"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
link.net...
> 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.

He probably knows he was caught being an idiot, but as
always he will obfuscate endlessly now rather just admit
he ****ed up.

Dutch wrote:

> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>
>>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.
>
>
> He probably knows he was caught being an idiot, but as
> always he will obfuscate endlessly now rather just admit
> he ****ed up.

I think he was just taking a shit rather than ****ing
up, but he won't admit to that, either.

"Derek" > wrote

> Then let's get on with the issue being raised here,
> namely, that Rupert's diet accrues less harm than
> a meat-centred diet.

Let's hear it for the new vegan mantra...

"We're killers too but we kill fewer animals than most of you *******s!"

Yea, catchy, I like it!

"Derek" > wrote

> You lose, Jon, while all vegans win.

Sure you win, provided you're happy with, "I am a less of a killer than most
meat-eaters."

That's really going to catch on, I mean it. Honesty in marketing, what a
concept!

"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?

Meat-eaters didn't start the counting game, vegans start
it by announcing the imaginary zero. We tell you that
the zero is a big lie, and you start scrambling.

> >He's not trying to minimize at all.
>
> He says he is, and you have no rational reason
> to reject that claim.

He accepts pro-vegan arguments without question and
rejects all reasonable suggestions that meat *may* help
minimize animal deaths. He also does nothing else except
abstain from animal "products", never a product like
cotton which causes many animal deaths. This shows
clearly that, like all vegans, it's all about removing the
evidence.

You always lose crip, you always will.

Dutch wrote:

> "Derek" > wrote
>
>
>>You lose, Jon, while all vegans win.
>
>
> Sure you win, provided you're happy with, "I am a less of a killer than most
> meat-eaters."
>
> That's really going to catch on, I mean it. Honesty in marketing, what a
> concept!

They "win" something utterly meaningless, as Dreck has
even acknowledged.

Dreck spent hours today dredging up quotes where I
acknowledged a couple of minor things that, for some
weird reason, makes "vegans" cream in their jeans.

First is my acknowledgement that they "win" the
meaningless counting game, an empty victory that is
completely unrelated to their wish to appear "more moral".

The other is the equally meaningless concession that
less land would be needed overall to feed the U.S. (and
any other developed nation) if no livestock were
raised. That one is meaningless because getting
food-producing land down to the smallest possible
physical amount of land is morally meaningless.

Dreck doesn't have anything in his life except his
excruciating back, his blue foot and now a couple of
meaningless rhetorical victories. It really blows to
be Dreck.

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote
> 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.

*Even if* we agree to play this cheesy, fallback
"comparative virtue" numbers game, "veganism"
does not live up to it's self-image as the lifestyle
"most free of animal suffering". When cds are
considered, clearly many non-vegans do better
than vegans. I'm waiting patiently for the day
when just one of them admits that.


> **** off, you dole-scounging, cat-killing shitbag.

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Dutch wrote:
>
>> "Derek" > wrote
>>
>>
>>>You lose, Jon, while all vegans win.
>>
>>
>> Sure you win, provided you're happy with, "I am a less of a killer than
>> most meat-eaters."
>>
>> That's really going to catch on, I mean it. Honesty in marketing, what a
>> concept!
>
> They "win" something utterly meaningless, as Dreck has even acknowledged.

At least it's an honest claim, something hard to find in a vegan
unless they are uncovering some seamy aspect of the meat
industry, nah not then either...

> Dreck spent hours today dredging up quotes where I acknowledged a couple
> of minor things that, for some weird reason, makes "vegans" cream in their
> jeans.
>
> First is my acknowledgement that they "win" the meaningless counting game,
> an empty victory that is completely unrelated to their wish to appear
> "more moral".

They only win *usually*, given typical meat-eaters and typical
or better vegans. That isn't good enough for them though, in
order to maintain some vestige of their illusion of moral superiority
they must convince themselves that they win by definition.

> The other is the equally meaningless concession that less land would be
> needed overall to feed the U.S. (and any other developed nation) if no
> livestock were raised. That one is meaningless because getting
> food-producing land down to the smallest possible physical amount of land
> is morally meaningless.
>
> Dreck doesn't have anything in his life except his excruciating back, his
> blue foot and now a couple of meaningless rhetorical victories. It really
> blows to be Dreck.

Dutch wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>
>>Dutch wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Derek" > wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>You lose, Jon, while all vegans win.
>>>
>>>
>>>Sure you win, provided you're happy with, "I am a less of a killer than
>>>most meat-eaters."
>>>
>>>That's really going to catch on, I mean it. Honesty in marketing, what a
>>>concept!
>>
>>They "win" something utterly meaningless, as Dreck has even acknowledged.
>
>
> At least it's an honest claim, something hard to find in a vegan
> unless they are uncovering some seamy aspect of the meat
> industry, nah not then either...
>
>
>>Dreck spent hours today dredging up quotes where I acknowledged a couple
>>of minor things that, for some weird reason, makes "vegans" cream in their
>>jeans.
>>
>>First is my acknowledgement that they "win" the meaningless counting game,
>>an empty victory that is completely unrelated to their wish to appear
>>"more moral".
>
>
> They only win *usually*, given typical meat-eaters and typical
> or better vegans.

That's how I put it, too. Nonetheless, Dreck thinks
it's a great victory for him that I "admitted" it, as
if a) it was some difficult extraction, and b) it has
any real meaning. a) and b) both are false.

> That isn't good enough for them though, in
> order to maintain some vestige of their illusion of moral superiority
> they must convince themselves that they win by definition.
>
>
>>The other is the equally meaningless concession that less land would be
>>needed overall to feed the U.S. (and any other developed nation) if no
>>livestock were raised. That one is meaningless because getting
>>food-producing land down to the smallest possible physical amount of land
>>is morally meaningless.
>>
>>Dreck doesn't have anything in his life except his excruciating back, his
>>blue foot and now a couple of meaningless rhetorical victories. It really
>>blows to be Dreck.
>
>
>

Found scrawled in the outhouse on 23 Jun 2005 19:14:30 -0700, "Rupert"
> wrote:

>
>
>Leslie wrote:
>> Found scrawled in the outhouse on Thu, 23 Jun 2005 01:25:13 GMT, Rudy Canoza
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Rupert wrote:
<snip>
>> 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.
>>
<snip>
>
>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.

No Rupert, it's not. It is not reasonable to believe that the collateral deaths
associated with plant production, as I demonstrated in my soybean field example,
*minimizes* your contribution to animal suffering. How does slow death, crushing,
drowning, burning, poisonings leading to cancers and sterility, etc. minimize suffering?
None of this is suffered by commercial livestock and certainly not suffered by privately
grazed livestock, like you might have if you *accepted*, much less followed my very small,
personal farm suggestion.

Try to remember, YOU asked for alternatives.

> If you have any other
>suggestions, I'd be happy to hear them.
>
You know, I really doubt that. You have been offered many here but you choose to cling to
activist propaganda to support your personal desire to be a vegan. Fine. Be one. But stop
posturing about *wanting* to minimize animal suffering, while remaining a vegan who
cannot/will not raise his own crops. That would be the only way YOU could insure, as you
walked the rows or cared for the livestock, that YOU were actually minimizing your vegan
contribution to collateral deaths.

For you to be honest about all this might take a government requirement on the bread loaf
label stating, in addition to calories and carbs, approximately how many collateral deaths
occurred in the manufacture of that loaf. That is as ridiculous a scenario as your
posturing is.

Jeers 2 U,

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

On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 01:04:37 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Dutch wrote:
>> "Derek" > wrote
>>
>>>You lose, Jon, while all vegans win.
>>
>> Sure you win, provided you're happy with, "I am a less of a killer than most
>> meat-eaters."
>>
>> That's really going to catch on, I mean it. Honesty in marketing, what a
>> concept!
>
>They "win" something utterly meaningless, as Dreck has
>even acknowledged.

It isn't meaningless to those whom you try to
convince aren't abiding by their stated principle
to cause less harm. According to you, they do,
so you have no room to criticise them.

>Dreck spent hours today dredging up quotes where I
>acknowledged a couple of minor things

Your quotes which concede the fact that vegans
generally cause less collateral damage compared
to a meat eater aren't minor things, Jon, especially
when we all see you trying to convince them of
something to the contrary.

"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

>First is my acknowledgement that they "win" the
>meaningless counting game, an empty victory

A complete victory and utter defeat over you while
trying to assert they cause more, as I've seen you
try.

On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 22:47:53 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>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

.... you have given vegans the World over, including
Rupert, every good reason to believe that the lifestyle
they choose to follow reduces collateral deaths from
they would be if following a meat-centric diet. Way
to go, 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

Derek wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 01:04:37 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>>Dutch wrote:
>>
>>>"Derek" > wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>You lose, Jon, while all vegans win.
>>>
>>>Sure you win, provided you're happy with, "I am a less of a killer than most
>>>meat-eaters."
>>>
>>>That's really going to catch on, I mean it. Honesty in marketing, what a
>>>concept!
>>
>>They "win" something utterly meaningless, as Dreck has
>>even acknowledged.
>
>
> It isn't meaningless

It is meaningless. They aren't minimizing, which is
what they all claim to be doing.


>>Dreck spent hours today dredging up quotes where I
>>acknowledged a couple of minor things
>
>
> Your quotes

Conceded a coupe of minor points.

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

> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 22:47:53 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dreck sobered up enough to write:
>>
>>>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 21:59:51 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dreck sobered up enough to write:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 19:38:25 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dreck sobered up enough to write:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 17:22:28 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dreck sobered up enough to write:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>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
>
>
> ... you have given vegans the World over

an ass-kicking.

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 12:45:27 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 22:47:53 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>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
>>
>> ... you have given vegans the World over
>
>an

.... awful lot of damn good reasons for continuing
as they are, safe in the knowledge that they're
abiding by their stated principle to opt for a lifestyle
that accrues the least harm, so thanks for that.

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

> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 12:45:27 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>
>>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dreck sobered up enough to write:
>>
>>>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 22:47:53 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dreck sobered up enough to write:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 21:59:51 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dreck sobered up enough to write:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 19:38:25 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dreck sobered up enough to write:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 17:22:28 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Claire's fat crippled Uncle Dreck sobered up enough to write:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>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
>>>
>>>... you have given vegans the World over
>>

an ass-kicking.

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 12:43:24 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 01:04:37 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>Dutch wrote:
>>>>"Derek" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>>You lose, Jon, while all vegans win.
>>>>
>>>>Sure you win, provided you're happy with, "I am a less of a killer than most
>>>>meat-eaters."
>>>>
>>>>That's really going to catch on, I mean it. Honesty in marketing, what a
>>>>concept!
>>>
>>>They "win" something utterly meaningless, as Dreck has
>>>even acknowledged.
>>
>> It isn't meaningless
>
>It is meaningless.

Not to those who feel morally obligated to follow
a diet which accrues the least harm, it isn't. Not
by a long chalk.

>They aren't minimizing, which is
>what they all claim to be doing.

You've conceded that they win the counting game,
which necessarily means they are minimizing, by
definition.

>>>Dreck spent hours today dredging up quotes where I
>>>acknowledged a couple of minor things
>>
>> Your quotes
>
>Conceded a coupe of minor points.

... and illustrates that your attack on vegans is
bogus. In short, because you are, you now have
no valid argument and you cannot continue to
insist that the vegan doesn't abide by his stated
principle to opt for a diet which accrues the least
harm.

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 12:56:30 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 12:45:27 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>Derek wrote:
>>>>On Fri, 24 Jun 2005 22:47:53 GMT, Rudy Canoza > wrote:
>>>>>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 wroteerek 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
>>>>
>>>>... you have given vegans the World over
>
>an ass-kicking.

If conceding EVERTHING is giving your opponent
an arse-kicking, then you're seriously deluding your-
self. 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.

On 6/21/2005 5:02 AM, wrote:
> The main point of veganism is to boycott factory-farming, which causes
> animals to lead miserable lives.

That's a lie. It's two lies. It is a lie that the main point - or any
point at all - of "veganism" (always put it in quotes) is to boycott
so-called "factory farming", because you can quite easily abstain from
animal products originating from so-called "factory farms" while still
consuming meat and other animal products. And it is another lie that
animals on so-called "factory farms" categorically lead miserable lives.

"veganism" is predicated on lies.

On 6/24/2005 11:44 AM, usual suspect wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
>> Based on the references I gave elsewhere.
>
> Singer, DeGrazia, et al, are not references. They're activists. Their
> literature is propaganda.

Correct.

On 6/24/2005 11:26 AM, usual suspect wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
>>>>> You already claimed to have done that research. You provide your
>>>>> data, killer.
>>>>> see below...
>>>>
>>>> No, I didn't. I claimed to have read some information about intensive
>>>> rearing of animals.
>>>
>>> From activists.
>
> Established.

Yes.

>
>>>> "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

Unfortunately, these are all dead links now. I remember them as being
excellent when they still worked.

>
> 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.

Correct.

>>>> 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).

Wobbly Woopert is still beating that busted "efficiency" drum.


> 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:

I think that dumb **** Lesley Simon managed to fabulize a number closer
to 50 pounds.

>
> 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.

Correct.

>
>>> 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.

They're not references at all.

>> 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.

Correct.

> 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.

Correct.

On 6/22/2005 2:49 AM, 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's a bullshit venomous pejorative. It's also irrelevant to the
discussion, because you are lying about the "main point" of "veganism."

On 6/22/2005 3:03 AM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> > wrote
>>> The main point of veganism is to boycott factory-farming, which causes
>>> animals to lead miserable lives.
>>
>> That's a lie, vegans boycott ALL forms of animal products,
>> not only "factory farmed" meat.
>>
>
> It's not a lie.

Yes, it's a lie.

> Most animal products are the product of factory farming.

No, quite a lot of animal products are *not* from so-called "factory
farms" (a bullshit inflammatory pejorative.) "vegans" - fanatical
zealots one and all - won't consume any of them.

"vegans" believe, irrationally, that consuming animal-derived products
is wrong /per se/, not just those that originate in so-called "factory
farms."

Stop lying about this.

On 6/22/2005 4:25 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> "Rupert" > wrote
>>
>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>> > wrote
>>>>> The main point of veganism is to boycott factory-farming, which causes
>>>>> animals to lead miserable lives.
>>>>
>>>> That's a lie, vegans boycott ALL forms of animal products,
>>>> not only "factory farmed" meat.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's not a lie.
>>
>> Yes, it is.
>>
>
> No, it's not. I didn't say vegans only boycott factory farm produce. I
> said the main point of veganism was to boycott factory farm produce.

Which is a lie. We know it's a lie because "vegans" won't eat any meat
at all, from any kind of farm or from hunting and fishing. The main
point of "veganism" is to fashion a moral pose based on what they don't
consume. That's the *only* point.

On 6/22/2005 7:07 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>>> The main point of veganism is to boycott factory-farming, which causes
>>> animals to lead miserable lives.
>>>
>>> The animals who live on factory farms have to be fed with plant
>>> products, the production of which will cause the death of wildlife.
>>> Animal products are an inefficient use of land,
>>
>> False. You have no useful definition of efficiency to
>> support that claim. It's purely a value judgment, not
>> a reasoned finding.
>>
>
> Well, more land is required to produce a given quantity of animal
> protein than same quantity of plant protein.

Irrelevant. More raw materials, more labor and more design effort are
required to produce a Mercedes-Benz S63 AMG sedan ($144,700 MSRP in USA)
than a Nissan Versa ($11,990 MSRP), even though both are four-door
sedans that will transport four or five adults from Point A to Point B.

Minimizing physical resource use is not the goal. It is not anyone's
goal. Minimizing resource use for a given amount of value (including
quality) is the goal. A M-B S63 AMG sedan will always require more
resources to produce than a Nissan Versa. That isn't a bad thing. It
has no meaning at all, in fact.

On 6/22/2005 7:05 PM, 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.

Which is a false claim. You *don't* contribute as little as possible.
All you do is refrain from animal products. We have established beyond
dispute:

1. *Some* consumption pattern that includes animal products will cause
less harm than your current one that doesn't.

2. Some consumption pattern that does not include animal products is
superior to yours in terms of causing less harm to animals.

You do not contribute "as little as possible" to the death and suffering
of animals. Stop repeating that lie.

>> 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 no idea.

> I'm always happy to find out more, and to hear
> suggestions for how I can further reduce my contribution to animal
> suffering.

There's that disgusting "ar" passivity again. Why are you waiting for
suggestions from omnivores (your moral superiors)? Why aren't you
investigating this yourself? the answer is that you don't care. The
whole point of "veganism" is not to "minimize" harm to animals. The
point is to do *one* highly visible and purely symbolic gesture to draw
a distinction between you and people whom you demonize. It's to try to
present yourself on a pedestal of moral superiority, as cheaply as you
possibly can, using a bogus criterion. Smugly smirking "I never eat
anything with a face!" is cheap and easy. Some digging and research in
order to minimize - *really* minimize - is much harder and yields *no*
payoff in terms of your real goal: contrasting yourself with people
whom you began by demonizing.

>>>>> 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 it's hard to avoid
> using vague words altogether, language being what it is. 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.

You just admitted that your moral "principles" are not principles at
all. Rather, they are cunningly crafted statements intended to secure
your position atop your phony moral pedestal.

On 6/22/2005 9:42 PM, Rupert wrote:
>
>
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The main point of veganism is to boycott factory-farming, which causes
>>>>> animals to lead miserable lives.
>>>>>
>>>>> The animals who live on factory farms have to be fed with plant
>>>>> products, the production of which will cause the death of wildlife.
>>>>> Animal products are an inefficient use of land,
>>>>
>>>> False. You have no useful definition of efficiency to
>>>> support that claim. It's purely a value judgment, not
>>>> a reasoned finding.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, more land is required to produce a given quantity of animal
>>> protein than same quantity of plant protein.
>>
>> So what? Minimizing land use per unit of nutrient
>> produced is not the measure of efficiency at all.
>> We're talking, or should be, about *economic*
>> efficiency of resource use, not physical efficiency.
>>
>
> Why?

Answered.

On 6/23/2005 7:27 PM, Rupert wrote:
> Based on the references I gave elsewhere.

No references; only "ar" propaganda.

On 6/21/2005 5:02 AM, wrote:
> The main point of veganism is to boycott factory-farming, which causes
> animals to lead miserable lives.

That's a lie. Stop repeating it. Lying is wrong.

On 6/12/2005 2:39 PM, Tidal Wave wrote:
> [...]

In 2005, it may have been true that "'vegan' is the new Black."

A more apt comparison today would be, "'vegan' is the new LGBT." The
most essential thing in regressive "progressivism" is the insane and
toxic focus on minority identity. "vegans" absolutely celebrate and
revel in their status as a put-upon minority.

Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> On 6/12/2005 2:39 PM, Tidal Wave wrote:
>> [...]
>
> In 2005, it may have been true that "'vegan' is the new Black."
>
> A more apt comparison today would be, "'vegan' is the new LGBT." The
> most essential thing in regressive "progressivism" is the insane and
> toxic focus on minority identity. "vegans" absolutely celebrate and
> revel in their status as a put-upon minority.

That's not surprising.

Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> On 6/22/2005 4:25 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>> Dutch wrote:
>>> "Rupert" > wrote
>>>
>>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>>> > wrote
>>>>>> The main point of veganism is to boycott factory-farming, which causes
>>>>>> animals to lead miserable lives.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a lie, vegans boycott ALL forms of animal products,
>>>>> not only "factory farmed" meat.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's not a lie.
>>>
>>> Yes, it is.
>>>
>>
>> No, it's not. I didn't say vegans only boycott factory farm produce. I
>> said the main point of veganism was to boycott factory farm produce.
>
> Which is a lie. We know it's a lie because "vegans" won't eat any meat
> at all, from any kind of farm or from hunting and fishing. The main
> point of "veganism" is to fashion a moral pose based on what they don't
> consume. That's the *only* point.

And that too is obvious now that you've pointed it out.

Rudy Canoza > wrote:
> On 6/22/2005 7:07 PM, Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The main point of veganism is to boycott factory-farming, which causes
>>>> animals to lead miserable lives.
>>>>
>>>> The animals who live on factory farms have to be fed with plant
>>>> products, the production of which will cause the death of wildlife.
>>>> Animal products are an inefficient use of land,
>>>
>>> False. You have no useful definition of efficiency to
>>> support that claim. It's purely a value judgment, not
>>> a reasoned finding.
>>>
>>
>> Well, more land is required to produce a given quantity of animal
>> protein than same quantity of plant protein.
>
> Irrelevant. More raw materials, more labor and more design effort are
> required to produce a Mercedes-Benz S63 AMG sedan ($144,700 MSRP in USA)
> than a Nissan Versa ($11,990 MSRP), even though both are four-door sedans
> that will transport four or five adults from Point A to Point B.
>
> Minimizing physical resource use is not the goal. It is not anyone's
> goal. Minimizing resource use for a given amount of value (including
> quality) is the goal. A M-B S63 AMG sedan will always require more
> resources to produce than a Nissan Versa. That isn't a bad thing. It
> has no meaning at all, in fact.

I've never heard that argument before, but it's obviously true. Thank you.