On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 20:55:07 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" wrote
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 10:46:00 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" wrote
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 03:26:05 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" wrote

(Critic)
Abstaining from meat doesn't meet with the vegan's moral
requirement to not kill animals intentionally for food; animals
still die for their food during crop production.

This argument commits The Perfect Solution Fallacy

The Fallacy is that veganism is a Perfect Solution, a "death-free
lifestyle".

Vegans don't claim that their lifestyle is the perfect solution
to the killing of animals in food production.

Yes, for the most part that is exactly what they believe.

No. Yet again, instead of dealing with real vegans in the real
World who acknowledge collateral deaths in crop production,
you choose to focus on the imaginary straw man vegan that
doesn't acknowledge them instead because that straw man is
easy to knock down, leaving the way open for you to declare
you've demolished the true vegan's position in the real World.
That's just not good enough, and your criticism, while directed
only at your straw man, is rejected as nonsense.

Only your straw
vegan claims that so he's easier to demolish. If you're only
capable of dealing with the imaginary vegans inside your
head, you're in the wrong place when trying to deal with the
real vegans in the real World here.

Real World vegans display the attitudes and ideas I am attributing to them.

No, they don't. I've provided examples from various vegan web
sites and authors discussing the subject at length, and which you
subsequently snipped away. Repeating your claim that *all*
vegans refuse to acknowledge them in light of this evidence is
absurd and an obviously lie on your part.

I've shown you comments
from vegan web sites that deal with the problem of CDs, and
once again you've snipped those comments away, only to
proceed with trying to demolish your imaginary vegan again.
That's not good enough, so until you address the real vegan
your criticism of him has to be ignored.

The issue of collateral deaths is ignored or trivialized by vegans.

No, once again, it is not. Try dealing with the arguments put
forward by the real vegans in the real World instead of those
imaginary vegans inside your head. It's patently obvious that
you have no valid complaint against the real vegan until you do.

When or if you finally decide to challenge the real vegan's
solution to the animal deaths surrounding man's diet, don't
make the mistake in rejecting veganism on the basis that
some deaths will still occur after its proposed implementation
because you'll be invoking the perfect solution fallacy. Like
I said, you've been wasting your time on this collateral deaths
issue for years, and it's about time you thought of something
else to challenge the vegan with apart from fallacies and lies.

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 15:33:54 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 11:52:45 +0000, Derek wrote:

There's no perfect solution to this problem of the collateral
deaths found in agriculture, and the vegan's critic is often
foolishly persuaded to try using this dilemma to his advantage
[...]
(Rejoinder)
Some animals die during crop production, but those deaths
aren't requested, condoned or intentionally caused by vegans,
and this meets with their moral requirement to not kill animals
intentionally for food.

The Least Harm Principle Suggests that Humans Should
Eat Beef, Lamb, Dairy, not a Vegan Diet.

S.L. Davis,

.. and how many times those figures have been found
to be nothing other than guesswork. Davis' guesswork
is not peer-reviewed and has many flaws, as follows;

[While eating animals who are grazed rather than
intensively confined would vastly improve the welfare
of farmed animals given their current mistreatment,
Davis does not succeed in showing this is preferable
to vegetarianism. First, Davis makes a mathematical
error in using total rather than per capita estimates
of animals killed; second, he focuses on the number
of animals killed in ruminant and crop production
systems and ignores important considerations about
the welfare of animals under both systems; and third,
he does not consider the number of animals who are
prevented from existing under the two systems. After
correcting for these errors, Davis’s argument makes
a strong case for, rather than against, adopting a
vegetarian diet.

First, Davis makes an error in calculating how many
animals would be killed to feed a vegan-vegetarian
population. He explains:

There are 120 million ha of cropland harvested in the
USA each year. If all of that land was used to produce
crops to support a vegan diet, and if 15 animals of the
field are killed per ha per year, then
15 x 120 million = 1800 million or 1.8 billion animals
would be killed annually to produce a vegan diet for
the USA (p. 5).

Davis estimates that only 7.5 animals of the field per
hectare die in ruminant-pasture. If we were to convert
half of the 120 million hectares of U.S. cropland to
ruminant-pasture and half to growing vegetables, Davis
claims we could feed the U.S. population on a diet of
ruminant meat and crops and kill only 1.35 billion animals
annually in the process. Thus, Davis concludes his
omnivorous proposal would save the lives of 450 million
animals each year (p. 6-7).

Davis mistakenly assumes the two systems—crops only
and crops with ruminant-pasture—using the same total
amount of land, would feed identical numbers of people
(i.e., the U.S. population). In fact, crop and ruminant
systems produce different amounts of food per hectare
-- the two systems would feed different numbers of people.
To properly compare the harm caused by the two systems,
we ought to calculate how many animals are killed in
feeding equal populations—or the number of animals killed
per consumer.

Davis suggests the number of wild animals killed per hectare
in crop production (15) is twice that killed in ruminant-pasture
(7.5). If this is true, then as long as crop production uses
less than half as many hectares as ruminant-pasture to
deliver the same amount of food, a vegetarian will kill fewer
animals than an omnivore. In fact, crop production uses less
than half as many hectares as grass-fed dairy and one-tenth
as many hectares as grass-fed beef to deliver the same
amount of protein. In one year, 1,000 kilograms of protein
can be produced on as few as 1.0 hectares planted with soy
and corn, 2.6 hectares used as pasture for grass-fed dairy
cows, or 10 hectares used as pasture for grass-fed beef
cattle (Vandehaar 1998; UNFAO 1996). As such, to obtain
the 20 kilograms of protein per year recommended for adults,
a vegan-vegetarian would kill 0.3 wild animals annually, a
lacto-vegetarian would kill 0.39 wild animals, while a Davis-
style omnivore would kill 1.5 wild animals. Thus, correcting
Davis’s math, we see that a vegan-vegetarian population
would kill the fewest number of wild animals, followed
closely by a lacto-vegetarian population.

However, suppose this were not the case and that, in fact,
fewer animals would be killed under Davis’s omnivorism.
Would it follow that Davis’s plan causes the least harm?
Not necessarily. Early in the paper, Davis shifts from
discussing the harm done to animals under different
agricultural systems to the number of animals killed. This
shift is not explained by Davis and is not justified by the
most common moral views, all of which recognize harms
in addition to those associated with killing.]
http://courses.ats.rochester.edu/nob.../leastharm.htm

Davis' guesswork and bad math was debunked years ago,
so it's small wonder why he hasn't put his little paper up for
a peer review.

Nevertheless, that debunked and put aside, to reject a solution
(veganism) to the animal deaths found in man's diet on the basis
that some deaths will still occur after the solution is implemented
invokes the perfect solution fallacy, especially while that arguer
insists all foods cause animal deaths. In short, you're posing a
false dilemma to get your point accepted, and that wont do.

The Perfect Solution Fallacy.
The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs
when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists
and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part
of the problem would still exist after it was implemented.
Presumably, assuming no solution is perfect then no solution
would last very long politically once it had been implemented.
Still, many people (notably utopians) seem to find the idea of
a perfect solution compelling, perhaps because it is easy to
imagine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy

Read it and find that you've been wasting your time on the
collateral deaths issue for years, I'm glad to say.

"Derek" wrote
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 20:55:07 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" wrote
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 10:46:00 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" wrote
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 03:26:05 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" wrote

(Critic)
Abstaining from meat doesn't meet with the vegan's moral
requirement to not kill animals intentionally for food; animals
still die for their food during crop production.

This argument commits The Perfect Solution Fallacy

The Fallacy is that veganism is a Perfect Solution, a "death-free
lifestyle".

Vegans don't claim that their lifestyle is the perfect solution
to the killing of animals in food production.

Yes, for the most part that is exactly what they believe.

No.

At the very least they claim that it is "the best" solution, and we know
that categorical statements are dangerous.

Yet again, instead of dealing with real vegans in the real
World who acknowledge collateral deaths in crop production,
you choose to focus on the imaginary straw man vegan that
doesn't acknowledge them instead because that straw man is
easy to knock down, leaving the way open for you to declare
you've demolished the true vegan's position in the real World.
That's just not good enough, and your criticism, while directed
only at your straw man, is rejected as nonsense.

You could have just said "strawman" you wordy ****.

Only your straw
vegan claims that so he's easier to demolish. If you're only
capable of dealing with the imaginary vegans inside your
head, you're in the wrong place when trying to deal with the
real vegans in the real World here.

Real World vegans display the attitudes and ideas I am attributing to
them.

No, they don't. I've provided examples from various vegan web
sites and authors discussing the subject at length, and which you
subsequently snipped away. Repeating your claim that *all*
vegans refuse to acknowledge them in light of this evidence is
absurd and an obviously lie on your part.

A couple of sites give cds a passing mention, always in some obscure part of
the site, always to dismiss their importance. Contrast that to the thousands
on veganism extoling it's superiority.

I've shown you comments
from vegan web sites that deal with the problem of CDs, and
once again you've snipped those comments away, only to
proceed with trying to demolish your imaginary vegan again.
That's not good enough, so until you address the real vegan
your criticism of him has to be ignored.

The issue of collateral deaths is ignored or trivialized by vegans.

No, once again, it is not. Try dealing with the arguments put
forward by the real vegans in the real World instead of those
imaginary vegans inside your head. It's patently obvious that
you have no valid complaint against the real vegan until you do.

It's obvious that you're talking through your hat. Did you really think this
tact had merit?

When or if you finally decide to challenge the real vegan's
solution to the animal deaths surrounding man's diet, don't
make the mistake in rejecting veganism on the basis that
some deaths will still occur after its proposed implementation
because you'll be invoking the perfect solution fallacy. Like
I said, you've been wasting your time on this collateral deaths
issue for years, and it's about time you thought of something
else to challenge the vegan with apart from fallacies and lies.

Thanks for mentioning the Perfect Solution fallacy, it's very descriptive of
veganism. Vegans think that there is a Perfect Solution to animal death and
suffering in one's diet and they think that veganism is it. What a bunch of
******s.

"Derek" wrote
The Perfect Solution Fallacy.
The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs
when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists

Veganism

and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part
of the problem would still exist after it was implemented.
Presumably, assuming no solution is perfect then no solution
would last very long politically once it had been implemented.
Still, many people (notably utopians)

ie vegans

seem to find the idea of
a perfect solution compelling, perhaps because it is easy to
imagine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy

Read it and find that you've been wasting your time on the
collateral deaths issue for years, I'm glad to say.

Har har

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:31:18 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" wrote
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 20:55:07 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" wrote
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 10:46:00 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" wrote
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 03:26:05 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" wrote

(Critic)
Abstaining from meat doesn't meet with the vegan's moral
requirement to not kill animals intentionally for food; animals
still die for their food during crop production.

This argument commits The Perfect Solution Fallacy

The Fallacy is that veganism is a Perfect Solution, a "death-free
lifestyle".

Vegans don't claim that their lifestyle is the perfect solution
to the killing of animals in food production.

Yes, for the most part that is exactly what they believe.

No.

At the very least they claim that it is "the best" solution,

No, you don't get to make claims on behalf of all vegans.
That's your straw man again. Abstaining from meat is a
solution to avoid the killing of animals for food, and while
that solution still involves the killing of some animals in
crop production, it's a fallacy to reject that solution on
that basis.

Yet again, instead of dealing with real vegans in the real
World who acknowledge collateral deaths in crop production,
you choose to focus on the imaginary straw man vegan that
doesn't acknowledge them instead because that straw man is
easy to knock down, leaving the way open for you to declare
you've demolished the true vegan's position in the real World.
That's just not good enough, and your criticism, while directed
only at your straw man, is rejected as nonsense.

You could have just said "strawman" you wordy ****.

At least you admit that the vegan you argue with is your
straw man, so that's something.

Only your straw
vegan claims that so he's easier to demolish. If you're only
capable of dealing with the imaginary vegans inside your
head, you're in the wrong place when trying to deal with the
real vegans in the real World here.

Real World vegans display the attitudes and ideas I am attributing to
them.

No, they don't. I've provided examples from various vegan web
sites and authors discussing the subject at length, and which you
subsequently snipped away. Repeating your claim that *all*
vegans refuse to acknowledge them in light of this evidence is
absurd and an obviously lie on your part.

A couple of sites give cds a passing mention, always in some obscure part of
the site, always to dismiss their importance.

Whatever they say about their importance is of little concern
here. What IS of concern is your reluctance to concede that,
contrary to what you try to claim, vegan literature does
acknowledge them, and individual vegans like myself discuss
them at length. Those fact in place, it's a lie to claim vegans
ignore them. In short, you're a liar.

I've shown you comments
from vegan web sites that deal with the problem of CDs, and
once again you've snipped those comments away, only to
proceed with trying to demolish your imaginary vegan again.
That's not good enough, so until you address the real vegan
your criticism of him has to be ignored.

The issue of collateral deaths is ignored or trivialized by vegans.

No, once again, it is not. Try dealing with the arguments put
forward by the real vegans in the real World instead of those
imaginary vegans inside your head. It's patently obvious that
you have no valid complaint against the real vegan until you do.

It's obvious that you're talking through your hat.

That's a non-response. You cannot expect your criticism of
vegans to be taken seriously while your definition and criticism
focuses on your imaginary vegan. What would be the point in
arguing against a critic who's only criticism focuses on HIS
imaginary vegan? You're a joke.

When or if you finally decide to challenge the real vegan's
solution to the animal deaths surrounding man's diet, don't
make the mistake in rejecting veganism on the basis that
some deaths will still occur after its proposed implementation
because you'll be invoking the perfect solution fallacy. Like
I said, you've been wasting your time on this collateral deaths
issue for years, and it's about time you thought of something
else to challenge the vegan with apart from fallacies and lies.

Thanks for mentioning the Perfect Solution fallacy, it's very descriptive of
veganism.

Rather, it pertains to the fallacy non-vegans use to reject
veganism. Rejecting veganism as a solution to the animal
deaths associated in man's diet on the basis that animal
deaths will still exist after veganism is implemented in a
World where collateral deaths are ubiquitous is specious.

Vegans think that there is a Perfect Solution to animal death and
suffering in one's diet and they think that veganism is it.

It's certainly the best solution where the deaths of farmed
animals and fish is concerned, and their huge associated
collateral deaths.

What a bunch of ******s.

Hitting a nerve? That's good. The collateral deaths argument
is debunked, so it's back to the drawing board for you until
you can come up with something that doesn't invoke logical
fallacies, doesn't include a straw man vegan who refuses to
acknowledge collateral deaths, and isn't based on lies.

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:32:52 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" wrote

The Perfect Solution Fallacy.
The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs
when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists

Veganism

and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part
of the problem would still exist after it was implemented.
Presumably, assuming no solution is perfect then no solution
would last very long politically once it had been implemented.
Still, many people (notably utopians)

ie vegans

seem to find the idea of
a perfect solution compelling, perhaps because it is easy to
imagine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy

Read it and find that you've been wasting your time on the
collateral deaths issue for years, I'm glad to say.

Har har

There's no getting away from it; the collateral deaths argument
against veganism is a fallacy.

"Derek" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 20:11:55 GMT, "rick" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 16:35:25 GMT, "rick"
wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
m...

There's no perfect solution to this problem of the
collateral
deaths found in agriculture, and the vegan's critic is
often
foolishly persuaded to try using this dilemma to his
advantage
when he's run out of valid arguments.
====================
LOL It's the vegan that has no valid argument fool. You've
yet to EVER prove your claims that your deit is better.
I have easily shown that there are diets that are better than
many vegan diets, and yours in particular, killer.

No, you can't beat foraging for wild vegetables and fruits.
=====================
You don't do that do you, fool!

Nevertheless, your grass fed beef or hunted meat cannot best
forging for wild vegetables and fruits. Whether I forage or not
is irrelevant.
===========================
LOL Thanks for admitting you are wrong, fool. I talk about
real-world, viable diets. You have to resort to a diet that you
cannot, will not, and won't even consider as one as your only
example! What a hoot! As I have said, Therefore, your argument
is bogus, again.




You cannot claim that grass-fed beef isn't an option

Grass fed beef isn't a viable option because those animals
accrue collateral deaths like any other steer in the feedlot
from the crops they are fed.
=============================
No fool, they do not. Your willful ignorance and propaganda
delusions are showing, hypocrite. They are fed no crops, and are
not sent to feed-lots. Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.



While the meat pushers on these vegetarian and animal-
related forums try to convince vegans that grass fed
beef is that: grass fed, and therefore has a much lesser
association with the collateral deaths caused by farmers
growing animal feeds, they neglect to mention that
grass fed beef is also fed grains at the feedlot just like
any other steer,
=============================
Still willfully ignorant, eh killer? they are not sent to
feed-lots, despite your continued lys, hypocrite, Therefore,
your argument is bogus, again.


and therefore has a larger association
with collateral deaths than they would like to admit.

Meat-labeling guidelines are all over the place, allowing
producers to make whatever claims they want to with
impunity, so U.S.D.A. has "proposed minimum
requirements for livestock and meat industry production/
marketing claims, when adopted, will become the United
States Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing
Claims." They are as follows;
=====================
You've been show the idiocy of your claims, many times already
fool. Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.

begin idiocy and willful ignorance...
[SUMMARY: These proposed minimum requirements
for livestock and meat industry production/marketing
claims, when adopted, will become the United States
Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims.
.....
Grass Fed Claims--Background: This claim refers
to the feeding regimen for livestock raised on grass,
green or range pasture, or forage throughout their
life cycle, with only limited supplemental grain
feeding allowed. Since it is necessary to assure the
animal's well being at all times, limited supplementation
is allowed during adverse environmental conditions.
Grass feeding usually results in products containing
lower levels of external and internal fat (including
marbling) than grain-fed livestock products.

Claim and Standard:
[sbull] Grass Fed.--Grass, green or range pasture, or
forage shall be 80% or more of the primary energy
source throughout the animal's life cycle.

Dated: December 20, 2002.
A.J. Yates,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 02-32806 Filed 12-27-02; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-02-P]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt

These "proposed minimum requirements mean that
grass fed beef can in fact be fed up to 80% grains for
60 days in a feedlot, just like any other steer, and still
qualify as grass fed beef.

Comments from disgruntled grass fed beef producers
bear this out and reveal the lie behind grass fed beef;

[Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the
most commented upon topic in this docket. We
will not belabor all the points of concern which
are addressed but will focus on the areas of
concern to our cooperative of growers. While
Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method
IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS
NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that
you need to define both as what they ARE since
that is what is motivating the consumer.

While the intent of this language would suggest
that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished,
especially in Feedlots, the language as written is
not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing
80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at
the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef
animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for
70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be
fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under
these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with
consumer expectations as is borne out in the
website comments.]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc213.pdf

and

Dear Mr. Carpenter,
The proposed definition of the claim ?grass fed,? as it
may appear on future USDA approved beef labels, is
meaningless in the context of the current United States
cattle market and would violate consumer trust if put
into effect.

The huge majority of all beef cattle in the United States
are ?finished? on a grain-based ration in a commercial
feed lot. Even so, virtually all American cattle spend
80% or more of their lives on pasture eating grasses,
legumes and naturally occurring seeds (grain). Calling
these animals ?grass fed,? as proposed in the new label
claim definition, ignores the fact that in most cases their
whole diet for the last few months of their lives contains
no grass at all. Calling these animals ?grass fed? therefore
becomes meaningless since virtually all cattle are grass fed
as in the proposed definition.

However, for the last decade, a small, but growing number
of producers, including ourselves, have been marketing
cattle finished exclusively on pasture and hay without the
use of unnatural levels of grain-based seeds. This grass-
finished beef has been marketed as ?grassfed? or ?grass-
fed?, and these terms have come to be recognized by
millions of consumers. The enormous publicity over the
last year for grassfed meats (following on best-selling
books such as The Omega Diet and Fast Food Nation)
has reinforced the perception that ?grass fed? is
synonymous with grass-finished and, by extension, that no
supplemental grain has been provided to the animals.

So, I feel that to call an animal that has received as much
as 20% of its total nutrition in a grain feeding finishing
program ?grass fed? could be misleading and confusing
to the consumer. Grain finishing of ruminants is an artificial
feeding practice born of our unique circumstances here in
the United States. Grass feeding is the basis for ruminant
health consistent with the genetic structure and nutritional
requirements of the animals. The claim ?grass fed? as used
on a USDA-approved label should mean that a grassfed
animal has received no grain other than that which is naturally
occurring on pasture or in hay feeds.

I am glad that the USDA is attempting to bring some order
to the grassfed meat discussion, but I join those voices that
have been raised calling for a larger forum in which to discuss
the definition of the grassfed claim as well as other new
claims.
I ask that the March 31, 2003, deadline for public comment
be extended indefinitely to give all citizens, most
particularly
those who have been building the grassfed meats market, our
customers, and those who support our efforts, the opportunity
to have our perspective thoroughly considered.

Thank you for your serious consideration of my comments.

Sincerely,

Ernest Phinney
General Manager
Western Grasslands Beef]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc102.txt
stop continued idiocy, but willful ignorance is still
intatct...



Grass fed beef, then, isn't exactly what it's name
implies, and has just as much an association with
the collateral deaths found in crop production as
any other steer in the feedlot.
========================
Nope. Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.


Grass fed beef and hunted meat will always include the
death of an animal or animals. The vegan will always beat
the flesh eater where deaths are concerned, so you can
take your CD laden grass fed beef and shove it, Rick.
======================
ROTFLMAO

What a silly response.
=======================
Because of a silly claim that you have continued to fail at
proving, killer.
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.



He argues;

(Critic)
Abstaining from meat doesn't meet with the vegan's moral
requirement to not kill animals intentionally for food;
animals still die for their food during crop production.
=========================
By the millions upon millions, and in mnany cases far more
than
for some meat-inckuded diets. Therefore, your argument is
bogus, again.

Rather, you've just committed the same fallacy: the perfect
solution fallacy. Thanks for that demonstration.
========================
No, I did not

You're arguing that the vegan's solution to the deaths
associated
with man's diet should be rejected because animal deaths would
still exist after veganism is implemented, and that, dummy, is
using the perfect solution fallacy: a false dilemma.
==========================
No fool, I am not. Unlike you, I'm not telling to force anybody
to eat anything at all. I just rightly point out that IF saving
animals is your real goal, and you wish to maintain a real-world,
modern conveninece oriented diet, then your vegan one is NOT the
solution. But then, you've already proven that saving animals
from unnecessary deaths is NOT any goal of yours, hypocrite.
Afterall, here you are spewing your innane, willful ignorance for
all the world to se, killer. Therefore, your argument is bogus,
again.



This argument commits The Perfect Solution Fallacy by
assuming a perfect solution exists where no animals are
killed for their food in the practical World,
===========================
Nice stretch

You can't even bring yourself to concede that a vegan can
eat a single meal without killing animals,
================================
No fool, I never claimed that at all.

Then, do you accept the fact that a vegan can eat a meal
without any association of collateral deaths involved?
=======================
Not as practiced by you and every other vegan here on usenet,
hypocrite. I've always told you that somewhere I'm sure there is
at least one person living their 'ethics' in regards to animal
death and suffering. YOU are not that person, and YOU continue
to kill far more animals than necessary because YOU won't even
pick and choose among the food that YOU do eat, much less
actually look for a real reduction in your bloody footprints,
hypocrite. Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.



so when arguing
that the vegan's solution to the problem of animal deaths
surrounding diet should be rejected because animal deaths
still exist after veganism is implemented, you commit the
perfect solution fallacy.
========================
No

Absolutely yes. Other examples include;
=====================
No, you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about,
killer.
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.

snip typical idiocy...
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.


and so their solution to
abide by their stated moral requirement to not kill animals
for
food by abstaining from meat doesn't meet that requirement,
and so their solution (veganism) should be rejected because
some part of the problem (CDs) would still exist after it
was
implemented.
=============================
Another nice move

Agreed, because it's about time you realised your argument
against the vegan is a fallacy.
========================
You've already been proven wrong, killer.

I've shown that your argument against the vegan poses a false
dilemma. Get used to it.
=====================
No, you haven't, because you have failed to prove that a vegan
diet does anything you have claimed, killer.
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.



(Rejoinder)
Some animals die during crop production, but those deaths
aren't requested, condoned or intentionally caused by
vegans,
===========================
Yes, they are.

No. I don't request that collateral deaths occur, I don't
condone
them, and nor do I intentionally cause them. You don't get to
say what others condone.
======================
Your pal Aristotle has already told you, in english, that you
are
complicit, hypocrite.

Rather, his theory on moral responsibility shows that the
farmer is blameworthy for the deaths he voluntarily
causes, and that he cannot escape that blame by claiming
he is compelled externally by the vegan to cause those
deaths.
======================================
No, fool. He places as much blame on you because you made the
choices you did fully knowing the outcome, and without any
coersion or outside force from anybody else. the choices you
k=]make are fully yours, knowing that they are death sentences to
the animals you claim to care about. You are comlicit,
hypocrite. Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.


[ Aristotle (384-323 BCE) seems to have been the first
to construct explicitly a theory of moral responsibility.
.....
The remainder of Aristotle's discussion is devoted to
spelling out the conditions under which it is appropriate
to hold a moral agent blameworthy or praiseworthy for
some particular action or trait. His general proposal is
that one is an apt candidate for praise or blame if and
only if the action and/or disposition is voluntary.

According to Aristotle, a voluntary action or trait has
two distinctive features. First, there is a control condition:
the action or trait must have its origin in the agent. That
is, it must be up to the agent whether to perform that action
or possess the trait -- it cannot be compelled externally.
Second, Aristotle proposes an epistemic condition: the agent
must be aware of what it is she is doing or bringing about.]
http://plato.stanford.edu/entr*ies/m...ponsibility/#2

and this meets with their moral requirement to not kill
animals intentionally for food.
==========================
false. You know the animals are there

No, I don't.
=====================
Then you are willfully and terminally ignorant.

Then, in light of YOUR fact that all vegan foods accrue
animal deaths, to reject veganism on the basis that animal
deaths will still occur after its implementation you invoke
the perfect solution fallacy once again. Nice going, Rick;
you're the perfect demonstration for showing this fallacy
to its maximum effect.
=============================
Nope. You failed again, killer. You yet to prove the original
claim of veganism, killer. Therefore, your argument is bogus,
again.



the farmer knows the animals are there

That's correct. He causes them.
=====================
And you reward him, killer.

No, I don't, no matter how many times you repeat that
unsupported claim.
=================================
It's completel supported and proven, killer. You make the choice
to buy his food knowing full well how he produces it. YOU could
make other choices, yet you don't. You are therefore rewarding
the farmer for producing his veggies in a manner that provides
you cheap, clean, convienent food. Therefore, your argument is
bogus, again.



and you REWARD him for their deaths

No, I don't reward him for anything but the crops he
produces.
I certainly don't reward him for the deaths he causes. Do you
reward taxi drivers for the deaths they cause while going
about
their work, or our servicemen for the collateral deaths they
cause while making a grab for Saddam's oil? You're laughable.

Did you get that: you're laughable.
=====================
No fool, it was so foolish as to not even deserve a response.
You've been shown many times that the analogies are bogus and
that you have a real hard time with analogies. It ether of the
two cases above, many actions are taken to avoid and punish any
such occurances when neglegence is involved. Now, if in your
warped view of the world, if you believe punishment=reward, then
go for it hypocrite. Otherwise, you have lost again as there are
no prior actions taken, nor are there any punishments given for
the killing oif animal in the production of your veggies. In
fact, many of those deaths are deliberate, intentional and
targeting animals for death and suffering. Therefore, your
argument is bogus, again.



Furthermore, the crops grown to feed
farmed animals far outweigh those grown ourselves,
==========================
Strawman, killer.

Not at all. In fact, of the total domestic consumption of
cereal
grains 72% are used to feed livestock, 11% are for direct
human
consumption, and the remaining 17% are used by the food
industry
to produce different food products and alcoholic beverages.
Therefore, almost 90% of the cereal grains are consumed
indirectly
by Americans. A similar pattern occurs for soybeans and oil
seeds.
A large fraction of soybeans is used for feeding livestock,
either
directly or in the form of by-products (bean meal) of soy oil
production, and in the food industry to produce soy oil for
human
consumption.
http://dieoff.org/page55.htm
=======================
ROTFLMAO Propaganda sites!!

No, by David Pimentel - Cornell University and Mario Giampietro
Isiituto Nazionale dell; Nutrizione, Rome. Also, to show that
the
information I've given isn't from "propaganda sites", like you
presume,
the paragraph starts off with, "For instance, according to FAO
(199lc)
the cereal grains consumed directly per capita are just a small
fraction
of the total per capita cereal grains consumption (directly and
indirectly)
in the United States. In fact, of the total domestic
consumption of cereal
grains 72% are used to feed livestock ...." Bad dodge, Rick.
==============================
No fool. The dodge is all yours because you have never, and will
never be able to support your original claim.
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.


What a hoot!!! your argument is bogus, again.

Apparently not.
=========================
completly, fool...


The fact remains that there is NO need to feed
crops to animals for you to eat meat.

The fact remains that they ARE fed crops, and that the crops
required take up 72% of the total domestic consumption of
cereal grains. A similar pattern occurs for soybeans and soy
oil.
=======================
Ther fact remains that YOU do not gather wild veggies

I can do if I wanted to beat your grass fed beef and hunted
meat,
and that's something you ought to include when offering a
least-
harm diet if you weren't the meat pusher that you are.
=========================================
LOL You couldn't do that form of gathering if you wanted to,
fool. You'd kill yourself withing a month! Again, my choice is
at least a viable option. You have failed at proving your claims
about veganism, again, hypocrite.
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.




and they also cause collateral deaths proportionally, as
does
fishing our oceans for other sources of meat, known as by-
catch. So while the vegan abstains from farmed meat and
fish he in fact reduces those collateral deaths from what
they
would be if he were to eat those meats.

A harsh critic of veganism even declared;

"This counting game will ALWAYS work against
meat eaters. Far more of every bad thing you've
mentioned occurs as a result of people eating meat,
because so much of agriculture is simply to feed
the livestock. There would be far less agriculture
in general if everyone were vegetarian."
Jonathan Ball 4th May 03

And

"If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll
lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
feed for the animals you eat."
Jonathan Ball 22nd May 03

I see you have no comment in response to Jonathan's
statements. Like he says, "If you insist on playing the
counting game, you'll lose." He's right, you've lost.
====================
your argument is bogus, again.

Non sequitur and therefore a dodge. Why don't you criticise
Jon for those comments if you don't agree with them, Rick?
============================================
Because the focus is on your idiocy fool. You can try to deflect
it all you want, but you remain the head hypocrite in charge of
willful ignorance and stupidity.
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.

"Derek" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:32:52 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" wrote

The Perfect Solution Fallacy.
The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs
when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists

Veganism

and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part
of the problem would still exist after it was implemented.
Presumably, assuming no solution is perfect then no solution
would last very long politically once it had been
implemented.
Still, many people (notably utopians)

ie vegans

seem to find the idea of
a perfect solution compelling, perhaps because it is easy to
imagine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy

Read it and find that you've been wasting your time on the
collateral deaths issue for years, I'm glad to say.

Har har

There's no getting away from it; the collateral deaths argument
against veganism is a fallacy.
==========================
ROTFLMAO What a hoot! Because twits the liar has so claimed, eh
killer? It would only be a fallacy if you were to prove your
claims that veganism automatically is better. It's already been
proven that veganism as practiced by YOU is only about tracking
bloody footprints around the world, hypocrite.

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 12:31:44 +0000, Derek
wrote:

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:32:52 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" wrote

The Perfect Solution Fallacy.
The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs
when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists

Veganism

and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part
of the problem would still exist after it was implemented.
Presumably, assuming no solution is perfect then no solution
would last very long politically once it had been implemented.
Still, many people (notably utopians)

ie vegans

seem to find the idea of
a perfect solution compelling, perhaps because it is easy to
imagine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy

Read it and find that you've been wasting your time on the
collateral deaths issue for years, I'm glad to say.

Har har

There's no getting away from it; the collateral deaths argument
against veganism is a fallacy.

Actually, it isn't.

However, every argument, except for one, *for* veganism is fallacious.
It is not healthier than other diets, it is not more environmentally
friendly, it does not cause fewer deaths, and it not more efficient.

Each of those arguments falls apart in the face of real data, of which
the collateral deaths argument is one.

The *only* argument for it is "I prefer it." That's the only valid
one. Everything else is garbage.

----== 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 =----

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:24:31 GMT, "rick" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 20:11:55 GMT, "rick" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 16:35:25 GMT, "rick" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message ...

There's no perfect solution to this problem of the
collateral
deaths found in agriculture, and the vegan's critic is
often
foolishly persuaded to try using this dilemma to his
advantage
when he's run out of valid arguments.
====================
LOL It's the vegan that has no valid argument fool. You've
yet to EVER prove your claims that your deit is better.
I have easily shown that there are diets that are better than
many vegan diets, and yours in particular, killer.

No, you can't beat foraging for wild vegetables and fruits.
=====================
You don't do that do you, fool!

Nevertheless, your grass fed beef or hunted meat cannot best
forging for wild vegetables and fruits. Whether I forage or not
is irrelevant.
===========================
LOL Thanks for admitting you are wrong

No, I've shown that I'm right by offering a better solution
than the grass fed beef or hunted meat you offer: foraging
for wild vegetables and fruits. You'll do best to include
that solution when offering the least harm diet, but being
the meat pusher that you are you'll probably ignore it and
continue offering your CD-laden grass fed beef instead.

You cannot claim that grass-fed beef isn't an option

Grass fed beef isn't a viable option because those animals
accrue collateral deaths like any other steer in the feedlot
from the crops they are fed.
=============================
No fool, they do not.

Evidence from U.S.D.A. shows that grass fed beef can be
and is fed grains at the feedlot like any other steer, and still
qualify as grass fed beef.

While the meat pushers on these vegetarian and animal-
related forums try to convince vegans that grass fed
beef is that: grass fed, and therefore has a much lesser
association with the collateral deaths caused by farmers
growing animal feeds, they neglect to mention that
grass fed beef is also fed grains at the feedlot just like
any other steer,
=============================
Still willfully ignorant, eh killer?

The evidence is indisputable and from U.S.D.A. You
have no reason to dispute it, and it stands until you do.

they are not sent to feed-lots, despite your continued lys, hypocrite

I've shown that they are, despite your denials. Read on and
see that they are, just below this line.

and therefore has a larger association
with collateral deaths than they would like to admit.

Meat-labeling guidelines are all over the place, allowing
producers to make whatever claims they want to with
impunity, so U.S.D.A. has "proposed minimum
requirements for livestock and meat industry production/
marketing claims, when adopted, will become the United
States Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing
Claims." They are as follows;
=====================
You've been show the idiocy of your claims

No, I haven't. My claims are backed by evidence from
U.S.D.A. and accompanying notes from disgruntled
farmers. There's no getting away from the fact that
the grass fed beef you offer as an option to regular
beef is bogus, because both animals are finished on
grains at the feedlot. It's not an alternative to regular
steers at all if both are fed grains at the feedlot, as
shown by U.S.D.A.

[SUMMARY: These proposed minimum requirements
for livestock and meat industry production/marketing
claims, when adopted, will become the United States
Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims.
.....
Grass Fed Claims--Background: This claim refers
to the feeding regimen for livestock raised on grass,
green or range pasture, or forage throughout their
life cycle, with only limited supplemental grain
feeding allowed. Since it is necessary to assure the
animal's well being at all times, limited supplementation
is allowed during adverse environmental conditions.
Grass feeding usually results in products containing
lower levels of external and internal fat (including
marbling) than grain-fed livestock products.

Claim and Standard:
[sbull] Grass Fed.--Grass, green or range pasture, or
forage shall be 80% or more of the primary energy
source throughout the animal's life cycle.

Dated: December 20, 2002.
A.J. Yates,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 02-32806 Filed 12-27-02; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-02-P]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt

These "proposed minimum requirements mean that
grass fed beef can in fact be fed up to 80% grains for
60 days in a feedlot, just like any other steer, and still
qualify as grass fed beef.

Comments from disgruntled grass fed beef producers
bear this out and reveal the lie behind grass fed beef;

[Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the
most commented upon topic in this docket. We
will not belabor all the points of concern which
are addressed but will focus on the areas of
concern to our cooperative of growers. While
Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method
IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS
NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that
you need to define both as what they ARE since
that is what is motivating the consumer.

While the intent of this language would suggest
that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished,
especially in Feedlots, the language as written is
not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing
80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at
the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef
animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for
70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be
fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under
these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with
consumer expectations as is borne out in the
website comments.]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc213.pdf

and

Dear Mr. Carpenter,
The proposed definition of the claim ?grass fed,? as it
may appear on future USDA approved beef labels, is
meaningless in the context of the current United States
cattle market and would violate consumer trust if put
into effect.

The huge majority of all beef cattle in the United States
are ?finished? on a grain-based ration in a commercial
feed lot. Even so, virtually all American cattle spend
80% or more of their lives on pasture eating grasses,
legumes and naturally occurring seeds (grain). Calling
these animals ?grass fed,? as proposed in the new label
claim definition, ignores the fact that in most cases their
whole diet for the last few months of their lives contains
no grass at all. Calling these animals ?grass fed? therefore
becomes meaningless since virtually all cattle are grass fed
as in the proposed definition.

However, for the last decade, a small, but growing number
of producers, including ourselves, have been marketing
cattle finished exclusively on pasture and hay without the
use of unnatural levels of grain-based seeds. This grass-
finished beef has been marketed as ?grassfed? or ?grass-
fed?, and these terms have come to be recognized by
millions of consumers. The enormous publicity over the
last year for grassfed meats (following on best-selling
books such as The Omega Diet and Fast Food Nation)
has reinforced the perception that ?grass fed? is
synonymous with grass-finished and, by extension, that no
supplemental grain has been provided to the animals.

So, I feel that to call an animal that has received as much
as 20% of its total nutrition in a grain feeding finishing
program ?grass fed? could be misleading and confusing
to the consumer. Grain finishing of ruminants is an artificial
feeding practice born of our unique circumstances here in
the United States. Grass feeding is the basis for ruminant
health consistent with the genetic structure and nutritional
requirements of the animals. The claim ?grass fed? as used
on a USDA-approved label should mean that a grassfed
animal has received no grain other than that which is naturally
occurring on pasture or in hay feeds.

I am glad that the USDA is attempting to bring some order
to the grassfed meat discussion, but I join those voices that
have been raised calling for a larger forum in which to discuss
the definition of the grassfed claim as well as other new
claims.
I ask that the March 31, 2003, deadline for public comment
be extended indefinitely to give all citizens, most
particularly
those who have been building the grassfed meats market, our
customers, and those who support our efforts, the opportunity
to have our perspective thoroughly considered.

Thank you for your serious consideration of my comments.

Sincerely,

Ernest Phinney
General Manager
Western Grasslands Beef]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc102.txt

Grass fed beef, then, isn't exactly what it's name
implies, and has just as much an association with
the collateral deaths found in crop production as
any other steer in the feedlot.
========================
Nope.

Your denial at this point in spite of all that evidence I've
provided is absurd, though fully expected.

Grass fed beef and hunted meat will always include the
death of an animal or animals. The vegan will always beat
the flesh eater where deaths are concerned, so you can
take your CD laden grass fed beef and shove it, Rick.
======================
ROTFLMAO

What a silly response.
=======================
Because of a silly claim that you have continued to fail at
proving

I've supported it by offering a better option to your best: foraging
for wild vegetables and fruits. Better, best, bested - how's that for
a declension? You lose, Etter.

He argues;

(Critic)
Abstaining from meat doesn't meet with the vegan's moral
requirement to not kill animals intentionally for food;
animals still die for their food during crop production.
=========================
By the millions upon millions, and in mnany cases far more
than
for some meat-inckuded diets. Therefore, your argument is
bogus, again.

Rather, you've just committed the same fallacy: the perfect
solution fallacy. Thanks for that demonstration.
========================
No, I did not

You're arguing that the vegan's solution to the deaths associated
with man's diet should be rejected because animal deaths would
still exist after veganism is implemented, and that, dummy, is
using the perfect solution fallacy: a false dilemma.
==========================
No fool, I am not.

Yes, twerp: you are.

This argument commits The Perfect Solution Fallacy by
assuming a perfect solution exists where no animals are
killed for their food in the practical World,
===========================
Nice stretch

You can't even bring yourself to concede that a vegan can
eat a single meal without killing animals,
================================
No fool, I never claimed that at all.

Then, do you accept the fact that a vegan can eat a meal
without any association of collateral deaths involved?
=======================
Not as practiced by you and every other vegan here on usenet

Then you are indeed posing a false dilemma known as the
perfect solution fallacy.

The Perfect Solution Fallacy.
The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs
when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists
and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part
of the problem would still exist after it was implemented.
Presumably, assuming no solution is perfect then no solution
would last very long politically once it had been implemented.
Still, many people (notably utopians) seem to find the idea of
a perfect solution compelling, perhaps because it is easy to
imagine.

Examples:
(critic)
This "terrorist safety net" is a bad idea. Terrorists will still be
able to get through!
(Rejoinder)
Yes, some terrorists would still be able to get through, but
would it be worth stopping those terrorists that it would stop?
(critic)
These anti-drunk driving ad campaigns are not going to work.
People are still going to drink and drive no matter what.
(Rejoinder)
It may not eliminate 100% of drunk driving, but is the amount
by which it would reduce the total amount of drunk driving
enough to make the policy worthwhile?
(Critic)
Seat belts are a bad idea. People are still going to die in car
wrecks.
(Rejoinder)
It may not save 100% of people involved in car wrecks, but
isn't the number of lives that would be saved enough to make
seat belts worthwhile?

It is common for arguments that commit this fallacy to omit
any specifics about how much the solution is claimed to not
work, but express it only in vague terms. Alternatively, it may
be combined with the fallacy of misleading vividness, when
a specific example of a solution's failing is described in eye-
catching detail and base rates are ignored (see availability
heuristic).
The fallacy is a kind of false dilemma.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy

so when arguing
that the vegan's solution to the problem of animal deaths
surrounding diet should be rejected because animal deaths
still exist after veganism is implemented, you commit the
perfect solution fallacy.
========================
No

Absolutely yes. Other examples include;
=====================
No

Yes, dummy, despite your futile whining to the contrary, you
are posing a false dilemma whether you accept that charge
or not.

(Rejoinder)
Some animals die during crop production, but those deaths
aren't requested, condoned or intentionally caused by
vegans,
===========================
Yes, they are.

No. I don't request that collateral deaths occur, I don't
condone
them, and nor do I intentionally cause them. You don't get to
say what others condone.
======================
Your pal Aristotle has already told you, in english, that you
are
complicit, hypocrite.

Rather, his theory on moral responsibility shows that the
farmer is blameworthy for the deaths he voluntarily
causes, and that he cannot escape that blame by claiming
he is compelled externally by the vegan to cause those
deaths.
======================================
No

Yes. Read on.

[ Aristotle (384-323 BCE) seems to have been the first
to construct explicitly a theory of moral responsibility.
.....
The remainder of Aristotle's discussion is devoted to
spelling out the conditions under which it is appropriate
to hold a moral agent blameworthy or praiseworthy for
some particular action or trait. His general proposal is
that one is an apt candidate for praise or blame if and
only if the action and/or disposition is voluntary.

According to Aristotle, a voluntary action or trait has
two distinctive features. First, there is a control condition:
the action or trait must have its origin in the agent. That
is, it must be up to the agent whether to perform that action
or possess the trait -- it cannot be compelled externally.
Second, Aristotle proposes an epistemic condition: the agent
must be aware of what it is she is doing or bringing about.]
http://plato.stanford.edu/entr*ies/m...ponsibility/#2

There you are.

and this meets with their moral requirement to not kill
animals intentionally for food.
==========================
false. You know the animals are there

No, I don't.
=====================
Then you are willfully and terminally ignorant.

Then, in light of YOUR fact that all vegan foods accrue
animal deaths, to reject veganism on the basis that animal
deaths will still occur after its implementation you invoke
the perfect solution fallacy once again. Nice going, Rick;
you're the perfect demonstration for showing this fallacy
to its maximum effect.
=============================
Nope.

Absolutely yes, despite your empty denials. Your collateral
deaths argument against the vegan poses a false dilemma
and is correctly rejected on that basis. You've been wasting
your time on this issue for years, so I doubt you'll allow
yourself to accept the facts when shown to you, being you.

the farmer knows the animals are there

That's correct. He causes them.
=====================
And you reward him, killer.

No, I don't, no matter how many times you repeat that
unsupported claim.
=================================
It's completel supported and proven

No, you don't get to say what I reward others for, and you
don't get to rest your argument on such a wild assumption
without looking completely desperate and stupid.

and you REWARD him for their deaths

No, I don't reward him for anything but the crops he
produces.
I certainly don't reward him for the deaths he causes. Do you
reward taxi drivers for the deaths they cause while going
about
their work, or our servicemen for the collateral deaths they
cause while making a grab for Saddam's oil? You're laughable.

Did you get that: you're laughable.
=====================
No fool

Then I'll repeat it. You're laughable. No one rewards taxi drivers
for the deaths they cause when ordering a cab, and no one
rewards our servicemen for the collateral human deaths they
cause while making a grab for Saddam's oil. Likewise, no one
rewards farmers for the collateral deaths they cause while
producing veg.

Furthermore, the crops grown to feed
farmed animals far outweigh those grown ourselves,
==========================
Strawman, killer.

Not at all. In fact, of the total domestic consumption of
cereal
grains 72% are used to feed livestock, 11% are for direct
human
consumption, and the remaining 17% are used by the food
industry
to produce different food products and alcoholic beverages.
Therefore, almost 90% of the cereal grains are consumed
indirectly
by Americans. A similar pattern occurs for soybeans and oil
seeds.
A large fraction of soybeans is used for feeding livestock,
either
directly or in the form of by-products (bean meal) of soy oil
production, and in the food industry to produce soy oil for
human
consumption.
http://dieoff.org/page55.htm
=======================
ROTFLMAO Propaganda sites!!

No, by David Pimentel - Cornell University and Mario Giampietro
Isiituto Nazionale dell; Nutrizione, Rome. Also, to show that
the
information I've given isn't from "propaganda sites", like you
presume,
the paragraph starts off with, "For instance, according to FAO
(199lc)
the cereal grains consumed directly per capita are just a small
fraction
of the total per capita cereal grains consumption (directly and
indirectly)
in the United States. In fact, of the total domestic
consumption of cereal
grains 72% are used to feed livestock ...." Bad dodge, Rick.
==============================
No fool.

Yes, twerp, despite your denials. The information I've provided
above isn't from propaganda sites, like you presume, and even
when shown this you still deny it. You're hopelessly lost in
denial.

The fact remains that there is NO need to feed
crops to animals for you to eat meat.

The fact remains that they ARE fed crops, and that the crops
required take up 72% of the total domestic consumption of
cereal grains. A similar pattern occurs for soybeans and soy
oil.
=======================
Ther fact remains that YOU do not gather wild veggies

I can do if I wanted to beat your grass fed beef and hunted
meat,
and that's something you ought to include when offering a
least-
harm diet if you weren't the meat pusher that you are.
=========================================
LOL You couldn't do that form of gathering if you wanted to

Then once again you fall for the same fallacy by posing a
false dilemma.

and they also cause collateral deaths proportionally, as
does
fishing our oceans for other sources of meat, known as by-
catch. So while the vegan abstains from farmed meat and
fish he in fact reduces those collateral deaths from what
they
would be if he were to eat those meats.

A harsh critic of veganism even declared;

"This counting game will ALWAYS work against
meat eaters. Far more of every bad thing you've
mentioned occurs as a result of people eating meat,
because so much of agriculture is simply to feed
the livestock. There would be far less agriculture
in general if everyone were vegetarian."
Jonathan Ball 4th May 03

And

"If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll
lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
feed for the animals you eat."
Jonathan Ball 22nd May 03

I see you have no comment in response to Jonathan's
statements. Like he says, "If you insist on playing the
counting game, you'll lose." He's right, you've lost.
====================
your argument is bogus, again.

Non sequitur and therefore a dodge. Why don't you criticise
Jon for those comments if you don't agree with them, Rick?
============================================
Because the focus is on your idiocy fool.

I agree entirely with every word Jon has written in those quotes,
yet you're only willing to criticise vegans when they write the
same thing. Thanks for demonstrating your hypocrisy so clearly
for us all today.

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 09:37:36 -0500, Doug Jones wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 12:31:44 +0000, Derek wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:32:52 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" wrote

The Perfect Solution Fallacy.
The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs
when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists
and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part
of the problem would still exist after it was implemented.
Presumably, assuming no solution is perfect then no solution
would last very long politically once it had been implemented.
Still, many people (notably utopians) seem to find the idea of
a perfect solution compelling, perhaps because it is easy to
imagine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy

Read it and find that you've been wasting your time on the
collateral deaths issue for years, I'm glad to say.

Har har

There's no getting away from it; the collateral deaths argument
against veganism is a fallacy.

Actually, it isn't.

It poses a false dilemma, as described in the definition I've
provided. Your denial or feigned ignorance of it doesn't
escape the fact that while collateral deaths exist ubiquitously
in food production, rejecting veganism as a solution to the deaths
associated with man's diet generally, is specious.

However, every argument, except for one, *for* veganism is fallacious.

Show how "veganism is fallacious." Don't just declare it like
a petulant child; show how.

It is not healthier than other diets

Ipse dixit and false.

it is not more environmentally friendly

Ipse dixit and false.

it does not cause fewer deaths

Ipse dixit and false.

and it not more efficient.

Ipse dixit and false.
..
Each of those arguments falls apart in the face of real data

Then show it instead of making these unsupported claims.

of which the collateral deaths argument is one.

The collateral deaths argument is specious and debunked.

The *only* argument for it is "I prefer it." That's the only valid
one. Everything else is garbage.

That's your opinion, and I don't agree with it.

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:29:29 GMT, "rick" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message ...
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:32:52 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" wrote

The Perfect Solution Fallacy.
The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs
when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists
and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part
of the problem would still exist after it was implemented.
Presumably, assuming no solution is perfect then no solution
would last very long politically once it had been implemented.
Still, many people (notably utopians) seem to find the idea of
a perfect solution compelling, perhaps because it is easy to
imagine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy

Read it and find that you've been wasting your time on the
collateral deaths issue for years, I'm glad to say.

Har har

There's no getting away from it; the collateral deaths argument
against veganism is a fallacy.
==========================
ROTFLMAO What a hoot!

Get used to it, Etter, however hard it must be for someone like
you to accept. You have no choice but to accept the fact that
the collateral deaths argument is specious in that it poses a
false dilemma.

Derek wrote:



There's no getting away from it; the collateral deaths argument
against veganism is a fallacy.

Glorfindel wrote:

Yes, that is true, for several reasons.

Current methods of crop production (probably; presumptively ) may
involve collateral deaths, but raising, transporting, and marketing
animals for food *certainly* do, and always will. The question of
which diet involves fewer cannot be answered on a black-and-white
basis, because each individual diet must be evaluated independently.
However, given the optimum example of each type, a vegan diet will
always involve fewer deaths than a diet including meat, given the
same parameters in each case. An *ideal* vegan diet would indeed
involve no animal deaths at all, while even an *ideal* omnivore
diet would involve at least some animal deaths. As Derek has noted,
the ideal in either case is probably impossible in the real world,
so it cannot be used to critique any specific diet in the real
world. It can only be used as a goal, or theoretical concept, and
in that case, the vegan diet must be better for animals.

Secondly, as far as the concept of animal rights, or animal liberation,
is concerned, the vegan diet wins hands-down. Even a diet of hunted
meat involves a violation of the rights of the hunted animal by
its death at human hands. An equivalent diet of gathering need not
involve any intentional killing of rights-bearing animals at all.
If we consider a diet involving farmed animals, the animals' rights
are violated both by the entire process of breeding and raising
them, and the basic injustice of treating them as property, and
again in the process of slaughtering them. Collateral deaths in
the field, or in protection of food in storage, would involve, at the
most, the single injustice of lack of consideration of the animals'
rights in "pest control."

There is absolutely no way a diet involving meat can be seen as more
just for animals, or less harmful for them, if the same criteria are
applied to any individual example. It is only by comparing vastly
different examples ("comparing apples and oranges" ) that any diet
including meat can be seen as less harmful on a utilitarian basis.
This must be a dishonest approach to the issue.

BTW, Jane Goodall has recently published a new book on the issue of
animal- and environmentally-friendly diet, for those who are interested.

"Derek" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 14:24:31 GMT, "rick" wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 20:11:55 GMT, "rick"
wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
m...
On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 16:35:25 GMT, "rick"
wrote:
"Derek" wrote in message
news:[email protected] com...

There's no perfect solution to this problem of the
collateral
deaths found in agriculture, and the vegan's critic is
often
foolishly persuaded to try using this dilemma to his
advantage
when he's run out of valid arguments.
====================
LOL It's the vegan that has no valid argument fool.
You've
yet to EVER prove your claims that your deit is better.
I have easily shown that there are diets that are better
than
many vegan diets, and yours in particular, killer.

No, you can't beat foraging for wild vegetables and fruits.
=====================
You don't do that do you, fool!

Nevertheless, your grass fed beef or hunted meat cannot best
forging for wild vegetables and fruits. Whether I forage or
not
is irrelevant.
===========================
LOL Thanks for admitting you are wrong

No, I've shown that I'm right by offering a better solution
than the grass fed beef or hunted meat you offer: foraging
for wild vegetables and fruits. You'll do best to include
that solution when offering the least harm diet, but being
the meat pusher that you are you'll probably ignore it and
continue offering your CD-laden grass fed beef instead.
===================================
No, you've proven again your own hypocricy fool. You do not and
will not try this so-called option.
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.



You cannot claim that grass-fed beef isn't an option

Grass fed beef isn't a viable option because those animals
accrue collateral deaths like any other steer in the feedlot
from the crops they are fed.
=============================
No fool, they do not.

Evidence from U.S.D.A. shows that grass fed beef can be
and is fed grains at the feedlot like any other steer, and
still
qualify as grass fed beef.
==========================
No fool, they do not. Try again...

"...How are Cattle Raised?
All cattle start out eating grass; three-fourths of them are
"finished" (grown to maturity) in feedlots where they are fed
specially formulated feed based on corn or other grains...."
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets...able/index.asp

too bad you're still too stupid to play, killer...



While the meat pushers on these vegetarian and animal-
related forums try to convince vegans that grass fed
beef is that: grass fed, and therefore has a much lesser
association with the collateral deaths caused by farmers
growing animal feeds, they neglect to mention that
grass fed beef is also fed grains at the feedlot just like
any other steer,
=============================
Still willfully ignorant, eh killer?

The evidence is indisputable and from U.S.D.A. You
have no reason to dispute it, and it stands until you do.
==========================
LOL See above fool.
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.



they are not sent to feed-lots, despite your continued lys,
hypocrite

I've shown that they are, despite your denials. Read on and
see that they are, just below this line.
======================
I've read your lys before, fool. They are still lys.
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.



and therefore has a larger association
with collateral deaths than they would like to admit.

Meat-labeling guidelines are all over the place, allowing
producers to make whatever claims they want to with
impunity, so U.S.D.A. has "proposed minimum
requirements for livestock and meat industry production/
marketing claims, when adopted, will become the United
States Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing
Claims." They are as follows;
=====================
You've been show the idiocy of your claims

No, I haven't. My claims are backed by evidence from
U.S.D.A. and accompanying notes from disgruntled
farmers. There's no getting away from the fact that
the grass fed beef you offer as an option to regular
beef is bogus, because both animals are finished on
grains at the feedlot. It's not an alternative to regular
steers at all if both are fed grains at the feedlot, as
shown by U.S.D.A.
==========================
no fool, they are not backed up by the USDA. I just posted proof
of your idiocy...
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.


[SUMMARY: These proposed minimum requirements
for livestock and meat industry production/marketing
claims, when adopted, will become the United States
Standards for Livestock and Meat Marketing Claims.
.....
Grass Fed Claims--Background: This claim refers
to the feeding regimen for livestock raised on grass,
green or range pasture, or forage throughout their
life cycle, with only limited supplemental grain
feeding allowed. Since it is necessary to assure the
animal's well being at all times, limited supplementation
is allowed during adverse environmental conditions.
Grass feeding usually results in products containing
lower levels of external and internal fat (including
marbling) than grain-fed livestock products.

Claim and Standard:
[sbull] Grass Fed.--Grass, green or range pasture, or
forage shall be 80% or more of the primary energy
source throughout the animal's life cycle.

Dated: December 20, 2002.
A.J. Yates,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service.
[FR Doc. 02-32806 Filed 12-27-02; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-02-P]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt

These "proposed minimum requirements mean that
grass fed beef can in fact be fed up to 80% grains for
60 days in a feedlot, just like any other steer, and still
qualify as grass fed beef.

Comments from disgruntled grass fed beef producers
bear this out and reveal the lie behind grass fed beef;

[Grass Fed Claims; This would appear to be the
most commented upon topic in this docket. We
will not belabor all the points of concern which
are addressed but will focus on the areas of
concern to our cooperative of growers. While
Grain Fed addressed specifically what the method
IS, Grass Fed seems to try to define what it IS
NOT. This dichotomy is confusing. We feel that
you need to define both as what they ARE since
that is what is motivating the consumer.

While the intent of this language would suggest
that Grass Fed animals are not Grain Finished,
especially in Feedlots, the language as written is
not at all clear to that end. In fact by allowing
80% of consumed energy to be concentrated at
the finishing stage, our data suggests that beef
animals could be fed 50% forage /50% grain for
70 days at finishing. Likewise an animal could be
fed 85% grain for 60 days and still qualify under
these guidelines. This is absolutely not in line with
consumer expectations as is borne out in the
website comments.]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc213.pdf

and

Dear Mr. Carpenter,
The proposed definition of the claim ?grass fed,? as it
may appear on future USDA approved beef labels, is
meaningless in the context of the current United States
cattle market and would violate consumer trust if put
into effect.

The huge majority of all beef cattle in the United States
are ?finished? on a grain-based ration in a commercial
feed lot. Even so, virtually all American cattle spend
80% or more of their lives on pasture eating grasses,
legumes and naturally occurring seeds (grain). Calling
these animals ?grass fed,? as proposed in the new label
claim definition, ignores the fact that in most cases their
whole diet for the last few months of their lives contains
no grass at all. Calling these animals ?grass fed?
therefore
becomes meaningless since virtually all cattle are grass fed
as in the proposed definition.

However, for the last decade, a small, but growing number
of producers, including ourselves, have been marketing
cattle finished exclusively on pasture and hay without the
use of unnatural levels of grain-based seeds. This grass-
finished beef has been marketed as ?grassfed? or ?grass-
fed?, and these terms have come to be recognized by
millions of consumers. The enormous publicity over the
last year for grassfed meats (following on best-selling
books such as The Omega Diet and Fast Food Nation)
has reinforced the perception that ?grass fed? is
synonymous with grass-finished and, by extension, that no
supplemental grain has been provided to the animals.

So, I feel that to call an animal that has received as much
as 20% of its total nutrition in a grain feeding finishing
program ?grass fed? could be misleading and confusing
to the consumer. Grain finishing of ruminants is an
artificial
feeding practice born of our unique circumstances here in
the United States. Grass feeding is the basis for ruminant
health consistent with the genetic structure and nutritional
requirements of the animals. The claim ?grass fed? as used
on a USDA-approved label should mean that a grassfed
animal has received no grain other than that which is
naturally
occurring on pasture or in hay feeds.

I am glad that the USDA is attempting to bring some order
to the grassfed meat discussion, but I join those voices that
have been raised calling for a larger forum in which to
discuss
the definition of the grassfed claim as well as other new
claims.
I ask that the March 31, 2003, deadline for public comment
be extended indefinitely to give all citizens, most
particularly
those who have been building the grassfed meats market, our
customers, and those who support our efforts, the opportunity
to have our perspective thoroughly considered.

Thank you for your serious consideration of my comments.

Sincerely,

Ernest Phinney
General Manager
Western Grasslands Beef]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc102.txt

Grass fed beef, then, isn't exactly what it's name
implies, and has just as much an association with
the collateral deaths found in crop production as
any other steer in the feedlot.
========================
Nope.

Your denial at this point in spite of all that evidence I've
provided is absurd, though fully expected.
====================
You've provided nothing, killer. Well, to be honest, you have
provided the same lys over and over. they are still lys though,
hypocrite...
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.



Grass fed beef and hunted meat will always include the
death of an animal or animals. The vegan will always beat
the flesh eater where deaths are concerned, so you can
take your CD laden grass fed beef and shove it, Rick.
======================
ROTFLMAO

What a silly response.
=======================
Because of a silly claim that you have continued to fail at
proving

I've supported it by offering a better option to your best:
foraging
for wild vegetables and fruits. Better, best, bested - how's
that for
a declension? You lose, Etter.
===============================
LOL No you haven't fool. Try again, and give a viable
real-world alternative, like I have. I admitted that fairy tale
lives can be better, but they don't apply to the way YOU eat,
hypocrite...




He argues;

(Critic)
Abstaining from meat doesn't meet with the vegan's moral
requirement to not kill animals intentionally for food;
animals still die for their food during crop production.
=========================
By the millions upon millions, and in mnany cases far more
than
for some meat-inckuded diets. Therefore, your argument is
bogus, again.

Rather, you've just committed the same fallacy: the perfect
solution fallacy. Thanks for that demonstration.
========================
No, I did not

You're arguing that the vegan's solution to the deaths
associated
with man's diet should be rejected because animal deaths
would
still exist after veganism is implemented, and that, dummy,
is
using the perfect solution fallacy: a false dilemma.
==========================
No fool, I am not.

Yes, twerp: you are.
============================
Nope, you lose, again...


This argument commits The Perfect Solution Fallacy by
assuming a perfect solution exists where no animals are
killed for their food in the practical World,
===========================
Nice stretch

You can't even bring yourself to concede that a vegan can
eat a single meal without killing animals,
================================
No fool, I never claimed that at all.

Then, do you accept the fact that a vegan can eat a meal
without any association of collateral deaths involved?
=======================
Not as practiced by you and every other vegan here on usenet

Then you are indeed posing a false dilemma known as the
perfect solution fallacy.

The Perfect Solution Fallacy.
The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs
when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists
and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part
of the problem would still exist after it was implemented.
Presumably, assuming no solution is perfect then no solution
would last very long politically once it had been implemented.
Still, many people (notably utopians) seem to find the idea of
a perfect solution compelling, perhaps because it is easy to
imagine.
============================
LOL Reposting your stupidity only confirms your stupidity, fool.
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.



Examples:
(critic)
This "terrorist safety net" is a bad idea. Terrorists will
still be
able to get through!
(Rejoinder)
Yes, some terrorists would still be able to get through, but
would it be worth stopping those terrorists that it would stop?
(critic)
These anti-drunk driving ad campaigns are not going to work.
People are still going to drink and drive no matter what.
(Rejoinder)
It may not eliminate 100% of drunk driving, but is the amount
by which it would reduce the total amount of drunk driving
enough to make the policy worthwhile?
(Critic)
Seat belts are a bad idea. People are still going to die in car
wrecks.
(Rejoinder)
It may not save 100% of people involved in car wrecks, but
isn't the number of lives that would be saved enough to make
seat belts worthwhile?

It is common for arguments that commit this fallacy to omit
any specifics about how much the solution is claimed to not
work, but express it only in vague terms. Alternatively, it may
be combined with the fallacy of misleading vividness, when
a specific example of a solution's failing is described in eye-
catching detail and base rates are ignored (see availability
heuristic).
The fallacy is a kind of false dilemma.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy

so when arguing
that the vegan's solution to the problem of animal deaths
surrounding diet should be rejected because animal deaths
still exist after veganism is implemented, you commit the
perfect solution fallacy.
========================
No

Absolutely yes. Other examples include;
=====================
No

Yes, dummy, despite your futile whining to the contrary, you
are posing a false dilemma whether you accept that charge
or not.
=============================
No fool, you just can't comprehend anything you read.
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.



(Rejoinder)
Some animals die during crop production, but those deaths
aren't requested, condoned or intentionally caused by
vegans,
===========================
Yes, they are.

No. I don't request that collateral deaths occur, I don't
condone
them, and nor do I intentionally cause them. You don't get
to
say what others condone.
======================
Your pal Aristotle has already told you, in english, that you
are
complicit, hypocrite.

Rather, his theory on moral responsibility shows that the
farmer is blameworthy for the deaths he voluntarily
causes, and that he cannot escape that blame by claiming
he is compelled externally by the vegan to cause those
deaths.
======================================
No

Yes. Read on.
=========================
Again, I have read your idiocy. Your problem is that Aristotke
ahs already told you, in english, that you are complicit. You
keep posting the proof of your complicity and then pretend that
it doesn't apply.
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.



[ Aristotle (384-323 BCE) seems to have been the first
to construct explicitly a theory of moral responsibility.
.....
The remainder of Aristotle's discussion is devoted to
spelling out the conditions under which it is appropriate
to hold a moral agent blameworthy or praiseworthy for
some particular action or trait. His general proposal is
that one is an apt candidate for praise or blame if and
only if the action and/or disposition is voluntary.

According to Aristotle, a voluntary action or trait has
two distinctive features. First, there is a control
condition:
the action or trait must have its origin in the agent. That
is, it must be up to the agent whether to perform that action
or possess the trait -- it cannot be compelled externally.
Second, Aristotle proposes an epistemic condition: the agent
must be aware of what it is she is doing or bringing about.]
http://plato.stanford.edu/entr*ies/m...ponsibility/#2

There you are.
==========================
Yes, there you are. You are complicit. You are not compelled to
buy the food you know causes death and suffering, you CHOOSE to
buy it. It is YOUR actions that make you complicit.
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.


and this meets with their moral requirement to not kill
animals intentionally for food.
==========================
false. You know the animals are there

No, I don't.
=====================
Then you are willfully and terminally ignorant.

Then, in light of YOUR fact that all vegan foods accrue
animal deaths, to reject veganism on the basis that animal
deaths will still occur after its implementation you invoke
the perfect solution fallacy once again. Nice going, Rick;
you're the perfect demonstration for showing this fallacy
to its maximum effect.
=============================
Nope.

Absolutely yes, despite your empty denials. Your collateral
deaths argument against the vegan poses a false dilemma
and is correctly rejected on that basis. You've been wasting
your time on this issue for years, so I doubt you'll allow
yourself to accept the facts when shown to you, being you.
===========================
LOL This from the willfully ignorant that doesn't know reality
when it's in your face! What a hoot!
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.





the farmer knows the animals are there

That's correct. He causes them.
=====================
And you reward him, killer.

No, I don't, no matter how many times you repeat that
unsupported claim.
=================================
It's completel supported and proven

No, you don't get to say what I reward others for, and you
don't get to rest your argument on such a wild assumption
without looking completely desperate and stupid.
=========================
ROTFLMAO I'm not the one proving my contentions fool! You are
proving who you reward by YOUR actions, not because I say so,
killer. You really are this stupid, aren't you?
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.





and you REWARD him for their deaths

No, I don't reward him for anything but the crops he
produces.
I certainly don't reward him for the deaths he causes. Do
you
reward taxi drivers for the deaths they cause while going
about
their work, or our servicemen for the collateral deaths
they
cause while making a grab for Saddam's oil? You're
laughable.

Did you get that: you're laughable.
=====================
No fool

Then I'll repeat it. You're laughable. No one rewards taxi
drivers
for the deaths they cause when ordering a cab, and no one
rewards our servicemen for the collateral human deaths they
cause while making a grab for Saddam's oil. Likewise, no one
rewards farmers for the collateral deaths they cause while
producing veg.
=======================
Yes, fool, they are rewarded for those actions. Since you seem
to like punishment as rewards. See dave...
No such actions take place for even the deliberate deaths oif
animals for your food. In fact, you even contionue to PAY for
those deaths!
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.



Furthermore, the crops grown to feed
farmed animals far outweigh those grown ourselves,
==========================
Strawman, killer.

Not at all. In fact, of the total domestic consumption of
cereal
grains 72% are used to feed livestock, 11% are for direct
human
consumption, and the remaining 17% are used by the food
industry
to produce different food products and alcoholic beverages.
Therefore, almost 90% of the cereal grains are consumed
indirectly
by Americans. A similar pattern occurs for soybeans and oil
seeds.
A large fraction of soybeans is used for feeding livestock,
either
directly or in the form of by-products (bean meal) of soy
oil
production, and in the food industry to produce soy oil for
human
consumption.
http://dieoff.org/page55.htm
=======================
ROTFLMAO Propaganda sites!!

No, by David Pimentel - Cornell University and Mario
Giampietro
Isiituto Nazionale dell; Nutrizione, Rome. Also, to show that
the
information I've given isn't from "propaganda sites", like
you
presume,
the paragraph starts off with, "For instance, according to
FAO
(199lc)
the cereal grains consumed directly per capita are just a
small
fraction
of the total per capita cereal grains consumption (directly
and
indirectly)
in the United States. In fact, of the total domestic
consumption of cereal
grains 72% are used to feed livestock ...." Bad dodge, Rick.
==============================
No fool.

Yes, twerp, despite your denials. The information I've provided
above isn't from propaganda sites, like you presume, and even
when shown this you still deny it. You're hopelessly lost in
denial.
==================================
Nope, the denial is all yopurs fool. You continue to deny the
world of the proof that veganism automatically is better. You
keep saying it, but always seem to be short on proof.
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.



The fact remains that there is NO need to feed
crops to animals for you to eat meat.

The fact remains that they ARE fed crops, and that the
crops
required take up 72% of the total domestic consumption of
cereal grains. A similar pattern occurs for soybeans and
soy
oil.
=======================
Ther fact remains that YOU do not gather wild veggies

I can do if I wanted to beat your grass fed beef and hunted
meat,
and that's something you ought to include when offering a
least-
harm diet if you weren't the meat pusher that you are.
=========================================
LOL You couldn't do that form of gathering if you wanted to

Then once again you fall for the same fallacy by posing a
false dilemma.
========================
nope. Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.



and they also cause collateral deaths proportionally, as
does
fishing our oceans for other sources of meat, known as
by-
catch. So while the vegan abstains from farmed meat and
fish he in fact reduces those collateral deaths from what
they
would be if he were to eat those meats.

A harsh critic of veganism even declared;

"This counting game will ALWAYS work against
meat eaters. Far more of every bad thing you've
mentioned occurs as a result of people eating meat,
because so much of agriculture is simply to feed
the livestock. There would be far less agriculture
in general if everyone were vegetarian."
Jonathan Ball 4th May 03

And

"If you insist on playing a stupid counting game, you'll
lose. "vegans" and a few sensible meat eaters alike
have pointed out that the overwhelming majority of
grain is grown to feed livestock. That means if you
eat meat that you bought at a store, you cause more
deaths: the deaths of the animals you eat, plus the
CDs of the animals killed in the course of producing
feed for the animals you eat."
Jonathan Ball 22nd May 03

I see you have no comment in response to Jonathan's
statements. Like he says, "If you insist on playing the
counting game, you'll lose." He's right, you've lost.
====================
your argument is bogus, again.

Non sequitur and therefore a dodge. Why don't you criticise
Jon for those comments if you don't agree with them, Rick?
============================================
Because the focus is on your idiocy fool.

I agree entirely with every word Jon has written in those
quotes,
yet you're only willing to criticise vegans when they write the
same thing. Thanks for demonstrating your hypocrisy so clearly
for us all today.
=================================
LOL My discussion is with you, fool. But thanks again for
proving that you cannot address the issue of YOUR lack of proof
for your ignorant claims.
Therefore, your argument is bogus, again.

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 16:37:21 +0000, Derek
wrote:

On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 09:37:36 -0500, Doug Jones wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 12:31:44 +0000, Derek wrote:
On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 11:32:52 GMT, "Dutch" wrote:
"Derek" wrote

The Perfect Solution Fallacy.
The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs
when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists
and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part
of the problem would still exist after it was implemented.
Presumably, assuming no solution is perfect then no solution
would last very long politically once it had been implemented.
Still, many people (notably utopians) seem to find the idea of
a perfect solution compelling, perhaps because it is easy to
imagine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy

Read it and find that you've been wasting your time on the
collateral deaths issue for years, I'm glad to say.

Har har

There's no getting away from it; the collateral deaths argument
against veganism is a fallacy.

Actually, it isn't.

It poses a false dilemma, as described in the definition I've
provided. Your denial or feigned ignorance of it doesn't
escape the fact that while collateral deaths exist ubiquitously
in food production, rejecting veganism as a solution to the deaths
associated with man's diet generally, is specious.

However, every argument, except for one, *for* veganism is fallacious.

Show how "veganism is fallacious." Don't just declare it like
a petulant child; show how.

It is not healthier than other diets

Ipse dixit and false.

it is not more environmentally friendly

Ipse dixit and false.

it does not cause fewer deaths

Ipse dixit and false.

and it not more efficient.

Ipse dixit and false.
.
Each of those arguments falls apart in the face of real data

Then show it instead of making these unsupported claims.

of which the collateral deaths argument is one.

The collateral deaths argument is specious and debunked.

The *only* argument for it is "I prefer it." That's the only valid
one. Everything else is garbage.

That's your opinion, and I don't agree with it.

Ok, here's a real example for you. Simple one, easy to prove. No
"indirect", no "accidental" or anything else. I pick up a pound of
organically grown brocolli. At the same time, I pick up a one-pound
lobster. I eat the lobster, you eat the brocolli. Which one of us
has just killed more animals *directly*? Hint - you have.


----== 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 =----