for claiming >>>virtue. >> >> That may be so if argued correctly... > >What nonsense Dutch, take it from me that virtue cannot be measured by comparing yourself to others or counting another's bad actions. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Derek wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 21:59:51 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: > >>Derek wrote: >> >>>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 19:38:25 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>> >>>>Derek wrote: >>>> >>>>>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 17:22:28 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Derek wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 16:35:39 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>You've lost. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I can type, and copy-and-paste, faster than you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Cripes! I guess that MUST mean I HAVE lost. >>>>>> >>>>>>It means you're going to lose this little time-wasting >>>>>>meaningless contest. >>>>> >>>>>If Rupert and others can see by your quotes that >>>>>you've already conceded to the fact that a vegan >>>>>diet accrues less collateral deaths than a typical >>>>>meat-centric diet >>>> >>>>I don't care if he sees it or not. >>> >>>Yes, you do, >> >>No, I don't. I've fully addressed his nonsense claims. > > > By your own hand, By my own hand, Dreck, I addressed and dismissed his false claim that he attains a death-minimizing diet merely by refraining from eating meat. He does not minimize animal death merely by refraining from eating meat. That's settled. >> He is NOT minimizing, which is what he claims to be >>trying to do; I've shown that. > > > By abstaining from farmed meat, he doesn't minimize. > >>He IS trying to claim a >>moral victory over meat eaters merely for "winning" a >>meaningless contest; I've made clear to him why the >>contest is meaningless in the context of establishing >>one's virtue. > > > Then why haven't you discussed the two components > required for measuring virtue I'm not interested in telling him how to attain virtue. I'm only interested in telling him that his current PHONY POSE is not one of virtue. I have told him, correctly, that virtue is *never* measured by means of invidious comparisons with others, and that it *is* attained through adherence to valid moral principles. He isn't adhering to any principles at all. He claims that his adoption of the ****witted "vegan" rule, "do not consume animal parts", is motivated by a principle of minimizing harm; but we see that the rule has NOTHING TO DO with minimizing harm. You are DONE, Dreck. You cannot show any error I've made in the analysis. All you can do is keep bringing up irrelevancies. You, you stupid crippled ****, think that "winning" the counting game *does* have meaning. I have shown you conclusively and irrefutably that, in matters of morality, it has no meaning. You're done. >>It was easy to concede that vegetarians "win" the >>meaningless counting game, Dreck, BECAUSE it is >>meaningless. Because I am honest, I would have >>admitted it anyway, but it was a minor concession in >>the circumstance. >> >>You're just going to have to accept it, ******: the >>counting game is meaningless, and it absolutely doesn't >>matter who "wins" it. > > > I agree. No, you don't. Stop lying. You think that winning it is *everything*. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
Derek wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 15:19:22 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: > >>"Derek" > wrote >> >>>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:37:07 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> >>[..] >> >>>>The counting game is INVALID as a basis for claiming >>>>virtue. >>> >>>That may be so if argued correctly... >> >>What nonsense > > > Dutch, take it from me that virtue cannot be measured > by comparing yourself to others or counting another's > bad actions. Sleazy and dishonest, Dreck. He wasn't arguing that virtue *can* be determined by a comparison; he was arguing with your claim that the truth of *my* claim depends on how I argue it. I suspect you knew that, and were just bored with staring at your blue foot, so decided to write some shit. |
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Derek" > wrote > On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 15:19:22 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote: >>"Derek" > wrote >>> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 14:37:07 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote: >> >>[..] >>>>The counting game is INVALID as a basis for claiming >>>>virtue. >>> >>> That may be so if argued correctly... >> >>What nonsense > > Dutch, take it from me that virtue cannot be measured > by comparing yourself to others or counting another's > bad actions. What a bozo. Take it from YOU!?! You have got to be kidding me. This deserves to be unsipped... What nonsense, the truth of something does not depend on how it's argued. This shows up in your claim that you are not complicit in the deaths of animals in agriculture and medicine. You lack a basic understanding of reality. You think that whether or not something is valid or invalid, true or not true, depends on whether or not it's "argued correctly". You need a crash course in basic philosophy. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| US vegan population doubles in only two years - Harris Interactive study | Vegan | |||
| U.S. vegan population doubles in only two years! | Vegan | |||
| New Years Day Black Eyed Peas and Greens | General Cooking | |||
| Black Eyed Peas for New Years - Hopping John | Diabetic | |||
| 50 Years Later... ...black children are still choosing the white doll. | General Cooking | |||
Linear Mode
