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. 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.


>>>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 not altogether clear to me that
> it requires me to stop supporting commercial agriculture. That depends
> on what's involved in "making every reasonable effort". I am
> open-minded on this matter. Maybe you can persuade me that "making
> every reasonable effort" does require that I stop supporting commercial
> agriculture. Or maybe you can persuade me that I should accept some
> more stringent moral principle, which would require me to stop
> supporting commercial agriculture. Go for it. But it requires some
> argument.
>
>
>>>What I do think is that we should make every
>>>reasonable effort to minimize our contribution to the suffering of
>>>animals. And I have done my homework on that, I believe that the best
>>>way to do it is to become vegan. If you've got some suggestions for how
>>>I can do better I'm happy to listen to them.
>>
>>A typical vegan could reduce the net amount of animal death and suffering
>>associated with his or her diet by the introduction of some carefully
>>selected meat, fish or game, a person who supplements their diet by hunting
>>or fishing for example.
>
>
> Fishing? Fishing involves a fairly high death rate per serving of food.
> I would want to see some more evidence that fishing will do any good.
> And one problem with hunting is that not all of the animals are killed,
> some of them are just seriously maimed. So the amount of suffering and
> death caused per serving of food is higher than it appears at first.
> Where do you suggest I go hunting, anyway? Or where do you suggest I
> buy my meat? And what is your evidence that this will actually *reduce*
> the amount of animal death and suffering I contribute to?
>
>
>>Also a person who also grows much of their own food
>>*and* consumes meat probably does much better than that typical urban vegan.
>>
>
>
> Consumes what sort of meat?
>
> Growing more of my own food seems like a better proposal. I'll consider
> that one.
>
>
>>Don't misunderstand, I am not suggesting you do these things, I am just
>>asking you to acknowledge that they are viable choices.
>>
>
>
> Sure they are. But I'm not sure you've offered any practical
> suggestions that will definitely reduce my contribution to animal death
> and suffering, except possibly growing some of my own food.
>
>
>>>I'm not altogether convinced that the suggestion "stop supporting
>>>commerical agriculture" is entirely feasible for me. If you've got some
>>>ideas as to how I can do it I'm happy to listen to those, as well.
>>
>>Of course "feasible" is something you define for yourself. I would like you
>>to show me the respect to allow me to do the same for myself.
>
>
> There is a limit to the reasonable application of words. There is no
> reasonable sense in which it is "unfeasible" to become vegan. It is
> feasible for me to reduce the extent to which I support commerical
> agriculture, but to stop supporting it - well, I'd just be interested
> to hear how you propose I would go about doing that.
>

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.

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

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

>
> >>>Anyway, I intended (correctly or otherwise) to use the word to refer to
> >>>intensive rearing of animals.
>
> RAISING of animals, you dummy. We rear children; we
> raise animals and crops.
>
>
> >>>Furthermore this clearly involves a lot
> >>>more suffering than what he was referring to.
> >>
> >>Does it? How do you know? How much animal death and suffering results from
> >>cultivation, planting, spraying, harvesting, storage protection, etc, etc..
> >>
> >
> >
> > (1) The number of animals involved is greater, and
> > (2) The suffering inflicted on each animal is greater.
> >
> > Perhaps (1) is false when we take into account all the animals killed
> > by the plant production necessitated by animal food production. But
> > it's not false if we're only talking about the amount of plant
> > production that would be necessary to support universal veganism. Davis
> > estimates the death toll at 1.8 billion. More animals than that are
> > killed in animal food production. And each animal suffers considerably
> > more.
> >
> >
> >>>>>Anyway, it's all very well to abuse me for supporting these practices,
> >>>>>but you don't offer any serious alternative to doing so. If you had a
> >>>>>serious proposal for my further reducing the contribution I make to
> >>>>>animal suffering then I would consider it.
> >>>>
> >>>>Stop supporting commercial agriculture, it kills countless billions
> >>>>of animals. Anyway, it's you who proposed that killing animals is
> >>>>to be avoided, why should we now determine for you how you
> >>>>are going to live up to it? Do your own homework.
> >>>
> >>>I'm sorry, can you quote me as saying that buying products whose
> >>>production involved the death of animals is absolutely prohibited? I
> >>>don't think you can.
> >>
> >>I see, so it's fine to cause death and suffering of animals when it fits
> >>conveniently into your chosen lifestyle but not when it fits into mine.
> >>
> >
> >
> > That's not a very reasonable interpretation of my argument. I believe
> > in a principle enunciated by David DeGrazia in "Taking Animals
> > Seriously": Make every reasonable effort to avoid providing financial
> > support to practices that cause or support unnecessary harm. I believe
> > that, on any reasonable interpretation of this principle, this will
> > require veganism or near-veganism.
>
> You clearly have created lots of wiggle room for
> yourself with the vague word "reasonable". You have no
> standard for deciding what's reasonable.
>

It's DeGrazia who uses the word "reasonable", and 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.

I don't have *precise* criteria for what's reasonable, but I can say
*some* things about what the word does and doesn't mean.

>
> > It's not altogether clear to me that
> > it requires me to stop supporting commercial agriculture. That depends
> > on what's involved in "making every reasonable effort". I am
> > open-minded on this matter. Maybe you can persuade me that "making
> > every reasonable effort" does require that I stop supporting commercial
> > agriculture. Or maybe you can persuade me that I should accept some
> > more stringent moral principle, which would require me to stop
> > supporting commercial agriculture. Go for it. But it requires some
> > argument.
> >
> >
> >>>What I do think is that we should make every
> >>>reasonable effort to minimize our contribution to the suffering of
> >>>animals. And I have done my homework on that, I believe that the best
> >>>way to do it is to become vegan. If you've got some suggestions for how
> >>>I can do better I'm happy to listen to them.
> >>
> >>A typical vegan could reduce the net amount of animal death and suffering
> >>associated with his or her diet by the introduction of some carefully
> >>selected meat, fish or game, a person who supplements their diet by hunting
> >>or fishing for example.
> >
> >
> > Fishing? Fishing involves a fairly high death rate per serving of food.
> > I would want to see some more evidence that fishing will do any good.
> > And one problem with hunting is that not all of the animals are killed,
> > some of them are just seriously maimed. So the amount of suffering and
> > death caused per serving of food is higher than it appears at first.
> > Where do you suggest I go hunting, anyway? Or where do you suggest I
> > buy my meat? And what is your evidence that this will actually *reduce*
> > the amount of animal death and suffering I contribute to?
> >
> >
> >>Also a person who also grows much of their own food
> >>*and* consumes meat probably does much better than that typical urban vegan.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Consumes what sort of meat?
> >
> > Growing more of my own food seems like a better proposal. I'll consider
> > that one.
> >
> >
> >>Don't misunderstand, I am not suggesting you do these things, I am just
> >>asking you to acknowledge that they are viable choices.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Sure they are. But I'm not sure you've offered any practical
> > suggestions that will definitely reduce my contribution to animal death
> > and suffering, except possibly growing some of my own food.
> >
> >
> >>>I'm not altogether convinced that the suggestion "stop supporting
> >>>commerical agriculture" is entirely feasible for me. If you've got some
> >>>ideas as to how I can do it I'm happy to listen to those, as well.
> >>
> >>Of course "feasible" is something you define for yourself. I would like you
> >>to show me the respect to allow me to do the same for myself.
> >
> >
> > There is a limit to the reasonable application of words. There is no
> > reasonable sense in which it is "unfeasible" to become vegan. It is
> > feasible for me to reduce the extent to which I support commerical
> > agriculture, but to stop supporting it - well, I'd just be interested
> > to hear how you propose I would go about doing that.
> >

Rupert wrote:
>
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>>Rupert wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Dutch wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Rupert" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Dutch wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
> wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>[..]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I think you'll find "factory-farming" usually refers to the intensive
>>>>>>>rearing of animals. Have you got a justification for calling
>>>>>>>mono-culture crop production "factory-farming"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Don't like people turning your pet pjoratives back on you eh?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, "factory-farming" is a simple descriptive term.
>>>>
>>>>It carries much more baggage than that.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>It doesn't matter
>>>>>very much what it actually refers to, I was just surprised that he
>>>>>thought this was a correct application of the word.
>>>>
>>>>I realize that, because you don't fancy yourself as supporting "factory
>>>>farming".
>>>>
>>>>Vegans typically have idealized views of themselves.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, be that as it may, I have provided you with no further evidence
>>>for this view. I was surprised to hear monoculture-crop production
>>>referred to as "factory farming", because I have always heard this
>>>phrase used to refer to the intensive farming of animals. If he's right
>>>about the correct application of the word (which I'm not convinced of),
>>>then so be it. I have no problem with the idea that I support "factory
>>>farming", so construed. What I *desire* about myself - not "fancy about
>>>myself" - is that I contribute to as little animal suffering as
>>>possible. If anyone thinks that's not the case, I'm interested to hear
>>>what he has to say on the matter.
>>
>>You have ZERO basis for your belief that you
>>"contribute to as little animal suffering as possible",
>>other than the fact that you don't eat meat. You are
>>committing a logical fallacy: the fallacy of Denying
>>the Antecedent.
>>
>> If I eat meat, I cause the death and suffering of animals.
>>
>> I don't eat meat;
>>
>> therefore, I don't cause the death and suffering of animals.
>>
>>This is plainly false: you can cause the death and
>>suffering of animals in LOTS of ways other than by
>>killing them to eat them.
>
>
> My claim is not that I don't contribute the death and suffering of
> animals. It is that I contribute as little as possible.

But you have no basis for that claim. Furthermore, it
is a certainty that when you FIRST became a "vegan",
you *did* believe that you weren't causing any animal
death or suffering.

The point is, the ONLY thing you have done is refrain
from consuming animal parts. That abstention tells you
NOTHING about how many animals you injure or kill, but
the abstention is all you have.

For example, you have no clue, no ****ing clue at all,
if a kilogram of rice causes more, fewer or the same
number of deaths as a kilogram of wheat. Even assuming
you eat a strictly vegetarian diet, different vegetable
products have different collateral death tolls, and you
have NO IDEA which ones are high-CD and which are
low-CD. Furthermore, you have no intention of trying
to find out.

Like every smug "vegan" everywhere, you assume that not
consuming animal parts, in and of itself, *means* that
you are causing the least harm. Your smug complacency
is disgusting.

>
>
>>GIVEN that *all* you have
>>done is refrain from (or stop) eating meat, you have NO
>>IDEA how many animals you cause to suffer and die in
>>other ways than eating them: you haven't bothered to
>>check.
>>
>
>
> I have some idea. I'm always happy to find out more, and to hear
> suggestions for how I can further reduce my contribution to animal
> suffering.
>
>
>>>>>Anyway, I intended (correctly or otherwise) to use the word to refer to
>>>>>intensive rearing of animals.
>>
>>RAISING of animals, you dummy. We rear children; we
>>raise animals and crops.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>Furthermore this clearly involves a lot
>>>>>more suffering than what he was referring to.
>>>>
>>>>Does it? How do you know? How much animal death and suffering results from
>>>>cultivation, planting, spraying, harvesting, storage protection, etc, etc..
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>(1) The number of animals involved is greater, and
>>>(2) The suffering inflicted on each animal is greater.
>>>
>>>Perhaps (1) is false when we take into account all the animals killed
>>>by the plant production necessitated by animal food production. But
>>>it's not false if we're only talking about the amount of plant
>>>production that would be necessary to support universal veganism. Davis
>>>estimates the death toll at 1.8 billion. More animals than that are
>>>killed in animal food production. And each animal suffers considerably
>>>more.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>Anyway, it's all very well to abuse me for supporting these practices,
>>>>>>>but you don't offer any serious alternative to doing so. If you had a
>>>>>>>serious proposal for my further reducing the contribution I make to
>>>>>>>animal suffering then I would consider it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Stop supporting commercial agriculture, it kills countless billions
>>>>>>of animals. Anyway, it's you who proposed that killing animals is
>>>>>>to be avoided, why should we now determine for you how you
>>>>>>are going to live up to it? Do your own homework.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm sorry, can you quote me as saying that buying products whose
>>>>>production involved the death of animals is absolutely prohibited? I
>>>>>don't think you can.
>>>>
>>>>I see, so it's fine to cause death and suffering of animals when it fits
>>>>conveniently into your chosen lifestyle but not when it fits into mine.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>That's not a very reasonable interpretation of my argument. I believe
>>>in a principle enunciated by David DeGrazia in "Taking Animals
>>>Seriously": Make every reasonable effort to avoid providing financial
>>>support to practices that cause or support unnecessary harm. I believe
>>>that, on any reasonable interpretation of this principle, this will
>>>require veganism or near-veganism.
>>
>>You clearly have created lots of wiggle room for
>>yourself with the vague word "reasonable". You have no
>>standard for deciding what's reasonable.
>>
>
>
> It's DeGrazia who uses the word "reasonable",

And you happily, and desperately, grab at it.


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

Oh, it's hard all right, but language has nothing to do
with it. It's the philosophical incoherence of
"veganism" that's the problem, not language.


> For a moral
> principle to have some chance of being free from counterexample, there
> usually has to be a certain amount of vagueness built into it.
>
> I don't have *precise* criteria for what's reasonable, but I can say
> *some* things about what the word does and doesn't mean.

You can't say anything meaningful.

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> >
> > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >
> >>Rupert wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Dutch wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>"Rupert" > wrote
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Dutch wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> > wrote
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>[..]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>I think you'll find "factory-farming" usually refers to the intensive
> >>>>>>>rearing of animals. Have you got a justification for calling
> >>>>>>>mono-culture crop production "factory-farming"?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Don't like people turning your pet pjoratives back on you eh?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Well, "factory-farming" is a simple descriptive term.
> >>>>
> >>>>It carries much more baggage than that.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>It doesn't matter
> >>>>>very much what it actually refers to, I was just surprised that he
> >>>>>thought this was a correct application of the word.
> >>>>
> >>>>I realize that, because you don't fancy yourself as supporting "factory
> >>>>farming".
> >>>>
> >>>>Vegans typically have idealized views of themselves.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Well, be that as it may, I have provided you with no further evidence
> >>>for this view. I was surprised to hear monoculture-crop production
> >>>referred to as "factory farming", because I have always heard this
> >>>phrase used to refer to the intensive farming of animals. If he's right
> >>>about the correct application of the word (which I'm not convinced of),
> >>>then so be it. I have no problem with the idea that I support "factory
> >>>farming", so construed. What I *desire* about myself - not "fancy about
> >>>myself" - is that I contribute to as little animal suffering as
> >>>possible. If anyone thinks that's not the case, I'm interested to hear
> >>>what he has to say on the matter.
> >>
> >>You have ZERO basis for your belief that you
> >>"contribute to as little animal suffering as possible",
> >>other than the fact that you don't eat meat. You are
> >>committing a logical fallacy: the fallacy of Denying
> >>the Antecedent.
> >>
> >> If I eat meat, I cause the death and suffering of animals.
> >>
> >> I don't eat meat;
> >>
> >> therefore, I don't cause the death and suffering of animals.
> >>
> >>This is plainly false: you can cause the death and
> >>suffering of animals in LOTS of ways other than by
> >>killing them to eat them.
> >
> >
> > My claim is not that I don't contribute the death and suffering of
> > animals. It is that I contribute as little as possible.
>
> But you have no basis for that claim.

Yes, I do. I've been defending it.

> Furthermore, it
> is a certainty that when you FIRST became a "vegan",
> you *did* believe that you weren't causing any animal
> death or suffering.
>

No, it's not. And, also, as far as I can tell it's irrelevant.

> The point is, the ONLY thing you have done is refrain
> from consuming animal parts. That abstention tells you
> NOTHING about how many animals you injure or kill, but
> the abstention is all you have.
>

No, I have the information I've read. It leads me to believe that by
being vegan I'm reducing my contribution to animal suffering. I'm
waiting for people to provide contrary evidence.

> For example, you have no clue, no ****ing clue at all,
> if a kilogram of rice causes more, fewer or the same
> number of deaths as a kilogram of wheat. Even assuming
> you eat a strictly vegetarian diet, different vegetable
> products have different collateral death tolls, and you
> have NO IDEA which ones are high-CD and which are
> low-CD. Furthermore, you have no intention of trying
> to find out.
>

Yes, I do.

> Like every smug "vegan" everywhere, you assume that not
> consuming animal parts, in and of itself, *means* that
> you are causing the least harm. Your smug complacency
> is disgusting.
>

I don't assume it, I believe I have reasonable evidence for it. I'm
sorry if it disgusts you.

> >
> >
> >>GIVEN that *all* you have
> >>done is refrain from (or stop) eating meat, you have NO
> >>IDEA how many animals you cause to suffer and die in
> >>other ways than eating them: you haven't bothered to
> >>check.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I have some idea. I'm always happy to find out more, and to hear
> > suggestions for how I can further reduce my contribution to animal
> > suffering.
> >
> >
> >>>>>Anyway, I intended (correctly or otherwise) to use the word to refer to
> >>>>>intensive rearing of animals.
> >>
> >>RAISING of animals, you dummy. We rear children; we
> >>raise animals and crops.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>Furthermore this clearly involves a lot
> >>>>>more suffering than what he was referring to.
> >>>>
> >>>>Does it? How do you know? How much animal death and suffering results from
> >>>>cultivation, planting, spraying, harvesting, storage protection, etc, etc..
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>(1) The number of animals involved is greater, and
> >>>(2) The suffering inflicted on each animal is greater.
> >>>
> >>>Perhaps (1) is false when we take into account all the animals killed
> >>>by the plant production necessitated by animal food production. But
> >>>it's not false if we're only talking about the amount of plant
> >>>production that would be necessary to support universal veganism. Davis
> >>>estimates the death toll at 1.8 billion. More animals than that are
> >>>killed in animal food production. And each animal suffers considerably
> >>>more.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>Anyway, it's all very well to abuse me for supporting these practices,
> >>>>>>>but you don't offer any serious alternative to doing so. If you had a
> >>>>>>>serious proposal for my further reducing the contribution I make to
> >>>>>>>animal suffering then I would consider it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Stop supporting commercial agriculture, it kills countless billions
> >>>>>>of animals. Anyway, it's you who proposed that killing animals is
> >>>>>>to be avoided, why should we now determine for you how you
> >>>>>>are going to live up to it? Do your own homework.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I'm sorry, can you quote me as saying that buying products whose
> >>>>>production involved the death of animals is absolutely prohibited? I
> >>>>>don't think you can.
> >>>>
> >>>>I see, so it's fine to cause death and suffering of animals when it fits
> >>>>conveniently into your chosen lifestyle but not when it fits into mine.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>That's not a very reasonable interpretation of my argument. I believe
> >>>in a principle enunciated by David DeGrazia in "Taking Animals
> >>>Seriously": Make every reasonable effort to avoid providing financial
> >>>support to practices that cause or support unnecessary harm. I believe
> >>>that, on any reasonable interpretation of this principle, this will
> >>>require veganism or near-veganism.
> >>
> >>You clearly have created lots of wiggle room for
> >>yourself with the vague word "reasonable". You have no
> >>standard for deciding what's reasonable.
> >>
> >
> >
> > It's DeGrazia who uses the word "reasonable",
>
> And you happily, and desperately, grab at it.
>

I quote his principle and say I believe in it. Is there a problem with
that?

>
> > and it's hard to avoid
> > using vague words altogether, language being what it is.
>
> Oh, it's hard all right, but language has nothing to do
> with it. It's the philosophical incoherence of
> "veganism" that's the problem, not language.
>

I've yet to see any evidence for the philosophical incoherence of
ethical veganism.

>
> > For a moral
> > principle to have some chance of being free from counterexample, there
> > usually has to be a certain amount of vagueness built into it.
> >
> > I don't have *precise* criteria for what's reasonable, but I can say
> > *some* things about what the word does and doesn't mean.
>
> You can't say anything meaningful.

Yes, I can and I do.

Rupert wrote:
>
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>>Rupert wrote:
>>
>>>Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Rupert wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Dutch wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>"Rupert" > wrote
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Dutch wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
> wrote
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>[..]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>I think you'll find "factory-farming" usually refers to the intensive
>>>>>>>>>rearing of animals. Have you got a justification for calling
>>>>>>>>>mono-culture crop production "factory-farming"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Don't like people turning your pet pjoratives back on you eh?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Well, "factory-farming" is a simple descriptive term.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>It carries much more baggage than that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It doesn't matter
>>>>>>>very much what it actually refers to, I was just surprised that he
>>>>>>>thought this was a correct application of the word.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I realize that, because you don't fancy yourself as supporting "factory
>>>>>>farming".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Vegans typically have idealized views of themselves.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, be that as it may, I have provided you with no further evidence
>>>>>for this view. I was surprised to hear monoculture-crop production
>>>>>referred to as "factory farming", because I have always heard this
>>>>>phrase used to refer to the intensive farming of animals. If he's right
>>>>>about the correct application of the word (which I'm not convinced of),
>>>>>then so be it. I have no problem with the idea that I support "factory
>>>>>farming", so construed. What I *desire* about myself - not "fancy about
>>>>>myself" - is that I contribute to as little animal suffering as
>>>>>possible. If anyone thinks that's not the case, I'm interested to hear
>>>>>what he has to say on the matter.
>>>>
>>>>You have ZERO basis for your belief that you
>>>>"contribute to as little animal suffering as possible",
>>>>other than the fact that you don't eat meat. You are
>>>>committing a logical fallacy: the fallacy of Denying
>>>>the Antecedent.
>>>>
>>>> If I eat meat, I cause the death and suffering of animals.
>>>>
>>>> I don't eat meat;
>>>>
>>>> therefore, I don't cause the death and suffering of animals.
>>>>
>>>>This is plainly false: you can cause the death and
>>>>suffering of animals in LOTS of ways other than by
>>>>killing them to eat them.
>>>
>>>
>>>My claim is not that I don't contribute the death and suffering of
>>>animals. It is that I contribute as little as possible.
>>
>>But you have no basis for that claim.
>
>
> Yes, I do. I've been defending it.

No, you have no basis for it. You are NOT contributing
as little as possible, and you aren't even trying to
determine how you might. You also are blind to the
possiblity that some consumption pattern that DOES
include animal parts might actually be lower than what
you're consuming now. You get a warm fuzzy feeling
from blurting out some horseshit about "as little as
possible" without actually investigating to see if you
are. The entire position is poorly conceived and
incoherent.

>
>
>>Furthermore, it
>>is a certainty that when you FIRST became a "vegan",
>>you *did* believe that you weren't causing any animal
>>death or suffering.
>>
>
>
> No, it's not.

Yes, it is. You DID think that refraining from
consuming animal parts meant you weren't harming any
animals.


> And, also, as far as I can tell it's irrelevant.

It's highly relevant: you're still engaged in the same
illogical thinking. You still blindly and stupidly
believe that following a rule - "don't consume animal
parts" - somehow translates to being "more moral".


>>The point is, the ONLY thing you have done is refrain
>>from consuming animal parts. That abstention tells you
>>NOTHING about how many animals you injure or kill, but
>>the abstention is all you have.
>>
>
>
> No, I have the information I've read.

I doubt it. In any case, you've failed to act on it.


> It leads me to believe that by
> being vegan I'm reducing my contribution to animal suffering.

You're not minimizing it. You have no morally
acceptable explanation for why you're not, either.


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

I've given it to you.


>
>>For example, you have no clue, no ****ing clue at all,
>>if a kilogram of rice causes more, fewer or the same
>>number of deaths as a kilogram of wheat. Even assuming
>>you eat a strictly vegetarian diet, different vegetable
>>products have different collateral death tolls, and you
>>have NO IDEA which ones are high-CD and which are
>>low-CD. Furthermore, you have no intention of trying
>>to find out.
>>
>
>
> Yes, I do.

No, you don't. Stop lying.

There were two statements in the You don't have a
clue about relative harm caused by different
vegetables, and you don't have any intention of finding
out.


>>Like every smug "vegan" everywhere, you assume that not
>>consuming animal parts, in and of itself, *means* that
>>you are causing the least harm. Your smug complacency
>>is disgusting.
>>
>
>
> I don't assume it, I believe I have reasonable evidence for it.

No, you don't have ANY evidence for it. Refraining
from consuming animal parts has nothing whatever to do
with causing the least harm in choosing those things
you DO consume. But refraining from consuming animal
parts is ALL you're doing. You aren't minimizing harm,
and you aren't even trying to find out how you might
minimize it.


> I'm sorry if it disgusts you.
>
>
>>>
>>>>GIVEN that *all* you have
>>>>done is refrain from (or stop) eating meat, you have NO
>>>>IDEA how many animals you cause to suffer and die in
>>>>other ways than eating them: you haven't bothered to
>>>>check.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I have some idea. I'm always happy to find out more, and to hear
>>>suggestions for how I can further reduce my contribution to animal
>>>suffering.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>Anyway, I intended (correctly or otherwise) to use the word to refer to
>>>>>>>intensive rearing of animals.
>>>>
>>>>RAISING of animals, you dummy. We rear children; we
>>>>raise animals and crops.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>Furthermore this clearly involves a lot
>>>>>>>more suffering than what he was referring to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Does it? How do you know? How much animal death and suffering results from
>>>>>>cultivation, planting, spraying, harvesting, storage protection, etc, etc..
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>(1) The number of animals involved is greater, and
>>>>>(2) The suffering inflicted on each animal is greater.
>>>>>
>>>>>Perhaps (1) is false when we take into account all the animals killed
>>>>>by the plant production necessitated by animal food production. But
>>>>>it's not false if we're only talking about the amount of plant
>>>>>production that would be necessary to support universal veganism. Davis
>>>>>estimates the death toll at 1.8 billion. More animals than that are
>>>>>killed in animal food production. And each animal suffers considerably
>>>>>more.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Anyway, it's all very well to abuse me for supporting these practices,
>>>>>>>>>but you don't offer any serious alternative to doing so. If you had a
>>>>>>>>>serious proposal for my further reducing the contribution I make to
>>>>>>>>>animal suffering then I would consider it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Stop supporting commercial agriculture, it kills countless billions
>>>>>>>>of animals. Anyway, it's you who proposed that killing animals is
>>>>>>>>to be avoided, why should we now determine for you how you
>>>>>>>>are going to live up to it? Do your own homework.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'm sorry, can you quote me as saying that buying products whose
>>>>>>>production involved the death of animals is absolutely prohibited? I
>>>>>>>don't think you can.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I see, so it's fine to cause death and suffering of animals when it fits
>>>>>>conveniently into your chosen lifestyle but not when it fits into mine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>That's not a very reasonable interpretation of my argument. I believe
>>>>>in a principle enunciated by David DeGrazia in "Taking Animals
>>>>>Seriously": Make every reasonable effort to avoid providing financial
>>>>>support to practices that cause or support unnecessary harm. I believe
>>>>>that, on any reasonable interpretation of this principle, this will
>>>>>require veganism or near-veganism.
>>>>
>>>>You clearly have created lots of wiggle room for
>>>>yourself with the vague word "reasonable". You have no
>>>>standard for deciding what's reasonable.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>It's DeGrazia who uses the word "reasonable",
>>
>>And you happily, and desperately, grab at it.
>>
>
>
> I quote his principle and say I believe in it. Is there a problem with
> that?

Yes. It's unexamined, and you're grasping at a
catch-all excuse.


>>>and it's hard to avoid
>>>using vague words altogether, language being what it is.
>>
>>Oh, it's hard all right, but language has nothing to do
>>with it. It's the philosophical incoherence of
>>"veganism" that's the problem, not language.
>>
>
>
> I've yet to see any evidence for the philosophical incoherence of
> ethical veganism.

You have seen it. You don't get it. I've been showing
it to you for several posts now. You claim to be
minimizing something you believe, irrationally, to be
bad, but:

- you can't coherently explain why it's bad
- you aren't minimizing it in your own life
- you have no coherent explanation for why you stopped
where you did in your efforts to reduce harm

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


>>>For a moral
>>>principle to have some chance of being free from counterexample, there
>>>usually has to be a certain amount of vagueness built into it.
>>>
>>>I don't have *precise* criteria for what's reasonable, but I can say
>>>*some* things about what the word does and doesn't mean.
>>
>>You can't say anything meaningful.
>
>
> Yes, I can and I do.

You can't, and you don't. All you do is congratulate
yourself for your smug complacency.

Rudy Canoza wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> >
> > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >
> >>Rupert wrote:
> >>
> >>>Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Rupert wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Dutch wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>"Rupert" > wrote
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Dutch wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> > wrote
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>[..]
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>I think you'll find "factory-farming" usually refers to the intensive
> >>>>>>>>>rearing of animals. Have you got a justification for calling
> >>>>>>>>>mono-culture crop production "factory-farming"?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Don't like people turning your pet pjoratives back on you eh?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Well, "factory-farming" is a simple descriptive term.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>It carries much more baggage than that.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>It doesn't matter
> >>>>>>>very much what it actually refers to, I was just surprised that he
> >>>>>>>thought this was a correct application of the word.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>I realize that, because you don't fancy yourself as supporting "factory
> >>>>>>farming".
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Vegans typically have idealized views of themselves.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Well, be that as it may, I have provided you with no further evidence
> >>>>>for this view. I was surprised to hear monoculture-crop production
> >>>>>referred to as "factory farming", because I have always heard this
> >>>>>phrase used to refer to the intensive farming of animals. If he's right
> >>>>>about the correct application of the word (which I'm not convinced of),
> >>>>>then so be it. I have no problem with the idea that I support "factory
> >>>>>farming", so construed. What I *desire* about myself - not "fancy about
> >>>>>myself" - is that I contribute to as little animal suffering as
> >>>>>possible. If anyone thinks that's not the case, I'm interested to hear
> >>>>>what he has to say on the matter.
> >>>>
> >>>>You have ZERO basis for your belief that you
> >>>>"contribute to as little animal suffering as possible",
> >>>>other than the fact that you don't eat meat. You are
> >>>>committing a logical fallacy: the fallacy of Denying
> >>>>the Antecedent.
> >>>>
> >>>> If I eat meat, I cause the death and suffering of animals.
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't eat meat;
> >>>>
> >>>> therefore, I don't cause the death and suffering of animals.
> >>>>
> >>>>This is plainly false: you can cause the death and
> >>>>suffering of animals in LOTS of ways other than by
> >>>>killing them to eat them.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>My claim is not that I don't contribute the death and suffering of
> >>>animals. It is that I contribute as little as possible.
> >>
> >>But you have no basis for that claim.
> >
> >
> > Yes, I do. I've been defending it.
>
> No, you have no basis for it. You are NOT contributing
> as little as possible, and you aren't even trying to
> determine how you might.

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

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

> You also are blind to the
> possiblity that some consumption pattern that DOES
> include animal parts might actually be lower than what
> you're consuming now.

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

> You get a warm fuzzy feeling
> from blurting out some horseshit about "as little as
> possible" without actually investigating to see if you
> are. The entire position is poorly conceived and
> incoherent.
>
> >
> >
> >>Furthermore, it
> >>is a certainty that when you FIRST became a "vegan",
> >>you *did* believe that you weren't causing any animal
> >>death or suffering.
> >>
> >
> >
> > No, it's not.
>
> Yes, it is. You DID think that refraining from
> consuming animal parts meant you weren't harming any
> animals.
>

No, I didn't.

>
> > And, also, as far as I can tell it's irrelevant.
>
> It's highly relevant: you're still engaged in the same
> illogical thinking. You still blindly and stupidly
> believe that following a rule - "don't consume animal
> parts" - somehow translates to being "more moral".
>

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

>
> >>The point is, the ONLY thing you have done is refrain
> >>from consuming animal parts. That abstention tells you
> >>NOTHING about how many animals you injure or kill, but
> >>the abstention is all you have.
> >>
> >
> >
> > No, I have the information I've read.
>
> I doubt it. In any case, you've failed to act on it.
>

No, I haven't.

>
> > It leads me to believe that by
> > being vegan I'm reducing my contribution to animal suffering.
>
> You're not minimizing it. You have no morally
> acceptable explanation for why you're not, either.
>

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

>
> > I'm waiting for people to provide contrary evidence.
>
> I've given it to you.
>

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

>
> >
> >>For example, you have no clue, no ****ing clue at all,
> >>if a kilogram of rice causes more, fewer or the same
> >>number of deaths as a kilogram of wheat. Even assuming
> >>you eat a strictly vegetarian diet, different vegetable
> >>products have different collateral death tolls, and you
> >>have NO IDEA which ones are high-CD and which are
> >>low-CD. Furthermore, you have no intention of trying
> >>to find out.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Yes, I do.
>
> No, you don't. Stop lying.
>

I'm not lying.

> There were two statements in the You don't have a
> clue about relative harm caused by different
> vegetables, and you don't have any intention of finding
> out.
>

I meant, I have some intention of finding out.

>
> >>Like every smug "vegan" everywhere, you assume that not
> >>consuming animal parts, in and of itself, *means* that
> >>you are causing the least harm. Your smug complacency
> >>is disgusting.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I don't assume it, I believe I have reasonable evidence for it.
>
> No, you don't have ANY evidence for it. Refraining
> from consuming animal parts has nothing whatever to do
> with causing the least harm in choosing those things
> you DO consume. But refraining from consuming animal
> parts is ALL you're doing. You aren't minimizing harm,
> and you aren't even trying to find out how you might
> minimize it.
>

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

>
> > I'm sorry if it disgusts you.
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>>>GIVEN that *all* you have
> >>>>done is refrain from (or stop) eating meat, you have NO
> >>>>IDEA how many animals you cause to suffer and die in
> >>>>other ways than eating them: you haven't bothered to
> >>>>check.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>I have some idea. I'm always happy to find out more, and to hear
> >>>suggestions for how I can further reduce my contribution to animal
> >>>suffering.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>>>Anyway, I intended (correctly or otherwise) to use the word to refer to
> >>>>>>>intensive rearing of animals.
> >>>>
> >>>>RAISING of animals, you dummy. We rear children; we
> >>>>raise animals and crops.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>>Furthermore this clearly involves a lot
> >>>>>>>more suffering than what he was referring to.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Does it? How do you know? How much animal death and suffering results from
> >>>>>>cultivation, planting, spraying, harvesting, storage protection, etc, etc..
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>(1) The number of animals involved is greater, and
> >>>>>(2) The suffering inflicted on each animal is greater.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Perhaps (1) is false when we take into account all the animals killed
> >>>>>by the plant production necessitated by animal food production. But
> >>>>>it's not false if we're only talking about the amount of plant
> >>>>>production that would be necessary to support universal veganism. Davis
> >>>>>estimates the death toll at 1.8 billion. More animals than that are
> >>>>>killed in animal food production. And each animal suffers considerably
> >>>>>more.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>Anyway, it's all very well to abuse me for supporting these practices,
> >>>>>>>>>but you don't offer any serious alternative to doing so. If you had a
> >>>>>>>>>serious proposal for my further reducing the contribution I make to
> >>>>>>>>>animal suffering then I would consider it.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>Stop supporting commercial agriculture, it kills countless billions
> >>>>>>>>of animals. Anyway, it's you who proposed that killing animals is
> >>>>>>>>to be avoided, why should we now determine for you how you
> >>>>>>>>are going to live up to it? Do your own homework.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>I'm sorry, can you quote me as saying that buying products whose
> >>>>>>>production involved the death of animals is absolutely prohibited? I
> >>>>>>>don't think you can.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>I see, so it's fine to cause death and suffering of animals when it fits
> >>>>>>conveniently into your chosen lifestyle but not when it fits into mine.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>That's not a very reasonable interpretation of my argument. I believe
> >>>>>in a principle enunciated by David DeGrazia in "Taking Animals
> >>>>>Seriously": Make every reasonable effort to avoid providing financial
> >>>>>support to practices that cause or support unnecessary harm. I believe
> >>>>>that, on any reasonable interpretation of this principle, this will
> >>>>>require veganism or near-veganism.
> >>>>
> >>>>You clearly have created lots of wiggle room for
> >>>>yourself with the vague word "reasonable". You have no
> >>>>standard for deciding what's reasonable.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>It's DeGrazia who uses the word "reasonable",
> >>
> >>And you happily, and desperately, grab at it.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I quote his principle and say I believe in it. Is there a problem with
> > that?
>
> Yes. It's unexamined, and you're grasping at a
> catch-all excuse.
>

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

>
> >>>and it's hard to avoid
> >>>using vague words altogether, language being what it is.
> >>
> >>Oh, it's hard all right, but language has nothing to do
> >>with it. It's the philosophical incoherence of
> >>"veganism" that's the problem, not language.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I've yet to see any evidence for the philosophical incoherence of
> > ethical veganism.
>
> You have seen it. You don't get it. I've been showing
> it to you for several posts now. You claim to be
> minimizing something you believe, irrationally, to be
> bad, but:
>
> - you can't coherently explain why it's bad
> - you aren't minimizing it in your own life
> - you have no coherent explanation for why you stopped
> where you did in your efforts to reduce harm
>

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

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

I gave you the underlying moral principle.

>
> >>>For a moral
> >>>principle to have some chance of being free from counterexample, there
> >>>usually has to be a certain amount of vagueness built into it.
> >>>
> >>>I don't have *precise* criteria for what's reasonable, but I can say
> >>>*some* things about what the word does and doesn't mean.
> >>
> >>You can't say anything meaningful.
> >
> >
> > Yes, I can and I do.
>
> You can't, and you don't. All you do is congratulate
> yourself for your smug complacency.

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

Rupert wrote:

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

>>>>>>
>>>>>>You have ZERO basis for your belief that you
>>>>>>"contribute to as little animal suffering as possible",
>>>>>>other than the fact that you don't eat meat. You are
>>>>>>committing a logical fallacy: the fallacy of Denying
>>>>>>the Antecedent.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I eat meat, I cause the death and suffering of animals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't eat meat;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> therefore, I don't cause the death and suffering of animals.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This is plainly false: you can cause the death and
>>>>>>suffering of animals in LOTS of ways other than by
>>>>>>killing them to eat them.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>My claim is not that I don't contribute the death and suffering of
>>>>>animals. It is that I contribute as little as possible.
>>>>
>>>>But you have no basis for that claim.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, I do. I've been defending it.
>>
>>No, you have no basis for it. You are NOT contributing
>>as little as possible, and you aren't even trying to
>>determine how you might.
>
>
> I'm contribute almost as little as possible, and I am trying to
> determine how I might do better.

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


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

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


>>You also are blind to the
>>possiblity that some consumption pattern that DOES
>>include animal parts might actually be lower than what
>>you're consuming now.
>
>
> No, I'm not. But I want to see some evidence.

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


>>You get a warm fuzzy feeling
>>from blurting out some horseshit about "as little as
>>possible" without actually investigating to see if you
>>are. The entire position is poorly conceived and
>>incoherent.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>Furthermore, it
>>>>is a certainty that when you FIRST became a "vegan",
>>>>you *did* believe that you weren't causing any animal
>>>>death or suffering.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>No, it's not.
>>
>>Yes, it is. You DID think that refraining from
>>consuming animal parts meant you weren't harming any
>>animals.
>>
>
>
> No, I didn't.

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


>>>And, also, as far as I can tell it's irrelevant.
>>
>>It's highly relevant: you're still engaged in the same
>>illogical thinking. You still blindly and stupidly
>>believe that following a rule - "don't consume animal
>>parts" - somehow translates to being "more moral".
>>
>
>
> I'm not engaged in any illogical thinking.

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


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

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


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

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


>>>>The point is, the ONLY thing you have done is refrain
>>>
>>>>from consuming animal parts. That abstention tells you
>>>
>>>>NOTHING about how many animals you injure or kill, but
>>>>the abstention is all you have.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>No, I have the information I've read.
>>
>>I doubt it. In any case, you've failed to act on it.
>>
>
>
> No, I haven't.

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


>>>It leads me to believe that by
>>>being vegan I'm reducing my contribution to animal suffering.
>>
>>You're not minimizing it. You have no morally
>>acceptable explanation for why you're not, either.
>>
>
>
> What do *you* think I should do, in order to "make every reasonable
> effort not to provide financial support to practices that cause or
> support unnecessary harm"?

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


>>>I'm waiting for people to provide contrary evidence.
>>
>>I've given it to you.
>>
>
>
> You've suggested I should investigate the CDs figures for different
> plant products, and grow some of my own food. Those are good
> suggestions. I'll act on them.

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


>>>>For example, you have no clue, no ****ing clue at all,
>>>>if a kilogram of rice causes more, fewer or the same
>>>>number of deaths as a kilogram of wheat. Even assuming
>>>>you eat a strictly vegetarian diet, different vegetable
>>>>products have different collateral death tolls, and you
>>>>have NO IDEA which ones are high-CD and which are
>>>>low-CD. Furthermore, you have no intention of trying
>>>>to find out.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, I do.
>>
>>No, you don't. Stop lying.
>>
>
>
> I'm not lying.

Yes, you are.


>>There were two statements in the You don't have a
>>clue about relative harm caused by different
>>vegetables, and you don't have any intention of finding
>>out.
>>
>
>
> I meant, I have some intention of finding out.

No, you don't have.


>>>>Like every smug "vegan" everywhere, you assume that not
>>>>consuming animal parts, in and of itself, *means* that
>>>>you are causing the least harm. Your smug complacency
>>>>is disgusting.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't assume it, I believe I have reasonable evidence for it.
>>
>>No, you don't have ANY evidence for it. Refraining
>>from consuming animal parts has nothing whatever to do
>>with causing the least harm in choosing those things
>>you DO consume. But refraining from consuming animal
>>parts is ALL you're doing. You aren't minimizing harm,
>>and you aren't even trying to find out how you might
>>minimize it.
>>
>
>
> I do have reasonable evidence that avoiding animal products
> considerably reduces the harm I contribute to.

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


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

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


>>>>>It's DeGrazia who uses the word "reasonable",
>>>>
>>>>And you happily, and desperately, grab at it.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I quote his principle and say I believe in it. Is there a problem with
>>>that?
>>
>>Yes. It's unexamined, and you're grasping at a
>>catch-all excuse.
>>
>
>
> It's not unexamined. He provided an argument for it

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


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

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


>>>>>and it's hard to avoid
>>>>>using vague words altogether, language being what it is.
>>>>
>>>>Oh, it's hard all right, but language has nothing to do
>>>>with it. It's the philosophical incoherence of
>>>>"veganism" that's the problem, not language.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>I've yet to see any evidence for the philosophical incoherence of
>>>ethical veganism.
>>
>>You have seen it. You don't get it. I've been showing
>>it to you for several posts now. You claim to be
>>minimizing something you believe, irrationally, to be
>>bad, but:
>>
>>- you can't coherently explain why it's bad
>>- you aren't minimizing it in your own life
>>- you have no coherent explanation for why you stopped
>> where you did in your efforts to reduce harm
>>
>
>
> It's not irrational to believe that animal suffering is bad. It's a
> widely held, common-sense belief.

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

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


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

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


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

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


>>Following a rule is not being ethical, especially when
>>that rule is unrelated to any moral principle.
>>
>
>
> I gave you the underlying moral principle.

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


>>>>>For a moral
>>>>>principle to have some chance of being free from counterexample, there
>>>>>usually has to be a certain amount of vagueness built into it.
>>>>>
>>>>>I don't have *precise* criteria for what's reasonable, but I can say
>>>>>*some* things about what the word does and doesn't mean.
>>>>
>>>>You can't say anything meaningful.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, I can and I do.
>>
>>You can't, and you don't. All you do is congratulate
>>yourself for your smug complacency.
>
>
> No, actually I can and I do.

No, you don't.


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

It is abuse, but it is not gratuitous, nor is it
unfounded. It is very well founded. You are a
hypocrite, and a sanctimonious one at that.
Sanctimonious hypocrisy merits abuse.

Rupert wrote:
>>You also are blind to the
>>possiblity that some consumption pattern that DOES
>>include animal parts might actually be lower than what
>>you're consuming now.
>
> No, I'm not. But I want to see some evidence.

You sure as hell didn't demand any evidence from Singer, DeGrazia, et
al, when reading their propaganda. You were gullible enough to believe
them despite the following "evidence" of so-called "factory" farming:

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

How do these pics jibe with how those activists describe such farms?

Found scrawled in the outhouse on 22 Jun 2005 19:05:55 -0700, "Rupert"
> wrote:

>
>
>Rudy Canoza wrote:
>> Rupert wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Dutch wrote:
>> >
>> >>"Rupert" > wrote
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>>Dutch wrote:
>> >>>
>> > wrote
<snip>
>>
>> This is plainly false: you can cause the death and
>> suffering of animals in LOTS of ways other than by
>> killing them to eat them.
>
>My claim is not that I don't contribute the death and suffering of
>animals. It is that I contribute as little as possible.

What is the quantitative measure of that, Rupert?

>> GIVEN that *all* you have
>> done is refrain from (or stop) eating meat, you have NO
>> IDEA how many animals you cause to suffer and die in
>> other ways than eating them: you haven't bothered to
>> check.
>>
>
>I have some idea. I'm always happy to find out more, and to hear
>suggestions for how I can further reduce my contribution to animal
>suffering.
>
First you have to determine the numbers in *your* contribution. Then you have to decide
*what* areas you can modify by how much and in what way.

<snip>

Cheers 2 U,

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

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?

usual suspect wrote:
> Rupert wrote:
> >>You have ZERO basis for your belief that you
> >>"contribute to as little animal suffering as possible",
> >>other than the fact that you don't eat meat. You are
> >>committing a logical fallacy: the fallacy of Denying
> >>the Antecedent.
> >>
> >> If I eat meat, I cause the death and suffering of
> >>animals.
> >>
> >> I don't eat meat;
> >>
> >> therefore, I don't cause the death and suffering of
> >>animals.
> >>
> >>This is plainly false: you can cause the death and
> >>suffering of animals in LOTS of ways other than by
> >>killing them to eat them.
> >
> > My claim is not that I don't contribute the death and suffering of
> > animals. It is that I contribute as little as possible.
>
> Without any objective evidence by which you or anyone else can measure.
> IOW, you merely BELIEVE you're doing the something beneficial.
>

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

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

I have some evidence.

> > I'm always happy to find out more,
>
> Did you investigate any of the claims of the activists before you
> swallowed their hook?

I didn't get my information from activists.

Rupert wrote:
>>>>You have ZERO basis for your belief that you
>>>>"contribute to as little animal suffering as possible",
>>>>other than the fact that you don't eat meat. You are
>>>>committing a logical fallacy: the fallacy of Denying
>>>>the Antecedent.
>>>>
>>>> If I eat meat, I cause the death and suffering of
>>>>animals.
>>>>
>>>> I don't eat meat;
>>>>
>>>> therefore, I don't cause the death and suffering of
>>>>animals.
>>>>
>>>>This is plainly false: you can cause the death and
>>>>suffering of animals in LOTS of ways other than by
>>>>killing them to eat them.
>>>
>>>My claim is not that I don't contribute the death and suffering of
>>>animals. It is that I contribute as little as possible.
>>
>>Without any objective evidence by which you or anyone else can measure.
>>IOW, you merely BELIEVE you're doing the something beneficial.
>
> I have some evidence for it, which I've provided.

That's not evidence of anything except that I was correct in assessing
you as a parrot of vegan/AR activists.

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

Where?

>>>I'm always happy to find out more,
>>
>>Did you investigate any of the claims of the activists before you
>>swallowed their hook?
>
> I didn't get my information from activists.

Singer, DeGrazia, et al, are vegan/AR activists.

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.

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

>Rupert wrote:
>
>>
>> Dutch wrote:
<snip for brevity>
>>
>> There is a limit to the reasonable application of words. There is no
>> reasonable sense in which it is "unfeasible" to become vegan. It is
>> feasible for me to reduce the extent to which I support commerical
>> agriculture, but to stop supporting it - well, I'd just be interested
>> to hear how you propose I would go about doing that.
>>
Rupert, I did submit a proposal requiring about 35 acres and quite a bit of funding. It
would be *possible* for you to entirely do without grocery stores for food; but it's not a
realistic probability because of the number of variables. For example, the cow gets sick
and needs penicillin. There goes your milk supply for 30 days. You get an early,
devastating frost and there goes your veggie garden. You get a wheat/oat fungus and there
goes your feed for your livestock. To build your house and sheds you must use lumber. How
many creatures are killed, maimed or done out of their nests in that process?

You see, you can't get entirely away from collateral damage or death in the course of
trying to survive. It was never meant to be that black and white. You can't count on the
vagaries of weather, disease and natural disasters like floods or tornados. Accept your
role. Believe me, non-vegans will respect you for accepting your responsibility. And you
can respect yourself for being honest.

Fair warning: that will be my last effort to bring you into reality nicely and reasonably.
Further stubborn adherence to the common vegan misconceptions about contributory
destruction may trigger my less pleasant side.

Cheers 2 U,

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

Leslie wrote:
> Found scrawled in the outhouse on Thu, 23 Jun 2005 01:25:13 GMT, Rudy Canoza
> > wrote:
>
> >Rupert wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Dutch wrote:
> <snip for brevity>
> >>
> >> There is a limit to the reasonable application of words. There is no
> >> reasonable sense in which it is "unfeasible" to become vegan. It is
> >> feasible for me to reduce the extent to which I support commerical
> >> agriculture, but to stop supporting it - well, I'd just be interested
> >> to hear how you propose I would go about doing that.
> >>
> Rupert, I did submit a proposal requiring about 35 acres and quite a bit of funding. It
> would be *possible* for you to entirely do without grocery stores for food; but it's not a
> realistic probability because of the number of variables. For example, the cow gets sick
> and needs penicillin. There goes your milk supply for 30 days. You get an early,
> devastating frost and there goes your veggie garden. You get a wheat/oat fungus and there
> goes your feed for your livestock. To build your house and sheds you must use lumber. How
> many creatures are killed, maimed or done out of their nests in that process?
>
> You see, you can't get entirely away from collateral damage or death in the course of
> trying to survive. It was never meant to be that black and white. You can't count on the
> vagaries of weather, disease and natural disasters like floods or tornados. Accept your
> role. Believe me, non-vegans will respect you for accepting your responsibility. And you
> can respect yourself for being honest.
>
> Fair warning: that will be my last effort to bring you into reality nicely and reasonably.
> Further stubborn adherence to the common vegan misconceptions about contributory
> destruction may trigger my less pleasant side.
>

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

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

"Rupert" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
>
> Leslie wrote:
>> Found scrawled in the outhouse on Thu, 23 Jun 2005 01:25:13
>> GMT, Rudy Canoza
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Rupert wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Dutch wrote:
>> <snip for brevity>
>> >>
>> >> There is a limit to the reasonable application of words.
>> >> There is no
>> >> reasonable sense in which it is "unfeasible" to become
>> >> vegan. It is
>> >> feasible for me to reduce the extent to which I support
>> >> commerical
>> >> agriculture, but to stop supporting it - well, I'd just be
>> >> interested
>> >> to hear how you propose I would go about doing that.
>> >>
>> Rupert, I did submit a proposal requiring about 35 acres and
>> quite a bit of funding. It
>> would be *possible* for you to entirely do without grocery
>> stores for food; but it's not a
>> realistic probability because of the number of variables. For
>> example, the cow gets sick
>> and needs penicillin. There goes your milk supply for 30 days.
>> You get an early,
>> devastating frost and there goes your veggie garden. You get a
>> wheat/oat fungus and there
>> goes your feed for your livestock. To build your house and
>> sheds you must use lumber. How
>> many creatures are killed, maimed or done out of their nests
>> in that process?
>>
>> You see, you can't get entirely away from collateral damage or
>> death in the course of
>> trying to survive. It was never meant to be that black and
>> white. You can't count on the
>> vagaries of weather, disease and natural disasters like floods
>> or tornados. Accept your
>> role. Believe me, non-vegans will respect you for accepting
>> your responsibility. And you
>> can respect yourself for being honest.
>>
>> Fair warning: that will be my last effort to bring you into
>> reality nicely and reasonably.
>> Further stubborn adherence to the common vegan misconceptions
>> about contributory
>> destruction may trigger my less pleasant side.
>>
>
> I never suggested I could get away from collateral damage or
> death in
> the course of trying to survive. I do believe, however, that
> there is a
> moral obligation to make every reasonable effort to minimize
> one's
> contribution to animal suffering.
=\=====================
Again, you are ailing miserably at this, fool.



It seems to me that avoiding animal
> products is a reasonable way of doing that. If you have any
> other
> suggestions, I'd be happy to hear them.
========================
No, you don't want any suggestions. You want to spew your hate
of others, killer. You focus only on what you think othes are
doing, yet do NOTHING in regards to your own actions. Proof one
is your continued inane posting to usenet, hypocrite.


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

Rupert wrote:

>
> Leslie wrote:
>
>>Found scrawled in the outhouse on Thu, 23 Jun 2005 01:25:13 GMT, Rudy Canoza
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Rupert wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dutch wrote:
>>
>><snip for brevity>
>>
>>>>There is a limit to the reasonable application of words. There is no
>>>>reasonable sense in which it is "unfeasible" to become vegan. It is
>>>>feasible for me to reduce the extent to which I support commerical
>>>>agriculture, but to stop supporting it - well, I'd just be interested
>>>>to hear how you propose I would go about doing that.
>>>>
>>
>>Rupert, I did submit a proposal requiring about 35 acres and quite a bit of funding. It
>>would be *possible* for you to entirely do without grocery stores for food; but it's not a
>>realistic probability because of the number of variables. For example, the cow gets sick
>>and needs penicillin. There goes your milk supply for 30 days. You get an early,
>>devastating frost and there goes your veggie garden. You get a wheat/oat fungus and there
>>goes your feed for your livestock. To build your house and sheds you must use lumber. How
>>many creatures are killed, maimed or done out of their nests in that process?
>>
>>You see, you can't get entirely away from collateral damage or death in the course of
>>trying to survive. It was never meant to be that black and white. You can't count on the
>>vagaries of weather, disease and natural disasters like floods or tornados. Accept your
>>role. Believe me, non-vegans will respect you for accepting your responsibility. And you
>>can respect yourself for being honest.
>>
>>Fair warning: that will be my last effort to bring you into reality nicely and reasonably.
>>Further stubborn adherence to the common vegan misconceptions about contributory
>>destruction may trigger my less pleasant side.
>>
>
>
> I never suggested I could get away from collateral damage or death in
> the course of trying to survive. I do believe, however, that there is a
> moral obligation to make every reasonable effort to minimize one's
> contribution to animal suffering. It seems to me that avoiding animal
> products is a reasonable way of doing that.

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


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

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

"Rupert" > wrote
> Leslie wrote:
>> Found scrawled in the outhouse on Thu, 23 Jun 2005 01:25:13 GMT, Rudy
>> Canoza
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Rupert wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Dutch wrote:
>> <snip for brevity>
>> >>
>> >> There is a limit to the reasonable application of words. There is no
>> >> reasonable sense in which it is "unfeasible" to become vegan. It is
>> >> feasible for me to reduce the extent to which I support commerical
>> >> agriculture, but to stop supporting it - well, I'd just be interested
>> >> to hear how you propose I would go about doing that.
>> >>
>> Rupert, I did submit a proposal requiring about 35 acres and quite a bit
>> of funding. It
>> would be *possible* for you to entirely do without grocery stores for
>> food; but it's not a
>> realistic probability because of the number of variables. For example,
>> the cow gets sick
>> and needs penicillin. There goes your milk supply for 30 days. You get an
>> early,
>> devastating frost and there goes your veggie garden. You get a wheat/oat
>> fungus and there
>> goes your feed for your livestock. To build your house and sheds you must
>> use lumber. How
>> many creatures are killed, maimed or done out of their nests in that
>> process?
>>
>> You see, you can't get entirely away from collateral damage or death in
>> the course of
>> trying to survive. It was never meant to be that black and white. You
>> can't count on the
>> vagaries of weather, disease and natural disasters like floods or
>> tornados. Accept your
>> role. Believe me, non-vegans will respect you for accepting your
>> responsibility. And you
>> can respect yourself for being honest.
>>
>> Fair warning: that will be my last effort to bring you into reality
>> nicely and reasonably.
>> Further stubborn adherence to the common vegan misconceptions about
>> contributory
>> destruction may trigger my less pleasant side.
>>
>
> I never suggested I could get away from collateral damage or death in
> the course of trying to survive.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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