Dutch wrote:

> Please don't remove all context from your responses.

Sorry. I'm still getting used to google groups.
>
> "Pesco-vegan" > wrote
> >I would argue that it is meaningless to talk about an emotionless
> > entity
> > as having "interests".
>
> Why? What does emotion have to do with wanting to live?

Is desire not an emotion?

BTW, I do realize that fish may have emotions and therefore
eating them is not in accordance with strict AR principles.

Pesco-vegan wrote:

> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
>
>>Pesco-vegan wrote:
>>
>>>Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>Fish are animals, no matter how you want to rationalize it away.
>>>>>
>>>>>Your point being?
>>>>
>>>>You aren't a "vegan" if you eat them,
>>>
>>>I don't claim to be a vegan.
>>
>>You have "vegan" as part of your inane posting ID, and you clearly with
>>to capture some of what you falsely imagine to be the ethical cachet of
>>"veganism".
>
>
> My consumer habits are influenced by AR principles if that's what you
> mean.

Barely.


>>>>*and* your attempt to rationalize
>>>>why you eat them is crap.
>>>
>>>Whatever.
>>
>>Yeah, "whatever". People who say that are unimaginative. They're also
>>defeated, but they don't have the graciousness to make a more
>>forthright concession.
>
>
> Of course.

Right.


>>>>>It is not generally specifically recommended in the same way that
>>>>>fish is. Dairy products are rather controversial, recommended by some,
>>>>>frowned upon by others.
>>>>
>>>>*None* of them are "vegan", including fish.
>>>
>>>Oh, aren't you a clever boy.
>>
>>Aren't you the snide, deflated little bit of nothing.
>
>
> When in Rome......

You're snide and deflated wherever you go.


>>>>>>>In general it takes more land and more energy to grow meat
>>>>>>>than it does to grow vegetables.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That's an utterly irrelevant point.
>>>>>
>>>>>It is a standard argument used by vegetarians
>>>>
>>>>It is utterly irrelevant.
>>>
>>>No it isn't.
>>
>>Yes, it is. It is completely irrelevant.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>and it is hard
>>>>>to argue against the idea that more efficient use of the
>>>>>planet's limited resources is desirable.
>>>>
>>>>It's a total misrepresentation of what "efficiency" is. There is
>>>>NOTHING "inefficient" about using land and other resources to produce
>>>>meat.
>>>
>>>Check out this comparison for usable protein yields per acre
>>>from different foods. Soybeans 356, Rice 261, Corn 211, Other
>>>legumes 192, Wheat 138, Milk 82, Eggs 78, Meat (all types 45)
>>>,Beef 20. Consider what % of the calories in each of these
>>>foods is protein and the comparison becomes even less favourable
>>>to the animal foods. My source is a leaflet published by CIWF.
>>>The source they quote is: USDA; FAO/WHO/UNICEF Protein Advisory
>>>Group.
>>
>>It's meaningless. It has NOTHING to do with economic efficiency,
>
>
> I wonder whether quite as much meat would be consumed in a free market
> economy. I have heard it claimed that government interventionalism

"Interventionalism"? What the **** is that?


> favours meat production but I don't know if this is truth or
> veggie propoganda.

Government excessively favors *all* agriculture, not
just meat production. All agricultural production in
the developed world is heavily subsidized by
government. It should not be. Meat doesn't get any
more subsidy than do other forms of agriculture.



>>and that's the only kind of efficiency that matters.
>
>
> Economics has a deservedly important place in society but
> it makes a number of unreasonable, implicit assumptions
> that ought to be corrected for.

List some <snicker>; this ought to be good for a few
belly laughs.

Your notion of "efficiency" is worthless. It doesn't
mean anything.


> Land is the lifeblood of the planet blah blah blah

Stupidity.


>>>>>>>This argument is widely
>>>>>>>used to justify vegetarian diets but doesn't apply to fish.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Of course it applies to fish, you dummy.
>>>>>
>>>>>Is it possible to have a conversation on this newsgroup
>>>>>without insults being thrown around like confetti?
>>>>
>>>>Stop saying absolutely and unequivocally silly and stupid things, and
>>>>then check to see if it's possible.
>>>
>>>So you won't be uncivil if I agree with you? How kind;-)
>>
>>No guarantees.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>Most fish are "farm raised".
>>>>>
>>>>>Not the fish I eat!
>>>>
>>>>Baloney. If you ever eat salmon or catfish, you're most likely eating
>>>>farm-raised fish.
>>>
>>>In my country, labelling regulations require that the origin of fish,
>>>including whether they were wild or farmed must be stated. I have never
>>>eaten catfish. Wild Salmon is easy enough to come by.
>>
>>If you eat it, you're contributing to the depletion of wild salmon
>>stocks by overfishing.
>
>
> *Some* wild salmon stocks are overfished. Not the ones I eat.

You have no way of knowing. Cut the bullshit, buddy.

Rudy Canoza wrote:
<...>
>> Economics has a deservedly important place in society but
>> it makes a number of unreasonable, implicit assumptions
>> that ought to be corrected for.
>
> List some <snicker>; this ought to be good for a few belly laughs.

It's already good for a laugh.

<...>

"Pesco-vegan" > wrote
>
> Dutch wrote:
>
>> Please don't remove all context from your responses.
>
> Sorry. I'm still getting used to google groups.

OK, thanks. I know the option is available there, just not by default.

>> "Pesco-vegan" > wrote
>> >I would argue that it is meaningless to talk about an emotionless
>> > entity
>> > as having "interests".
>>
>> Why? What does emotion have to do with wanting to live?
>
> Is desire not an emotion?

No, (desire for) survival is a basic animal instinct, you are using the word
emotion incorrectly. Emotions are spontaneous physiological states (like
fear, excitement, contentment) which can be associated with or triggered by
a whole range of stimuli, not requiring anything beyond rudimentary mental
processes.

> BTW, I do realize that fish may have emotions and therefore
> eating them is not in accordance with strict AR principles.

Shouldn't *killing* them be the real issue, not *eating* them? I point out
the distinction because many agricultural processes, such as cotton
production, involve killing animals, yet no vegans boycott cotton. There is
a logical breakdown in these "AR principles" to which you refer.

Dutch wrote:
> "Pesco-vegan" > wrote
> >
> > Dutch wrote:
> >
> >> Please don't remove all context from your responses.
> >
> > Sorry. I'm still getting used to google groups.
>
> OK, thanks. I know the option is available there, just not by default.
>
> >> "Pesco-vegan" > wrote
> >> >I would argue that it is meaningless to talk about an emotionless
> >> > entity
> >> > as having "interests".
> >>
> >> Why? What does emotion have to do with wanting to live?
> >
> > Is desire not an emotion?
>
> No, (desire for) survival is a basic animal instinct, you are using the word
> emotion incorrectly. Emotions are spontaneous physiological states (like
> fear, excitement, contentment) which can be associated with or triggered by
> a whole range of stimuli, not requiring anything beyond rudimentary mental
> processes.
>
> > BTW, I do realize that fish may have emotions and therefore
> > eating them is not in accordance with strict AR principles.
>
> Shouldn't *killing* them be the real issue, not *eating* them? I point out
> the distinction because many agricultural processes, such as cotton
> production, involve killing animals,


Can you please supply a cite on the "killing animals" in cotton
production?



yet no vegans boycott cotton. There is
> a logical breakdown in these "AR principles" to which you refer.

"Ron" > wrote
>
> Can you please supply a cite on the "killing animals" in cotton
> production?

http://www.vegsoc.org/info/clothing.html
"Cotton is, of course, a plant product but there are various environmental
considerations to be taken into account, like the heavy use of pesticides,
dyes and other chemicals in the finishing process causing pollution. Cotton
is the most widely used natural fibre, grown in 80 countries occupying 30
million hectares, it represents 5% of the world's agriculture and uses 50%
of the world's insecticides.."

It takes only a small leap of logic to realize that aside from insect
deaths, that any animals or birds that eat those insects are also poisoned.

The western prairies that once hosted countless bird species are now nearly
barren due to the use of insecticides and herbicides on grain crops.

Dutch wrote:

> "Pesco-vegan" > wrote
> >
> > Dutch wrote:
> >
> >> Please don't remove all context from your responses.
> >
> > Sorry. I'm still getting used to google groups.
>
> OK, thanks. I know the option is available there, just not by default.
>
> >> "Pesco-vegan" > wrote
> >> >I would argue that it is meaningless to talk about an emotionless
> >> > entity
> >> > as having "interests".
> >>
> >> Why? What does emotion have to do with wanting to live?
> >
> > Is desire not an emotion?
>
> No, (desire for) survival is a basic animal instinct, you are using the word
> emotion incorrectly.

I'm still not convinced by this but it doesn't seem worth splitting
hairs over.

> Emotions are spontaneous physiological states (like
> fear, excitement, contentment) which can be associated with or triggered by
> a whole range of stimuli, not requiring anything beyond rudimentary mental
> processes.
>
> > BTW, I do realize that fish may have emotions and therefore
> > eating them is not in accordance with strict AR principles.
>
> Shouldn't *killing* them be the real issue, not *eating* them?

Definately but if you are against the killing, it is hypocritical
to partake of the eating.

> I point out
> the distinction because many agricultural processes, such as cotton
> production, involve killing animals, yet no vegans boycott cotton. There is
> a logical breakdown in these "AR principles" to which you refer.

This is a fair point. I guess a really strict observance of AR
principles would require adherents to live in self-sufficient
communes. I normally think of AR as an extension of Human rights
to cover animals as well. Thus the deaths caused during harvesting
and transportation are no more a violation of animal rights
then road accidents or pollution-triggered-diseases are a violation
of human rights. However, when animals are dying as a result of
chemicals whose purpose is to kill, this defence simply falls apart.
I understand that 1/4 of the world's pesticides are used on
cotton. I find it hard to believe cotton represents anywhere near
1/4 of the world's crops.

"Pesco-vegan" > wrote
>
> Dutch wrote:

[..]

>> >> "Pesco-vegan" > wrote
>> >> >I would argue that it is meaningless to talk about an emotionless
>> >> > entity
>> >> > as having "interests".
>> >>
>> >> Why? What does emotion have to do with wanting to live?
>> >
>> > Is desire not an emotion?
>>
>> No, (desire for) survival is a basic animal instinct, you are using the
>> word
>> emotion incorrectly.
>
> I'm still not convinced by this but it doesn't seem worth splitting
> hairs over.

Think about it more. If you are going to discuss this issue intelligently
then you should have a more precise understanding of such basic concepts.
For example, some people are clinically devoid of emotions, yet still have a
desire and drive to survive.

>> Emotions are spontaneous physiological states (like
>> fear, excitement, contentment) which can be associated with or triggered
>> by
>> a whole range of stimuli, not requiring anything beyond rudimentary
>> mental
>> processes.
>>
>> > BTW, I do realize that fish may have emotions and therefore
>> > eating them is not in accordance with strict AR principles.
>>
>> Shouldn't *killing* them be the real issue, not *eating* them?
>
> Definately but if you are against the killing, it is hypocritical
> to partake of the eating.

Why is wrong to kill and animal and eat it, but not wrong to kill an animal
in the course of obtaining other food? It's not logical.

>> I point out
>> the distinction because many agricultural processes, such as cotton
>> production, involve killing animals, yet no vegans boycott cotton. There
>> is
>> a logical breakdown in these "AR principles" to which you refer.
>
> This is a fair point. I guess a really strict observance of AR
> principles would require adherents to live in self-sufficient
> communes.

The hypocrisy goes much deeper than that. Unless you know where all your
consumer products come from, mouthing terms like "AR principles" is empty
rhetoric.

> I normally think of AR as an extension of Human rights
> to cover animals as well.

It's extending rights in an unbalanced, suspiciously self-interested manner.

> Thus the deaths caused during harvesting
> and transportation are no more a violation of animal rights
> then road accidents or pollution-triggered-diseases are a violation
> of human rights.

That analogy fails, because there are no measures taken to mitigate the
collateral death toll of animals in agriculture as there are with humans.

> However, when animals are dying as a result of
> chemicals whose purpose is to kill, this defence simply falls apart.

That defense had already collapsed.

> I understand that 1/4 of the world's pesticides are used on
> cotton. I find it hard to believe cotton represents anywhere near
> 1/4 of the world's crops.

Most of the crops we grow depend on pesticides, herbicides and heavy
machinery.

Veganism is a fundamentally dishonest pretense to a beautiful and morally
superior lifestyle, but when you wash off the make-up what is left is
unattractive, self-serving sanctimony.

Dutch wrote:

[snip]

> >> > BTW, I do realize that fish may have emotions and therefore
> >> > eating them is not in accordance with strict AR principles.
> >>
> >> Shouldn't *killing* them be the real issue, not *eating* them?
> >
> > Definately but if you are against the killing, it is hypocritical
> > to partake of the eating.
>
> Why is wrong to kill and animal and eat it, but not wrong to kill an animal
> in the course of obtaining other food? It's not logical.

If you are deliberately killing an animal, it doesn't matter whether
you are doing so in order to eat it or to obtain other food.

> >> I point out
> >> the distinction because many agricultural processes, such as cotton
> >> production, involve killing animals, yet no vegans boycott cotton. There
> >> is
> >> a logical breakdown in these "AR principles" to which you refer.
> >
> > This is a fair point. I guess a really strict observance of AR
> > principles would require adherents to live in self-sufficient
> > communes.
>
> The hypocrisy goes much deeper than that. Unless you know where all your
> consumer products come from, mouthing terms like "AR principles" is empty
> rhetoric.

Knowing exactly where all your consumer products come from is not
a realistic proposition. This does not make ethical consumerism
worthless or hypocritical.

> > I normally think of AR as an extension of Human rights
> > to cover animals as well.
>
> It's extending rights in an unbalanced, suspiciously self-interested manner.

I disagree.

> > Thus the deaths caused during harvesting
> > and transportation are no more a violation of animal rights
> > then road accidents or pollution-triggered-diseases are a violation
> > of human rights.
>
> That analogy fails, because there are no measures taken to mitigate the
> collateral death toll of animals in agriculture as there are with humans.
>
> > However, when animals are dying as a result of
> > chemicals whose purpose is to kill, this defence simply falls apart.
>
> That defense had already collapsed.
>
> > I understand that 1/4 of the world's pesticides are used on
> > cotton. I find it hard to believe cotton represents anywhere near
> > 1/4 of the world's crops.
>
> Most of the crops we grow depend on pesticides, herbicides and heavy
> machinery.

I know.

> Veganism is a fundamentally dishonest pretense to a beautiful and morally
> superior lifestyle, but when you wash off the make-up what is left is
> unattractive, self-serving sanctimony.

Going vegan is a positive way of reducing the negative impact of
one's consumer habits towards animal life.

Pesco-vegan wrote:

> Dutch wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
>>>>>BTW, I do realize that fish may have emotions and therefore
>>>>>eating them is not in accordance with strict AR principles.
>>>>
>>>>Shouldn't *killing* them be the real issue, not *eating* them?
>>>
>>>Definately but if you are against the killing, it is hypocritical
>>>to partake of the eating.
>>
>>Why is wrong to kill and animal and eat it, but not wrong to kill an animal
>>in the course of obtaining other food? It's not logical.
>
>
> If you are deliberately killing an animal, it doesn't matter whether
> you are doing so in order to eat it or to obtain other food.

"vegans" stupidly and wrongly think there *is* a
difference. Dutch's question was rhetorical.

"vegans" eat food whose production - cultivation,
harvesting, processing, distribution - causes animals
to die. Above you write, "[if] you are against the
killing, it is hypocritical to partake of the eating."
But "vegans" do this every day of their lives, in
every meal. The production of every food item they
eat, in every meal, caused animals to die.


>>>>I point out
>>>>the distinction because many agricultural processes, such as cotton
>>>>production, involve killing animals, yet no vegans boycott cotton. There
>>>>is
>>>>a logical breakdown in these "AR principles" to which you refer.
>>>
>>>This is a fair point. I guess a really strict observance of AR
>>>principles would require adherents to live in self-sufficient
>>>communes.
>>
>>The hypocrisy goes much deeper than that. Unless you know where all your
>>consumer products come from, mouthing terms like "AR principles" is empty
>>rhetoric.
>
>
> Knowing exactly where all your consumer products come from is not
> a realistic proposition.

Who says so? What you mean is, it's hard, and you
don't like having to do any hard work in order to try
to abide by the ethical propositions you like to blabber.


> This does not make ethical consumerism
> worthless or hypocritical.

Actually, it does. *Your* brand of so-caled "ethical"
consumerism, anyway.


>>>I normally think of AR as an extension of Human rights
>>>to cover animals as well.
>>
>>It's extending rights in an unbalanced, suspiciously self-interested manner.
>
>
> I disagree.

Your disagreement is stupid, and based on ignorance -
WILLFUL ignorance. You very obviously cannot explain
in any meaningful and coherent way why you disagree.


>>>Thus the deaths caused during harvesting
>>>and transportation are no more a violation of animal rights
>>>then road accidents or pollution-triggered-diseases are a violation
>>>of human rights.
>>
>>That analogy fails, because there are no measures taken to mitigate the
>>collateral death toll of animals in agriculture as there are with humans.
>>
>>
>>>However, when animals are dying as a result of
>>>chemicals whose purpose is to kill, this defence simply falls apart.
>>
>>That defense had already collapsed.
>>
>>
>>>I understand that 1/4 of the world's pesticides are used on
>>>cotton. I find it hard to believe cotton represents anywhere near
>>>1/4 of the world's crops.
>>
>>Most of the crops we grow depend on pesticides, herbicides and heavy
>>machinery.
>
>
> I know.

You claim to know, but you don't give evidence of knowing.


>>Veganism is a fundamentally dishonest pretense to a beautiful and morally
>>superior lifestyle, but when you wash off the make-up what is left is
>>unattractive, self-serving sanctimony.
>
>
> Going vegan is a positive way of reducing the negative impact of
> one's consumer habits towards animal life.

No, it isn't. It's an empty symbolic gesture.

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ink.net...
> Pesco-vegan wrote:
<..>
> > Going vegan is a positive way of reducing the negative impact of
> > one's consumer habits towards animal life.
>
> No, it isn't. It's an empty symbolic gesture.

"Right now, in addition to producing grains, vegetable
and fruits for direct human consumption, farmers also
raise livestock, and millions of acres are planted in
feed crops for livestock. The theoretical question at
hand is, what if Americans suddenly stopped raising any
livestock at all - how would we feed ourselves?

The answer is trivially simple. All of the resources
going into raising livestock, PLUS all of the resources
going into raising crops as livestock feed, would no
longer be needed for that purpose. To make up the food
deficit for humans, a fraction of those resources would
be needed to grow additional human-edible crops. That
fraction would be quite small, due to the fact that
livestock consume more calories and protein than we get
back out of them: the feed-conversion ratio for all of
them is substantially above 1:1." - "Rudy Canoza" 1/Apr/05

pearl wrote:

> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ink.net...
>
>>Pesco-vegan wrote:
>
> <..>
>
>>>Going vegan is a positive way of reducing the negative impact of
>>>one's consumer habits towards animal life.
>>
>>No, it isn't. It's an empty symbolic gesture.
>
>
> "Right now,

And always. "veganism" is ALWAYS an empty, symbolic
gesture.

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ink.net...
> pearl wrote:
>
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ink.net...
> >
> >>Pesco-vegan wrote:
> >
> > <..>
> >
> >>>Going vegan is a positive way of reducing the negative impact of
> >>>one's consumer habits towards animal life.
> >>
> >>No, it isn't. It's an empty symbolic gesture.
> >
> >
> > "Right now,
>
> And always.

Ok..

Always, "in addition to producing grains, vegetable
and fruits for direct human consumption, farmers also
raise livestock, and millions of acres are planted in
feed crops for livestock. The theoretical question at
hand is, what if Americans suddenly stopped raising any
livestock at all - how would we feed ourselves?

The answer is trivially simple. All of the resources
going into raising livestock, PLUS all of the resources
going into raising crops as livestock feed, would no
longer be needed for that purpose. To make up the food
deficit for humans, a fraction of those resources would
be needed to grow additional human-edible crops. That
fraction would be quite small, due to the fact that
livestock consume more calories and protein than we get
back out of them: the feed-conversion ratio for all of
them is substantially above 1:1." - "Rudy Canoza"

stupid clueless lying **** Lesley lied:

> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ink.net...
>
>>pearl wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Pesco-vegan wrote:
>>>
>>><..>
>>>
>>>>>Going vegan is a positive way of reducing the negative impact of
>>>>>one's consumer habits towards animal life.
>>>>
>>>>No, it isn't. It's an empty symbolic gesture.
>>>
>>>
>>>"Right now,
>>
>>And always. "veganism" is ALWAYS an empty, symbolic gesture.
>
>
> Ok..

Right.

Haven't heard from your solly yet...<snicker>

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message news
>
> pearl wrote:
>
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ink.net...
> >
> >>pearl wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ink.net...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Pesco-vegan wrote:
> >>>
> >>><..>
> >>>
> >>>>>Going vegan is a positive way of reducing the negative impact of
> >>>>>one's consumer habits towards animal life.
> >>>>
> >>>>No, it isn't. It's an empty symbolic gesture.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>"Right now,
> >>
> >>And always.
> >
> > Ok..
> >
> >Always, "in addition to producing grains, vegetable
> >and fruits for direct human consumption, farmers also
> >raise livestock, and millions of acres are planted in
> >feed crops for livestock. The theoretical question at
> >hand is, what if Americans suddenly stopped raising any
> >livestock at all - how would we feed ourselves?
> >
> >The answer is trivially simple. All of the resources
> >going into raising livestock, PLUS all of the resources
> >going into raising crops as livestock feed, would no
> >longer be needed for that purpose. To make up the food
> >deficit for humans, a fraction of those resources would
> >be needed to grow additional human-edible crops. That
> >fraction would be quite small, due to the fact that
> >livestock consume more calories and protein than we get
> >back out of them: the feed-conversion ratio for all of
> >them is substantially above 1:1." - "Rudy Canoza"
>
> Right.

Yup. According to *you*, in one of your rare lucid moments,
-and snipping it away won't help,- going vegan IS a positive
way of reducing the negative impact of one's consumer habits
towards animal life, and NEVER an empty symbolic gesture.

Going to continue to argue with *yourself*, stupid ~jonnie~?

lying foot-rubbing charlatan Lesley lied:

> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message news >
>>pearl wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>pearl wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ink.net...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Pesco-vegan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>><..>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Going vegan is a positive way of reducing the negative impact of
>>>>>>>one's consumer habits towards animal life.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, it isn't. It's an empty symbolic gesture.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Right now,
>>>>
>>>>And always. "veganism" is ALWAYS an empty, symbolic gesture.
>>>
>>>Ok..
>>>
>>>Always,

Always. "veganism" is always a stupid, empty, symbolic
gesture.


>>Right.
>
>
> Yup.

Yep.

Haven't heard from your solly, you stupid smelly piece
of rotting tuna.

"Rudy Canoza" > lied in message ink.net...

<..>

"You simply do not have the courage to discuss ANY issue
with me in a polite, intellectually-honest manner; you are afraid
to do so, because you know you would fail in every exchange.
You are an intellectual coward, and that is the reason you try
to hide this fact with all the vicious, psychopathic behavior. "
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html

pearl wrote:

> I simply do not have the courage to discuss ANY issue

I know.

Haven't heard from your solly yet, you stupid ****.

Rudy Canoza wrote:

[snip]
> >
> > Knowing exactly where all your consumer products come from is not
> > a realistic proposition.
>
> Who says so? What you mean is, it's hard, and you
> don't like having to do any hard work in order to try
> to abide by the ethical propositions you like to blabber.

No. I mean that unless you are entirely self-sufficient, you
can not realistically supervise the production of every item you buy.
To determine which products are the most ethical, you have to
make (preferably) educated guesses.

>
> > This does not make ethical consumerism
> > worthless or hypocritical.
>
> Actually, it does. *Your* brand of so-caled "ethical"
> consumerism, anyway.

So you think it would be better if I just bought what I felt
like without worrying where it came from?

[snip]

> >>Veganism is a fundamentally dishonest pretense to a beautiful and morally
> >>superior lifestyle, but when you wash off the make-up what is left is
> >>unattractive, self-serving sanctimony.
> >
> > Going vegan is a positive way of reducing the negative impact of
> > one's consumer habits towards animal life.
>
> No, it isn't. It's an empty symbolic gesture.

Compare the harm done to animals in order to grow the crops to
feed an indiscriminate omnivore + the crops to feed the animals
he consumes + the animals themselves with the harm done to animals
growing the crops required to feed an indiscriminate vegan.
It then becomes fairly obvious that the assertion you make above
is false.

Pesco-vegan wrote:

> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>>Knowing exactly where all your consumer products come from is not
>>>a realistic proposition.
>>
>>Who says so? What you mean is, it's hard, and you
>>don't like having to do any hard work in order to try
>>to abide by the ethical propositions you like to blabber.
>
>
> No. I mean that unless you are entirely self-sufficient, you
> can not realistically supervise the production of every item you buy.
> To determine which products are the most ethical, you have to
> make (preferably) educated guesses.

Maybe you need to THINK OUT your ethics before staking
out an absurd, impossible position.


>>>This does not make ethical consumerism
>>>worthless or hypocritical.
>>
>>Actually, it does. *Your* brand of so-caled "ethical"
>>consumerism, anyway.
>
>
> So you think it would be better if I just bought what I felt
> like without worrying where it came from?

No. I think you would be better served if you really
LEARNED something about ethics, FIRST, before adopting
an untenable, unthinking position.



>>>>Veganism is a fundamentally dishonest pretense to a beautiful and morally
>>>>superior lifestyle, but when you wash off the make-up what is left is
>>>>unattractive, self-serving sanctimony.
>>>
>>>Going vegan is a positive way of reducing the negative impact of
>>>one's consumer habits towards animal life.
>>
>>No, it isn't. It's an empty symbolic gesture.
>
>
> Compare the harm done to animals in order to grow the crops to
> feed an indiscriminate

"indiscriminate" - you just can't resist the
pejorative, can you, you self-impressed little snot.



> omnivore + the crops to feed the animals
> he consumes + the animals themselves with the harm done to animals
> growing the crops required to feed an indiscriminate vegan.
> It then becomes fairly obvious that the assertion you make above
> is false.

No, it doesn't at all. The FACT is, you don't have any
reasonable stopping rule. You kill some animals, but
you have no way of saying why you stop where you do;
why you're willing to kill X, but not X+1.

Your position is poorly thought out; it really has
almost no thought behind it at all.

"Pesco-vegan" > wrote
>
> Rudy Canoza wrote:
>
> [snip]
>> >
>> > Knowing exactly where all your consumer products come from is not
>> > a realistic proposition.
>>
>> Who says so? What you mean is, it's hard, and you
>> don't like having to do any hard work in order to try
>> to abide by the ethical propositions you like to blabber.
>
> No. I mean that unless you are entirely self-sufficient, you
> can not realistically supervise the production of every item you buy.
> To determine which products are the most ethical, you have to
> make (preferably) educated guesses.

Becoming a vegan is not an educated approach, it's simplistic, and simple
solutions appeal to simple minds. That in itself is not so bad, what is
reprehensible is the almost universal tendency for vegans to denigrate
others in order to glorify themselves.

>> > This does not make ethical consumerism
>> > worthless or hypocritical.
>>
>> Actually, it does. *Your* brand of so-caled "ethical"
>> consumerism, anyway.
>
> So you think it would be better if I just bought what I felt
> like without worrying where it came from?

It would be better, more logical, if you subjected all foods to the same
degree of critical scrutiny to which you subject animal products. The
concept of veganism however is that abstaining from animal products is not
only *sufficient* to attain a morally acceptable lifestyle, it is
*essential*. Both of these presumptions are unsupportable. The correct
approach is to use your "educated guesses" to understand the impact of *all*
food, consumer products and services. "Vegans" reject this suggestion
however, because it's too much work, and it implies that they may have to
abandon the categorical moral superiority that they have expropriated for
themselves.

[snip]
>
>> >>Veganism is a fundamentally dishonest pretense to a beautiful and
>> >>morally
>> >>superior lifestyle, but when you wash off the make-up what is left is
>> >>unattractive, self-serving sanctimony.
>> >
>> > Going vegan is a positive way of reducing the negative impact of
>> > one's consumer habits towards animal life.
>>
>> No, it isn't. It's an empty symbolic gesture.
>
> Compare the harm done to animals in order to grow the crops to
> feed an indiscriminate omnivore + the crops to feed the animals
> he consumes + the animals themselves with the harm done to animals
> growing the crops required to feed an indiscriminate vegan.
> It then becomes fairly obvious that the assertion you make above
> is false.

Are you defining morality as doing less harm than others *while remaining
indiscriminate*?

Why is the comparison limited to "indiscriminate" consumers? What about
discriminating non-vegans?

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ink.net...
>
> pearl wrote:
>
> > You simply do not have the courage to discuss ANY issue
>
> I know.
>
> Haven't heard from your solly yet, you stupid ****.

You *will* be held to account for everything you have done.

*
The Psalms 37
The Insecurity of the Wicked
A Psalm of David.

1 Fret not thyself because of evildoers,
neither be thou envious against the workers of iniquity.

2 For they shall soon be cut down like the grass,
and wither as the green herb.

3 Trust in the LORD, and do good;
so shalt thou dwell in the land, and verily thou shalt be fed.

4 Delight thyself also in the LORD;
and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart.

5 Commit thy way unto the LORD;
trust also in him; and he shall bring it to pass.

6 And he shall bring forth thy righteousness as the light,
and thy judgment as the noonday.

7 Rest in the LORD, and wait patiently for him:
fret not thyself because of him who prospereth in his way,
because of the man who bringeth wicked devices to pass.

8 Cease from anger, and forsake wrath:
fret not thyself in any wise to do evil.

9 For evildoers shall be cut off:
but those that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth.

10 For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be:
yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be.

11 But the meek shall inherit the earth;
and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.

12 The wicked plotteth against the just,
and gnasheth upon him with his teeth.

13 The Lord shall laugh at him:
for he seeth that his day is coming.

14 The wicked have drawn out the sword, and have bent their bow,
to cast down the poor and needy,
and to slay such as be of upright conversation.

15 Their sword shall enter into their own heart,
and their bows shall be broken.

......
*

Dutch wrote:
> "Ron" > wrote
>
>>Can you please supply a cite on the "killing animals" in cotton
>>production?
>
>
> http://www.vegsoc.org/info/clothing.html
> "Cotton is, of course, a plant product but there are various environmental
> considerations to be taken into account, like the heavy use of pesticides,
> dyes and other chemicals in the finishing process causing pollution. Cotton
> is the most widely used natural fibre, grown in 80 countries occupying 30
> million hectares, it represents 5% of the world's agriculture and uses 50%
> of the world's insecticides.."

From some of my earlier posts about fur and hides versus synthetics and
natural fibers:
---------
How is cotton farmed? Land is tilled using very large machines. Seeds
are sewn. The land is treated with pesticides and herbicides, and
irrigated. This doesn't exactly help small animals, birds, snakes,
amphibians, etc., living in and around the farm. Many die in just these
steps. There's another thing that kills small animals in the cotton
fields before harvest. Just before the cotton is collected, fields are
sprayed with defoliant. This is to make harvesting easier. The
defoliants used are fairly toxic and kill small animals. Then the
combine goes through the fields and collects the cotton. More animals
are run over, and the bare fields are prime grounds for predation.
Cotton is one of the most heavily treated crops. One organic vendor's
website claims:
About 23 percent of the world's insecticides and more than 10
percent of the world's pesticides are used on conventional
cotton. It is estimated that it takes approximately 1/4 to 1/3
pound of chemicals to grow enough cotton to make just one
T-shirt. Many of the pesticides used on conventional cotton are
classified by the US EPA as Category 1 and 2 the most dangerous
chemicals.
http://www.organiccottonandhemp.com/

Sure, there's "organic" cotton, but pesticides are still used despite
claims that "no pesticides or herbicides are used" -- just not
*synthetic* ones. There are many organic herbicides and pesticides, some
of which have longer half-lives than synthetic ones. The rest of the
production is the same: large machines, irrigation, stripping fields
bare (since organic cotton production requires crop rotation to minimize
boll weevil infestation), etc. There are other facets of organic cotton
that make it less desirable to grow. Some of those include the higher
moisture content at harvest (since defoliants are used). That has some
drawbacks. Farmers must pay for storage until the moisture content is
low enough for ginning, pay for certification (if they want higher
organic prices -- it costs a lot more to produce), etc. See one of the
links below.

Do you purchase *only* organic cotton clothing? How about the rest of
the vegans and ARAs here? Or are they indiscriminate shoppers
hypocritically purchase things they say they oppose? How is killing a
*whole bunch* of mice, rats, armadillos, skunks, snakes, frogs, birds,
and turtles for your Hanes and blue jeans or briefcase more ethical than
someone whose jacket (or briefcase) is made from part of the hide of
just *one* cow or deer?

http://www.sarep.ucdavis.edu/N EWSLTR/v8n3/sa-13.htm
http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/pn56/pn56p19a.htm

Hemp production, too, is flawed in terms of being free of "cruelty."
Hemp is grown thickly, proving cover for small animals. Like grass
crops, it's harvested low. This has several "harmful" effects on small
animals. First, it endangers them immediately with respect to the
combines. They can be chopped to death, or just injured (see link below;
hemp isn't much different than silage). Second, the effect of stripping
the crop leaves them exposed to predation.
http://www.bds.org.uk/Research/Silag...entperrier.htm

How many acres of cotton and hemp are required to make your briefcase?
How many animals live in those acres, and how many don't survive the
harvesting (or herbicide/pesticide use) required to produce your
briefcase? Tens? Hundreds? Thousands? Now compare that number to how
many briefcases can be made from the hide of one steer -- probably two
or three (possibly more). Is either *really* more "humane"? Look at the
little deer again. You probably wouldn't use its hide, but is it any
more acceptable that your "alternative" product still involves animal
injuries and deaths?
---------

> It takes only a small leap of logic to realize that aside from insect
> deaths, that any animals or birds that eat those insects are also poisoned.
>
> The western prairies that once hosted countless bird species are now nearly
> barren due to the use of insecticides and herbicides on grain crops.

Correct. From the liberal Organic Consumers Association:
Cotton is the most toxic crop on the planet. While only three
percent of the world's farming acreage is cotton, these crops
are sprayed with up to 25 percent of the world's pesticides and
herbicides, including some of the most toxic ones, such as
aldicarb. And of course cotton is present in many other consumer
products besides garments--food products, tampons, bandages,
baby diapers, mattresses, bed linen, etc.

According to www.sustainablecotton.org, "the simple act of
growing and harvesting the one pound of cotton fiber needed to
make a T-shirt takes an enormous toll on the air, water, and
soil, not to mention the health of people in cotton growing
areas. The cotton grown for just one T-shirt requires a third of
a pound of agricultural chemicals."

Moreover, some 60 percent of a cotton crop, by weight, enters
the food chain in the form of cottonseed oil which is used
widely in processed foods, and as cottonseed feed for cows,
ending up in meat and dairy products. The pesticide residues
from these cottonseeds concentrate in the fatty tissues of these
animals, and in turn are passed on in meat and dairy products to
consumers.
http://www.washingtonfreepress.org/6...sMostToxic.htm

pearl wrote:
>>>You simply do not have the courage to discuss ANY issue
>>
>>I know.
>>
>>Haven't heard from your solly yet, you stupid ****.
>
> You *will* be held to account for everything you have done.

Not by you or any solicitor working on your behalf.

I really can't be bothered to play "up yours". If you fancy a civil and
serious debate, just let me know.

On 5 Sep 2005 17:09:29 -0700, "Pesco-vegan" > wrote:

>I really can't be bothered to play "up yours". If you fancy a civil and
>serious debate, just let me know.

Why, so you can just whiff off again when the
going gets too tough for you, nebbish?

Dutch wrote:

> "Pesco-vegan" > wrote
> >
> > Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >> >
> >> > Knowing exactly where all your consumer products come from is not
> >> > a realistic proposition.
> >>
> >> Who says so? What you mean is, it's hard, and you
> >> don't like having to do any hard work in order to try
> >> to abide by the ethical propositions you like to blabber.
> >
> > No. I mean that unless you are entirely self-sufficient, you
> > can not realistically supervise the production of every item you buy.
> > To determine which products are the most ethical, you have to
> > make (preferably) educated guesses.
>
> Becoming a vegan is not an educated approach, it's simplistic, and simple
> solutions appeal to simple minds. That in itself is not so bad, what is
> reprehensible is the almost universal tendency for vegans to denigrate
> others in order to glorify themselves.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Please try to imagine that you
believed that the farming of animals was inherently wrong and
that veganism was a solution without flaw. Presumably you would
like to convince others to follow your example? Would your goal
be to educate or to denigrate?

> >> > This does not make ethical consumerism
> >> > worthless or hypocritical.
> >>
> >> Actually, it does. *Your* brand of so-caled "ethical"
> >> consumerism, anyway.
> >
> > So you think it would be better if I just bought what I felt
> > like without worrying where it came from?
>
> It would be better, more logical, if you subjected all foods to the same
> degree of critical scrutiny to which you subject animal products.

I can't argue with that.

> The
> concept of veganism however is that abstaining from animal products is not
> only *sufficient* to attain a morally acceptable lifestyle, it is
> *essential*. Both of these presumptions are unsupportable.

If your standards are set low enough that abstaining from animal
products is sufficient then it is not essential to do so either.
If you wish to adopt the very highest standards then I believe
it is essential to abstain from animal products (excepting those
who died of natural causes). Before you ask, I am also assuming
that all your veggies would be organic, locally grown (eg within
walking distance) and probably hand-harvested.

It would, of course, be very reasonable to argue that this second
lifestyle is no morally superior to an alternative where one attempts
to keep their standards as high as possible while doing something of
great value to society that they would not have time for if they
adopted such high consumer standards.

> The correct
> approach is to use your "educated guesses" to understand the impact of *all*
> food, consumer products and services.

Of course.

>"Vegans" reject this suggestion
> however, because it's too much work,

I think that's a little unfair. Most vegans do embrace ethical
consumerism beyond simply avoiding animal products.

> and it implies that they may have to
> abandon the categorical moral superiority that they have expropriated for
> themselves.

Suppose I decide I don't want to eat meat because I don't like
the thought of an animal being killed for me in cold blood but
feel less uncomfortable with the incidental deaths associated
with non-animal agriculture even though I recognize that there
is no logical basis for making this distinction and that applying
it does not allow me to claim any moral superiority over a selective
meat eater. Would you have a problem with that?

> [snip]
> >
> >> >>Veganism is a fundamentally dishonest pretense to a beautiful and
> >> >>morally
> >> >>superior lifestyle, but when you wash off the make-up what is left is
> >> >>unattractive, self-serving sanctimony.
> >> >
> >> > Going vegan is a positive way of reducing the negative impact of
> >> > one's consumer habits towards animal life.
> >>
> >> No, it isn't. It's an empty symbolic gesture.
> >
> > Compare the harm done to animals in order to grow the crops to
> > feed an indiscriminate omnivore + the crops to feed the animals
> > he consumes + the animals themselves with the harm done to animals
> > growing the crops required to feed an indiscriminate vegan.
> > It then becomes fairly obvious that the assertion you make above
> > is false.
>
> Are you defining morality as doing less harm than others *while remaining
> indiscriminate*?
>
> Why is the comparison limited to "indiscriminate" consumers? What about
> discriminating non-vegans?

The point I was trying to make was that the decision to go vegan
will almost always reduce the harm done by your diet even if you
take no other actions towards that goal. Therefore I disagree with
Rudy's claim that it is an empty symoblic gesture.

On 5 Sep 2005 18:10:29 -0700, "Pesco-vegan" > wrote:
[..]
>The point I was trying to make was that the decision to go vegan
>will almost always reduce the harm done by your diet even if you
>take no other actions towards that goal. Therefore I disagree with
>Rudy's claim that it is an empty symoblic gesture.

Reducing harms means nothing if you're in fact still
causing them. You are no more ethical for reducing
them than someone who doesn't, so forget all that
nonsense about reducing them because it wont get
you to where you want to be.

According to Aristotle's essence vs. accident distinction
(per se vs. per accidens), when a property of something
is classified as "essence" it means that that property is
always absolutely necessary for that object's existence.
The collateral deaths found in crop production, and the
deaths associated with medical research are not classified
as such because those foods and drugs can exist without
killing animals; the properties they carry are "per accidens"
rather than "essence" (per se). Consumers of these goods,
then, consume what is in "essence" perfectly ethical. Now
compare the deaths caused by omnivores which in
"essence" are always necessary to the foods they buy
with vegan foods which are by definition "per accidens".
What would be the ethical choice between the two?

Pesco-vegan wrote:
> I really can't be bothered to play "up yours". If you fancy a civil and
> serious debate, just let me know.

Up yours.

"Pesco-vegan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Dutch wrote:
>
>> "Pesco-vegan" > wrote


snippage...


> I think that's a little unfair. Most vegans do embrace ethical
> consumerism beyond simply avoiding animal products.
>
>> and it implies that they may have to
>> abandon the categorical moral superiority that they have
>> expropriated for
>> themselves.
>
> Suppose I decide I don't want to eat meat because I don't like
> the thought of an animal being killed for me in cold blood
======================
See? There is the typical ignorance of vegans. There are many
mnay animals that ARE killed deliberatly in cold blood for your
veggies. The real difference is that the ones that die for my
meat die far, far more humanely than the ones that are killed for
your veggies. Do you really think having your guts turn to mush
while you rot from the inside is not a cold-blooded killing just
to keep your veggies clean, cheap, and convenient?


but
> feel less uncomfortable with the incidental deaths associated
> with non-animal agriculture even though I recognize that there
> is no logical basis for making this distinction and that
> applying
> it does not allow me to claim any moral superiority over a
> selective
> meat eater. Would you have a problem with that?
>
>> [snip]
>> >
>> >> >>Veganism is a fundamentally dishonest pretense to a
>> >> >>beautiful and
>> >> >>morally
>> >> >>superior lifestyle, but when you wash off the make-up
>> >> >>what is left is
>> >> >>unattractive, self-serving sanctimony.
>> >> >
>> >> > Going vegan is a positive way of reducing the negative
>> >> > impact of
>> >> > one's consumer habits towards animal life.
>> >>
>> >> No, it isn't. It's an empty symbolic gesture.
>> >
>> > Compare the harm done to animals in order to grow the crops
>> > to
>> > feed an indiscriminate omnivore + the crops to feed the
>> > animals
>> > he consumes + the animals themselves with the harm done to
>> > animals
>> > growing the crops required to feed an indiscriminate vegan.
>> > It then becomes fairly obvious that the assertion you make
>> > above
>> > is false.
>>
>> Are you defining morality as doing less harm than others
>> *while remaining
>> indiscriminate*?
>>
>> Why is the comparison limited to "indiscriminate" consumers?
>> What about
>> discriminating non-vegans?
>
> The point I was trying to make was that the decision to go
> vegan
> will almost always reduce the harm done by your diet even if
> you
> take no other actions towards that goal. Therefore I disagree
> with
> Rudy's claim that it is an empty symoblic gesture.
======================
No one has yet to prove that going vegan automatically reduces
your impact. Go for it. Be the first.
Show how going vegan will reduce the harm done.


>

pearl wrote:

> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ink.net...
>
>>pearl wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You simply do not have the courage to discuss ANY issue
>>
>>I know.
>>
>>Haven't heard from your solly yet, you stupid ****.
>
>
> You *will* be held to account for everything you have done.

97 virgins await me in the afterlife for having shown
you to be a fraud and a liar and a stupid ****.

Meanwhile, here on earth, YOU won't be doing anything
to me, with or without (definitely without) a solly.
No case, no solly, no suit. **** you very much.

"Pesco-vegan" > wrote

> Please try to imagine that you
> believed that the farming of animals was inherently wrong and
> that veganism was a solution without flaw.

I have no desire or need to imagine, I have thought long and hard about it,
and I have concluded that it's a deeply flawed moral conclusion. You are
confusing political ideals with diet. I suggest that *you* need to imagine
that the idea that farming animals is wrong is misguided, a mistake, a wrong
turn honestly made in the quest for a moral life.

I don't have time to respond in detail right now, I 'm going away for a week
and I have to get ready, but I'm looking forward to exploring this issue in
greater depth with you when I return.

cheers

"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message news
> pearl wrote:
>
> > "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ink.net...
> >
> >>pearl wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>You simply do not have the courage to discuss ANY issue
> >>
> >>I know.
> >>
> >>Haven't heard from your solly yet, you stupid ****.
> >
> >
> > You *will* be held to account for everything you have done.
>
> 97 virgins await me in the afterlife for having shown
> you to be a fraud and a liar and a stupid ****.

"These beings -- who were endowed with bad conduct of body,
speech, & mind, who reviled the noble ones, held wrong views
and undertook actions under the influence of wrong views --
with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in
the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms,
in hell. " -- Gopaka Moggallana Sutta, MN 108
http://www.iol.ie/~creature/boiled%20ball.html

On Mon, 5 Sep 2005 21:44:42 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Pesco-vegan" > wrote
>
>> Please try to imagine that you
>> believed that the farming of animals was inherently wrong and
>> that veganism was a solution without flaw.
>
>I have no desire or need to imagine, I have thought long and hard about it,
>and I have concluded that it's a deeply flawed moral conclusion.

Which is why you wrote;
"Because farm animals are sentient beings, and
forcing them through this mass production
assembly line "concentration camp" process is
cruel. We put innocent farm animals through
processes of suffering and early death that we
wouldn't subject the most heinous human
criminal to."
Dutch 2000-12-26 http://tinyurl.com/4qgxz

You're full of shit, Ditch.

>You are
>confusing political ideals with diet. I suggest that *you* need to imagine
>that the idea that farming animals is wrong is misguided, a mistake, a wrong
>turn

Which is why you wrote;
"Because farm animals are sentient beings, and
forcing them through this mass production
assembly line "concentration camp" process is
cruel. We put innocent farm animals through
processes of suffering and early death that we
wouldn't subject the most heinous human
criminal to."
Dutch 2000-12-26 http://tinyurl.com/4qgxz

You're full of shit, Ditch.

>I don't have time to respond in detail right now, I 'm going away for a week
>and I have to get ready, but I'm looking forward to exploring this issue in
>greater depth with you when I return.

Big deal. I can hardly wait. The only thing you
explore to any depth is your navel, you lying
hypocrite.

On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 02:46:57 GMT, "rick" > wrote:

[..]
>No one has yet to prove that going vegan automatically reduces
>your impact. Go for it. Be the first.

Jon, or rather Rudy has already done so with;

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

The counting game is doubly stupid to be offered by
meat eaters: the moral issue isn't about counting, and
the meat eater will always lose the game, unless he
hunts or raises and slaughters his own meat."
Jonathan Ball Date: 2003-05-22

But being the weak nebbish you so obviously are, you
avoided trying to refute his claims and continue ranting
at the vegans instead for every morsel of food they eat,
for the power they use while posting messages to Usenet,
and for just about anything else you can think of without
any evidence to even support these claims. And all the
while while trying to attack them in this way you have
the gall to deny the collateral deaths associated with the
production of foods you eat, as in;

"The production of my beef promotes no CDs. Period."

and

"The production of the beef I eat causes no CDs."
rick etter Nov 15 2003 http://tinyurl.com/cpdy7

So, rather than attack vegans for the collateral deaths
they readily accept are associated with their diets, when
are you going to support your claim that the beef you
eat causes no collateral deaths at all? In short, when
are you going to stop lying and being such a hypocrite?

Dutch wrote:

> "Pesco-vegan" > wrote
>
> > Please try to imagine that you
> > believed that the farming of animals was inherently wrong and
> > that veganism was a solution without flaw.
>
> I have no desire or need to imagine, I have thought long and hard about it,
> and I have concluded that it's a deeply flawed moral conclusion. You are
> confusing political ideals with diet. I suggest that *you* need to imagine
> that the idea that farming animals is wrong is misguided, a mistake, a wrong
> turn honestly made in the quest for a moral life.
>
> I don't have time to respond in detail right now, I 'm going away for a week
> and I have to get ready, but I'm looking forward to exploring this issue in
> greater depth with you when I return.
>
> cheers

OK. I'll look forward to that.

Derek wrote:

> On 5 Sep 2005 17:09:29 -0700, "Pesco-vegan" > wrote:
>
> >I really can't be bothered to play "up yours". If you fancy a civil and
> >serious debate, just let me know.
>
> Why, so you can just whiff off again when the
> going gets too tough for you, nebbish?

I assume this is a reference to our conversation about direct action?
What was the point of continuing that debate when you had given up
trying to understand me?

Derek wrote:

> On 5 Sep 2005 18:10:29 -0700, "Pesco-vegan" > wrote:
> [..]
> >The point I was trying to make was that the decision to go vegan
> >will almost always reduce the harm done by your diet even if you
> >take no other actions towards that goal. Therefore I disagree with
> >Rudy's claim that it is an empty symoblic gesture.
>
> Reducing harms means nothing if you're in fact still
> causing them. You are no more ethical for reducing
> them than someone who doesn't, so forget all that
> nonsense about reducing them because it wont get
> you to where you want to be.
>
> According to Aristotle's essence vs. accident distinction
> (per se vs. per accidens), when a property of something
> is classified as "essence" it means that that property is
> always absolutely necessary for that object's existence.
> The collateral deaths found in crop production, and the
> deaths associated with medical research are not classified
> as such because those foods and drugs can exist without
> killing animals;

Not that it's entirely relevant to the point in hand but
how can you be so sure that the drugs discovered, partly
as a result of animal research would have been discovered
without?

> the properties they carry are "per accidens"
> rather than "essence" (per se). Consumers of these goods,
> then, consume what is in "essence" perfectly ethical. Now
> compare the deaths caused by omnivores which in
> "essence" are always necessary to the foods they buy
> with vegan foods which are by definition "per accidens".
> What would be the ethical choice between the two?

What matters is the harm actually done, not the harm that
needed to be done. If you consumed plantation sugar
in the days of slavery, would you be responsible for
supporting the slave trade or just the perfectly ethical,
"in essence" nature of the sugar?

On 6 Sep 2005 06:52:57 -0700, "Pesco-vegan" > wrote:
>Derek wrote:
>> On 5 Sep 2005 17:09:29 -0700, "Pesco-vegan" > wrote:
>>
>> >I really can't be bothered to play "up yours". If you fancy a civil and
>> >serious debate, just let me know.
>>
>> Why, so you can just whiff off again when the
>> going gets too tough for you, nebbish?
>
>I assume this is a reference to our conversation about direct action?

No, this is in reference to your conversation with
Rudy concerning your lack of any "reasonable
stopping rule." To paraphrase him, you have no
coherent reason or principle behind your position
as someone willing to kill x, but not x + 1. His
comments are valid, and if you had any coherent
reason for stopping where you do with fish, you
would put it on the table for discussion instead
of cutting and running for the door as you did.

pearl wrote:
> "Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message news >
>>pearl wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Rudy Canoza" > wrote in message ink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>pearl wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>You simply do not have the courage to discuss ANY issue
>>>>
>>>>I know.
>>>>
>>>>Haven't heard from your solly yet, you stupid ****.
>>>
>>>
>>>You *will* be held to account for everything you have done.
>>
>>97 virgins await me in the afterlife for having shown
>>you to be a fraud and a liar and a stupid ****.
>
>
> "These beings

**** off, ****.

Looks as if I won't *ever* be hearing from your solly.