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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #61 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-06-2005, 08:36 AM
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Leslie" wrote in message
news
Found scrawled in the outhouse on Wed, 22 Jun 2005 15:00:08 -0700, "Dutch"

wrote:

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

snip

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

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

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

snip

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

Thanks Dutch. What are your row crops? Soybeans really are up, but you
probably watch the
market. The most comforting thought is that all the stupid vegans will go
sterile from the
soy chemicals and we won't have to listen to them whine anymore.


Durham wheat, 50/50 summer fallow.



  #62 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-06-2005, 03:32 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:
The main point of veganism is to boycott factory-farming,


No, it is not.


The word vegan (pronounced vee-gun, sometimes mispronounced
vay-gun) was originally derived from vegetarian in 1944 when
Elsie Shrigley and Donald Watson, frustrated that the term
"vegetarianism" had come to include the eating of dairy
products, founded the UK Vegan Society. The word starts and ends
with the first three and last two letters of vegetarian,
representing that veganism begins with vegetarianism and then
takes it to its logical conclusion. Therefore the term vegan was
originally coined to differentiate those vegetarians who
(primarily for ethical or environmental reasons) sought to
eliminate all animal products in all areas of their lives from
those who simply avoided eating meat. A few vegans see use of
the word as a noun as offensive, and prefer to be referred to
using the adjectival form; they think that "he is a vegan" is
wrong, but "he or she is a vegan person" is correct.

Those who are vegans for ethical reasons today generally oppose
the violence and cruelty they see as involved in the (non-vegan)
food, clothing and other industries. By extension, cruelty and
exploitation are ideally avoided in all human activities and
relationships between humans as well as with non-human animals.
Though vegans are often accused of placing more importance on
non-human animals than on their fellow humans, most vegans are
aware of human rights issues and seek to avoid companies and
organizations that exploit others and to be "ethical consumers";
many find themselves becoming increasingly active in the fight
for human rights as a direct result of embracing veganism.
Animal products such as leather, silk or wool are avoided. Soap
must be made of vegetable oil instead of animal. Toothpaste and
hair products, etc., must not be tested by animal experiments
such as the Draize or the LD50 tests.

The group argued that the elimination of exploitation of
any kind was necessary in order to bring about a more
reasonable and humane society. From its inception,
veganism was defined as a "philosophy" and "way of
living." It was never intended to be merely a diet and,
still today, describes a lifestyle and belief system
that revolves around a reverence for life. - Joanne
Stepaniak (author of The Vegan Sourcebook).

http://www.answers.com/topic/vegan

which causes
animals to lead miserable lives.


So do combines, tractors, plows, and other implements of death, I mean
agriculture, but you continue to eat foods which cause deaths in such
horrendous fashion.

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


Can you eat and digest grass?

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


Try eating hay lately, numbnuts?

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


No, it isn't. The author doesn't address the substance of Davis' thesis,
but only moves goalposts (e.g., changing the subject from animal deaths
to conditions in which animals are raised) and interjects a completely
irrelevant issue (i.e., animals "prevented from existing") while ceding
via his argument that animal deaths should be reported per capita rather
than aggregately that he and his fellow vegans DO kill animals. Davis'
thesis remains intact.
  #63 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-06-2005, 03:45 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


=======================
Problem for you is that vegans support massive fatory-farms,
fool. All mono-cultue crop production is factory-farming, and it
kills large numbers of animals, directly and indirectly. The
only problem I see with Davis is that he only counts animals that
are killed directly by crop farming. Your problem is that many
more animals die per acre than are killed by machinery
operations. Many more die at the end of the season from
stavation and predation, because YOU forced their numbers to an
unnaturally high level because of all the easy food and cover.
You then take it all away when their numbers are the greatest,
leaving them with nothing, killer. Too bad you're such a
blood-thirsty ghoul, eh fool?


I think you'll find "factory-farming" usually refers to the intensive
rearing of animals.


Your little pejorative fits *all* farming methods. Agriculture is an
industry just like any other. It uses raw materials and has a variety of
finished goods. The people who engage in the agriculture industry profit
from it, the same as any other industry (including the one in which
you're employed or studying to be employed).

Have you got a justification for calling
mono-culture crop production "factory-farming"?


Have you ANY idea how crops are grown? They're planted on schedule.
Watered on scheduled. Poisoned (pesticides, herbicides) on schedule.
Harvested on schedule. Just like a factory.

Anyway, it's all very well to abuse me for supporting these practices,


At least you realize you're a hypocrite.

but you don't offer any serious alternative to doing so.


1. Grow your own food in a manner consistent with your pseudo-values.
2. Hire farmers to hand sow and harvest your food. Keep in mind that
manual labor is costly and it has to be worth the farmer's time.
3. Forage. There are many sources for information about urban and rural
foraging online and elsewhere.

Is that a good enough start?
  #64 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-06-2005, 03:54 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


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


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


No, it's simplistic and emotive. See my previous post to you.

It doesn't matter
very much what it actually refers to,


Because it's so emotive; that's it's only value.

I was just surprised that he
thought this was a correct application of the word.


It is.

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


What's more likely to cause the most suffering:
1. Internal bleeding from poisoning (pesticides, herbicides)
2. Being run over by a tractor
3. Being crushed by a plow
4. Being sliced and diced by various tractor implements
5. Drowning (from irrigation)
6. Suffocation (which happens to aquatic life when rice fields are drained)
7. Being burned alive (straw is often burned after harvest)

You object to animals being killed when they'll be eaten. You probably
don't mind that many more animals rot in fields after being killed by
the means listed above or are left vulnerable to predation because their
cover (plant crops) has been removed at harvest.

The difference between the two kinds of animal death is this: a steer
killed for meals has enough meat for thousands of meals while thousands
of animals die just to produce your grains and legumes and produce. So
on the one hand, someone will eat a fraction of an animal while you
contribute to thousands of animal deaths with each meal. Oh yeah, you
also smugly pat yourself on the back for not eating any of them.

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


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


I'm sorry,


You should be, you wanton animal killer.
  #65 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-06-2005, 03:57 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

=======================
Problem for you is that vegans support massive fatory-farms,
fool. All mono-cultue crop production is factory-farming, and
it
kills large numbers of animals, directly and indirectly. The
only problem I see with Davis is that he only counts animals
that
are killed directly by crop farming. Your problem is that
many
more animals die per acre than are killed by machinery
operations. Many more die at the end of the season from
stavation and predation, because YOU forced their numbers to
an
unnaturally high level because of all the easy food and cover.
You then take it all away when their numbers are the greatest,
leaving them with nothing, killer. Too bad you're such a
blood-thirsty ghoul, eh fool?



I think you'll find "factory-farming" usually refers to the
intensive
rearing of animals.


====================
Only because you wish it to be.


Ah no, actually I think it's a simple fact about the correct usage of
words. But I could be wrong.


You are.

The fact remains that crop
production causes massive, very brutal, very inhumane deaths to
animals.


I think on any reasonable assessment,


Based on what? Have you ever visited any livestock operation, either
intensive or small-scale?

they're not nearly as inhumane as
what is inflicted on animals by the factory-farming that I was talking
about.


Based on what? Where have you learned so much about farming, much less
"factory" farming?


  #66 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-06-2005, 04:08 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


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


It's not a lie.


Yes, it is -- that or else your definition of "vegan" is severely deficient.

Most animal products are the product of factory farming.


So is most produce, and nearly all grains (save for maybe hand-harvested
wild rice).

It is of
course true that by definition vegans boycott all animal products; my
point was simply that the main part of the case for veganism is the
case for boycotting factory-farm produce.


That is NOT the "main part" of veganism. See previous post for
explanation of vegan history and what the word means.

That gets you to
near-veganism.


Not even close.

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


You're spinning, and very uneffectively.

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


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


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


That's a weak defense for reasons mentioned in one of my previous
replies to you.

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


No, it doesn't. The usual moral defence of veganism is that it is the
best way to minimize one's contribution to animal suffering.


It's an unfounded claim. Veganism is based on a logical fallacy called
"denying the antecedent." In a nutshell, you claim that you're not
causing harm to animals because you don't eat meat. The truth, though,
is that your diet contains foods which are grown in a manner which does
kill animals, and in staggering numbers.

Nothing you have said disproves that.


Nothing you've written has *proven* it, either, and that's where this
debate starts and ends.

Animal products are an inefficient use of land,


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


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


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


So what?


So more animals would die. Do you consider a mouse's life to be as
sacred as a cow's?

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

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


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


Would you care to elaborate on your critique of it?


I did so in a post to Derek earlier this morning, in reference to a few
of the points Matheny tries to make. The thread is "Ping Skanky: WHAT
valid arguments?"

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



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


On what basis, ignoring the harm done to animals in the production of
their food but which will never appear on their plates? That's not
exactly a solid basis for ethics, especially the absolutist ones made by
vegans.

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


Nor have you given anyone a reason to accept your peculiar belief.
  #67 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-06-2005, 04:36 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


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

Perhaps (1) is false when we take into account all the animals killed
by the plant production necessitated by animal food production.


Don't engage in _tu quoque_ if you want to claim that one diet is
ethical or even more ethical compared to others.

But it's not false if we're only talking about the amount of plant
production that would be necessary to support universal veganism.


Have you studied food science or agriculture? I'm curious how you know
so much about how many vegans the earth can support, etc.

Anyway, (1) would be true regardless of how many vegans there are
because we would still farm using pesticides (organic production also
uses pesticides, so don't try to pull any BS about it) and mechanized
equipment -- and on a larger scale.

Davis estimates the death toll at 1.8 billion. More animals than that are
killed in animal food production. And each animal suffers considerably
more.


Being fed, given clean water, and watched closely for sound health is
suffering? Do you think that list in my previous post is more "humane"
treatment?
1. Internal bleeding from poisoning (pesticides, herbicides)
2. Being run over by a tractor
3. Being crushed by a plow
4. Being sliced and diced by various tractor implements
5. Drowning (from irrigation)
6. Suffocation (which happens to aquatic life when rice fields are drained)
7. Being burned alive (straw is often burned after harvest)

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


That's not a very reasonable interpretation of my argument.


I think it's quite a reasonable interpretation of your argument.

I believe
that, on any reasonable interpretation of this principle, this will
require veganism or near-veganism.


Funny that. You take an animal rights activist's ideas to heart and then
justify veganism accordingly. That doesn't show much thought on your
part, but the world does need followers.

It's not altogether clear to me that
it requires me to stop supporting commercial agriculture.


You summarized DaGrazia thusly:

Make every reasonable effort to avoid providing financial
support to practices that cause or support unnecessary harm.

Let me ask you which YOU consider more "necessary" between advancing
medicine through vivisection and running over animals with combines,
poisoning them, etc.

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


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


No, it doesn't. One large fish provides many meals. Catch your own and
there's no bycatch.

I would want to see some more evidence that fishing will do any good.


Meat from a 20-pound fish will dress out at about half that, providing
ten pounds of meat. At a quarter pound per serving, you have 40 meals'
worth of fish. One dead fish, 40 meals.

How many animals die so you can have rice and beans? Better yet, tell us
if you eat any of the fake meat products made from soy and/or gluten.

And one problem with hunting is that not all of the animals are killed,
some of them are just seriously maimed.


Then practice your shot before you go hunting, only shoot what you can
visually identify, and only shoot when you have confidence that you'll
kill it.

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


No, you're straining with some very ridiculous excuses.

Where do you suggest I go hunting, anyway?


In what area do you live?

Or where do you suggest I buy my meat?


From a local producer of grazed ruminants.

And what is your evidence that this will actually *reduce*
the amount of animal death and suffering I contribute to?


Where's YOUR evidence that your diet causes no or less animal suffering
and death than anyone else's?
  #68 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-06-2005, 04:48 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


They are kept in small crates too narrow from them to turn around.


You mean like these?
http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vetext...AN_PigFarm.gif
http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/undergrad/ag_eng16.jpg
http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/ga...es/hogfarm.jpg
http://www.ams.usda.gov/contracting/contract4.jpg

Oh, the bloody ****ing horror!

They are deprived of straw and other sources of amusement.


Evidence?

They suffer greatly from boredom.


Evidence?

Their tails are docked without anaesthetic.


Evidence?

They
stand on either wire mesh, slatted floors or concrete floors, which are
unnatural footings.


Evidence?

They suffer from poor air quality due to poor
ventilation and accumulating waste products.


Evidence?

They are often abused at
the loading and unloading stages of transport.


Evidence?

Furthermore it takes
eight pounds of protein in hog feed to generate a pound of pork.


****ing lie! See the chart on the following pork feed page:
http://tinyurl.com/85e6j

A 20-25kg hog will feed for 40-50 days on 82-91kg of feed and gain about
32kg. That's not an 8:1 ratio, it's a ~3:1 ratio.

------

I know I asked for evidence above, but I already know what you'll
produce. Your sources for all this disinformation are *activists*, not
scientists. You even parrot their emotionally-charged terms about
suffering and abuse.
  #69 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-06-2005, 05:00 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

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


It's not a lie.


Yes, it is.


No, it's not.


Yes, it is.

I didn't say vegans only boycott factory farm produce. I
said the main point of veganism was to boycott factory farm produce.


That is NOT the main point of veganism.

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


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


No, it is not. Vegans object to the consumption of ANY animal product.
They don't care than animals are wantonly killed (see PeTA's recent
controversy over their own paid staff animal abusers), they only care
that they're eaten.

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


In particular, they boycott products from intensively reared animals.


No, they abstain from ALL animal products.

My claim was that this is the main motivation for their diet and that
there is a strong moral case for it.


There is NO moral case for any of veganism's claims, particularly the
kind of BS propaganda you've been fed about animal production. Activists
take exceptions and portray them as the rule. Accordingly, their
literature is filled with photos of horrid abuse (many of the pics,
though, have been used in their literature for 20+ years) and emotive
accounts. In many of the cases of extreme abuse, the livestock operators
were convicted of cruelty charges. That doesn't mean ALL operators are
guilty of those offenses -- the overwhelming majority of them are very
conscientious and want healthy animals because they're more profitable.

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


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


Ipse dixit and tu quoque.

I am being perfectly rational and open-minded.


No, you aren't. You opened a can of worms by using an emotive pejorative
about certain ag practices.

The only reason you have
that impression is because of your prejudice against vegans.


And you don't have your own set of prejudices based on your impressions
from reading activist literature? Have you tried to investigate whether
their claims were true or not before buying into their propaganda?

Anyway,
when you've defended your criticism of the article with argument I'll
take it seriously, but not before, obviously.


Aren't you holding him to a different standard than you hold AR
propagandists like DaGrazia?

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

What nonsense?


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


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


You've not demonstrated that you've reduced anything. Do you have any
objective standard by which you can make such claims, or do you only
have the subjective standard of saying, "I don't eat meat, therefore no
animal died for my meal"? No? I didn't think so.
  #70 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-06-2005, 05:04 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

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

I don't eat meat;

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

This is plainly false: you can cause the death and
suffering of animals in LOTS of ways other than by
killing them to eat them.


My claim is not that I don't contribute the death and suffering of
animals. It is that I contribute as little as possible.


Without any objective evidence by which you or anyone else can measure.
IOW, you merely BELIEVE you're doing the something beneficial.

GIVEN that *all* you have
done is refrain from (or stop) eating meat, you have NO
IDEA how many animals you cause to suffer and die in
other ways than eating them: you haven't bothered to
check.


I have some idea.


No, you have some FAITH.

I'm always happy to find out more,


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


  #71 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-06-2005, 05:06 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

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


False. You have no useful definition of efficiency to
support that claim. It's purely a value judgment, not
a reasoned finding.


Well, more land is required to produce a given quantity of animal
protein than same quantity of plant protein.


Wrong. Most of the land upon which cattle are grazed is unsuitable for
crop production. The cattle convert grasses and scrub -- which is all of
no use to humans with one stomach -- into protein which humans CAN eat.
They also do it more efficiently without need of combines, plows, water
for irrigation, pesticides, etc.
  #72 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-06-2005, 05:15 PM
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Rupert wrote:
You already claimed to have done that research. You provide your
data, killer.
see below...


No, I didn't. I claimed to have read some information about intensive
rearing of animals.


From activists.

"Factory-farming" sounds like a pretty reasonable
description to me. I don't need to point you to all the descriptions of
it in the literature.


But please do so we can see which specific activist group(s) you're
parroting.

No, you haven't. You've spewed vegan propaganda without any
data. Show your proof, fool. Aterall, you claimed to have done
all the research.


I have pointed out that intensively reared animals suffer considerably.


Without evidence. I just linked to photos of horrendous "factory" pork
farms. Where are the small pens, lack of sun or straw, etc.?

I have pointed out that most animal food production requires more plant
production than plant food production.


And ignored rebuttal that grains and legumes fed to livestock are
generally unfit for human consumption.

And I have linked to an article
which discusses Davis' ruminant-pasture model of food production, and
compares it to a vegan model.


That article doesn't significantly deal with Davis' thesis.

If you feel there's a contention I've made which isn't adequately
supported by all of this, tell me what it is.


1. That some kinds of agriculture are "factory" and others aren't.
2. That the activists are correct that the exceptions are the rule.
3. That animals suffer inordinate abuse from modern farming methods.
4. That veganism causes less animals to die than any other diet.
5. That the solution to all man's problems is based on meat.

I'll add more if I remember them later.

But then, you should know that, since afterall, you did all that
research, right killer?


You really are quite bizarre. You think that somehow my claim to have
made an informed decision to become vegan entails that I should have
gone through all the Usenet archives to find out what arguments you
have offered in the past? If you want to convince me, just present me
with the arguments.


I'm convinced your decision was uninformed: you read vegan/AR propaganda
and swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. You never once sought out any
other side of the story (much less the accurate one).
  #73 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-06-2005, 05:32 PM
Rudy Canoza
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Rupert wrote:


Dutch wrote:

"Rupert" wrote


Dutch wrote:

wrote

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

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


It's not a lie.


Yes, it is.



No, it's not. I didn't say vegans only boycott factory farm produce. I
said the main point of veganism was to boycott factory farm produce.


That's not true. It's not true by looking at virtually
any "vegan" web page; it's not true by looking up
definitions of "veganism"; it's not true by reading the
posts of self-identified "vegans" in usenet.
EVERYTHING points to the fact that "vegans" consider
*any* consumption of animal parts to be immoral. They
aren't concerned with the quality of the welfare of the
animal up to the time of death, nor with the humaneness
(or lack thereof) of the method of slaughter. They
consider the use of animals for human benefit to be
_per se_ immoral.

That's a claim about the *main* (not the only) motivation behind
veganism.


Your claim is FALSE, and you have no support for it.
It's just what you would like to believe.

And it *is* the main point of veganism for me. Who are you to
tell me otherwise?


Because you clearly are a liar. Furthermore, if
avoidance of factory-farmed meat really was your
motivation, you easily could find and eat
non-factory-farmed meat and fish. It's readily
available. But you abstain from all animal flesh.

I note you haven't said you abstain from all animal
products, so you aren't really even "vegan". "vegans"
don't wear wool or leather, don't use feather (down)
pillows, don't have leather upholstery, don't eat honey
(stolen from bees), and don't use cosmetics tested on
animals (although they greedily use medicines that were
tested on animals in the initial safety tests). That's
just a partial list of things "vegans" avoid. A couple
of years ago, a "vegan" nitwit in alt.food.vegan
announced, pompously, that she no longer ate canned
black olives after hearing (she didn't attempt to
verify it) that the black brine in the can contained
squid ink.

THAT is "veganism": the avoidance of all
animal-derived products.


Most animal products are the product of factory farming.


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



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


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



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


No, it isn't. You clearly have not researched the
origins of "veganism" before glomming onto the word to
describe yourself.


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


Thank you.


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


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



In particular, they boycott products from intensively reared animals.


No. You said it yourself above: "It is of course true
that ***by definition*** vegans boycott all animal
products" [emphasis added].


My claim was that this is the main motivation for their diet and that
there is a strong moral case for it.


Your claim is FALSE - it is not the main motivation.
There may be a moral case for opposing intensive
(factory) animal husbandry, but "vegans" aren't making
it; they object fully to the consumption of free-range
livestock.


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


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



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


You have not adequately examined that a meat-including
diet *might* cause less animal suffering than your
strictly vegetarian (but undoubtedly *not* "vegan") diet.


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

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

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

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


That article is a mess.



Make a specific criticism of it.


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


No, it doesn't.


Yes it does.


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


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



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


It's been given to you. Certain vegetable products
cause multiple deaths - if you buy a bag of rice, you
incur responsibility for ALL of the deaths caused by
the harvesting of the crop from which that bag is
derived - while the meat from one large pasture-fed
ruminant, meat that can feed many people, results in
ONE death.


Animal products are an inefficient use of land,

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


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

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


So what?


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


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


So don't consume meat from animals that was fed
human-grown produce. Eat grass-fed (only) beef,
long-line-caught fish, hunted game.


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

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

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


Would you care to elaborate on your critique of it?


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



I am being perfectly rational and open-minded.


You don't give that impression at all.


The only reason you have
that impression is because of your prejudice against vegans.


No, mostly it's because you're trotting out the same
stale "vegan" arguments he and I have seen in these
groups for at least six years.


Anyway,
when you've defended your criticism of the article with argument I'll
take it seriously, but not before, obviously.


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

What nonsense?


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



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


That belief is not what is nonsense; the nonsense comes
from your unsupported belief that abstaining from
eating meat is, in and of itself, sufficient to achieve
that goal. That is what you're doing; in fact,
abstaining from meat, any meat, is ALL you're doing.
You're not doing anything else to try to reduce the
animal suffering your consumption causes.

Your sense of your virtue is based entirely on an
invidious comparison with others. That isn't virtue at
all. Virtue consists solely in identifying moral
principles and then abiding by them. Virtue is
determined WITHOUT REGARD to what others are doing, but
you are very much concerned with making a comparison.

It is only a reduction *relative to others* that
motivates you, not an absolute reduction.


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


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



Why not?


It's been given to you repeatedly: consuming some
humanely raised and slaughtered meat can easily lead to
causing fewer deaths and less suffering than following
a strictly vegetarian diet.




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


I have, you can't hear.



No, you haven't.


Yes, he has. So have I.
  #74 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-06-2005, 08:13 PM
Rubin
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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

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


I would like to know where you got those figures from, especially
bearing in mind that most animal food production requires additional
plant food production.


From the current thread, discussing number of voles/mice per acre and the
number of cattle per acre, though I guess you can fit more chickens per acre
than cows. And cattle require NO addition feed other than pasture in many
cases. ALL large scale food plant farms use something detrimental to animal
welfare, from fertilizers to *icides to the machinery required to plant,
tend and harvest.


Now, you next main problem with the "suffering", vegan side or meat eater
side. You have no way to prove that all, or even a majority, of
livestock,
suffer at all.


Yes, I do.


OK, lets hear it.


By the same token, meat eaters use figures skewed or spun to
make their side look better. Terms like "up to" and "as many as". No
problem at all, the choice is an individuals to make. Preaching only
makes
people dig their heels in.

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


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


And I have reason to think it doesn't. Just removes it from your sight.


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


Aren't you going to claim you aren't preaching?


  #75 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 23-06-2005, 10:24 PM
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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


rick wrote:
"Rupert" wrote in message



snippage...



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

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

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


Point taken. For *most* animal food production.

=================
Point missed. There is still no 'requirement' to feed them any
crop foods, and many of them do not get any.




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

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


Actually, what I claimed was that I had looked at some
information, and
felt I had good reason to think that veganism was probably the
best way
to minimize my contribution to animal suffering. Also, I have
linked to
an article which has some numbers in it.

=====================
Which doesn't back up your claim to have made a difference.





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

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

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

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

Does this answer your argument?


No.

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


No, it doesn't answer my argument for the reasons I gave.

==================
LOL You've been given the info. That you wish to remain
willfully ignorant is plain to see.



See, I told you Leslie....



Cheers 2 U,

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






Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:18 PM.

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

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017