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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode


"Pinnochio Mojo" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> rick wrote:
>
>> I suggest you try again, [ad hominem] Soy waste is used as
>> feed, after
>> edible oil products have been removed. A product that YOU
>> continue to consume, [ad hominem]

>
> If you have some hard "realworld" data to back up your
> insincere claims
> and specious observations, then by all means share it with us.
>================================

You made the origina; claim fool, why can't you back it up?
Typical loon aren't you, eh twits?



  #42 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Pinnochio Mojo
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

>rick wrote:
> You made the original claim [ad hominem], why can't you back it up?
> Typical [ad homeinem] aren't you, eh [ad homeinem]?


Precisely. And you have failed to refute it, so therefore it appears
that you are only spouting meaningless and inconsequential absurdities,
with no actual relevance to the "collateral death" argument at hand.

  #43 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Pinnochio Mojo
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

Here is one page that provides some evidence of the animal feed/human
consumption imbalance that exists.

http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...stock.hrs.html

  #44 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode


"Pinnochio Mojo" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> >rick wrote:
>> You made the original claim [ad hominem], why can't you back
>> it up?
>> Typical [ad homeinem] aren't you, eh [ad homeinem]?

>
> Precisely. And you have failed to refute it,

======================================
LOL YOU have failed to back it up, fool.


so therefore it appears
> that you are only spouting meaningless and inconsequential
> absurdities,
> with no actual relevance to the "collateral death" argument at
> hand.
>======================

http://www.asasoya.org/Uses/LifeOfSoybean.htm
http://www.soystats.com/2005/edibleuses.htm
http://www.asasoya.org/Uses/meal.htm


Now, where's the proof of your claims, fool:
"...fact that less than 1/100 of 1% of all soy produced worldwide
is meant for human
consumption..."
What a brainwashed, willfully ignorant dolt you are twits...


  #45 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode


"Pinnochio Mojo" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Here is one page that provides some evidence of the animal
> feed/human
> consumption imbalance that exists.
>
> http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...stock.hrs.html
>==================

no proof of your claim there, fool...
"...fact that less than 1/100 of 1% of all soy produced worldwide
is meant for human
consumption..."




  #46 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
C. James Strutz
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode


"Dutch" > wrote in message
news:BLrff.529055$1i.323482@pd7tw2no...
>
> "C. James Strutz" > wrote
>
>> Is it ethical to wash one's hands of responsibility for the deaths of
>> living things just because one doesn't claim moral superiority?

>
> We're not washing our hands of responsibility, we're accepting
> responsibility.


For what? How?

>> The onus to minimize the suffering or death of any living thing should be
>> on all of us regardless of what claims we do or don't make.

>
> I think that is a personal decision.


Yes, people should be free to choose to be vegans or vegetarians or
omnivores without being harassed or worse. You know what I mean?

> Under the circumstances


What circumstances?

> I think it behooves us to be aware of and honest about the impact of our
> lifestyles. Vegans notoriously fail at this.


Maybe so, but is it so bad in the case of vegans? I mean, how do vegans hurt
you that you are so motivated to harass them?

>>The disagreement that you and others have with vegans is the attitude of
>>morel superiority of SOME of them and not their wish to minimize animal
>>deaths. AFter all, what's wrong with trying to minimize animal deaths?
>>It's fair to accuse a vegan of ignorance but it's an entirely different
>>matter to accuse them of being unethical.

>
> The issue isn't the idea of minimizing animal suffering, there's nothing
> wrong with that.


Ah, then you agree with the so called "counting game"...

> The issue is the inability of vegans to value any lifestyle or act that
> accomplishes that goal unless it is achieved by following the vegan golden
> rule (do not consume..), while at the same time *over*-valuing the token
> act of abstaining from so-called "animal products".


You're getting too deep for me. So you're saying that vegans: a) don't value
any action that accomplishes their goals except for abstinence, b) they
over-value abstinence. Yes?

> The side-effects of cotton production as recently discussed should make
> this very apparent.


I haven't been following that thread.

> The problem I have with veganism, if I can try to put it succinctly,


Thank you...

> is that it creates an unfair and unrealistic moral dichotomy between
> consumers and non-consumers of animal products. This moral deceit is
> inherent in veganism, therefore veganism per se must be rejected.


So much for succinctlty. You mean that veganism must be rejected because
it's morally faulty, and it's morally faulty because a) they don't value any
action that accomplishes their goals except for abstinence, and b) they
over-value abstinence. And this creates a moral DILEMMA between consumers
and non-consumers of animal products. Yes?

First of all, there's nothing in "a) don't value any action that
accomplishes their goals except for abstinence, b) they over-value
abstinence" that's immoral. So there must be more to it. I guess by "moral"
you are saying that vegans aren't saving the lives that they think they are,
or something like that. Aren't you being a bit harsh in judging vegans to be
immoral for something that seems more a matter of ignorance at best? And
didn't your mother ever teach you anything about tolerance?

Oh yeah, and how does any of this create a moral dilemma between consumers
and non-consumers of meat products? Do you see picket lines of naked vegans
in front of your grocery store's meat counter or something?

> Those who place a high moral value on minimizing animal suffering need to
> abandon the misleading notion of abstaining from animal "products" and
> create new paradigm to express their ideal.


And that would be what???


  #47 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode


"Pinnochio Mojo" > wrote

> You have clarified nothing. Please explain for me what it is you find
> so inappropriate with veganism.


I have explained it, the descriptive term is self-righteousness.


  #48 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode


"Pinnochio Mojo" > said nothing as usual..

Are you going to pretend you aren't Derek Nash Pinnochio? You're nose is
gonna grow...


  #49 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode


"C. James Strutz" > wrote
>
> "Dutch" > wrote
>>
>> "C. James Strutz" > wrote
>>
>>> Is it ethical to wash one's hands of responsibility for the deaths of
>>> living things just because one doesn't claim moral superiority?

>>
>> We're not washing our hands of responsibility, we're accepting
>> responsibility.

>
> For what? How?


For the death toll behind our consumer lifestyles, by admitting it.

>>> The onus to minimize the suffering or death of any living thing should
>>> be on all of us regardless of what claims we do or don't make.

>>
>> I think that is a personal decision.

>
> Yes, people should be free to choose to be vegans or vegetarians or
> omnivores without being harassed or worse. You know what I mean?


I think you mean that you should be able to read a newsgroup on the ethics
of vegetarianism and not be subjected to ideas that shatter your illusions.

>> Under the circumstances

>
> What circumstances?


The circumstances are that our lifestyles are built on animal deaths, and
abstaining from animal "products" does not change that fact.

>> I think it behooves us to be aware of and honest about the impact of our
>> lifestyles. Vegans notoriously fail at this.

>
> Maybe so, but is it so bad in the case of vegans?


Yes, it appears to be.

> I mean, how do vegans hurt you that you are so motivated to harass them?


I don't. I would never harrass anyone because of their diet. I am
participating in a forum that everyone views of their free will. To call
expressing my opinion in this way "harrassment" is absurd.

>>>The disagreement that you and others have with vegans is the attitude of
>>>morel superiority of SOME of them and not their wish to minimize animal
>>>deaths. AFter all, what's wrong with trying to minimize animal deaths?
>>>It's fair to accuse a vegan of ignorance but it's an entirely different
>>>matter to accuse them of being unethical.

>>
>> The issue isn't the idea of minimizing animal suffering, there's nothing
>> wrong with that.

>
> Ah, then you agree with the so called "counting game"...


Yes, I do, but I disagree with the self-serving way vegans do it.

>> The issue is the inability of vegans to value any lifestyle or act that
>> accomplishes that goal unless it is achieved by following the vegan
>> golden rule (do not consume..), while at the same time *over*-valuing the
>> token act of abstaining from so-called "animal products".

>
> You're getting too deep for me. So you're saying that vegans: a) don't
> value any action that accomplishes their goals except for abstinence, b)
> they over-value abstinence. Yes?


Yes, they undervalue efforts that violate 'the rule' and overrate efforts
that follow it.

>> The side-effects of cotton production as recently discussed should make
>> this very apparent.

>
> I haven't been following that thread.


Cotton (a vegan product) production is *deadly*.

>> The problem I have with veganism, if I can try to put it succinctly,

>
> Thank you...
>
>> is that it creates an unfair and unrealistic moral dichotomy between
>> consumers and non-consumers of animal products. This moral deceit is
>> inherent in veganism, therefore veganism per se must be rejected.

>
> So much for succinctlty. You mean that veganism must be rejected because
> it's morally faulty, and it's morally faulty because a) they don't value
> any action that accomplishes their goals except for abstinence, and b)
> they over-value abstinence. And this creates a moral DILEMMA between
> consumers and non-consumers of animal products. Yes?


Yes.

> First of all, there's nothing in "a) don't value any action that
> accomplishes their goals except for abstinence, b) they over-value
> abstinence" that's immoral.


In my opinion it's a very bad practice.

> So there must be more to it. I guess by "moral" you are saying that vegans
> aren't saving the lives that they think they are, or something like that.
> Aren't you being a bit harsh in judging vegans to be immoral for something
> that seems more a matter of ignorance at best?


Are you claiming ignorance as your excuse? I can't see how you can.

> And didn't your mother ever teach you anything about tolerance?


Why should I tolerate ignorance? How does that help anyone?

> Oh yeah, and how does any of this create a moral dilemma between consumers
> and non-consumers of meat products?


In many ways, it causes social problems and cognitive difficulty for
followers of veganism. Essentially it's a gross misjudgment of one's fellow
man, how can that be healthy?

> Do you see picket lines of naked vegans in front of your grocery store's
> meat counter or something?


Now that would be funny... but unsanitary.

>> Those who place a high moral value on minimizing animal suffering need to
>> abandon the misleading notion of abstaining from animal "products" and
>> create new paradigm to express their ideal.

>
> And that would be what???


Place the emphasis on the animals that are harmed by humanity rather than
some inadequate rule that punishes (in your mind) others, while letting
yourself off the hook for massive transgressions of the principle, such as
wearing cotton clothes or eating bananas, just to name a couple of products
which are related to systemic animal deaths.


  #50 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
C. James Strutz
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode


"Dutch" > wrote in message
news:uEvff.526208$oW2.490644@pd7tw1no...
>
> "C. James Strutz" > wrote
>>
>> "Dutch" > wrote
>>>
>>> "C. James Strutz" > wrote
>>>
>>>> Is it ethical to wash one's hands of responsibility for the deaths of
>>>> living things just because one doesn't claim moral superiority?
>>>
>>> We're not washing our hands of responsibility, we're accepting
>>> responsibility.

>>
>> For what? How?

>
> For the death toll behind our consumer lifestyles, by admitting it.


I presume you're talking about vegans. Yup, that's my whole point. :^)

>>>> The onus to minimize the suffering or death of any living thing should
>>>> be on all of us regardless of what claims we do or don't make.
>>>
>>> I think that is a personal decision.

>>
>> Yes, people should be free to choose to be vegans or vegetarians or
>> omnivores without being harassed or worse. You know what I mean?

>
> I think you mean that you should be able to read a newsgroup on the ethics
> of vegetarianism and not be subjected to ideas that shatter your
> illusions.


Now why would you think that?

>>> Under the circumstances

>>
>> What circumstances?

>
> The circumstances are that our lifestyles are built on animal deaths, and
> abstaining from animal "products" does not change that fact.


Sure it changes it. The question is does it change it significantly? No, I
don't think anybody (including vegans) expects that it would.

>> I mean, how do vegans hurt you that you are so motivated to harass them?

>
> I don't. I would never harrass anyone because of their diet. I am
> participating in a forum that everyone views of their free will. To call
> expressing my opinion in this way "harrassment" is absurd.


Sorry, I'll just say that you and others, more or less, "express your
opinion" in an aggressive and arrogant manner, sometimes unnecessarily mean
spirited and condescending. The term "harassment" is not unjustified.

>>>>The disagreement that you and others have with vegans is the attitude of
>>>>morel superiority of SOME of them and not their wish to minimize animal
>>>>deaths. AFter all, what's wrong with trying to minimize animal deaths?
>>>>It's fair to accuse a vegan of ignorance but it's an entirely different
>>>>matter to accuse them of being unethical.
>>>
>>> The issue isn't the idea of minimizing animal suffering, there's nothing
>>> wrong with that.

>>
>> Ah, then you agree with the so called "counting game"...

>
> Yes, I do, but I disagree with the self-serving way vegans do it.


Great way to straddle the fence...

>>> The issue is the inability of vegans to value any lifestyle or act that
>>> accomplishes that goal unless it is achieved by following the vegan
>>> golden rule (do not consume..), while at the same time *over*-valuing
>>> the token act of abstaining from so-called "animal products".

>>
>> You're getting too deep for me. So you're saying that vegans: a) don't
>> value any action that accomplishes their goals except for abstinence, b)
>> they over-value abstinence. Yes?

>
> Yes, they undervalue efforts that violate 'the rule' and overrate efforts
> that follow it.


It's amazing how they all think alike. They kind of remind me of the
Borg....

>>> The side-effects of cotton production as recently discussed should make
>>> this very apparent.

>>
>> I haven't been following that thread.

>
> Cotton (a vegan product) production is *deadly*.


How so? You mean vegans who wear cotton automatically condemn the deaths of
thousands of cute little faces? Do you wear cotton?

>>> The problem I have with veganism, if I can try to put it succinctly,

>>
>> Thank you...
>>
>>> is that it creates an unfair and unrealistic moral dichotomy between
>>> consumers and non-consumers of animal products. This moral deceit is
>>> inherent in veganism, therefore veganism per se must be rejected.

>>
>> So much for succinctlty. You mean that veganism must be rejected because
>> it's morally faulty, and it's morally faulty because a) they don't value
>> any action that accomplishes their goals except for abstinence, and b)
>> they over-value abstinence. And this creates a moral DILEMMA between
>> consumers and non-consumers of animal products. Yes?

>
> Yes.


Whew, I'm good!

>> First of all, there's nothing in "a) don't value any action that
>> accomplishes their goals except for abstinence, b) they over-value
>> abstinence" that's immoral.

>
> In my opinion it's a very bad practice.


But immoral?

>> So there must be more to it. I guess by "moral" you are saying that
>> vegans aren't saving the lives that they think they are, or something
>> like that. Aren't you being a bit harsh in judging vegans to be immoral
>> for something that seems more a matter of ignorance at best?

>
> Are you claiming ignorance as your excuse? I can't see how you can.


I'm not making an excuse for myself. I'm asking YOU how you can judge
somebody as immoral for something they don't completely understand.

>> And didn't your mother ever teach you anything about tolerance?

>
> Why should I tolerate ignorance? How does that help anyone?


Well, now we all know what kind of person we're dealing with. End of
thread...





  #51 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode


"C. James Strutz" > wrote
>
> "Dutch" > wrote in message
> news:uEvff.526208$oW2.490644@pd7tw1no...
>>
>> "C. James Strutz" > wrote
>>>
>>> "Dutch" > wrote
>>>>
>>>> "C. James Strutz" > wrote
>>>>
>>>>> Is it ethical to wash one's hands of responsibility for the deaths of
>>>>> living things just because one doesn't claim moral superiority?
>>>>
>>>> We're not washing our hands of responsibility, we're accepting
>>>> responsibility.
>>>
>>> For what? How?

>>
>> For the death toll behind our consumer lifestyles, by admitting it.

>
> I presume you're talking about vegans. Yup, that's my whole point. :^)


Of course not. Vegans in general are oblivious to the extent of the death
toll, so are most non-vegans, but they already acknowledge that are
demanding the killing of animals on their behest. Just read the denial in
the comments of "mojo".

>>>>> The onus to minimize the suffering or death of any living thing should
>>>>> be on all of us regardless of what claims we do or don't make.
>>>>
>>>> I think that is a personal decision.
>>>
>>> Yes, people should be free to choose to be vegans or vegetarians or
>>> omnivores without being harassed or worse. You know what I mean?

>>
>> I think you mean that you should be able to read a newsgroup on the
>> ethics of vegetarianism and not be subjected to ideas that shatter your
>> illusions.

>
> Now why would you think that?


You are claiming that what I am doing now is harrassment, what else could it
mean?

>>>> Under the circumstances
>>>
>>> What circumstances?

>>
>> The circumstances are that our lifestyles are built on animal deaths, and
>> abstaining from animal "products" does not change that fact.

>
> Sure it changes it. The question is does it change it significantly? No, I
> don't think anybody (including vegans) expects that it would.


It may change the number and nature of the deaths, but it doesn't change the
fact.

>>> I mean, how do vegans hurt you that you are so motivated to harass them?

>>
>> I don't. I would never harrass anyone because of their diet. I am
>> participating in a forum that everyone views of their free will. To call
>> expressing my opinion in this way "harrassment" is absurd.

>
> Sorry, I'll just say that you and others, more or less, "express your
> opinion" in an aggressive and arrogant manner, sometimes unnecessarily
> mean spirited and condescending. The term "harassment" is not unjustified.


It is totally unjustified. Harrassment implies that you are not a willing
participant.
>
>>>>>The disagreement that you and others have with vegans is the attitude
>>>>>of morel superiority of SOME of them and not their wish to minimize
>>>>>animal deaths. AFter all, what's wrong with trying to minimize animal
>>>>>deaths? It's fair to accuse a vegan of ignorance but it's an entirely
>>>>>different matter to accuse them of being unethical.
>>>>
>>>> The issue isn't the idea of minimizing animal suffering, there's
>>>> nothing wrong with that.
>>>
>>> Ah, then you agree with the so called "counting game"...

>>
>> Yes, I do, but I disagree with the self-serving way vegans do it.

>
> Great way to straddle the fence...


I just call it as I see it. Vegans place ultimate importance on the killing
of animals when the evidence ends up in the final product (on your dinner
plate) and ignore, deny, minimize or dismiss all the less obvious deaths
that don't, yet are still "unecessary" by any fair use of the word.

>>>> The issue is the inability of vegans to value any lifestyle or act that
>>>> accomplishes that goal unless it is achieved by following the vegan
>>>> golden rule (do not consume..), while at the same time *over*-valuing
>>>> the token act of abstaining from so-called "animal products".
>>>
>>> You're getting too deep for me. So you're saying that vegans: a) don't
>>> value any action that accomplishes their goals except for abstinence, b)
>>> they over-value abstinence. Yes?

>>
>> Yes, they undervalue efforts that violate 'the rule' and overrate efforts
>> that follow it.

>
> It's amazing how they all think alike. They kind of remind me of the
> Borg....


In this particular respect, that's quite true.

>>>> The side-effects of cotton production as recently discussed should make
>>>> this very apparent.
>>>
>>> I haven't been following that thread.

>>
>> Cotton (a vegan product) production is *deadly*.

>
> How so? You mean vegans who wear cotton automatically condemn the deaths
> of thousands of cute little faces?


Depending on your definition of cute, but yes.

> Do you wear cotton?


Yes, why?

>>>> The problem I have with veganism, if I can try to put it succinctly,
>>>
>>> Thank you...
>>>
>>>> is that it creates an unfair and unrealistic moral dichotomy between
>>>> consumers and non-consumers of animal products. This moral deceit is
>>>> inherent in veganism, therefore veganism per se must be rejected.
>>>
>>> So much for succinctlty. You mean that veganism must be rejected because
>>> it's morally faulty, and it's morally faulty because a) they don't value
>>> any action that accomplishes their goals except for abstinence, and b)
>>> they over-value abstinence. And this creates a moral DILEMMA between
>>> consumers and non-consumers of animal products. Yes?

>>
>> Yes.

>
> Whew, I'm good!


How so?

>>> First of all, there's nothing in "a) don't value any action that
>>> accomplishes their goals except for abstinence, b) they over-value
>>> abstinence" that's immoral.

>>
>> In my opinion it's a very bad practice.

>
> But immoral?


Not really significantly immoral in my view, although some radicals behave
immorally. I think it's mostly silly and misguided.

>>> So there must be more to it. I guess by "moral" you are saying that
>>> vegans aren't saving the lives that they think they are, or something
>>> like that. Aren't you being a bit harsh in judging vegans to be immoral
>>> for something that seems more a matter of ignorance at best?

>>
>> Are you claiming ignorance as your excuse? I can't see how you can.

>
> I'm not making an excuse for myself. I'm asking YOU how you can judge
> somebody as immoral for something they don't completely understand.


I don't.

>>> And didn't your mother ever teach you anything about tolerance?

>>
>> Why should I tolerate ignorance? How does that help anyone?

>
> Well, now we all know what kind of person we're dealing with. End of
> thread...


I'm a rational decent person who does not deserve the slings and arrows of
vegans of ARAs, directly of implied.


  #52 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Glorfindel
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

RobDar wrote:
> Does anyone still watch Jerry Springer?


He has begun hosting a remarkably good show on Air America in,
I gather, an effort to repair his former image. There was a
segment on animal rights recently, with several excellent callers
expressing pro-animal rights views in calm, rational, and
convincing fashion.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

  #53 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Pinnochio Mojo
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

Dutch the friendly ng troll wrote:

> Of course not. Vegans in general are oblivious to the extent of the death
> toll, so are most non-vegans


How would you go about "proving" this rather sloppy assertion? The fact
is you cannot. Therefore your remarks are irrelevant at best.

> Just read the denial in the comments of "mojo".


Examples please. But the fact remains that i am not in denial, though i
doubt that the same could be said about you. i choose to confront you
and others of your ilk choose to ignore. Still you provide only
nonsensical bias in the form of severely warped refutations.

One of the hazards of being hopelessly and redundantly pc.

  #54 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

Karen Winter wrote:
>> Does anyone still watch Jerry Springer?

>
> He has begun hosting a remarkably good show on Air America


*You* would think so. Does your son and his family yet know of your
desire that your grandson grow up homosexual?
  #55 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

C. James Strutz wrote:
<...>
>>3. "fewer animals die" -- as though ethics is a counting game.

>
> Sorry, but I agree with the "counting game" argument.


You shouldn't. I've addressed this issue before with what I called
"Objecting to the 1001st death." What you wrote previously about grains
fed to cattle illustrates this objection. You contend that no matter how
many deaths may be attributable to grain (or whatever) production, those
who eat meat are responsible for at least one more animal death. In the
example, the veg-n pats himself on the back for not eating meat even
though his diet causes 1000 animals to die; those animals won't be eaten
by humans. The veg-n also sanctimoniously impugns the character of those
who eat the meat of the 1001st animal to die -- let's say it's a steer,
from which a few hundred meals can be made (very realistic with sensible
quarter-pound servings). Balance the ethical scales: the veg-n's diet
causes 1000 animals to die and the omnivore's causes 1001. Is it
significantly more ethical to be responsible for one less animal death
when you're already responsible for 1000?

In a sense, too, the veg-ns are objecting to the consumption of mere
*fractions* of an animal death. I think the scales should account for
that, but the illustration sufficiently shows the moral relativism of
vegans.

Fuller explanation of Objecting to the 1001st Death:
http://tinyurl.com/dkgtb

> America dropped atomic
> bombs on Japan at the end of WWII because many more soldiers would have died
> had we not. We killed people to prevent, in all probability, many times more
> deaths. How about the death penalty? Or what about euthanasia? Or stem cell
> research? Or abortion? Moral ethics aren't absolute.


You're overlooking the issue at hand while basically re-stating *my*
point with these examples. Your disagreement isn't with me, but with
veganism. Veganism's sense of ethics IS an absolute. Vegans don't
distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable deaths, or cruel or
non-cruel treatement. They say *ALL* animal deaths are unacceptable, and
that just about everything in a human:animal context is exploitation of
the latter by the former. They call for an end to *all* fishing, *all*
hunting, *all* animal research, *all* fur and leather production, *all*
livestock production, and even use of honey. Many of them go even
further and want an end to humans having pets.

And in many cases their alternatives to the above produce worse
conditions for animals. They suggest replacing meat with proteins from
soy and grains, like tofu and seitan or even beans and rice; these
alternatives to meat do nothing to decrease the number of animal deaths
caused by one's diet and may in fact increase animal deaths. They
likewise recommend synthetic furs and leather even though these are made
from petrochemicals which cause immense pollution and environmental harm
during drilling and refining, all of which harms people and many more
animals than it would take to make a fur or leather jacket or a pair of
leather shoes. And natural fibers like cotton and hemp are no safer for
animals than is the abattoir -- they're no different from grain crops
with respect to collateral deaths, and in many regards they're worse
since crops like cotton are heavily treated with pesticides and
defoliants (at harvest) which are highly toxic for non-target species.
See Rick's links.

>>The onus isn't on those who eat meat to reduce animal suffering or death.
>>It's on those who oppose people consuming meat and who make categorical
>>statements of their own moral superiority. When faced with the facts, they
>>ultimately make the same argument you did and claim a virtue relative to
>>the actions of others. They're not more ethical because others are
>>ethically "worse" than they are (at least according to their capricious
>>standard); they fail their own ethics test when they measure themselves by
>>their own standard.

>
> Is it ethical to wash one's hands of responsibility for the deaths of living
> things just because one doesn't claim moral superiority?


I don't think meat-eaters, farmers, ranchers, researchers, etc., are
washing their hands; they fully accept that animals die in the course of
their consumption and/or work.

> The onus to
> minimize the suffering or death of any living thing should be on all of us
> regardless of what claims we do or don't make.


Aside from images of isolated cases of wanton animal cruelty which is
already against the law (and, in many instances, the videos and images
have been used to prosecute those particular cases), I've yet to see
credible evidence that research, livestock production, farming, etc., is
a widespread abuse of animals. Those images and videos are of isolated
incidents. I can find many, many more images of prevailing conditions on
various farms that show animals are treated very well. Tell me what you
find objectionable about the conditions in the images below (other than
a reflexive objective you may have in general to any livestock production):
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

Note, unlike the PETA and other kook propaganda, these farms are
well-lit, uncramped, and quite clean. In the fourth pic, the pigs even
have outdoor (sunlit) access in their runs and a protective covering.

> The disagreement that you and
> others have with vegans is the attitude of morel superiority


I have nothing against morel or chantrelle superiority.

> of SOME of them


ALL vegans adopt a shitty, condescending attitude towards others who
consume meat, dairy, and eggs (and wear fur, favor animal research,
etc.), and many also deem those who use honey as reprobates.

> and not their wish to minimize animal deaths. AFter all, what's wrong with
> trying to minimize animal deaths?


Nothing if THAT's what they're actually doing. Most vegans, though,
prattle incessantly about NOT harming animals at all -- as though
they're causing zero harm by simply not eating them, not wearing their
hides or fur, etc.

The real issue, though, is the result. Are they actually reducing harm
to animals or are they just intending to cause less harm? The end
results show us if they're ethical or not. And in the instances I
outlined above -- objecting only to the 1001st death, recommending
high-CD foods in place of larger ruminants, recommending synthetics (or
even natural fibers) instead of leather or fur, etc. -- the results
aren't remarkably better than the _status quo ante_ of "uninformed"
consumption; indeed, they're probably much worse. Thus, one's intentions
don't make one ethical; one's effects and results do.

Veganism fails miserably in this respect. Far from being ethical, vegans
are *hypocritical* because they cause as much harm to animals as anyone
else.

> It's fair to accuse a vegan of ignorance
> but it's an entirely different matter to accuse them of being unethical.


Not when they continue to make their fanatical claims despite being
shown the errors, and not when they stubbornly deny that other forms of
consumption -- such as Professor Davis' hypothesized least-harm diet
that includes eating certain kinds of meat -- may cause less harm than a
"vegan" diet.


  #56 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Glorfindel
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

usual suspect wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


It's easy to attack something when you make it up out of whole cloth.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

> Veganism's sense of ethics IS an absolute.


false.

> Vegans don't
> distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable deaths, or cruel or
> non-cruel treatement.


Some may not, but most do.

> They say *ALL* animal deaths are unacceptable,


False.

> and
> that just about everything in a human:animal context is exploitation of
> the latter by the former.


For the most part, that is true. There are individual cases where
the institutions which allow exploitation of animals in ways harmful
to them are redeemed by individual human/animal interactions, but
the institutions themselves are indeed exploitative and the animals
have little or no way to defend themselves against human power.

> They call for an end to *all* fishing, *all*
> hunting, *all* animal research, *all* fur and leather production, *all*
> livestock production, and even use of honey. Many of them go even
> further and want an end to humans having pets.


All of which are indeed exploitation of animals. What benefit
is it to the animal involved if a human takes his life for
food or in research or in production of fur and leather? What
benefit is it to the bees if humans take their food and wax?
The issue of companion animals is more complex. Not all keeping
of "pets" is exploitation, but it often is. There is no
question that these things *are* exploitation, even if you
believe humans are justified in this exploitation.

> And in many cases their alternatives to the above produce worse
> conditions for animals.


Not for the animals involved in factory-farm production of meat
and animal products.

> They suggest replacing meat with proteins from
> soy and grains, like tofu and seitan or even beans and rice; these
> alternatives to meat do nothing to decrease the number of animal deaths
> caused by one's diet and may in fact increase animal deaths. They
> likewise recommend synthetic furs and leather even though these are made
> from petrochemicals which cause immense pollution and environmental harm
> during drilling and refining, all of which harms people and many more
> animals than it would take to make a fur or leather jacket or a pair of
> leather shoes. And natural fibers like cotton and hemp are no safer for
> animals than is the abattoir -- they're no different from grain crops
> with respect to collateral deaths, and in many regards they're worse
> since crops like cotton are heavily treated with pesticides and
> defoliants (at harvest) which are highly toxic for non-target species.
> See Rick's links.
>
>>> The onus isn't on those who eat meat to reduce animal suffering or
>>> death.


Yes, it is. If it were not for consumers of factory-farmed meat,
there would be no factory-farmed meat. You cannot use the
argument only one way. You claim vegans should regard themselves
as responsible for the deaths involved in production of the products
they use. If so, than consumers of mass-market animal products are
equally responsible for the abominable conditions animals face there.
The onus is on meat-eaters to demand humane conditions.

>>> It's on those who oppose people consuming meat


Usually because of those very abominable conditions.

>>> and who make
>>> categorical statements of their own moral superiority.


Which all vegans do not do.

>>> When faced
>>> with the facts, they ultimately make the same argument you did and
>>> claim a virtue relative to the actions of others. They're not more
>>> ethical because others are ethically "worse" than they are (at least
>>> according to their capricious standard); they fail their own ethics
>>> test when they measure themselves by their own standard.


It is not you who define the standard individuals measure themselves
against. I doubt any honest person sees himself as fulfilling his
ethical standards *perfectly* because that is not possible for human
beings. We are all imperfect, and most of us recognize that.

>> Is it ethical to wash one's hands of responsibility for the deaths of
>> living things just because one doesn't claim moral superiority?


> I don't think meat-eaters, farmers, ranchers, researchers, etc., are
> washing their hands; they fully accept that animals die in the course of
> their consumption and/or work.


That does not make their actions right. To accept responsibility
for an action does not justify the action.

>> The onus to minimize the suffering or death of any living thing should
>> be on all of us regardless of what claims we do or don't make.


> Aside from images of isolated cases of wanton animal cruelty which is
> already against the law (and, in many instances, the videos and images
> have been used to prosecute those particular cases), I've yet to see
> credible evidence that research, livestock production, farming, etc., is
> a widespread abuse of animals.


Then you have not looked or -- more likely -- have been willfully
blind to the obvious evidence. The reasons some laws have been
passed is because the abuses are and were widespread and disgusting.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

  #57 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan
Joe
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 18:10:16 GMT, usual suspect >
wrote:

>
>The only similarity is that both vegans and the typical Springer guest
>are dysfunctional.


Suspect, you have half a brain clearly, but you have the most wretched
social and communication skills possible and if you aren't aware you
come off as the poster pantyboy of Dysfunctional, look at yourself
long and hard in the mirror.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  #58 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Glorfindel
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

usual suspect wrote:

>>> Does anyone still watch Jerry Springer?


>> He has begun hosting a remarkably good show on Air America


> *You* would think so.


Well, yes, I do, although I can only judge from occasional
casual listening. The animal rights segment was excellent.
This show is not at all like the old program he had on TV.

What, specifically, do you find objectionable about it?
  #59 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode


"Glorfindel" > wrote in message
...


snip..


>
> Yes, it is. If it were not for consumers of factory-farmed
> meat,
> there would be no factory-farmed meat.

==========================
Hey, what a coincidence, killer. If consumers of factory-farmed
veggies didn't buy them there'd be no demand for them, and
millions upon millions of animals that YOU kill would still be
alive.

You cannot use the
> argument only one way. You claim vegans should regard
> themselves
> as responsible for the deaths involved in production of the
> products
> they use.

==============================
No foo, *vegans* make that claim for themselves. It's a claim
they fail miserably at even trying to live up to. Why is that,
hypocrite?



If so, than consumers of mass-market animal products are
> equally responsible for the abominable conditions animals face
> there.
> The onus is on meat-eaters to demand humane conditions.

===============================
Why then is there no onus upon vegans to demand humane treatment
of animals in veggie production? Oh, yeah, that'd be too
inconvenient for you, right, killer? As long as YOU continue to
reward farmers to produce clean, cheap, convenient veggies for
your selfishness, then it is YOU that has the problem of living
up to some ignorant claims made by vegans.
And, if you are really so concerned about the unnecessary death
and suffering of animals, why are you posting your inane
stupidity here on usenet, fool? Guess you just LIKE killing
animals for fun, huh?


>
>>>> It's on those who oppose people consuming meat

>
> Usually because of those very abominable conditions.

========================
Really? Sounds like your propaganda spew, again, hypocrite...
Not all meat comes from these so-called factories. All of your
veggies do though, hypocrite.



snip more willful ignorance...


  #60 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode


"Pinnochio Mojo" > wrote
> Dutch the friendly ng troll wrote:
>
>> Of course not. Vegans in general are oblivious to the extent of the death
>> toll, so are most non-vegans

>
> How would you go about "proving" this rather sloppy assertion? The fact
> is you cannot. Therefore your remarks are irrelevant at best.


James has acknowledged that vegans live in ignorance of the issue, that much
is already settled.

>> Just read the denial in the comments of "mojo".

>
> Examples please. But the fact remains that i am not in denial, though i
> doubt that the same could be said about you. i choose to confront you
> and others of your ilk choose to ignore. Still you provide only
> nonsensical bias in the form of severely warped refutations.


I see you know how to string words into sentences, next learn to say
something.

> One of the hazards of being hopelessly and redundantly pc.


Non sequitor.




  #61 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan
Beach Runner
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode



Joe wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 18:10:16 GMT, usual suspect >
> wrote:
>
>
>>The only similarity is that both vegans and the typical Springer guest
>>are dysfunctional.

>
>
> Suspect, you have half a brain clearly, but you have the most wretched
> social and communication skills possible and if you aren't aware you
> come off as the poster pantyboy of Dysfunctional, look at yourself
> long and hard in the mirror.
>



He is clearly intelligent and has incredibly energy to insult people.

I suspect by his level of obscenities and insults he is potentially
dangerous.
  #62 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
C. James Strutz
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode


"Dutch" > wrote in message
news:IZUff.542251$1i.452568@pd7tw2no...
>
> "Pinnochio Mojo" > wrote
>> Dutch the friendly ng troll wrote:
>>
>>> Of course not. Vegans in general are oblivious to the extent of the
>>> death
>>> toll, so are most non-vegans

>>
>> How would you go about "proving" this rather sloppy assertion? The fact
>> is you cannot. Therefore your remarks are irrelevant at best.

>
> James has acknowledged that vegans live in ignorance of the issue, that
> much is already settled.


No, I have not acknowledged that, and just because I suggested it doesn't
mean that the matter is settled.

>>> Just read the denial in the comments of "mojo".

>>
>> Examples please. But the fact remains that i am not in denial, though i
>> doubt that the same could be said about you. i choose to confront you
>> and others of your ilk choose to ignore. Still you provide only
>> nonsensical bias in the form of severely warped refutations.

>
> I see you know how to string words into sentences, next learn to say
> something.


This from the guy who tries to put things "succinctly"....


  #63 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Glorfindel
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

rick wrote:

> "Glorfindel" > wrote in message
> ...


> snip..


>>Yes, it is. If it were not for consumers of factory-farmed
>>meat,
>>there would be no factory-farmed meat.


> ==========================
> Hey, what a coincidence, killer. If consumers of factory-farmed
> veggies didn't buy them there'd be no demand for them, and
> millions upon millions of animals that YOU kill would still be
> alive.


Aside from the personal attack on me, you are correct. Efforts
should be made to decrease the number of collateral deaths in
large-scale vegetable farming also. Both are a side-effect
of modern technological methods in agriculture.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


> ========================
> Really? Sounds like your propaganda spew, again, hypocrite...
> Not all meat comes from these so-called factories. All of your
> veggies do though, hypocrite.


That is not true, nor could you prove it were true in any
individual case.
  #64 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Glorfindel
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

C. James Strutz wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


>>James has acknowledged that vegans live in ignorance of the issue, that
>>much is already settled.


> No, I have not acknowledged that, and just because I suggested it doesn't
> mean that the matter is settled.


It depends on the individual. Those who have studied the
issue at all are aware of the negative effects of modern
agricultural methods across the board. Many consumers are
ignorant. Vegetarians and vegans tend to be more aware,
because they have first considered the effect of production on
animals and decided they did not want to participate in the
system which causes so much suffering and injustice toward food
animals and other animals used to produce products for human
use. From there, it is only a small step to considering the
effect of similar methods on animals in production of other
products. People who have stopped buying one kind of product
on ethical grounds are usually open to suggestions that they
should boycott other products on ethical grounds, and many
vegans and vegetarians do so. It works the other way, too:
people who have decided to buy only shade-grown coffee or
chocolate produced by humanely-treated workers or non-sweatshop
clothing can easily see the connection with not buying animal
products from factory-farmed or abused animals. People who
routinely buy products from Wal-Mart, produced by slave-labor in
China or the barrio in Los Angeles, and sold by badly-treated
employees, will usually buy factory-farmed meat as well.

The issue of treatment of animals is closely tied in with similar
issues of treatment of workers and the environment, as most vegans
and vegetarians are aware.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

  #65 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
C. James Strutz
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode


"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> C. James Strutz wrote:
> <...>
>>>3. "fewer animals die" -- as though ethics is a counting game.

>>
>> Sorry, but I agree with the "counting game" argument.

>
> You shouldn't. I've addressed this issue before with what I called
> "Objecting to the 1001st death." What you wrote previously about grains
> fed to cattle illustrates this objection. You contend that no matter how
> many deaths may be attributable to grain (or whatever) production, those
> who eat meat are responsible for at least one more animal death. In the
> example, the veg-n pats himself on the back for not eating meat even
> though his diet causes 1000 animals to die; those animals won't be eaten
> by humans. The veg-n also sanctimoniously impugns the character of those
> who eat the meat of the 1001st animal to die -- let's say it's a steer,
> from which a few hundred meals can be made (very realistic with sensible
> quarter-pound servings). Balance the ethical scales: the veg-n's diet
> causes 1000 animals to die and the omnivore's causes 1001. Is it
> significantly more ethical to be responsible for one less animal death
> when you're already responsible for 1000?


You misunderstand me completely. I don't have real numbers but I'm going
make some up to illustrate my point (I can try to find better numbers if it
is necessary). Let's say a steer is brought to slaughter at 2 years of age
and he weighs 1200 lbs. Let's say that he eats 1 bushel of grain a day -
that's more than 700 bushels of grain in his lifetime. If 1 acre of land can
produce 200 bushels of grain per year then 3-1/2 acres of land are required
to produce enough grain for the steer. Now let's say that 1000 small
mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, and amphibians are killed per acre as a
result of producing the grain - that's more than 3500 collateral deaths
attributed to that one steer.

Now let's say that a person can make a serving from 1 cup of grain - that's
about 150 servings from 1 bushel, or 10,500 equivalent servings that went
into feeding that steer during his lifetime. If 70% of the steer is edible
then it can provide more than 3300 servings using your 1/4 pound/serving
number.

Let's normalize these numbers and make comparisons. I'm doing some rounding
with my numbers but 10,500/3300 is a little more than 3. That means that
feeding people grain instead of beef would save almost 2000 collateral
deaths (3500/3), and would require little more than 1 acre of land (3.5/3).
The life of the steer got lost in the rounding! :^)

I have to say that I'm a little surprised by my own calculations. I had read
somewhere that it takes something on the order of 50 times the grain to feed
cattle compared to that which would be required to feed people. My number
was about 3 times. Still, when you consider how many steers there are the
numbers become staggering.

> In a sense, too, the veg-ns are objecting to the consumption of mere
> *fractions* of an animal death. I think the scales should account for
> that, but the illustration sufficiently shows the moral relativism of
> vegans.
>
> Fuller explanation of Objecting to the 1001st Death:
> http://tinyurl.com/dkgtb
>
>> America dropped atomic bombs on Japan at the end of WWII because many
>> more soldiers would have died had we not. We killed people to prevent, in
>> all probability, many times more deaths. How about the death penalty? Or
>> what about euthanasia? Or stem cell research? Or abortion? Moral ethics
>> aren't absolute.

>
> You're overlooking the issue at hand while basically re-stating *my* point
> with these examples. Your disagreement isn't with me, but with veganism.
> Veganism's sense of ethics IS an absolute. Vegans don't distinguish
> between acceptable and unacceptable deaths, or cruel or non-cruel
> treatement. They say *ALL* animal deaths are unacceptable, and that just
> about everything in a human:animal context is exploitation of the latter
> by the former. They call for an end to *all* fishing, *all* hunting, *all*
> animal research, *all* fur and leather production, *all* livestock
> production, and even use of honey. Many of them go even further and want
> an end to humans having pets.


I disagree with both of you! I have shown you above what I mean by the so
called "counting game" and how eliminating beef would reduce the number of
collateral deaths. Although my numbers may not be completely accurate, I
think they at least make a very clear point. I disagree with vegans because
they usually don't consider collateral deaths at all, hence ignorance. I
also disagree with vegan's wish to end all hunting, etc. because somebody
has to replace the predators that we have all but eliminated. The natural
balance of nature is out of whack and it would only be worse if we
eliminated hunting. Many vegans also don't consider other things that effect
the lives of animals: development and the fragmenation of habitat, pesticide
and fertilizer runoff from producing food, and the ever increasing human
population among other things.

> And in many cases their alternatives to the above produce worse conditions
> for animals. They suggest replacing meat with proteins from soy and
> grains, like tofu and seitan or even beans and rice; these alternatives to
> meat do nothing to decrease the number of animal deaths caused by one's
> diet and may in fact increase animal deaths. They likewise recommend
> synthetic furs and leather even though these are made from petrochemicals
> which cause immense pollution and environmental harm during drilling and
> refining, all of which harms people and many more animals than it would
> take to make a fur or leather jacket or a pair of leather shoes. And
> natural fibers like cotton and hemp are no safer for animals than is the
> abattoir -- they're no different from grain crops with respect to
> collateral deaths, and in many regards they're worse since crops like
> cotton are heavily treated with pesticides and defoliants (at harvest)
> which are highly toxic for non-target species. See Rick's links.
>
>>>The onus isn't on those who eat meat to reduce animal suffering or death.
>>>It's on those who oppose people consuming meat and who make categorical
>>>statements of their own moral superiority. When faced with the facts,
>>>they ultimately make the same argument you did and claim a virtue
>>>relative to the actions of others. They're not more ethical because
>>>others are ethically "worse" than they are (at least according to their
>>>capricious standard); they fail their own ethics test when they measure
>>>themselves by their own standard.

>>
>> Is it ethical to wash one's hands of responsibility for the deaths of
>> living things just because one doesn't claim moral superiority?

>
> I don't think meat-eaters, farmers, ranchers, researchers, etc., are
> washing their hands; they fully accept that animals die in the course of
> their consumption and/or work.


Most meat-eaters also have no clue about collateral deaths, and only a vague
clue about fragmentation, runoff, pollution, population, etc. The root
problem is that most people are way too self-centered to worry about those
things. We want tasty food in our stomaches, warm (or cool) homes,
transportation, nice clothes, and other conveniences without considering the
impact on the earth and on other lives - even the impact on human lives in
other places. Vegans aren't the only ones guilty of ignorance, and so why
pick on just them?

>> The onus to minimize the suffering or death of any living thing should be
>> on all of us regardless of what claims we do or don't make.

>
> Aside from images of isolated cases of wanton animal cruelty which is
> already against the law (and, in many instances, the videos and images
> have been used to prosecute those particular cases), I've yet to see
> credible evidence that research, livestock production, farming, etc., is a
> widespread abuse of animals. Those images and videos are of isolated
> incidents. I can find many, many more images of prevailing conditions on
> various farms that show animals are treated very well.


I think people tend to find what they look for, vegans and anti-vegans
alike.

>> The disagreement that you and
>> others have with vegans is the attitude of morel superiority

>
> I have nothing against morel or chantrelle superiority.


Then why do you write things like "It's on those who oppose people consuming
meat and who make categorical statements of their own moral superiority."
See above.

>> of SOME of them

>
> ALL vegans adopt a shitty, condescending attitude towards others who
> consume meat, dairy, and eggs (and wear fur, favor animal research, etc.),
> and many also deem those who use honey as reprobates.


I knew this would raise a comment! We will have to agree to disagree on this
issue.

>> and not their wish to minimize animal deaths. AFter all, what's wrong
>> with trying to minimize animal deaths?

>
> Nothing if THAT's what they're actually doing. Most vegans, though,
> prattle incessantly about NOT harming animals at all -- as though they're
> causing zero harm by simply not eating them, not wearing their hides or
> fur, etc.


At least we both agree that zero harm is unattainable and unrealistic.

> The real issue, though, is the result. Are they actually reducing harm to
> animals or are they just intending to cause less harm? The end results
> show us if they're ethical or not. And in the instances I outlined
> above -- objecting only to the 1001st death, recommending high-CD foods in
> place of larger ruminants, recommending synthetics (or even natural
> fibers) instead of leather or fur, etc. -- the results aren't remarkably
> better than the _status quo ante_ of "uninformed" consumption; indeed,
> they're probably much worse. Thus, one's intentions don't make one
> ethical; one's effects and results do.


Well, if the end result is unattainable then does that make a person
unethical? Misguided perhaps, but not necessarily unethical. And if you try
to inform people with extreme negativity then it's no wonder they reject
your information. You alienate them while, at the same time, reinforcing
your own beliefs that vegans have an aire of moral superiority and are
unethical. It goes 'round and 'round and nothing gets accomplished. How are
you any different than them in terms of "effects and results"?





  #66 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

Joe wrote:
>>The only similarity is that both vegans and the typical Springer guest
>>are dysfunctional.

>
> Suspect, you have half a brain clearly,


I have a whole brain. You have half a brain. Clearly.
  #67 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

pro-bestiality Karen Winter wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>
> It's easy to attack something when you make it up out of whole cloth.


Then why do you continue doing that?

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>
>> Veganism's sense of ethics IS an absolute.

>
> false.


Ipse dixit. You concede below that the list of examples I provided all
constitute "exploitation" even though you suggested wiggle room for
keeping pets. Note you avoided the subject of bestiality, which you
glowingly approve:

Is it God's moral law, or a misunderstanding
by an ancient culture? Is there any *reason* behind the
prohibition? Is the behavior harmful? Why should it be seen as
wrong? Morality, especially God's morality, is not arbitrary.

...Bestiality is an iffy one for me: I think it is wrong if the
animal is injured, but I think the original prohibition was
based on the same definition of "unnatural" as homosexuality --
a confusion of roles.
-- Karen Winter as "Cynomis," 11 May 2005

Why do we assume children and animals can express willingness or
unwillingness to engage in most other activities, but not decide
what gives them physical pleasure if, and only if, it is
connected with the sex organs of one or the other of the
partners? Why can a seventeen-year-old decide which college he
wants to attend, but not whether he wants a blow job or not?
Why can a dog decide whether he wants to fetch a ball or not,
but not whether or not he enjoys licking a human's penis?
-- Karen Winter as "Rat," 20 June 1999

Since there are no social considerations for the non-humans
involved, it's even easier to offer a rational defense for
responsible zoophilia than for intergenerational sexual
activity, which has a major social stigma attached to it.
Animals don't care if the neighbors talk.
-- Karen Winter as "Rat," 30 April 2003

The animal, like the child, can only tell you whether he/she
enjoys the immediate physical [sexual] activity. You have to be
responsible for the rest.
-- Karen Winter as "Rat," 12 July 1999


Perhaps if you read some accounts by zoophiles, you might see
why some people feel some acts with some animals are not
harmful. You could then decide if you agree or not based on
knowledge. I would then be willing to give your opinion
consideration. One interesting thing is the strong condemnation
some zoophiles have for other zoophiles they think are not being
responsible. Zoophiles do indeed have ethics, and differ among
themselves on them. If you were to read some of those
discussions, you might understand more clearly what the issues
are for those who are actually dealing with them.
Karen Winter as "Rat": http://tinyurl.com/82w8j

Etc.

>> Vegans don't distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable deaths,
>> or cruel or non-cruel treatement.

>
> Some may not, but most do.


Name one vegan who doesn't. I know that YOU do, Karen, because you
concede as much below.

>> They say *ALL* animal deaths are unacceptable,

>
> False.


Let me correct myself: they're hypocrites on that issue. Case in point,
the recent discovery of PETA nutjobs taking it upon themselves to kill
cats and dogs intended for adoption programs. Ingrid Newkirk has also
admitted to her own "mercy killings" of animals.

http://www.austinreview.com/archives...a_kills_1.html
http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories...155298&tref=po
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petaKillsAnimals.cfm
Etc.

>> and that just about everything in a human:animal context is
>> exploitation of the latter by the former.

>
> For the most part, that is true. There are individual cases where
> the institutions which allow exploitation of animals in ways harmful
> to them are redeemed by individual human/animal interactions, but
> the institutions themselves are indeed exploitative and the animals
> have little or no way to defend themselves against human power.


Why do you leave an opening (so to speak) for bestiality, one of the
most egregious of all possible examples of exploitation?

>> They call for an end to *all* fishing, *all* hunting, *all* animal
>> research, *all* fur and leather production, *all* livestock
>> production, and even use of honey. Many of them go even further and
>> want an end to humans having pets.

>
> All of which are indeed exploitation of animals. What benefit
> is it to the animal involved if a human takes his life for
> food or in research or in production of fur and leather?


There are utilitarian arguments for benefits from research. An animal
used in such research may or may not directly benefit from the research,
but other animals can and will. But ARAs oppose *all* animal research
even when it bears fruit:

Even if animal research resulted in a cure for AIDS, we'd be
against it.
Ingrid Newkirk, _Vogue_; September 1989.

As for food and leather, I have no objections to what others eat. Nor to
what other species eat. In your deluded fantasy world, a predator can
eat prey but a human can't. I want to know why it's exploitation when a
human eats beef or venison, but not exploitation when a cougar eats it.

> What benefit is it to the bees if humans take their food and wax?


I really haven't spent much time worrying about how bees are affected by
my lifestyle aside from making sure I don't get stung.

> The issue of companion animals is more complex.


Why do you and the bitter old hag Sylvia keep pets if it's a complex issue?

> Not all keeping
> of "pets" is exploitation, but it often is. There is no
> question that these things *are* exploitation,


I disagree with you -- I don't see these examples as exploiting anything.

> even if you
> believe humans are justified in this exploitation.


I believe humans are justified in eating, wearing attire, and working to
cure or prevent disease. You've failed to convince me that any of it is
exploitation.

>> And in many cases their alternatives to the above produce worse
>> conditions for animals.

>
> Not for the animals involved in factory-farm production of meat
> and animal products.


Please tell me what you find objectionable or exploitative about the
following "factory" farms, or how the conditions are inferior or more
inhospitable to what those animals would face in the wild (where they
would fight for territory and mating opportunities and face predators
like wolves and cougars):
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
http://tinyurl.com/be2km
http://tinyurl.com/8vxhd
http://tinyurl.com/95a85
http://tinyurl.com/ayg46
http://tinyurl.com/arxlb
http://tinyurl.com/byac3

>> They suggest replacing meat with proteins from soy and grains, like
>> tofu and seitan or even beans and rice; these alternatives to meat do
>> nothing to decrease the number of animal deaths caused by one's diet
>> and may in fact increase animal deaths. They likewise recommend
>> synthetic furs and leather even though these are made from
>> petrochemicals which cause immense pollution and environmental harm
>> during drilling and refining, all of which harms people and many more
>> animals than it would take to make a fur or leather jacket or a pair
>> of leather shoes. And natural fibers like cotton and hemp are no safer
>> for animals than is the abattoir -- they're no different from grain
>> crops with respect to collateral deaths, and in many regards they're
>> worse since crops like cotton are heavily treated with pesticides and
>> defoliants (at harvest) which are highly toxic for non-target species.
>> See Rick's links.
>>
>>>> The onus isn't on those who eat meat to reduce animal suffering or
>>>> death.

>
> Yes, it is.


No, people who eat meat have NO objections to the deaths of animals.
They already accept that animals die in the course of food production.
It's the silly vegan vendetta against nature that suggests killing
animals is wrong, yet silly vegans do little to eliminate or reduce
animal suffering from their own diets. It's the vegans whose principles
are being violated (and by themselves), not meat eaters.

> If it were not for consumers of factory-farmed meat,
> there would be no factory-farmed meat.


Consumers don't demand "factory-farmed" meat, _per se_, but rather
demand their meat be as inexpensive as possible. Like any other
business, livestock producers employ various techniques to keep consumer
prices down while still maximizing profits.

> You cannot use the
> argument only one way. You claim vegans should regard themselves
> as responsible for the deaths involved in production of the products
> they use.


Because *vegans* are the ones who object to dead animals. Meat eaters
don't have objections to dead animals.

> If so, than consumers of mass-market animal products are
> equally responsible for the abominable conditions animals face there.


Tell me what's abominable about the following:
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
http://tinyurl.com/be2km
http://tinyurl.com/8vxhd
http://tinyurl.com/95a85
http://tinyurl.com/ayg46
http://tinyurl.com/arxlb
http://tinyurl.com/byac3

> The onus is on meat-eaters to demand humane conditions.


For those who are concerned about such issues. Most consumers, though,
will instead search for bargains when grocery shopping. They won't care
if their pork chops came from Farmer A or Farmer B unless one costs more
than the other.

>>>> It's on those who oppose people consuming meat

>
> Usually because of those very abominable conditions.


Tell me what's abominable about the following:
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
http://tinyurl.com/be2km
http://tinyurl.com/8vxhd
http://tinyurl.com/95a85
http://tinyurl.com/ayg46
http://tinyurl.com/arxlb
http://tinyurl.com/byac3

>>>> and who make categorical statements of their own moral superiority.

>
> Which all vegans do not do.


You sure as hell do, Karen. You wrote in another post this morning,
"Vegetarians and vegans tend to be more aware..." You're the kind of
snobby elitist prig I was think about when I wrote that.

>>>> When faced with the facts, they ultimately make the same argument
>>>> you did and claim a virtue relative to the actions of others.
>>>> They're not more ethical because others are ethically "worse" than
>>>> they are (at least according to their capricious standard); they
>>>> fail their own ethics test when they measure themselves by their own
>>>> standard.

>
> It is not you who define the standard individuals measure themselves
> against.


I'm not defining standards. I explained the *vegan* standard. I briefly
explained the norms in agriculture and synthetic textile manufacturing.
I then demonstrated that vegans fall far short of their own standard.

> I doubt any honest person sees himself as fulfilling his
> ethical standards *perfectly* because that is not possible for human
> beings. We are all imperfect, and most of us recognize that.


This is irrelevant, Karen. The issue is whether vegan rhetoric deals in
any meaningful way with reality. It doesn't. In its general terms,
veganism doesn't even address the problem it wishes to solve because it
recommends consumption of that which can cause more of the problem (dead
animals) than existed when one still ate meat.

>>> Is it ethical to wash one's hands of responsibility for the deaths of
>>> living things just because one doesn't claim moral superiority?

>
>> I don't think meat-eaters, farmers, ranchers, researchers, etc., are
>> washing their hands; they fully accept that animals die in the course
>> of their consumption and/or work.

>
> That does not make their actions right. To accept responsibility
> for an action does not justify the action.


It's your task to explain why their actions are "wrong." You've yet to
do that.

>>> The onus to minimize the suffering or death of any living thing
>>> should be on all of us regardless of what claims we do or don't make.

>
>> Aside from images of isolated cases of wanton animal cruelty which is
>> already against the law (and, in many instances, the videos and images
>> have been used to prosecute those particular cases), I've yet to see
>> credible evidence that research, livestock production, farming, etc.,
>> is a widespread abuse of animals.

>
> Then you have not looked or -- more likely -- have been willfully
> blind to the obvious evidence.


Evidence like this?
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
http://tinyurl.com/be2km
http://tinyurl.com/8vxhd
http://tinyurl.com/95a85
http://tinyurl.com/ayg46
http://tinyurl.com/arxlb
http://tinyurl.com/byac3

> The reasons some laws have been
> passed is because the abuses are and were widespread and disgusting.


Ipse dixit. Many laws are changed because of emotive pressure put on
legislators by a very small group of people. Emotive appeal is also to
blame for what I originally thought was a decent measure in Florida a
few years ago (voter initiative to ban swine gestation pens in that
state). There weren't many pork producers in Florida in the first place
(ranked 30th in pork production in the US), and, perhaps most
importantly, there were only *two* farmers at the time the initiative
passed who actually used those crates. It was an irrational attempt to
amend the Florida constitution and its passage has caused Florida's
legislature to toughen the process of amending their constitution by
initiative.

http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/oct02/021001a.asp
http://www.animalrights.net/archives...03/000136.html
http://tinyurl.com/7hzrx
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-break...1226-5729r.htm
  #68 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode


"Glorfindel" > wrote in message
...
> C. James Strutz wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>
>>>James has acknowledged that vegans live in ignorance of the
>>>issue, that much is already settled.

>
>> No, I have not acknowledged that, and just because I suggested
>> it doesn't mean that the matter is settled.

>
> It depends on the individual. Those who have studied the
> issue at all are aware of the negative effects of modern
> agricultural methods across the board. Many consumers are
> ignorant. Vegetarians and vegans tend to be more aware,
> because they have first considered the effect of production on
> animals and decided they did not want to participate in the
> system which causes so much suffering and injustice toward food
> animals and other animals used to produce products for human
> use.

=======================
And they stop right there! Usenet vegans come here with complete
ignorance of their impact on animals and the environment. If
fact, many have come here and declared that their diet causes
*NO* animal deaths. So much for your next claim that they
research any further than propaganda site against meat.


From there, it is only a small step to considering the
> effect of similar methods on animals in production of other
> products.

=========================
You would think so, wouldn't you? Only usenet vagans have proven
time and time again they have not gone beyond the simple rule for
their simple minds, 'eat no meat.'


People who have stopped buying one kind of product
> on ethical grounds are usually open to suggestions that they
> should boycott other products on ethical grounds, and many
> vegans and vegetarians do so.

============================
Not the one4s here on usenet. they continue to prove that caring
for animals is a pose, not a real concern. Afterall, here they
are, spewing their ignorance for all the world to see.



It works the other way, too:
> people who have decided to buy only shade-grown coffee or
> chocolate produced by humanely-treated workers or non-sweatshop
> clothing can easily see the connection with not buying animal
> products from factory-farmed or abused animals. People who
> routinely buy products from Wal-Mart, produced by slave-labor
> in
> China or the barrio in Los Angeles, and sold by badly-treated
> employees, will usually buy factory-farmed meat as well.

=========================
What a coincidence, the same is true for you and everyother
usenet veagn is buying factory-farmed veggies.

>
> The issue of treatment of animals is closely tied in with
> similar
> issues of treatment of workers and the environment, as most
> vegans
> and vegetarians are aware.

=====================
No, they prove that by continuing to focus *only* on what they
think others are doing. But thanks again for proving the true
lack of concern that usenet vegans have for animals, killer.


>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



  #69 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode


"Glorfindel" > wrote in message
...
> rick wrote:
>
>> "Glorfindel" > wrote in message
>> ...

>
>> snip..

>
>>>Yes, it is. If it were not for consumers of factory-farmed
>>>meat,
>>>there would be no factory-farmed meat.

>
>> ==========================
>> Hey, what a coincidence, killer. If consumers of
>> factory-farmed veggies didn't buy them there'd be no demand
>> for them, and millions upon millions of animals that YOU kill
>> would still be alive.

>
> Aside from the personal attack on me, you are correct. Efforts
> should be made to decrease the number of collateral deaths in
> large-scale vegetable farming also. Both are a side-effect
> of modern technological methods in agriculture.

=========================
can't be done in the field. You could however make a dramatic
decrease in your impact on animals by buying certain meats to
replace part of your deadly veggie toll. The death of one animal
in some instances can provide 100s of 1000s of calories and 100s
of meals. replace some of your deadly rice, potatoes and soy
tofu with that and you'd make a real difference. But then, you'd
never consider that because actually making a difference to
animals isn't your main concern, right hypocrite?


>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>
>> ========================
>> Really? Sounds like your propaganda spew, again, hypocrite...
>> Not all meat comes from these so-called factories. All of
>> your veggies do though, hypocrite.

>
> That is not true, nor could you prove it were true in any
> individual case.

=========================
For you, and everyother usenet vegan here, yes, it is true.
You're too consumer-oriented and convenience-driven to be
bothered to make any real changes in your lifestyle. Afterall,
you prove that with each inane post to usenet. An unnecessary
selfish entertainment that contributes to massive, brutal,
inhumane death and suffering to animals.



  #70 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

Karen Winter wrote:
>>>> Does anyone still watch Jerry Springer?

>
>>> He has begun hosting a remarkably good show on Air America

>
>> *You* would think so.

>
> Well, yes, I do,


Established.

> This show is not at all like the old program he had on TV.


How many of your trailer park neighbors appeared on his TV show?


  #71 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
rick
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode


"C. James Strutz" > wrote in message
...
>
> "usual suspect" > wrote in message
> ...
>> C. James Strutz wrote:
>> <...>
>>>>3. "fewer animals die" -- as though ethics is a counting
>>>>game.
>>>
>>> Sorry, but I agree with the "counting game" argument.

>>
>> You shouldn't. I've addressed this issue before with what I
>> called "Objecting to the 1001st death." What you wrote
>> previously about grains fed to cattle illustrates this
>> objection. You contend that no matter how many deaths may be
>> attributable to grain (or whatever) production, those who eat
>> meat are responsible for at least one more animal death. In
>> the example, the veg-n pats himself on the back for not eating
>> meat even though his diet causes 1000 animals to die; those
>> animals won't be eaten by humans. The veg-n also
>> sanctimoniously impugns the character of those who eat the
>> meat of the 1001st animal to die -- let's say it's a steer,
>> from which a few hundred meals can be made (very realistic
>> with sensible quarter-pound servings). Balance the ethical
>> scales: the veg-n's diet causes 1000 animals to die and the
>> omnivore's causes 1001. Is it significantly more ethical to be
>> responsible for one less animal death when you're already
>> responsible for 1000?

>
> You misunderstand me completely. I don't have real numbers but
> I'm going make some up to illustrate my point (I can try to
> find better numbers if it is necessary). Let's say a steer is
> brought to slaughter at 2 years of age and he weighs 1200 lbs.
> Let's say that he eats 1 bushel of grain a day - that's more
> than 700 bushels of grain in his lifetime.

===============================
Willful ignorance in action I see. *ALL* beeef cattle are grass
fed and grazed for most of their lives, fool. And then, only 3/4
of those go to feedlots for the last weeks of their lives. So,
you start right out with a ly, and the rest of your spew is
mmeaningless, hypocrite.



If 1 acre of land can
> produce 200 bushels of grain per year then 3-1/2 acres of land
> are required to produce enough grain for the steer. Now let's
> say that 1000 small mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, and
> amphibians are killed per acre as a result of producing the
> grain - that's more than 3500 collateral deaths attributed to
> that one steer.

===================================
Again, you're initial claim is false, making you next claim
false. Besides, many cows are grass-fed their entire life and
never get a morsel of grains. Too bad you've proven yourself to
be a lying, delusional propagandists, killer.



>
> Now let's say that a person can make a serving from 1 cup of
> grain - that's about 150 servings from 1 bushel, or 10,500
> equivalent servings that went into feeding that steer during
> his lifetime. If 70% of the steer is edible then it can provide
> more than 3300 servings using your 1/4 pound/serving number.
>
> Let's normalize these numbers and make comparisons. I'm doing
> some rounding with my numbers but 10,500/3300 is a little more
> than 3. That means that feeding people grain instead of beef
> would save almost 2000 collateral deaths (3500/3), and would
> require little more than 1 acre of land (3.5/3). The life of
> the steer got lost in the rounding! :^)
>
> I have to say that I'm a little surprised by my own
> calculations. I had read somewhere that it takes something on
> the order of 50 times the grain to feed cattle compared to that
> which would be required to feed people. My number was about 3
> times. Still, when you consider how many steers there are the
> numbers become staggering.
>
>> In a sense, too, the veg-ns are objecting to the consumption
>> of mere *fractions* of an animal death. I think the scales
>> should account for that, but the illustration sufficiently
>> shows the moral relativism of vegans.

===============================
Wishful thinking. Alll it shows is the depths tp which vegans
will go with their lys and delusions to try to absolve themselves
of the guilt they feel for all the bloody footprints they track
around.


>>
>> Fuller explanation of Objecting to the 1001st Death:
>> http://tinyurl.com/dkgtb
>>
>>> America dropped atomic bombs on Japan at the end of WWII
>>> because many more soldiers would have died had we not. We
>>> killed people to prevent, in all probability, many times more
>>> deaths. How about the death penalty? Or what about
>>> euthanasia? Or stem cell research? Or abortion? Moral ethics
>>> aren't absolute.

>>
>> You're overlooking the issue at hand while basically
>> re-stating *my* point with these examples. Your disagreement
>> isn't with me, but with veganism. Veganism's sense of ethics
>> IS an absolute. Vegans don't distinguish between acceptable
>> and unacceptable deaths, or cruel or non-cruel treatement.
>> They say *ALL* animal deaths are unacceptable, and that just
>> about everything in a human:animal context is exploitation of
>> the latter by the former. They call for an end to *all*
>> fishing, *all* hunting, *all* animal research, *all* fur and
>> leather production, *all* livestock production, and even use
>> of honey. Many of them go even further and want an end to
>> humans having pets.

>
> I disagree with both of you! I have shown you above what I mean
> by the so called "counting game" and how eliminating beef would
> reduce the number of collateral deaths.

===================================
No, you haven't, fool. The number of deaths could easily be
reduced by replacing 100s of 1000s of calories of killer veggies
with the death of one meat animals. Too bad you're too stupid
and brainwashed to understand the real truth, hypocrite.

Although my numbers may not be completely accurate, I
> think they at least make a very clear point. I disagree with
> vegans because they usually don't consider collateral deaths at
> all, hence ignorance. I also disagree with vegan's wish to end
> all hunting, etc. because somebody has to replace the predators
> that we have all but eliminated. The natural balance of nature
> is out of whack and it would only be worse if we eliminated
> hunting. Many vegans also don't consider other things that
> effect the lives of animals: development and the fragmenation
> of habitat, pesticide and fertilizer runoff from producing
> food, and the ever increasing human population among other
> things.
>
>> And in many cases their alternatives to the above produce
>> worse conditions for animals. They suggest replacing meat with
>> proteins from soy and grains, like tofu and seitan or even
>> beans and rice; these alternatives to meat do nothing to
>> decrease the number of animal deaths caused by one's diet and
>> may in fact increase animal deaths. They likewise recommend
>> synthetic furs and leather even though these are made from
>> petrochemicals which cause immense pollution and environmental
>> harm during drilling and refining, all of which harms people
>> and many more animals than it would take to make a fur or
>> leather jacket or a pair of leather shoes. And natural fibers
>> like cotton and hemp are no safer for animals than is the
>> abattoir -- they're no different from grain crops with respect
>> to collateral deaths, and in many regards they're worse since
>> crops like cotton are heavily treated with pesticides and
>> defoliants (at harvest) which are highly toxic for non-target
>> species. See Rick's links.
>>
>>>>The onus isn't on those who eat meat to reduce animal
>>>>suffering or death. It's on those who oppose people consuming
>>>>meat and who make categorical statements of their own moral
>>>>superiority. When faced with the facts, they ultimately make
>>>>the same argument you did and claim a virtue relative to the
>>>>actions of others. They're not more ethical because others
>>>>are ethically "worse" than they are (at least according to
>>>>their capricious standard); they fail their own ethics test
>>>>when they measure themselves by their own standard.
>>>
>>> Is it ethical to wash one's hands of responsibility for the
>>> deaths of living things just because one doesn't claim moral
>>> superiority?

>>
>> I don't think meat-eaters, farmers, ranchers, researchers,
>> etc., are washing their hands; they fully accept that animals
>> die in the course of their consumption and/or work.

>
> Most meat-eaters also have no clue about collateral deaths,

================================
ROTFLMAO VEGANS have no clue fool! And when presented with the
facts, they try, like you, to ly their way out of their
complicity by focusing on what they6 think others are doing! You
really are a hoot, hypocrite!!


and only a vague
> clue about fragmentation, runoff, pollution, population, etc.
> The root problem is that most people are way too self-centered
> to worry about those things. We want tasty food in our
> stomaches, warm (or cool) homes, transportation, nice clothes,
> and other conveniences without considering the impact on the
> earth and on other lives - even the impact on human lives in
> other places. Vegans aren't the only ones guilty of ignorance,
> and so why pick on just them?
>
>>> The onus to minimize the suffering or death of any living
>>> thing should be on all of us regardless of what claims we do
>>> or don't make.

>>
>> Aside from images of isolated cases of wanton animal cruelty
>> which is already against the law (and, in many instances, the
>> videos and images have been used to prosecute those particular
>> cases), I've yet to see credible evidence that research,
>> livestock production, farming, etc., is a widespread abuse of
>> animals. Those images and videos are of isolated incidents. I
>> can find many, many more images of prevailing conditions on
>> various farms that show animals are treated very well.

>
> I think people tend to find what they look for, vegans and
> anti-vegans alike.
>
> >> The disagreement that you and
>>> others have with vegans is the attitude of morel superiority

>>
>> I have nothing against morel or chantrelle superiority.

>
> Then why do you write things like "It's on those who oppose
> people consuming meat and who make categorical statements of
> their own moral superiority." See above.
>
>>> of SOME of them

>>
>> ALL vegans adopt a shitty, condescending attitude towards
>> others who consume meat, dairy, and eggs (and wear fur, favor
>> animal research, etc.), and many also deem those who use honey
>> as reprobates.

>
> I knew this would raise a comment! We will have to agree to
> disagree on this issue.
>
>>> and not their wish to minimize animal deaths. AFter all,
>>> what's wrong with trying to minimize animal deaths?

>>
>> Nothing if THAT's what they're actually doing. Most vegans,
>> though, prattle incessantly about NOT harming animals at
>> all -- as though they're causing zero harm by simply not
>> eating them, not wearing their hides or fur, etc.

>
> At least we both agree that zero harm is unattainable and
> unrealistic.
>
>> The real issue, though, is the result. Are they actually
>> reducing harm to animals or are they just intending to cause
>> less harm? The end results show us if they're ethical or not.
>> And in the instances I outlined above -- objecting only to the
>> 1001st death, recommending high-CD foods in place of larger
>> ruminants, recommending synthetics (or even natural fibers)
>> instead of leather or fur, etc. -- the results aren't
>> remarkably better than the _status quo ante_ of "uninformed"
>> consumption; indeed, they're probably much worse. Thus, one's
>> intentions don't make one ethical; one's effects and results
>> do.

>
> Well, if the end result is unattainable then does that make a
> person unethical? Misguided perhaps, but not necessarily
> unethical. And if you try to inform people with extreme
> negativity then it's no wonder they reject your information.
> You alienate them while, at the same time, reinforcing your own
> beliefs that vegans have an aire of moral superiority and are
> unethical. It goes 'round and 'round and nothing gets
> accomplished. How are you any different than them in terms of
> "effects and results"?
>
>
>



  #72 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

Beach Blunder wrote:
>>> The only similarity is that both vegans and the typical Springer
>>> guest are dysfunctional.

>>
>> Suspect, you have half a brain clearly, but you have the most wretched
>> social and communication skills possible and if you aren't aware you
>> come off as the poster pantyboy of Dysfunctional, look at yourself
>> long and hard in the mirror.

>
> He is clearly intelligent


Thanks for noticing, Bob.

> and has incredibly energy to insult people.


Incredible energy, period. I run and ride my bike more than you ever
could've hoped to before you ran out in front of that Mercedes Benz.

> I suspect by his level of obscenities and insults he is potentially
> dangerous.


Amazing you suggest that given your own repeated violent threats:
You're simply an asshole who deserves to
get his ass kicked.
-- Violent Bob, 23 July 2005: http://tinyurl.com/9k2ml

Now try to find an instance in which I've *ever* wished harm upon
another person, you candy-assed loser. You can't find one because I'm
not prone to violence like you are.
  #73 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan
Joe
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 10:52:08 GMT, Beach Runner > wrote:

>


>I suspect by his level of obscenities and insults he is potentially
>dangerous.



Utterly contemptuous Silly Prick he is?- yes, but I doubt Suspect
would be dangerous in that sense. He's too much of an intellectual
poofda to get into crap like that. If I felt he had that kind of
destructive hatred in him I wouldn't even play checkers with him in a
yahoo games room let alone respond to his unsavoury comments. I worry
more about the quiet, 'unsuspecting' personalities.




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  #74 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan
Joe
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode



On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 16:34:10 GMT, usual suspect >
wrote:

> Suspect wrote [unsurprisingly];


>>>The only similarity is that both vegans and the typical Springer guest
>>>are dysfunctional.

>>

Joe winced as he admitted;
>> Suspect, you have half a brain clearly,

>

Suspect boisterously proclaimed;
>I have a whole brain. You have half a brain. Clearly.


I don't doubt US, in some topics you'd clearly better me and seem to
have double the brain but God help me if I ever get a significant
fraction of your uncalled for arrogance. You mentioned once that Rosa
Parks is one of your heroes. You'd do well imitate her sterling
attitude and try to be a decent fellow instead of inciting bitterness
- you could try.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  #75 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

Elitist leftwing snob Karen Winter wrote:
> Many consumers are ignorant.


Are you suggesting that those who eat meat don't realize it comes from
dead animals?

> Vegetarians and vegans tend to be more aware,


Elitist snobbery, and you're wrong. Veg-ns like to pretend they're
better informed, but they only bury their big heads in the sands of
ignorance. Veg-ns are patently unaware that standard agricultural
practices result in harm and death of animals. They assume that they're
not causing deaths simply because they don't actually eat animals; they
also pass the buck when it comes to their own culpability in causing
harm to animals.

<...>
> products from factory-farmed or abused animals. People who
> routinely buy products from Wal-Mart, produced by slave-labor in
> China


This is an unconscionable lie, Karen. You have no evidence that Walmart
sells goods produced only by slave labor. Labor from prisoners at laogai
(Chinese communist re-education and work camps) comprises a tiny
fraction of Chinese labor -- most estimates suggest that 4-6 million
Chinese are in laogai out of a nation of over 1.3 billion citizens. At
the highest end of the estimated range, that's less than a half a
percent of the Chinese. That means *99.5%* of Chinese are NOT in laogai
forced-labor conditions; it's important to keep that in perspective in
assessing trade between our two countries.

There are remedies to the issue of slave labor, but ending trade with
China (or Walmart) isn't one of them. If the US believes certain goods
have been produced involuntarily, the US can and should forbid entry of
those goods. The US also can impose limited sanctions to deal with the
relatively small issue of slave labor (at least in relation to the
aggregate imports from China). It would be deleterious to all parties if
we threw the baby out with the bathwater and stopped trading with China.
Consider the following:

Sanctions would be legitimate in preventing the use of slave
labor. Goods made with slave labor should not be allowed into
the United States. However, it would not be legitimate for the
United States to ban all trade with a country if only a small
part of its exports were made with slave labor. Private traders
should have the right to trade as long they adhere to the
principles outlined in the preceding discussion. To ban all
trade or to use sanctions to ban many products not directly
connected with slave labor would harm many innocent traders and
consumers.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj16n1-5.html

The US has kept pressure on the Chinese leadership about such human
rights issues as laogai, religious freedoms, etc. Trade allows for such
a dialogue. Reducing trade would lessen any leverage on those and other
(e.g., pollution) issues.

It's still disingenuous for you to raise the issue as you did since
laogai labor is a tiny drop in the bucket and we import ~$200 billion in
goods from China every year (which, too, is a drop in the bucket
considering our GDP is ~$12 trillion).

> or the barrio in Los Angeles,


Barrio labor isn't slave labor. Those employed in barrio sweatshops and
factories lack the education and skills for better paying jobs.

> and sold by badly-treated employees,


WTF does this mean? Some employees are ****ed off that their bosses
don't hand out holiday hams or turkeys and think that's a sign of
under-appreciation.

> will usually buy factory-farmed meat as well.


Consumers buy such meat because it fits their economical sensibilities.
Why the hell should they pay twice as much to not offend your demented
sensitivities when they accept that animals can and do die so they can eat?

> The issue of treatment of animals is closely tied in with similar
> issues of treatment of workers and the environment, as most vegans
> and vegetarians are aware.


These are non sequiturs. The only common thread that you can tie these
together with is your elitist leftwing authoritarianism. You think your
ways are preferable to allowing others to make free choices in free markets.


  #76 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

"rick" > wrote in message
ink.net...

[-snip-]

> ===============================
> Willful ignorance in action I see. *ALL* beeef cattle are grass
> fed and grazed for most of their lives, fool. And then, only 3/4
> of those go to feedlots for the last weeks of their lives. So,
> you start right out with a ly, and the rest of your spew is
> mmeaningless, hypocrite.


What's eating those acres of hay
that's grown? Hay is a type of
grass. A LOT of hay is grown for
the feeding of cows. Even the
cows that get to graze during the
summer must be fed hay during
the winter. The growing of hay
has at least as many cds as other
grains. Time to update your
numbers, Ricky. Even cows that
are kept indoors and fed hay all
their lives can be called grass fed.

[-snip-]


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/



  #77 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan
Scented Nectar
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

"usual suspect" > wrote in message
...
> Beach Blunder wrote:
> >>> The only similarity is that both vegans and the typical Springer
> >>> guest are dysfunctional.
> >>
> >> Suspect, you have half a brain clearly, but you have the most wretched
> >> social and communication skills possible and if you aren't aware you
> >> come off as the poster pantyboy of Dysfunctional, look at yourself
> >> long and hard in the mirror.

> >
> > He is clearly intelligent

>
> Thanks for noticing, Bob.
>
> > and has incredibly energy to insult people.

>
> Incredible energy, period. I run and ride my bike more than you ever
> could've hoped to before you ran out in front of that Mercedes Benz.


What?!?! You're not driving a
car?

> > I suspect by his level of obscenities and insults he is potentially
> > dangerous.

>
> Amazing you suggest that given your own repeated violent threats:
> You're simply an asshole who deserves to
> get his ass kicked.
> -- Violent Bob, 23 July 2005: http://tinyurl.com/9k2ml
>
> Now try to find an instance in which I've *ever* wished harm upon
> another person, you candy-assed loser. You can't find one because I'm
> not prone to violence like you are.


You prove repeatedly that you
wish people psychological harm.
You want them to feel bad about
themselves. Even in the very
sentences above where you
claim not to wish harm, you call
him a 'candy-assed loser'. You're
transparent.


--
SN
http://www.scentednectar.com/veg/



  #78 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode


"C. James Strutz" > wrote
>
> "Dutch" > wrote
>>
>> "Pinnochio Mojo" > wrote
>>> Dutch the friendly ng troll wrote:
>>>
>>>> Of course not. Vegans in general are oblivious to the extent of the
>>>> death
>>>> toll, so are most non-vegans
>>>
>>> How would you go about "proving" this rather sloppy assertion? The fact
>>> is you cannot. Therefore your remarks are irrelevant at best.

>>
>> James has acknowledged that vegans live in ignorance of the issue, that
>> much is already settled.

>
> No, I have not acknowledged that, and just because I suggested it doesn't
> mean that the matter is settled.


The fact is, almost every consumer lives in ignorance of the issue of
collateral deaths in agriculture. You were being candid and honest when you
acknowledged it. And I don't attack vegans for their ignorance, I attack
vegans who are given this information then refuse to use it. I attack
"veganism" for exploiting this ignorance, in feeding off the normal desire
for righteous living.

>>>> Just read the denial in the comments of "mojo".
>>>
>>> Examples please. But the fact remains that i am not in denial, though i
>>> doubt that the same could be said about you. i choose to confront you
>>> and others of your ilk choose to ignore. Still you provide only
>>> nonsensical bias in the form of severely warped refutations.

>>
>> I see you know how to string words into sentences, next learn to say
>> something.

>
> This from the guy who tries to put things "succinctly"....


My explanation was succinct. "it creates an unfair and unrealistic
moral dichotomy between consumers and non-consumers of animal
products. This moral deceit is inherent in veganism, therefore veganism
per se must be rejected."

Veganism is devious, it depends on the false premise that animals are not
killed routined and systematically by every form of agriculture. If it did
not use this false premise, vegans could not logically support the sense of
moral superiority they believe they deserve.


  #79 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
Dutch
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode


"Glorfindel" > wrote

> Aside from the personal attack on me, you are correct. Efforts
> should be made to decrease the number of collateral deaths in
> large-scale vegetable farming also. Both are a side-effect
> of modern technological methods in agriculture.


Yet "veganism" addresses only one of these so-called "problems" while
remaining utterly mute on the other. I can raise a section of wheat,
including ploughing (or not), seeding, spraying for weeds and pests,
harvesting, transportation, storage and processing. My field can support
hundreds of thousands of small animals like mice, moles and toads, not to
mention grasshoppers and spiders, *many* of which are killed off by my
intrusions into their domain. Vegans gladly consume the products made from
these processes with nary a whimper. Yet if I raise one animal and slaughter
it, the shrill howls of protest go up. Murderer! Where is the logic in this
way of thinking?


  #80 (permalink)   Report Post  
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
usual suspect
 
Posts: n/a
Default wife swap vegan episode

C. James Strutz wrote:
>>>>3. "fewer animals die" -- as though ethics is a counting game.
>>>
>>>Sorry, but I agree with the "counting game" argument.

>>
>>You shouldn't. I've addressed this issue before with what I called
>>"Objecting to the 1001st death." What you wrote previously about grains
>>fed to cattle illustrates this objection. You contend that no matter how
>>many deaths may be attributable to grain (or whatever) production, those
>>who eat meat are responsible for at least one more animal death. In the
>>example, the veg-n pats himself on the back for not eating meat even
>>though his diet causes 1000 animals to die; those animals won't be eaten
>>by humans. The veg-n also sanctimoniously impugns the character of those
>>who eat the meat of the 1001st animal to die -- let's say it's a steer,
>>from which a few hundred meals can be made (very realistic with sensible
>>quarter-pound servings). Balance the ethical scales: the veg-n's diet
>>causes 1000 animals to die and the omnivore's causes 1001. Is it
>>significantly more ethical to be responsible for one less animal death
>>when you're already responsible for 1000?

>
> You misunderstand me completely.


No, I don't.

> I don't have real numbers but I'm going
> make some up to illustrate my point (I can try to find better numbers if it
> is necessary). Let's say a steer is brought to slaughter at 2 years of age
> and he weighs 1200 lbs. Let's say that he eats 1 bushel of grain a day -
> that's more than 700 bushels of grain in his lifetime. If 1 acre of land can
> produce 200 bushels of grain per year


Fair estimate. Almost twice that yield is possible -- I found an account
of an Iowa farmer who got 394 bushels of corn per acre -- but your
number is reasonable for this example.

> then 3-1/2 acres of land are required
> to produce enough grain for the steer.


No. See below.

> Now let's say that 1000 small
> mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, and amphibians are killed per acre as a
> result of producing the grain - that's more than 3500 collateral deaths
> attributed to that one steer.


Really bad example since cattle aren't fed exclusively on grain rations
-- they're typically fed that at the end of their growing phase for
fattening (marbling). The majority of a steer's diet consists of silage,
whether from direct grazing or from hay.

Another problem: corn weighs about 56 lbs a bushel (link below). Cattle
don't eat that much corn per day. The second link has guidelines for
growing and finishing cattle. It cites various studies recommending
mostly single-digit daily rations of corn for 800-lb steers.

Commdodity weights:
http://muextension.missouri.edu/xplo...ops/g04020.htm

Cattle grain/silage guidelines:
http://muextension.missouri.edu/expl...sci/g02072.htm

> Now let's say that a person can make a serving from 1 cup of grain -


Your example assumes all grain is equal. Most grain fed to livestock
isn't fit for human consumption.

> that's
> about 150 servings from 1 bushel, or 10,500 equivalent servings that went
> into feeding that steer during his lifetime.


I'll let you do more homework on beef management and determine if this
exercise was appropriate or not.

> If 70% of the steer is edible
> then it can provide more than 3300 servings using your 1/4 pound/serving
> number.


Not to mention that its wastes while living can be used for fertilizer,
urea, etc., and that byproducts from it after slaughter can be used to
clothe people or make baseball mitts (congrats to the Pirates for
signing Jason Bay to a longer contract), gelatin, etc.

> Let's normalize these numbers and make comparisons. I'm doing some rounding
> with my numbers but 10,500/3300 is a little more than 3. That means that
> feeding people grain instead of beef would save almost 2000 collateral
> deaths (3500/3),


That's rounded too far, even with your inflated assumptions about cattle
and grains -- 3500/3 is much closer to 1200 than 2000.

> and would require little more than 1 acre of land (3.5/3).
> The life of the steer got lost in the rounding! :^)


Doesn't matter since your bushel-a-day diet would cause it to explode
before it ever reached slaughter.

> I have to say that I'm a little surprised by my own calculations. I had read
> somewhere that it takes something on the order of 50 times the grain to feed
> cattle compared to that which would be required to feed people.


Which is bullshit. Very few mammals require more than three pounds of
feed to gain a pound of weight -- the exceptions have very fast
metabolism, which rules out cattle. I've addressed this issue repeatedly
when others have trotted out John Robbins' exaggerated claims. The ~3:1
ratio is valid for cattle, goats, rabbits, poultry, people, etc.

CATTLE:

The length of time that cattle spend in feedlots on high grain
diets is variable. A calf typically starts life in March to May
and remains with the cow on pasture or range until October or
November. The calf may then be moved to a feedlot or may be
maintained on a forage feeding program until a year later when
it is moved to a feedlot as a yearling. Thus, beef cattle
generally enter feedlots at weights of 450 to 650 pounds
(calves), or 650 to 900 pounds (yearlings). For example, calves
may enter the feedlot at 500 pounds and be marketed at about
1,100 pounds. Yearlings may enter the feedlot at 750 pounds and
be marketed at about 1,200 pounds, while heavy yearlings enter
at about 900 pounds and are marketed at about 1,200 pounds.

How much grain and protein supplement are required to produce a
pound of retail beef?

* 1,200-pound beef cows marketed at 7 years of age have
consumed a total of 840 pounds of protein supplement (120
pounds per year).
* 500-pound feedlot calves fed to 1,100 pounds consume 6.5
pounds of total feed (80 percent grain and protein supplement)
per pound of gain.
* 750-pound feedlot yearlings fed to 1,200 pounds consume
7.2 pounds of total feed (90 percent grain and protein
supplement) per pound of gain.
* Yield of retail beef per pound of live weight is .45
pound (.35 pound for cows).

Thus, it takes 2 pounds of grain and protein supplement to
produce a pound of retail beef from beef cows and 3.6 pounds
for heavy yearlings. For lighter weight yearlings and calves,
the figures are 5.4 pounds and 6.3 pounds. These calculations do
not consider the fertilizer value of the manure and urine
provided by cattle during grazing and finishing.

Contrary to some published claims, it does not take 16 pounds
of grain to produce a pound of beef (Robbins 1987). Since beef
cows are a major source of ground beef, a value between 3 and 4
pounds of grain and protein supplement to produce a pound of
ground beef would be appropriate. Only by assuming that beef
animals are fed diets composed largely of grains from birth to
market weight could a value as great as 16 pounds be obtained.
Those familiar with the beef industry know that this does not
occur. In fact, cattle do not require any grain for the
production of meat; the microbes in the rumen manufacture
high-quality protein from nonprotein nitrogen.
http://tinyurl.com/93mwm

GOATS:
A superior feeding strategy would be based on body condition
scoring (Table 8). Low scoring goats (1 - 2.5) receive grain
supplementation at < 2.5 lb grain :1 lb milk ratio, while the
higher scoring goats (3.0 - 5.0) are fed at a feed:milk ratio of
3:1.
http://www.goatworld.com/articles/feedinggoats.shtml

RABBITS:
Growing rabbits eat about 3 pounds of feed for a pound of gain
http://tinyurl.com/5zl6s

TURKEYS:
You could consider just growing all tom turkeys as you can cut '
down on feed costs because of the factor involving the feed
conversion factor. A tom of up to eighteen pounds requires forty
two pounds of feed.
(Appears to be from a school paper. Still, less than 2.5 pounds
of feed per pound of bird.)
http://tinyurl.com/57n47

CHICKENS:
It will take about 5 pounds of feed to age 6 weeks and 8-9
pounds to 8 weeks for the commercial strains.
(So about 14 pounds of feed to finish a 4 pound chicken --
again, about three pounds of feed to pound of meat.)
http://tinyurl.com/5z65c

Etc.

> My number was about 3 times.


Which is much more reasonable and biologically-consistent.

> Still, when you consider how many steers there are the
> numbers become staggering.


Thanks to your little exercise, we now know the inflated numbers of CDs
associated with overfeeding a steer with corn or other grains. Now how
many CDs will accrue from months of pasture grazing or grazing on
scrubland out west and finishing rations that include ~2-4 pounds of
grain and legume feed per day for a few more months?

>>In a sense, too, the veg-ns are objecting to the consumption of mere
>>*fractions* of an animal death. I think the scales should account for
>>that, but the illustration sufficiently shows the moral relativism of
>>vegans.
>>
>>Fuller explanation of Objecting to the 1001st Death:
>>http://tinyurl.com/dkgtb
>>
>>
>>>America dropped atomic bombs on Japan at the end of WWII because many
>>>more soldiers would have died had we not. We killed people to prevent, in
>>>all probability, many times more deaths. How about the death penalty? Or
>>>what about euthanasia? Or stem cell research? Or abortion? Moral ethics
>>>aren't absolute.

>>
>>You're overlooking the issue at hand while basically re-stating *my* point
>>with these examples. Your disagreement isn't with me, but with veganism.
>>Veganism's sense of ethics IS an absolute. Vegans don't distinguish
>>between acceptable and unacceptable deaths, or cruel or non-cruel
>>treatement. They say *ALL* animal deaths are unacceptable, and that just
>>about everything in a human:animal context is exploitation of the latter
>>by the former. They call for an end to *all* fishing, *all* hunting, *all*
>>animal research, *all* fur and leather production, *all* livestock
>>production, and even use of honey. Many of them go even further and want
>>an end to humans having pets.

>
> I disagree with both of you! I have shown you above what I mean by the so
> called "counting game" and how eliminating beef would reduce the number of
> collateral deaths.


Your example seems to assume that calves are born at 0 pounds and gain
weight exclusively from grains. That isn't reality. They're born
weighing under 100 pounds. They feed off their mothers (milk), and after
weaning they graze for a half year. By this point, they weigh about 500
pounds.

http://www.watersheds.org/farm/beef.htm

> Although my numbers may not be completely accurate,


They're not even in the ballpark.

> I think they at least make a very clear point.


I think a clearer point is made when you consider the ~600-700 pounds of
weight gain with respect to ~3-4 pounds of grain per day rather than a
full bushel (which is ~14-18+ times as much as they actually consume) as
your example used.

> I disagree with vegans because
> they usually don't consider collateral deaths at all, hence ignorance.


Even among those who are aware of CDs persists the notions that "animals
don't have to die" and other attempts to pass the buck from themselves
for their own consumption onto farmers for not employing vegan-friendly
techniques.

> I also disagree with vegan's wish to end all hunting, etc. because somebody
> has to replace the predators that we have all but eliminated.


The question you should be asking yourself about this is, Why do vegans
object categorically to hunting? Keep in mind that, in these groups,
they find it more preferable for habitat to be destroyed even when it's
shared by endangered species, for animals to die from increased disease
and decreased food sources, for people to run into deer and other large
game (and thus endangering humans), etc., than to be hunted.

> The natural
> balance of nature is out of whack and it would only be worse if we
> eliminated hunting. Many vegans also don't consider other things that effect
> the lives of animals: development and the fragmenation of habitat, pesticide
> and fertilizer runoff from producing food, and the ever increasing human
> population among other things.


Some of those "other things" also include the increased amount of green
space in large cities, where animals enjoy nearly predator-free environs
and plenty of food. Deer also find silly humans who think of them as
"pets" (or who stupidly feed them). We have a tremendous issue with
urban deer in and around Austin, and the problem isn't simply an issue
of sprawl. I can show you large herds of deer within sight of downtown
and in areas that were already part of Austin 100 years ago. Parts of
Austin, especially near greenbelts and protected preserves (set aside
for endangered birds like the black cap vireo and golden-cheeked
warbler), are over-grazed by deer. We also have seen a resurgence of
coyotes in well-established neighborhoods (i.e., with 50-100 year-old
homes).

>>And in many cases their alternatives to the above produce worse conditions
>>for animals. They suggest replacing meat with proteins from soy and
>>grains, like tofu and seitan or even beans and rice; these alternatives to
>>meat do nothing to decrease the number of animal deaths caused by one's
>>diet and may in fact increase animal deaths. They likewise recommend
>>synthetic furs and leather even though these are made from petrochemicals
>>which cause immense pollution and environmental harm during drilling and
>>refining, all of which harms people and many more animals than it would
>>take to make a fur or leather jacket or a pair of leather shoes. And
>>natural fibers like cotton and hemp are no safer for animals than is the
>>abattoir -- they're no different from grain crops with respect to
>>collateral deaths, and in many regards they're worse since crops like
>>cotton are heavily treated with pesticides and defoliants (at harvest)
>>which are highly toxic for non-target species. See Rick's links.
>>
>>
>>>>The onus isn't on those who eat meat to reduce animal suffering or death.
>>>>It's on those who oppose people consuming meat and who make categorical
>>>>statements of their own moral superiority. When faced with the facts,
>>>>they ultimately make the same argument you did and claim a virtue
>>>>relative to the actions of others. They're not more ethical because
>>>>others are ethically "worse" than they are (at least according to their
>>>>capricious standard); they fail their own ethics test when they measure
>>>>themselves by their own standard.
>>>
>>>Is it ethical to wash one's hands of responsibility for the deaths of
>>>living things just because one doesn't claim moral superiority?

>>
>>I don't think meat-eaters, farmers, ranchers, researchers, etc., are
>>washing their hands; they fully accept that animals die in the course of
>>their consumption and/or work.

>
> Most meat-eaters also have no clue about collateral deaths,


If they don't already object to eating meat, and since they probably
engage in pest control themselves (including using traps for small
rodents), they probably have no objections to CDs.

> and only a vague
> clue about fragmentation, runoff, pollution, population, etc. The root
> problem is that most people are way too self-centered to worry about those
> things.


I disagree that it's a sign of being self-centered.

> We want tasty food in our stomaches, warm (or cool) homes,
> transportation, nice clothes, and other conveniences without considering the
> impact on the earth and on other lives - even the impact on human lives in
> other places.


You hit on the operative term for the things you listed -- those people
are convenience-oriented, not self-centered. Convenience isn't "bad" in
and of itself; it can be quite noble to save time and energy for more
important endeavors. One can also be completely self-centered while
shunning all conveniences.

> Vegans aren't the only ones guilty of ignorance, and so why
> pick on just them?


Vegans set the standards by which they judge others, then they fail
themselves to meet those standards. They should by judged according to
their own standards.

I'll do the same in fairness and objectivity should meat-eaters and
leather-wearers (and by this I am not referring to the fetishists with
whom Karen Winter will no doubt be too familiar) ever set up ethical
standards and judge vegans or anyone else according to them.

>>>The onus to minimize the suffering or death of any living thing should be
>>>on all of us regardless of what claims we do or don't make.

>>
>>Aside from images of isolated cases of wanton animal cruelty which is
>>already against the law (and, in many instances, the videos and images
>>have been used to prosecute those particular cases), I've yet to see
>>credible evidence that research, livestock production, farming, etc., is a
>>widespread abuse of animals. Those images and videos are of isolated
>>incidents. I can find many, many more images of prevailing conditions on
>>various farms that show animals are treated very well.

>
> I think people tend to find what they look for, vegans and anti-vegans
> alike.


The question is, Is what ARAs portray as NORMATIVE really the norm or
isolated? If they suggest something is a norm and it isn't at all, then
they're liars. If they suggest certain practices are the normal way
things are done but those practices are in fact much rarer, then the
ARAs are exaggerating (which we consider a form of lying down here). Etc.

This isn't a matter of "you see something, I see something else."
They're making claims of fact. The facts just don't match their claims.

They are liars.

> >> The disagreement that you and

>
>>>others have with vegans is the attitude of morel superiority

>>
>>I have nothing against morel or chantrelle superiority.

>
> Then why do you write things like "It's on those who oppose people consuming
> meat and who make categorical statements of their own moral superiority."
> See above.


Read what you wrote again, then read what I wrote again. Or has it
'shroomed right over your head?

>>>of SOME of them

>>
>>ALL vegans adopt a shitty, condescending attitude towards others who
>>consume meat, dairy, and eggs (and wear fur, favor animal research, etc.),
>>and many also deem those who use honey as reprobates.

>
> I knew this would raise a comment! We will have to agree to disagree on this
> issue.


Name a vegan who's open-minded about animal research, consumption of
meat, and apparel made of leather or fur.

>>>and not their wish to minimize animal deaths. AFter all, what's wrong
>>>with trying to minimize animal deaths?

>>
>>Nothing if THAT's what they're actually doing. Most vegans, though,
>>prattle incessantly about NOT harming animals at all -- as though they're
>>causing zero harm by simply not eating them, not wearing their hides or
>>fur, etc.

>
> At least we both agree that zero harm is unattainable and unrealistic.


We do, vegans don't. See Dreck's posts as "Phil Odox."

>>The real issue, though, is the result. Are they actually reducing harm to
>>animals or are they just intending to cause less harm? The end results
>>show us if they're ethical or not. And in the instances I outlined
>>above -- objecting only to the 1001st death, recommending high-CD foods in
>>place of larger ruminants, recommending synthetics (or even natural
>>fibers) instead of leather or fur, etc. -- the results aren't remarkably
>>better than the _status quo ante_ of "uninformed" consumption; indeed,
>>they're probably much worse. Thus, one's intentions don't make one
>>ethical; one's effects and results do.

>
> Well, if the end result is unattainable then does that make a person
> unethical?


The end result, in this instance, is the same as the _status quo ante_:
animals die. Veganism doesn't stop animal deaths. It just continues the
cycle. I do, however, think it's unethical to set such a specious
standard of morality in the first place. Vegans are unethical for
judging others according to diet, research, attire, etc.

> Misguided perhaps, but not necessarily unethical.


If it's unethical to kill animals for food, and vegans say it is, then
veganism by their own standard is unethical. I personally don't think
it's unethical to kill animals for food, to wear their hides, or to
perform research on them; thus, I don't think people are ethical or
unethical when they kill animals in those instances.

> And if you try
> to inform people with extreme negativity then it's no wonder they reject
> your information. You alienate them while,


Vegans are already alienated. That's part of the problem. Don't blame
that on me.

<...>
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
My favorite episode of TTZ was just on zxcvbob General Cooking 2 05-07-2012 02:54 PM
When did this FopodTV episode air? A Moose in Love General Cooking 2 13-11-2011 08:38 PM
Lidia's Italy Episode 221 Nancy Young General Cooking 13 03-02-2007 11:47 PM
**THAT** Sandra Lee episode TammyM General Cooking 17 18-12-2006 08:57 PM
wife swap vegan episode pearl Vegan 2 08-12-2005 02:35 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:24 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"