Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
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 | Display Modes |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
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... |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
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..." |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
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??? |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
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... |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
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... |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
Posted to alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
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 =---- |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
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... |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
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".... |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
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. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
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"? |
Posted to alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
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. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
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"? > > > |
Posted to alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
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 =---- |
Posted to alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
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 =---- |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
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/ |
Posted to alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
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/ |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
Posted to alt.food.vegan,talk.politics.animals,alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
My favorite episode of TTZ was just on | General Cooking | |||
When did this FopodTV episode air? | General Cooking | |||
Lidia's Italy Episode 221 | General Cooking | |||
**THAT** Sandra Lee episode | General Cooking | |||
wife swap vegan episode | Vegan |