 |
|
| Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal! |
| Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
Can we do better?
> wrote > > Dutch wrote: >> > wrote >> > >> > Dutch wrote: >> >> > wrote >> >> > >> >> > Dutch wrote: >> >> >> > wrote >> >> >> > So, as I say, at the moment I'm comfortable with being vegan and >> >> >> > advocating veganism, but I'm open to exploring alternatives. >> >> >> >> >> >> A vegan exploring alternatives is an oxymoron. If you are prepared >> >> >> to >> >> >> explore alternatives to the simplistic idea of veganism then you >> >> >> aren't a >> >> >> vegan. If I tell a vegan that I can improve their diet wrt animal >> >> >> death >> >> >> and >> >> >> suffering by substituting some fish or game, he will always find a >> >> >> way >> >> >> to >> >> >> deny, equivocate or refuse to listen to that idea. >> >> > >> >> > I'll be a vegan as long as I avoid meat, fish, dairy, and eggs. >> >> >> >> That just makes you a strict vegetarian. Veganism is based on a >> >> particular >> >> unwavering and completely irrational belief system. >> >> >> > >> > Whatever. I think you'll find the dictionary is on my side here. >> >> Dictionaries are not reliable sources for in-depth analyses of ideas. To >> start with, veganism relates to all your consumption choices, not only >> your >> food. >> >> > I'm >> > not too fussed about the label. >> >> The "label" is not the issue, it's the idea of veganism, which is a >> derivative of the animal rights movement, not simply a dietary >> preference. >> > > Well, it may be the issue for you, but since you don't get to define > what my ideas are then I would have thought the main point was whether > my ideas count as "veganism" by your definition. If they don't, then > you'll be obliged to discuss my ideas, not what you consider to be > "vegan ideas". "Vegan" means something, you don't get to adopt a personal meaning for the term. >> >> > If I >> >> > ever stop doing that, then I won't be a vegan anymore. If you tell >> >> > me >> >> > that you can improve my diet with respect to animal suffering by >> >> > substituting some fish or game, I'll ask you for the detailed >> >> > evidence. >> >> >> >> Of course you will, and no amount of "detailed evidence" I could >> >> present >> >> will ever be enough. >> > >> > Well, why do you think that? >> >> From many years of experience dealing with countless vegans. The issue of >> animal death and suffering is just one of the sleazy ploys used by vegans >> to >> attempt to disgrace non-believers into compliance. If we argue that it is >> a >> weak argument the vegan will simply engage in disinformation, demand >> peer-reviewed studies, photographs, statistics, or shift to a different >> argument, like health or the environment. The believer can always find >> ways. >> > > Well, I don't think it's very reasonable of you to make assumptions > about me based on your past experience with other people. You claim to be a vegan, I am telling what it means to be a vegan. > And > incidentally I do think peer-reviewed studies would be desirable. There's a shocker. Where are the peer-reviewed studies that support your present set of conclusions? > >> > In any event, you haven't provided any so far. >> >> A typical vegan gets most of their protein from commerically grown soya >> and >> rice based products. They also consume grains, imported fruit and other >> off-season foods. Numerous servings a day of such products has a cost in >> collateral death and suffering of animals due to the impact of farming on >> wildlife. No vegan to my knowledge has ever attempted to calculate this >> cost, or even address it genuinely in any way. > > It's a shame that not many people have tried to calculate the cost. > Matheny has provided an estimate, based on Davis' research into > collateral deaths caused by alfalfa production. That's a start. It is notable that you refer to Matheny's conclusions, not Davis's. Davis is the actual environmental scientist. Matheny is a dropout from Engineering school, who has done nothing more than spin Davis's research to suit himself. >> One animal such as a large >> freshly caught salmon, a deer or any pastured ruminant could eliminate >> dozens or even hundreds of those servings. > > But ruminant-pasture production also involves collateral deaths. I > can't know whether the salmon or the deer would be preferable without > an estimate of the cost of crop production. All I have to go on is > Matheny's highly provisional estimate, and based on that I have my > doubts. I'll keep my eyes open for better data, and the day I see some > I'll consider re-evaluating my diet. Nobody cares what you eat, get over that. I am simply demonstrating that your position, like that of all vegans, is dogmatic, not "open to exploring alternatives" as you spuriously claim. Your current "conclusions" are based on vague, unsubstantiated ideas, and you demand peer reviewed data before you will consider any change. >> A mostly self-sufficent farmer >> has a much lower overall impact than this typical vegan. > > That may or may not be. You yourself admit there are no reliable > estimates of the cost of this typical vegan diet, so surely you must > concede it's very hard for you to tell. It's a virtual certainty, since I have lived both lives and I am aware what the inputs and outputs are. The point is, you have formed a hard and fast dogmatic, reason-resistant position, which is what I set out to illustrate. >> Even a typical >> rural diet derived from locally raised stock and produce is probably >> better >> than the vegan's shrink-wrapped, imported tofu fare. It's not that a >> vegetarian is bad, the preposterous pseudo-ethics that vegans attach to >> the >> diet that is what is sick. > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
> wrote in message oups.com... > > Dutch wrote: >> > wrote in message >> ups.com... >> > >> > Dutch wrote: >> >> > wrote in message >> >> oups.com... >> >> > >> >> > Dutch wrote: >> >> >> > wrote >> >> >> > >> >> >> > rick wrote: >> >> >> >> > wrote >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Dave wrote: >> >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> snip... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Modern methods of crop cultivation require significant >> >> >> >> >> chemical imputs in the form of synthetic fertilizers >> >> >> >> >> and *cides, which can harm the environment as a >> >> >> >> >> result of their production, transportation and usage. >> >> >> >> >> In order to maintain soil fertility and keep pests under >> >> >> >> >> control in traditional organic systems crop rotations >> >> >> >> >> are normally used. I don't know if there are crop >> >> >> >> >> rotations available that produce human consumable >> >> >> >> >> crops on all of the land all the time but in practise >> >> >> >> >> grass-clover leys seem to feature rather prominently. >> >> >> >> >> It surely makes sense to have cattle grazing on such >> >> >> >> >> a ley, and producing milk at the same time and veal >> >> >> >> >> and beef are then natural byproducts of this. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Well, I would question whether we have the right to kill the >> >> >> >> > cattle for >> >> >> >> > food, unless it could somehow be shown that we were actually >> >> >> >> > reducing >> >> >> >> > the number of animal deaths by doing this. >> >> >> >> ========================= >> >> >> >> Quite easy to do when compared to your tofu meat substitutes. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Do it, then. >> >> >> >> >> >> You're the one claiming we have a moral obligation, give "detailed >> >> >> evidence" >> >> >> that tofu causes fewer animal deaths than free-range beef. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > I didn't claim you have a moral obligation not to buy free-range >> >> > beef. >> >> > I suspect you do, and I have cited some calculations in support of >> >> > that >> >> > claim. >> >> >> >> Those calculations don't show anything of the sort. >> >> >> > >> > Why not? >> >> Because the concept of being morally required to kill the fewest number >> of >> animals possible is a ruse. You don't do it with any other consumer >> alternative, all you do is ban animal products. >> > > It's not a ruse. It's something I try to live up to, across the board. Other than avoiding "animal products" what else do you do? >> >> > But I don't have conclusive evidence. Based on the inconclusive >> >> > evidence I have encountered so far I have decided not ot eat >> >> > free-range >> >> > beef. >> >> >> >> You don't have any knowledge at all of the farming practises that go >> >> into >> >> most of the food you eat. Do you know much about fruit growing, how >> >> about >> >> wheat, rice? I know something about them, I grow wheat, I know apple >> >> growers, both are deadly businesses. I wouldn't live within a hundred >> >> miles >> >> of an apple orchard, that's how bad the pesticides are. The herbicides >> >> in >> >> grain farming is no better. >> >> >> > >> > All right. There are collateral deaths involved in pasture-ruminant >> > production as well. Show me some plausible numbers and then we'll have >> > a basis for reaching a conclusion. Until then, I'll stick with my >> > current best guess. >> >> Go ahead and base your life around guesses about made-up moral >> imperatives. >> I plan to enjoy my food to the maximum, and my life, and that doesn't >> include anal-retentive dogmas, it includes prime rib and chicken >> parmesan. >> > > Well, I know you don't agree with the moral foundation, but you haven't > provided any arguments against it. Yes I have, you have demonstrated, unsurprisingly, that you are impervious to them. > The arguments for it are presented > in David DeGrazia's "Taking Animals Seriously". Any time you want to > address what he has to say in there I'll be happy to talk to you about > it. I take animals very seriously. >> >> >> >> And, if we don't have the 'right' to kill cattle for the food we >> >> >> >> eat, why do we have the 'right' to kill field animals for the >> >> >> >> food we eat? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > We don't have the right to kill animals unnecessarily. >> >> >> >> >> >> Who defines what is necessary? You? >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > I don't claim to offer a moral principle that gives absolutely >> >> > unambiguous moral guidance in evey conceivable situation. The word >> >> > "unnecessary" is vague and it will sometimes be hard to decide >> >> > whether >> >> > a given action is in accordance with the moral principle. In those >> >> > cases, we'll just have to make a good faith effort to work out what >> >> > is >> >> > the right thing to do. >> >> >> >> I agree, but I don't see much good faith effort or a coherent moral >> >> principle in veganism. Veganism is based soley on a rule which >> >> restricts/prohibits use of animal products, that is all. Other crops, >> >> like >> >> cotton to name one, which cause a lot of environmental damage, go >> >> totally >> >> unmentioned. Yet my consumption of meat is moral violation? Give me a >> >> ****ing break. Who the hell do you think you are? >> >> >> > >> > Well, I've told you my moral principle. Make every reasonable effort >> > not to provide financial support for practices that cause or support >> > unnecessary harm. >> >> You aren't doing that at all, you're prohibiting animal products, that is >> all. >> > > You have no basis for saying I'm not doing that. You have no basis for saying you are. >> > It's up to you to decide whether you think that's a >> > good principle, and if so, what's involved in following it. >> >> It's a vague, meaningless principle and you aren't following it. >> > > There is some vagueness. It's not meaningless. It's vagueness renders it meaningless. > I would like to hear > your reasons for saying I'm not following it. Simply, I am positive that you do not avoid all "unecessary" consumption. > >> > I think any >> > serious attempt to follow it would involve a pretty drastic restriction >> > of meat consumption, but that's just my opinion. >> >> It's not a serious moral principle. >> > > Ipse dixit. I have provided sufficient context for that conclusion, if you were prepared to listen. > >> > I dare say there'd be >> > a case for restricting cotton consumption as well, I don't know much >> > about that particular issue. You'll note that I haven't been giving you >> > any sermons. I'm the one who gets most of the sermons around here. I >> > just happen to think that ethical veganism is a defensible position and >> > I'm throwing in my two cents' worth about the attacks you're making on >> > it. >> >> It's defensible morally to restrict the consumption of animal products, >> but >> it's not defensible to set up some bogus vague moral principle and >> pretend >> that you're following it. >> > > Well, as I say, I accept the moral principle and I've told you where to > find arguments in its favour. If you want to address those that's fine. > And if you have some serious suggestion to make about how I can better > follow it, I'll be happy to listen to that too. It's a moral principle > that I accept and I'm trying to live up to it. Is that all right with > you? I don't care what you do, frankly, but if you choose to make a public spectacle of it I will continue to tell you what I think of it. > >> > >> >> >> > Probably we >> >> >> > don't have the right to kill as many animals in crop production >> >> >> > as >> >> >> > we >> >> >> > do. >> >> >> >> >> >> Then you must stop. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > I must make every reasonable effort not to provide financial support >> >> > to >> >> > institutions that cause or support unnecessary harm. That may >> >> > involve >> >> > growing some of my own vegetables. I'm not convinced it involves >> >> > buying >> >> > up my own land and growing all of my own food. >> >> >> >> You sound like a recorded message. >> >> >> >> >> > I would support efforts to reform crop production. >> >> >> >> >> >> How? >> >> > >> >> > Well, I might put pressure on politicians to make reforms which will >> >> > reduce the impact on animal welfare, try to make the public more >> >> > aware >> >> > of the issue, that sort of thing. >> >> >> >> I'll believe it when I see it. So far it would appear that the issue >> >> of >> >> collateral deaths is off-limits to veganism, cuts a little to close to >> >> home >> >> for a movement focused on demonizing others. >> >> >> > >> > I don't agree with you that the movement is focussed on demonizing >> > others. >> >> I know you don't, no vegan does. >> > > But you think they're wrong. If you had any reasons to offer for > thinking that they're wrong that would be interesting. Have you ever heard of cognitive dissonance? I have given enough clues for any person to understand why I think it's wrong, yet you haven't heard them. Your mind is not letting anything in that conflicts with the pattern. > >> > I think the focus is on trying to reduce the harm caused by the >> > factory-farming industry. >> >> That's the first time I have heard that term in our discussion, meat does >> not have to come from "factory farms", mine doesn't. >> > > Great. That's not the point, you moved the goalposts. >> > I agree the issue of the harm of collateral >> > deaths should be raised too. Perhaps I will try to make my friends in >> > the movement more aware of the issue. >> >> They will think you're crazy. Collateral deaths has no legs as an issue >> within "the movement", it hits too close to home. Did you hear me? >> >> > >> >> >> In the meantime would you consume meat if it involved little or no >> >> >> intensive crop rearing? >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > Only if I was convinced it wouldn't involve additional harm to >> >> > animals. >> >> > Not much research has been done on this topic, based on reading >> >> > Davis >> >> > and Matheny at the moment I think it's probably best not to. >> >> >> >> Use your own imagination. If I shot a bull moose and offered you some >> >> meat, >> >> that would almost certainly be a lower impact at ~1/5000 of a death >> >> per >> >> serving than your current main courses. >> >> >> > >> > I really don't see how you can be confident of that when you admit that >> > there are no reliable estimates of the cost of crop production. Matheny >> > estimates a vegan diet kills 0.3 wild animals per year. >> >> Matheny hasn't done any research, he's a college dropout. >> > > Still, he does argue for his conclusions. You can address the arguments > if you want to. I have done so. > >> > Do you have a >> > corresponding estimate for a diet which includes some game? Or do you >> > have an estimate which is better than Matheny's? If not, it looks like >> > you haven't got a conclusive argument. >> >> You are going to believe whatever "the movement" and it's shills like >> Matheny tell you to believe. That's your prerogative, but don't come on >> aaev >> claiming that it's rational. >> > > I'm afraid your saying this doesn't persuade me that you've got a > conclusive argument. I predicted correctly that this would be the outcome of our discussion. You believe Matheny because he's says what you want to hear. >> >> >> >> >> Animals can also benefit organic agriculture in >> >> >> >> >> various other ways. For example, manure is >> >> >> >> >> recognized as a good fertilizer, ducks like >> >> >> >> >> eating slugs and pigs can dig over a patch to >> >> >> >> >> remove weeds prior to planting. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >From a least harm point of view, using any >> >> >> >> >> reasonable criteria, I feel sure that >> >> >> >> >> supermarket/resturant grains, legumes, >> >> >> >> >> vegetables and nuts compare favourably >> >> >> >> >> with supermarket/resturant meat, eggs >> >> >> >> >> and dairy products but I think the best >> >> >> >> >> option of all is to source both plant and >> >> >> >> >> animal products from local organic farms >> >> >> >> >> that you can trust, fish from handline >> >> >> >> >> fisheries and nuts and wild plants from >> >> >> >> >> local woodlands. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > I'm not altogether convinced about the animal products from >> >> >> >> > organic >> >> >> >> > farms. I think in most cases these would probably lead to more >> >> >> >> > collateral deaths overall because of the extra land use. >> >> >> >> ============================== >> >> >> >> Why? You suggesting that regular animals of the fields can't >> >> >> >> live in pastures with cattle? Replacing mono-culture crop >> >> >> >> fields >> >> >> >> with pastures to graze cattle would *reduce* CDs. There is no >> >> >> >> way that you can say that more animals are going to die from >> >> >> >> pasture grazing that mono-culture food production. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Davis estimates that 7.5 animals/ha die in ruminant-pasture food >> >> >> > production. >> >> >> >> >> >> With no spraying or cultivation. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > Don't recall that qualification. All right, if you say so. There was >> >> > a >> >> > fairly generous margin of error in Matheny's calculations. Are you >> >> > saying some ruminant-pasture-based animal products cause less harm >> >> > per >> >> > serving of food than mono-culture crops? Can you provide some >> >> > evidence >> >> > of that? >> >> >> >> Only to tell as a farmer you that hay is not seeded, weeded or >> >> cultivated, >> >> just mown and baled. It's the next best thing to pasture. It also does >> >> not >> >> strip the soil of nutrients like crops grown for human consumption. I >> >> can >> >> only use my fields every other year, while the hay fields can be mowed >> >> several times a year. The whole argument comparing animal feed with >> >> human >> >> food is another sham. >> >> >> > >> > Well, I guess that would have to be taken into account as well. The day >> > I see some serious research which makes a decent case that >> > ruminant-pasture-based animal products cause less harm per serving of >> > food than mono-culture crops, I'll re-evaluate my position. >> >> Thank for illustrating my point. You have drawn a conclusion based on >> little >> or no data, and to alter that position you require "serious research". >> > > Because little or no data is the best we've got at the moment, and I > have to take some position. Other things short of "serious research" > would also suffice for me to re-evaluate my position. But what I've > seen on here so far doesn't cut the mustard. Why should a position based on little or no data require "serious research" to amend? >> > >> >> >> >> The fish is an >> >> >> >> > interesting suggestion. I'm not sure about that one. It would >> >> >> >> > be nice >> >> >> >> > to see some research done on this topic to determine what >> >> >> >> > really causes >> >> >> >> > the least harm. >> >> >> >> ===================== >> >> >> >> It isn't the veggies you eat... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Show me some evidence. >> >> >> >> >> >> Be honest with yourself, then believe your own common sense. >> >> > >> >> > Appealling to my common sense doesn't convince me of his claim. >> >> >> >> You have to be willing to attempt to be objective. As long as you have >> >> the >> >> typical vegan tape running in your head none of this is never going to >> >> make >> >> sense. >> > >> > Well, I'm doing my best. I just don't see how I can reasonably be sure >> > that any particular animal product that I can actually buy causes less >> > harm per serving of food than crop production. >> >> You can't, just like you can't be sure that rice or bananas or apples >> cause >> less harm per serving than salmon, or bread. >> > > So in trying to minimize the extent to which I financially support > unnecessary harm, I have to make a guess based on the best available > research at the moment, and that's what I've tried to do. No it isn't. If you were trying to be as objective as you pretend you would be referring to Davis' conclusions, not Matheny's laughable pile of strawmen. > >> > I think that more >> > research should be done along the lines of Davis. Then some kind of >> > serious debate can start. In the meantime, I'll have to go with my >> > current best guess based on what I've read so far. >> >> You are never going to know, because there simply are too many animals to >> count and nobody cares to do it, including vegans. Farmers are too busy >> farming and vegans are never going to do it because it shoots the hell >> out >> their little game. > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
rick wrote: > > wrote in message > oups.com... > > > > rick wrote: > >> > wrote in message > >> oups.com... > >> > > >> > rick wrote: > >> >> > wrote in message > >> >> oups.com... > >> >> > > >> >> > rick wrote: > >> >> >> > wrote in message > >> >> >> oups.com... > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > rick wrote: > >> >> >> >> > wrote in message > >> >> >> >> oups.com... > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> snip... > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > No. No he's not. > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> Yes, he is. "vegans" are not having any impact > >> >> >> >> >> beyond > >> >> >> >> >> their > >> >> >> >> >> initial > >> >> >> >> >> refusal to eat meat, and that wasn't much impact > >> >> >> >> >> at > >> >> >> >> >> all. > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > Surely it's about the same amount of impact as Rick > >> >> >> >> > makes > >> >> >> >> > by > >> >> >> >> > buying > >> >> >> >> > grass-fed beef. > >> >> >> >> ========================== > >> >> >> >> Really? tell us your proof. Step right up and > >> >> >> >> demonstrate > >> >> >> >> how > >> >> >> >> just being vegan automatically causes no/less/fewer > >> >> >> >> animals > >> >> >> >> to > >> >> >> >> die and less environmental impact that eating > >> >> >> >> grass-fed > >> >> >> >> meats. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > I wasn't really thinking about comparing the amount of > >> >> >> > harm > >> >> >> > caused by > >> >> >> > the production of grass-fed beef with the production > >> >> >> > of > >> >> >> > vegan > >> >> >> > food. My > >> >> >> > main thought was that both consumer choices involve > >> >> >> > boycotting > >> >> >> > factory-farmed beef, and the impact of this should be > >> >> >> > about > >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> > same in > >> >> >> > each case. > >> >> >> ========================= > >> >> >> No, it would not be. The vegan has no impact on the > >> >> >> industry > >> >> >> at > >> >> >> all. > >> >> > > >> >> > Yes, he or she does, he or she diminishes the demand for > >> >> > the > >> >> > product. > >> >> ========================== > >> >> No, they do not. They are non-participants in the product. > >> >> Not > >> >> buying a product you don't buy, and never will has no > >> >> effect > >> >> on > >> >> the market. > >> > > >> > Yes, it does. It reduces the demand. > >> ===================== > >> No, it does not. You can't reduce a demand when you already > >> do > >> not buy the product. > >> > > > > The demand is less if you don't buy the product than it would > > be if you > > did. > ========================= > No fool. There is no reduction in a demand that isn't there > already. > I'm afraid my statement was correct. > > > > > By your logic, I could say you can't effect any change on the > > beef > > industry when you already buy grass-fed beef. > ======================= > No, because I already have an impact by continuing the demand > that I have. Now, if I stopped, I would be making an changed in > the demand for beef. But, the demand was already there for me to > make that reduction. You cannot reduce a demand that wasn't > there. > But there's more to it than your continuing demand for grass-fed beef. There's also your continuing absence of demand for intensively reared beef. And vegans have that too. > > > > >> > >> > > >> >> I consume no llama wool from the andes, never have > >> >> and never will. The production of llama wool in the andes > >> >> is > >> >> not > >> >> in the least affected by my non-participation. And, I > >> >> especially > >> >> have no impact on how the process is completed. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > The buyers of grass-fed beef also diminish the demand for > >> >> > the > >> >> > product. > >> >> ===================== > >> >> No, they do not. The demand for beef is a demand for beef. > >> >> The > >> >> difference is the process, not the product. > >> >> > >> > > >> > They diminish the demand for factory-farmed beef (as vegans > >> > do) > >> ======================== > >> Again, vegans do not reduce a demand for beef. You can't > >> reduce > >> a demand that you don't have to begin with. > >> > > > > The demand is less than it would be if they bought the > > factory-farmed > > beef. > ====================== > But they are not, and have not. They have no impact on that > demand level because they are non-buyers. > Let's try something different than llama wool. I do not use > tampons. I have zero impact > on the demand for the product. I have no foreseen demand for the > product in the future. If I declare, "tomorrow I will never buy > a tampon," what was the effect on demand? Nothing. > To measure an effect you've got to have a status quo from which you're measuring the change. Here it's natural to take the status quo as the one in which you don't buy tampons. But a lot of vegans used to buy animal products, and some of them go back to doing it. For the ones who don't, the market is different as a result of their decision to stick with veganism. The demand is less than it would otherwise be. > > > > > > > > >> and > >> > increase the demand for grass-fed beef (which vegans don't > >> > do). > >> > How you > >> > individuate products is neither here nor there. > >> ============================= > >> I'm not making them different, you are. Beef is beef. All > >> one > >> product. The only people that have an impact on the demand > >> for > >> beef are those that buy it. There is no reduced demand for a > >> demand that is not already there. > >> > > > snip.. > > > > > http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm > http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html > http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm > http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html > http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html > http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm > http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/p...eFactSheet.pdf http://www.hww.ca/hww2.asp?cid=4&id=230 http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_Wildl...on/pg7f2b6.htm http://ipm.ncsu.edu/wildlife/small_grains_wildlife.html http://www.hornedlizards.org/hornedlizards/help.html http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/bulletins/b-5093.html Since your non-animal clothing isn't cruelty-free either, here's a couple to cover some problems with cotton. http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/ To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a field, here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that there can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field. http://www.ext.colostate.edu/Pubs/natres/06507.html http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html http://www.utextension.utk.edu/publi...les/pb1600.pdf http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/v...a=458&q=150643 http://faculty.njcu.edu/fmoran/vol4fieldmouse.htmTo cover your selfish pleasure of using usenet, and maintaining a web page on same, here's are a couple dealing with power and communications. http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html http://www.towerkill.com/index.html Yes, I've had a look at those sites. Thank you. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
rick wrote: > > wrote in message > oups.com... > > > > rick wrote: > >> > wrote in message > >> ups.com... > >> > > >> > rick wrote: > >> >> > wrote in message > >> >> oups.com... > >> >> > > >> >> > Dutch wrote: > >> >> >> > wrote > >> >> >> > So, as I say, at the moment I'm comfortable with being > >> >> >> > vegan > >> >> >> > and > >> >> >> > advocating veganism, but I'm open to exploring > >> >> >> > alternatives. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> A vegan exploring alternatives is an oxymoron. If you > >> >> >> are > >> >> >> prepared to > >> >> >> explore alternatives to the simplistic idea of veganism > >> >> >> then > >> >> >> you aren't a > >> >> >> vegan. If I tell a vegan that I can improve their diet > >> >> >> wrt > >> >> >> animal death and > >> >> >> suffering by substituting some fish or game, he will > >> >> >> always > >> >> >> find a way to > >> >> >> deny, equivocate or refuse to listen to that idea. > >> >> > > >> >> > I'll be a vegan as long as I avoid meat, fish, dairy, and > >> >> > eggs. > >> >> > If I > >> >> > ever stop doing that, then I won't be a vegan anymore. If > >> >> > you > >> >> > tell me > >> >> > that you can improve my diet with respect to animal > >> >> > suffering > >> >> > by > >> >> > substituting some fish or game, I'll ask you for the > >> >> > detailed > >> >> > evidence. > >> >> ========================== > >> >> Then you should be able to provide evidence that your vegan > >> >> diet > >> >> automatically means you kill fewer animals. > >> > > >> > Why? I never made that claim. > >> ============== > >> Then you should reread what you said above. Either that, or > >> you > >> are saying that your veggies kill NO animals since you claimed > >> we > >> have no right to kill animals for our food. > >> > >> > > >> > I have actually produced some evidence. It's not conclusive. > >> > But I'll > >> > wait until I hear at least some counter-evidence before I > >> > make > >> > any > >> > changes to my diet. > >> =================== > >> I've seen no evidence from you at all to support the vegan > >> claims > >> of being 'better.' > > > > The Gaverick Matheny article. > > ====================== > He cites no evidence... > False. > > > >> But the point I'm making is that you don't > >> have to change by eating meat. You refuse to even compare the > >> foods you do eat, and make changes there as to which ones > >> cause > >> more/less animal death and suffering. That alone puts the ly > >> to > >> your relegion of veganism. > >> > > > > As I told you, I have made some attempt to compare the amounts > > of harm > > caused by production of the different crops. When I find some > > decent > > data on this, I'll change my eating habits accordingly. > =========================== > No, you haven't, obviously. You haven't looked at bananas, even > though you eat them. You're a liar, plain and simple, with > nothing but a simple rule for your simple mind. > Unfounded accusation. > > > > >> > >> > > >> >> Or, in the very least, you should be able to tell us which > >> >> foods > >> >> that you do eat cause more/less death and suffering. Is > >> >> rice > >> >> better than potatoes? Brocolli better than corn? Bananas > >> >> better > >> >> than apples? The fact is, you don't know, and don't care > >> >> since > >> >> you have your simple rule for your simple mind, 'eat no > >> >> meat.' > >> > > >> > No, I don't know. I do care and have made some effort to > >> > find > >> > out, but > >> > not much research has been done on these issues. > >> ====================== > >> Then why are you so adament that being vegan is better than > >> anything else? faith? Yep, veganism is a relegion. > >> > > > > I'm not. > =================== > Yes, you have been... > Nonsense. > > > > >> > >> > > >> >> Being vegan is also more than a diet. > >> >> Why is the unnecessary death and suffering of animals for > >> >> your > >> >> entertainment just fine, but we can't eat them? > >> >> > >> > > >> > Unnecessary suffering is not just fine. I'm not altogether > >> > convinced > >> > that electricity production is unnecessary. > >> ========================== > >> What part of your being here on this newsgroup is necessary? > >> You > >> contribute to an ever growing demand for more power and > >> communications for no more reason than *your* entertainment. > >> > > > > Would you care to estimate the expected contribution to the > > amount of > > harm caused to animals by my usage of Usenet? I really think it > > would > > be pretty miniscule. I agree it's unnecessary, but I'm not > > convinced > > that making every reasonable effort not to provide financial > > support to > > institutions or practices that cause or support unnecessary > > harm > > requires me to stop using Usenet. > ======================== > So, now you've switched from it's not ok to kill animals > unnecessarily, like for entertainment, to some animals killed for > your entertainment is ok? Well, not exactly. I'm anticipating that the expected contribution to the death toll would be considerably less than 1. > What a hoot! Guess you're really only > a vegan when it doesn't mean too much sacrifice on your lifestyle > and entertainment, eh hypocrite? You are making no such efforts > to avoid rewarding people that kill animals for your lifestyle > and entertainment, killer. > Like I keep saying, the principle is "Make every *reasonable* effort to avoid providing financial support for institutions or practices that cause or support unnecessary harm." If it goes beyond a reasonable effort then, yes, then you don't have to bother. > > > > > >> > >> > > >> > But no, any unnecessary suffering and death of animals that > >> > is > >> > really > >> > being caused purely for my entertainment is not just fine. > >> ========================== > >> Then again, you're lying about really caring about killing > >> animals, aren't you? > >> > > > > No. > ========================= > Yes, you are. maybe you can convenice yourself, but the lys are > right here, obvious to any reader without vegan willful ignorance > filters. > > > > > > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > > >> > > > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
rick wrote: > > wrote in message > ps.com... > > > > rick wrote: > >> > wrote in message > >> ups.com... > >> > > >> > rick wrote: > >> >> > wrote in message > >> >> oups.com... > >> >> > > >> >> > Dutch wrote: > >> >> >> > wrote > >> >> >> > So, as I say, at the moment I'm comfortable with being > >> >> >> > vegan > >> >> >> > and > >> >> >> > advocating veganism, but I'm open to exploring > >> >> >> > alternatives. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> A vegan exploring alternatives is an oxymoron. If you > >> >> >> are > >> >> >> prepared to > >> >> >> explore alternatives to the simplistic idea of veganism > >> >> >> then > >> >> >> you aren't a > >> >> >> vegan. If I tell a vegan that I can improve their diet > >> >> >> wrt > >> >> >> animal death and > >> >> >> suffering by substituting some fish or game, he will > >> >> >> always > >> >> >> find a way to > >> >> >> deny, equivocate or refuse to listen to that idea. > >> >> > > >> >> > I'll be a vegan as long as I avoid meat, fish, dairy, and > >> >> > eggs. > >> >> > If I > >> >> > ever stop doing that, then I won't be a vegan anymore. If > >> >> > you > >> >> > tell me > >> >> > that you can improve my diet with respect to animal > >> >> > suffering > >> >> > by > >> >> > substituting some fish or game, I'll ask you for the > >> >> > detailed > >> >> > evidence. > >> >> ========================== > >> >> Then you should be able to provide evidence that your vegan > >> >> diet > >> >> automatically means you kill fewer animals. > >> > > >> > Why? I never made that claim. > >> ============== > >> Then you should reread what you said above. Either that, or > >> you > >> are saying that your veggies kill NO animals since you claimed > >> we > >> have no right to kill animals for our food. > >> > > > > Sorry, missed this bit the first time around. I said we have no > > right > > to kill animals unnecessarily. I accept we probably don't have > > the > > right to kill as many animals as we currently do in crop > > production. I > > believe I am obliged to make every *reasonable* effort not to > > financially support unnecessary harm, not every *possible* > > effort. I > > believe that my vegan diet is one reasonable way of trying to > > meet this > > standard. If anyone thinks there is a non-vegan diet that can > > do > > better, I'm happy to listen to the evidence. > ========================= > Already been given fool. Where? > You keep ignoring it, as usual for a > vegan religious fanatic. > have you researched bananas yet? > > > > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
|
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
Dutch wrote: > > wrote > > > > Dutch wrote: > >> > wrote > >> > So, as I say, at the moment I'm comfortable with being vegan and > >> > advocating veganism, but I'm open to exploring alternatives. > >> > >> A vegan exploring alternatives is an oxymoron. If you are prepared to > >> explore alternatives to the simplistic idea of veganism then you aren't a > >> vegan. If I tell a vegan that I can improve their diet wrt animal death > >> and > >> suffering by substituting some fish or game, he will always find a way to > >> deny, equivocate or refuse to listen to that idea. > > > > I'll be a vegan as long as I avoid meat, fish, dairy, and eggs. > > That just makes you a strict vegetarian. Veganism is based on a particular > unwavering and completely irrational belief system. By the commonly accepted usage of the term, avoiding meat, fish, dairy and eggs makes Rupert a dietary vegan. > > If I > > ever stop doing that, then I won't be a vegan anymore. If you tell me > > that you can improve my diet with respect to animal suffering by > > substituting some fish or game, I'll ask you for the detailed evidence. > > Of course you will, and no amount of "detailed evidence" I could present > will ever be enough. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
Dutch wrote: > > wrote > > > > Dutch wrote: > >> > wrote > >> > > >> > Dutch wrote: > >> >> > wrote > >> >> > > >> >> > Dutch wrote: > >> >> >> > wrote > >> >> >> > So, as I say, at the moment I'm comfortable with being vegan and > >> >> >> > advocating veganism, but I'm open to exploring alternatives. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> A vegan exploring alternatives is an oxymoron. If you are prepared > >> >> >> to > >> >> >> explore alternatives to the simplistic idea of veganism then you > >> >> >> aren't a > >> >> >> vegan. If I tell a vegan that I can improve their diet wrt animal > >> >> >> death > >> >> >> and > >> >> >> suffering by substituting some fish or game, he will always find a > >> >> >> way > >> >> >> to > >> >> >> deny, equivocate or refuse to listen to that idea. > >> >> > > >> >> > I'll be a vegan as long as I avoid meat, fish, dairy, and eggs. > >> >> > >> >> That just makes you a strict vegetarian. Veganism is based on a > >> >> particular > >> >> unwavering and completely irrational belief system. > >> >> > >> > > >> > Whatever. I think you'll find the dictionary is on my side here. > >> > >> Dictionaries are not reliable sources for in-depth analyses of ideas. To > >> start with, veganism relates to all your consumption choices, not only > >> your > >> food. > >> > >> > I'm > >> > not too fussed about the label. > >> > >> The "label" is not the issue, it's the idea of veganism, which is a > >> derivative of the animal rights movement, not simply a dietary > >> preference. > >> > > > > Well, it may be the issue for you, but since you don't get to define > > what my ideas are then I would have thought the main point was whether > > my ideas count as "veganism" by your definition. If they don't, then > > you'll be obliged to discuss my ideas, not what you consider to be > > "vegan ideas". > > "Vegan" means something, you don't get to adopt a personal meaning for the > term. > True. I always thought I had a pretty good idea of what it means, and frankly I'm not convinced you know any better. But as I say I'm not too fussed what you call me, as long as you address my ideas. > >> >> > If I > >> >> > ever stop doing that, then I won't be a vegan anymore. If you tell > >> >> > me > >> >> > that you can improve my diet with respect to animal suffering by > >> >> > substituting some fish or game, I'll ask you for the detailed > >> >> > evidence. > >> >> > >> >> Of course you will, and no amount of "detailed evidence" I could > >> >> present > >> >> will ever be enough. > >> > > >> > Well, why do you think that? > >> > >> From many years of experience dealing with countless vegans. The issue of > >> animal death and suffering is just one of the sleazy ploys used by vegans > >> to > >> attempt to disgrace non-believers into compliance. If we argue that it is > >> a > >> weak argument the vegan will simply engage in disinformation, demand > >> peer-reviewed studies, photographs, statistics, or shift to a different > >> argument, like health or the environment. The believer can always find > >> ways. > >> > > > > Well, I don't think it's very reasonable of you to make assumptions > > about me based on your past experience with other people. > > You claim to be a vegan, I am telling what it means to be a vegan. > You were telling me about your past experiences with vegans. You can't plausibly claim that these are part of the meaning of the word "vegan". > > And > > incidentally I do think peer-reviewed studies would be desirable. > > There's a shocker. Where are the peer-reviewed studies that support your > present set of conclusions? > There aren't any. Why is it a shocker? Do you think they wouldn't be desirable? > > > >> > In any event, you haven't provided any so far. > >> > >> A typical vegan gets most of their protein from commerically grown soya > >> and > >> rice based products. They also consume grains, imported fruit and other > >> off-season foods. Numerous servings a day of such products has a cost in > >> collateral death and suffering of animals due to the impact of farming on > >> wildlife. No vegan to my knowledge has ever attempted to calculate this > >> cost, or even address it genuinely in any way. > > > > It's a shame that not many people have tried to calculate the cost. > > Matheny has provided an estimate, based on Davis' research into > > collateral deaths caused by alfalfa production. That's a start. > > It is notable that you refer to Matheny's conclusions, not Davis's. Davis is > the actual environmental scientist. Matheny is a dropout from Engineering > school, who has done nothing more than spin Davis's research to suit > himself. > Well, Matheny was the one who provided the estimate of how many wild animals per year a vegan diet kills. Davis' paper is worth looking at too, but I think Matheny found a serious flaw in the argument. > >> One animal such as a large > >> freshly caught salmon, a deer or any pastured ruminant could eliminate > >> dozens or even hundreds of those servings. > > > > But ruminant-pasture production also involves collateral deaths. I > > can't know whether the salmon or the deer would be preferable without > > an estimate of the cost of crop production. All I have to go on is > > Matheny's highly provisional estimate, and based on that I have my > > doubts. I'll keep my eyes open for better data, and the day I see some > > I'll consider re-evaluating my diet. > > Nobody cares what you eat, get over that. I am simply demonstrating that > your position, like that of all vegans, is dogmatic, not "open to exploring > alternatives" as you spuriously claim. Your current "conclusions" are based > on vague, unsubstantiated ideas, and you demand peer reviewed data before > you will consider any change. > No, I don't, all I demand is some good and sufficient reason, and you haven't provided any. > >> A mostly self-sufficent farmer > >> has a much lower overall impact than this typical vegan. > > > > That may or may not be. You yourself admit there are no reliable > > estimates of the cost of this typical vegan diet, so surely you must > > concede it's very hard for you to tell. > > It's a virtual certainty, since I have lived both lives and I am aware what > the inputs and outputs are. The point is, you have formed a hard and fast > dogmatic, reason-resistant position, which is what I set out to illustrate. > Oh, so you *are* aware of the cost of the typical vegan diet, and the cost of the typical self-sufficient farmer's diet? Well, why don't you tell us their estimates and what they're based on? > >> Even a typical > >> rural diet derived from locally raised stock and produce is probably > >> better > >> than the vegan's shrink-wrapped, imported tofu fare. It's not that a > >> vegetarian is bad, the preposterous pseudo-ethics that vegans attach to > >> the > >> diet that is what is sick. > > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
rick wrote: > > wrote in message > ups.com... > > > > rick wrote: > >> > wrote in message > >> oups.com... > >> > > >> > rick wrote: > >> >> > wrote in message > >> >> oups.com... > >> >> > > >> >> > Dutch wrote: > >> >> >> > wrote > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Well, I would question whether we have the right to > >> >> >> > kill > >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> > cattle for > >> >> >> > food, unless it could somehow be shown that we were > >> >> >> > actually > >> >> >> > reducing > >> >> >> > the number of animal deaths by doing this. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> It is very reasonable to conclude that this is at least > >> >> >> *sometimes* the > >> >> >> case, but why does the number of animals who live or > >> >> >> who > >> >> >> die > >> >> >> have any > >> >> >> bearing on our right to use them as a food resource or > >> >> >> kill > >> >> >> them in > >> >> >> producing one? This is a silly notion that vegans > >> >> >> swallow > >> >> >> hook, line, and > >> >> >> sinker. > >> >> > > >> >> > Because we have an obligation not to kill sentient > >> >> > animals > >> >> > unnecessarily. > >> >> ===================== > >> >> Then you're lying to yourself. Why are you here on usenet? > >> >> This > >> >> isn't necessary, and just for entertainment. It causes > >> >> massive > >> >> amounts of death and suffering to animals. > >> > > >> > The institution of Usenet causes massive amounts of death > >> > and > >> > suffering > >> > to animals. > >> ===================== > >> Instutution? Are you projecting about your next home? Again, > >> read some sites... > >> > >> > > >> > I think I'd like to see a more detailed defence of that > >> > claim. > >> > > >> >> All unnecessary! > >> >> But then, it appears that to you, like most vegans, cows > >> >> are > >> >> somehow more sentient than other mammals, birds, reptiles, > >> >> fish > >> >> and amphibians. > >> > > >> > No. > >> ================= > >> Then why is it bad to kill one cow, but ok to kill many > >> smaller > >> animals for the same calories? > >> > > > > It's better to kill one cow than many smaller animals. But > > there are > > collateral deaths involved in pasture-ruminant food production. > > You > > haven't convinced me that production of grass-fed beef causes > > less harm > > per serving of food than crop production. > =========================== > You haven't provided proof that there are other deaths involved > in grass-fed beef. Well, Davis thinks there are. Why don't you have a look at his article? > The beef I eat lives right down the road. There is no planting, > plowing, spraying, harvesting. > It goes to slaughter just a few miles away, and then right to us. > Tell us the route of destruction your bananas take, killer. > > > > > > >> > >> > > >> >> How is that possible? > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > > >> > > > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
rick wrote: > > wrote in message > oups.com... > > > > Dutch wrote: > >> > wrote > >> > > >> > Dutch wrote: > >> >> > wrote > >> >> > > >> >> > Dutch wrote: > >> >> >> > wrote > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Dutch wrote: > >> >> >> >> > wrote > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Well, I would question whether we have the right to > >> >> >> >> > kill the > >> >> >> >> > cattle > >> >> >> >> > for > >> >> >> >> > food, unless it could somehow be shown that we were > >> >> >> >> > actually > >> >> >> >> > reducing > >> >> >> >> > the number of animal deaths by doing this. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> It is very reasonable to conclude that this is at > >> >> >> >> least *sometimes* > >> >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> case, but why does the number of animals who live or > >> >> >> >> who die have > >> >> >> >> any > >> >> >> >> bearing on our right to use them as a food resource > >> >> >> >> or kill them in > >> >> >> >> producing one? This is a silly notion that vegans > >> >> >> >> swallow hook, > >> >> >> >> line, > >> >> >> >> and > >> >> >> >> sinker. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Because we have an obligation not to kill sentient > >> >> >> > animals > >> >> >> > unnecessarily. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> 1. No we don't, there is no such obligation > >> >> >> 2. All animals are sentient > >> >> > > >> >> > False. > >> >> > >> >> Name one that isn't. > >> >> > >> > > >> > An ant. > >> > >> Ants are sentient. They certainly can sense smells, sights, > >> sounds, objects, > >> why would they not feel pain? > >> > > > > They respond to stimuli in their environment, but I think it's > > debatable whether they actually experience any sensations. > > There's a > > good discussion of this issue in DeGrazia's "Taking Animals > > Seriously". > > > >> >> >> 3. Everything you do has an impact and hence carries a > >> >> >> collateral > >> >> >> cost. > >> >> >> Therefore by eating that second helping, that fruit > >> >> >> cocktail, or > >> >> >> taking > >> >> >> that > >> >> >> vacation, all unecessary, you kill sentient animals > >> >> >> unecessarily. > >> >> > > >> >> > It would be more accurate to say "there is a certain > >> >> > probability that > >> >> > as a result of your action, more sentient animals will be > >> >> > killed > >> >> > unnecessarily." > >> >> > >> >> That wouldn't be more accurate at all, it is simply a > >> >> transparent and > >> >> cynical attempt to redefine your position. > >> > > >> > Yes it would, and no it isn't. > >> > >> What is "more accurate" about using terms like "certain > >> probability" and > >> "unecessarily"? They are both wildly vague and subjective. > >> > > > > Well, it's a lot more accurate than saying I kill something. I > > certainly don't kill anything when I go on a vacation. > =============================== > If not killing things directly is the criteria, then I must be > vegan too! Yippeee!! > Afterall, I didn't kill any animal for the steak i had last > night!!! > It's not the criterion. > > I gave financial > > support to certain processes which harm animals. As a result of > > my > > increasing the amount of financial support that process > > received, there > > is a certain probability that mine will be a "threshold > > purchase" which > > will cause more of the process to go on, and thereby will > > increase the > > amount of harm done to animals. That's the only accurate way to > > describe what's going on here. > ============================= > No, what's going on is a continued exercise in skipping out on > the blame for massive animal deaths for your lifestyle, killer. > > > > > > >> >> You have ZERO knowledge of the > >> >> probability of the relative harms caused by different foods > >> >> you consume. > >> >> > >> > > >> > True. > >> > >> Then where do you get off defining my diet as morally > >> deficient? > >> > > > > I don't know what your diet is. I think I have a pretty good > > foundation > > for claiming that someone who regularly consumes factory-farmed > > animal > > products is not making every reasonable effort not to provide > > financial > > support for institutions or practices that cause or support > > unnecessary > > harm. > ================================== > And, the same is true for those that regularly consume > factory-farmed veggies. > Afterall, the entire process is based on a world-wide > petro-chemical industry that > kills animals and detroys environemnets. Your continued support > for death and suffering and world-wide environemental destruction > is noted. Did you study bananas yet, hypocrite? > What's your suggested alternative to consuming factory-farmed vegetables? > > > > > So I think that they shouldn't regularly consume factory-farmed > > animal products. You seem to be terribly upset that I hold this > > opinion, I'm not sure why. I'm not in the habit of morally > > lecturing > > people, I seem to be the one who cops most of that. > ======================== > And I think you shoudn't regularly consume factory-farmed > veggies, but you do. All the while decrying the > 'badness' of meats. Quite the hypocrite, aren't you? > Right. What do you think I should do? > > > > > > It may be that there are some changes that should be made to my > > diet as > > well. I am making an effort to inform myself about the issue. > ============================== > Doesn't look that way. And, the only reason you might now is > because your ignorance has been shattered with facts. > You were quite smug in having convenced yourself that veggies > were always better than meats. That's all the simple rule for > your simple mind demanded, faith. faith in the religion of > veganism.. > > > > > >> >> > I believe there is an obligation not to kill sentient > >> >> > animals > >> >> > unnecessarily > >> >> > >> >> No you don't, you just like to think that you believe that. > >> >> You can't > >> >> even > >> >> define "sentient". > >> >> > >> > > >> > Yes, I do. A sentient being is a being that is capable of > >> > having > >> > feelings. > >> > >> What do you mean by "feelings", you mean feel pain? > > > > That would be an example, yes. > > > >> There is no definitive > >> answer to that question, but every animal species can be > >> observed to react > >> adversely or defensively to attack or injury. > >> > > > > There is a discussion of these issues in DeGrazia's "Taking > > Animals > > Seriously". It is often hard to tell when an organism is > > capable of > > experiencing the sensation of pain. We should go on the best > > available > > scientific evidence and give the benefit of the doubt where > > reasonably > > possible. > > > >> >> > and also an obligation to make every *reasonable* effort > >> >> > not to provide financial support to institutions or > >> >> > practices that > >> >> > cause or support unnecessary harm. > >> >> > >> >> You're blowing smoke. You can't define the terms reasonable > >> >> or > >> >> unnecessary > >> >> in this context. > >> > > >> > I can't give absolutely precise definitions of them, no. > >> > However, I > >> > believe removing these qualifications would make the moral > >> > principle > >> > false. So I keep them there. Any time someone proposes a > >> > moral > >> > principle with better-defined terms that I think has a > >> > reasonable > >> > chance of being true, that's great. I'm not blowing smoke, > >> > I'm just > >> > stating the moral principles I believe in. > >> > >> The terms need consistent and fair definitions for the > >> principle to have any > >> meaning. I happen to think that a lot of animals must be > >> killed in order to > >> support the human race. I think that singling out food animals > >> as political > >> clients as ARAs and vegans do, is a spurious attempt by some > >> morally deluded > >> individuals to stake out high moral ground for their personal > >> aggrandizment. > > > > The principle has *some* meaning. You have *some* idea of the > > meanings > > of the terms involved. I'm sorry if you find its formulation > > unsatisfactory, it's the best I can do so far. > > > > I think a great deal of clearly unnecessary suffering is caused > > by the > > factory-farming of animal products, much more so than any other > > human > > practice. > ======================================== > Really? You are wearing your blinders tight, aren't you? > > > > I think it is reasonable to make a moral protest about this > > practice. There may be other practices that are worth > > protesting about > > too. > =========================== > Of course, but those are practices that would involve your being > inconvenienced, eh? Can't have that as long as you can rant > about what you think others are doing, right hypocrite? > > > This is no objection to making a moral protest about > > factory-farming. One cannot devote one's time and energy to > > every > > problem. ARAs try to campaign to end the unnecessary harming of > > animals > > when they see it. I think this is a worthwhile goal. > ====================== > ROTFLMAO You have zero impact and say about the meat industry. > I'd say anytime you put into that is wasted. > Now, if you really wanted to protest the way animals are treated, > you would start with processes that you consume right now. But, > that would have an adverse inpact on your life, and it is far > easier to just continue the spew about what you think others are > doing, right? > > > > > > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
wrote: > Dutch wrote: > > > wrote > > > > > > Dutch wrote: > > >> > wrote > > >> > > > >> > Dutch wrote: > > >> >> > wrote > > >> >> > > > >> >> > Dutch wrote: > > >> >> >> > wrote > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Well, I would question whether we have the right to kill the > > >> >> >> > cattle > > >> >> >> > for > > >> >> >> > food, unless it could somehow be shown that we were actually > > >> >> >> > reducing > > >> >> >> > the number of animal deaths by doing this. > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> It is very reasonable to conclude that this is at least *sometimes* > > >> >> >> the > > >> >> >> case, but why does the number of animals who live or who die have > > >> >> >> any > > >> >> >> bearing on our right to use them as a food resource or kill them in > > >> >> >> producing one? This is a silly notion that vegans swallow hook, > > >> >> >> line, > > >> >> >> and > > >> >> >> sinker. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > Because we have an obligation not to kill sentient animals > > >> >> > unnecessarily. > > >> >> > > >> >> 1. No we don't, there is no such obligation > > >> >> 2. All animals are sentient > > >> > > > >> > False. > > >> > > >> Name one that isn't. > > >> > > > > > > An ant. > > > > Ants are sentient. They certainly can sense smells, sights, sounds, objects, > > why would they not feel pain? > > > > They respond to stimuli in their environment, but I think it's > debatable whether they actually experience any sensations. There's a > good discussion of this issue in DeGrazia's "Taking Animals Seriously". > > > >> >> 3. Everything you do has an impact and hence carries a collateral > > >> >> cost. > > >> >> Therefore by eating that second helping, that fruit cocktail, or > > >> >> taking > > >> >> that > > >> >> vacation, all unecessary, you kill sentient animals unecessarily. > > >> > > > >> > It would be more accurate to say "there is a certain probability that > > >> > as a result of your action, more sentient animals will be killed > > >> > unnecessarily." > > >> > > >> That wouldn't be more accurate at all, it is simply a transparent and > > >> cynical attempt to redefine your position. > > > > > > Yes it would, and no it isn't. > > > > What is "more accurate" about using terms like "certain probability" and > > "unecessarily"? They are both wildly vague and subjective. > > > > Well, it's a lot more accurate than saying I kill something. I > certainly don't kill anything when I go on a vacation. I gave financial > support to certain processes which harm animals. As a result of my > increasing the amount of financial support that process received, there > is a certain probability that mine will be a "threshold purchase" which > will cause more of the process to go on, and thereby will increase the > amount of harm done to animals. That's the only accurate way to > describe what's going on here. > > > >> You have ZERO knowledge of the > > >> probability of the relative harms caused by different foods you consume. > > >> > > > > > > True. > > > > Then where do you get off defining my diet as morally deficient? > > > > I don't know what your diet is. I think I have a pretty good foundation > for claiming that someone who regularly consumes factory-farmed animal > products is not making every reasonable effort not to provide financial > support for institutions or practices that cause or support unnecessary > harm. So I think that they shouldn't regularly consume factory-farmed > animal products. You seem to be terribly upset that I hold this > opinion, I'm not sure why. I'm not in the habit of morally lecturing > people, I seem to be the one who cops most of that. > > It may be that there are some changes that should be made to my diet as > well. I am making an effort to inform myself about the issue. > > > >> > I believe there is an obligation not to kill sentient animals > > >> > unnecessarily > > >> > > >> No you don't, you just like to think that you believe that. You can't > > >> even > > >> define "sentient". > > >> > > > > > > Yes, I do. A sentient being is a being that is capable of having > > > feelings. > > > > What do you mean by "feelings", you mean feel pain? > > That would be an example, yes. > > > There is no definitive > > answer to that question, but every animal species can be observed to react > > adversely or defensively to attack or injury. > > > > There is a discussion of these issues in DeGrazia's "Taking Animals > Seriously". It is often hard to tell when an organism is capable of > experiencing the sensation of pain. We should go on the best available > scientific evidence and give the benefit of the doubt where reasonably > possible. "Don't be too proud of never forgetting a face: It turns out even a humble honey bee can distinguish and recall different human faces, says an international team of researchers." http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/e...sh_1532832.htm "the 1960s, Nobel Prize winning zoologist, Karl von Frisch, proposed that honeybees use dance (the"waggle dance") as a coded message to guide other bees to new food sources." http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/media/pressre...honeybees.html Ants are social insects, similar to bees in terms of size and structure. Why do you label them "unsentient"? Is there not a benefit of the doubt in play here? > > > >> > and also an obligation to make every *reasonable* effort > > >> > not to provide financial support to institutions or practices that > > >> > cause or support unnecessary harm. > > >> > > >> You're blowing smoke. You can't define the terms reasonable or > > >> unnecessary > > >> in this context. > > > > > > I can't give absolutely precise definitions of them, no. However, I > > > believe removing these qualifications would make the moral principle > > > false. So I keep them there. Any time someone proposes a moral > > > principle with better-defined terms that I think has a reasonable > > > chance of being true, that's great. I'm not blowing smoke, I'm just > > > stating the moral principles I believe in. > > > > The terms need consistent and fair definitions for the principle to have any > > meaning. I happen to think that a lot of animals must be killed in order to > > support the human race. I think that singling out food animals as political > > clients as ARAs and vegans do, is a spurious attempt by some morally deluded > > individuals to stake out high moral ground for their personal aggrandizment. > > The principle has *some* meaning. You have *some* idea of the meanings > of the terms involved. I'm sorry if you find its formulation > unsatisfactory, it's the best I can do so far. > > I think a great deal of clearly unnecessary suffering is caused by the > factory-farming of animal products, much more so than any other human > practice. I think it is reasonable to make a moral protest about this > practice. There may be other practices that are worth protesting about > too. This is no objection to making a moral protest about > factory-farming. One cannot devote one's time and energy to every > problem. ARAs try to campaign to end the unnecessary harming of animals > when they see it. I think this is a worthwhile goal. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
Dutch wrote: > > wrote in message > oups.com... > > > > Dutch wrote: > >> > wrote in message > >> ups.com... > >> > > >> > Dutch wrote: > >> >> > wrote in message > >> >> oups.com... > >> >> > > >> >> > Dutch wrote: > >> >> >> > wrote > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > rick wrote: > >> >> >> >> > wrote > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > Dave wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> snip... > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> Modern methods of crop cultivation require significant > >> >> >> >> >> chemical imputs in the form of synthetic fertilizers > >> >> >> >> >> and *cides, which can harm the environment as a > >> >> >> >> >> result of their production, transportation and usage. > >> >> >> >> >> In order to maintain soil fertility and keep pests under > >> >> >> >> >> control in traditional organic systems crop rotations > >> >> >> >> >> are normally used. I don't know if there are crop > >> >> >> >> >> rotations available that produce human consumable > >> >> >> >> >> crops on all of the land all the time but in practise > >> >> >> >> >> grass-clover leys seem to feature rather prominently. > >> >> >> >> >> It surely makes sense to have cattle grazing on such > >> >> >> >> >> a ley, and producing milk at the same time and veal > >> >> >> >> >> and beef are then natural byproducts of this. > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > Well, I would question whether we have the right to kill the > >> >> >> >> > cattle for > >> >> >> >> > food, unless it could somehow be shown that we were actually > >> >> >> >> > reducing > >> >> >> >> > the number of animal deaths by doing this. > >> >> >> >> ========================= > >> >> >> >> Quite easy to do when compared to your tofu meat substitutes. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Do it, then. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> You're the one claiming we have a moral obligation, give "detailed > >> >> >> evidence" > >> >> >> that tofu causes fewer animal deaths than free-range beef. > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > I didn't claim you have a moral obligation not to buy free-range > >> >> > beef. > >> >> > I suspect you do, and I have cited some calculations in support of > >> >> > that > >> >> > claim. > >> >> > >> >> Those calculations don't show anything of the sort. > >> >> > >> > > >> > Why not? > >> > >> Because the concept of being morally required to kill the fewest number > >> of > >> animals possible is a ruse. You don't do it with any other consumer > >> alternative, all you do is ban animal products. > >> > > > > It's not a ruse. It's something I try to live up to, across the board. > > Other than avoiding "animal products" what else do you do? > I try to buy products that aren't tested on animals. > > >> >> > But I don't have conclusive evidence. Based on the inconclusive > >> >> > evidence I have encountered so far I have decided not ot eat > >> >> > free-range > >> >> > beef. > >> >> > >> >> You don't have any knowledge at all of the farming practises that go > >> >> into > >> >> most of the food you eat. Do you know much about fruit growing, how > >> >> about > >> >> wheat, rice? I know something about them, I grow wheat, I know apple > >> >> growers, both are deadly businesses. I wouldn't live within a hundred > >> >> miles > >> >> of an apple orchard, that's how bad the pesticides are. The herbicides > >> >> in > >> >> grain farming is no better. > >> >> > >> > > >> > All right. There are collateral deaths involved in pasture-ruminant > >> > production as well. Show me some plausible numbers and then we'll have > >> > a basis for reaching a conclusion. Until then, I'll stick with my > >> > current best guess. > >> > >> Go ahead and base your life around guesses about made-up moral > >> imperatives. > >> I plan to enjoy my food to the maximum, and my life, and that doesn't > >> include anal-retentive dogmas, it includes prime rib and chicken > >> parmesan. > >> > > > > Well, I know you don't agree with the moral foundation, but you haven't > > provided any arguments against it. > > Yes I have, you have demonstrated, unsurprisingly, that you are impervious > to them. > Nonsense. You've never provided any argument about the underlying moral principle. You've been arguing about what would be the best way to follow it. > > The arguments for it are presented > > in David DeGrazia's "Taking Animals Seriously". Any time you want to > > address what he has to say in there I'll be happy to talk to you about > > it. > > I take animals very seriously. > That's great. > >> >> >> >> And, if we don't have the 'right' to kill cattle for the food we > >> >> >> >> eat, why do we have the 'right' to kill field animals for the > >> >> >> >> food we eat? > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > We don't have the right to kill animals unnecessarily. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Who defines what is necessary? You? > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > I don't claim to offer a moral principle that gives absolutely > >> >> > unambiguous moral guidance in evey conceivable situation. The word > >> >> > "unnecessary" is vague and it will sometimes be hard to decide > >> >> > whether > >> >> > a given action is in accordance with the moral principle. In those > >> >> > cases, we'll just have to make a good faith effort to work out what > >> >> > is > >> >> > the right thing to do. > >> >> > >> >> I agree, but I don't see much good faith effort or a coherent moral > >> >> principle in veganism. Veganism is based soley on a rule which > >> >> restricts/prohibits use of animal products, that is all. Other crops, > >> >> like > >> >> cotton to name one, which cause a lot of environmental damage, go > >> >> totally > >> >> unmentioned. Yet my consumption of meat is moral violation? Give me a > >> >> ****ing break. Who the hell do you think you are? > >> >> > >> > > >> > Well, I've told you my moral principle. Make every reasonable effort > >> > not to provide financial support for practices that cause or support > >> > unnecessary harm. > >> > >> You aren't doing that at all, you're prohibiting animal products, that is > >> all. > >> > > > > You have no basis for saying I'm not doing that. > > You have no basis for saying you are. > Well, I've made some attempt to educate myself about the impact my consumer choices have on animals and changed my consumer habits accordingly. And I'm still in the process of acquiring more information. > >> > It's up to you to decide whether you think that's a > >> > good principle, and if so, what's involved in following it. > >> > >> It's a vague, meaningless principle and you aren't following it. > >> > > > > There is some vagueness. It's not meaningless. > > It's vagueness renders it meaningless. > > > I would like to hear > > your reasons for saying I'm not following it. > > Simply, I am positive that you do not avoid all "unecessary" consumption. > Hang on, you were saying it's meaningless. If you say it's meaningless you can't say I'm following it or I'm not following it. If you say I'm not following it then it's sufficiently meaningful for you to be able to tell I'm not following it. You have no basis for saying I'm not making every reasonable effort to avoid financial support for unnecessary harm. > > > >> > I think any > >> > serious attempt to follow it would involve a pretty drastic restriction > >> > of meat consumption, but that's just my opinion. > >> > >> It's not a serious moral principle. > >> > > > > Ipse dixit. > > I have provided sufficient context for that conclusion, if you were prepared > to listen. You provided no argument whatsoever, just assertion. > > > >> > I dare say there'd be > >> > a case for restricting cotton consumption as well, I don't know much > >> > about that particular issue. You'll note that I haven't been giving you > >> > any sermons. I'm the one who gets most of the sermons around here. I > >> > just happen to think that ethical veganism is a defensible position and > >> > I'm throwing in my two cents' worth about the attacks you're making on > >> > it. > >> > >> It's defensible morally to restrict the consumption of animal products, > >> but > >> it's not defensible to set up some bogus vague moral principle and > >> pretend > >> that you're following it. > >> > > > > Well, as I say, I accept the moral principle and I've told you where to > > find arguments in its favour. If you want to address those that's fine. > > And if you have some serious suggestion to make about how I can better > > follow it, I'll be happy to listen to that too. It's a moral principle > > that I accept and I'm trying to live up to it. Is that all right with > > you? > > I don't care what you do, frankly, but if you choose to make a public > spectacle of it I will continue to tell you what I think of it. > You seem to be a bit confused about what you think about it, however. You can't decide whether the principle is meaningless or whether I don't live up to it. Make up your mind. > > > > >> > > >> >> >> > Probably we > >> >> >> > don't have the right to kill as many animals in crop production > >> >> >> > as > >> >> >> > we > >> >> >> > do. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Then you must stop. > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > I must make every reasonable effort not to provide financial support > >> >> > to > >> >> > institutions that cause or support unnecessary harm. That may > >> >> > involve > >> >> > growing some of my own vegetables. I'm not convinced it involves > >> >> > buying > >> >> > up my own land and growing all of my own food. > >> >> > >> >> You sound like a recorded message. > >> >> > >> >> >> > I would support efforts to reform crop production. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> How? > >> >> > > >> >> > Well, I might put pressure on politicians to make reforms which will > >> >> > reduce the impact on animal welfare, try to make the public more > >> >> > aware > >> >> > of the issue, that sort of thing. > >> >> > >> >> I'll believe it when I see it. So far it would appear that the issue > >> >> of > >> >> collateral deaths is off-limits to veganism, cuts a little to close to > >> >> home > >> >> for a movement focused on demonizing others. > >> >> > >> > > >> > I don't agree with you that the movement is focussed on demonizing > >> > others. > >> > >> I know you don't, no vegan does. > >> > > > > But you think they're wrong. If you had any reasons to offer for > > thinking that they're wrong that would be interesting. > > Have you ever heard of cognitive dissonance? I have given enough clues for > any person to understand why I think it's wrong, yet you haven't heard them. > Your mind is not letting anything in that conflicts with the pattern. > No, you haven't given me any indication of why you think the movement is focussed on demonizing others. It's just an assertion that you made, which I think is based on a distorted view of the movement. I would like to see some evidence for it. > > > >> > I think the focus is on trying to reduce the harm caused by the > >> > factory-farming industry. > >> > >> That's the first time I have heard that term in our discussion, meat does > >> not have to come from "factory farms", mine doesn't. > >> > > > > Great. > > That's not the point, you moved the goalposts. > No, I didn't. > >> > I agree the issue of the harm of collateral > >> > deaths should be raised too. Perhaps I will try to make my friends in > >> > the movement more aware of the issue. > >> > >> They will think you're crazy. Collateral deaths has no legs as an issue > >> within "the movement", it hits too close to home. > > Did you hear me? > Yes, I did. Just didn't have any particular comment to make. Well, we'll see, won't we? > > >> > >> > > >> >> >> In the meantime would you consume meat if it involved little or no > >> >> >> intensive crop rearing? > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > Only if I was convinced it wouldn't involve additional harm to > >> >> > animals. > >> >> > Not much research has been done on this topic, based on reading > >> >> > Davis > >> >> > and Matheny at the moment I think it's probably best not to. > >> >> > >> >> Use your own imagination. If I shot a bull moose and offered you some > >> >> meat, > >> >> that would almost certainly be a lower impact at ~1/5000 of a death > >> >> per > >> >> serving than your current main courses. > >> >> > >> > > >> > I really don't see how you can be confident of that when you admit that > >> > there are no reliable estimates of the cost of crop production. Matheny > >> > estimates a vegan diet kills 0.3 wild animals per year. > >> > >> Matheny hasn't done any research, he's a college dropout. > >> > > > > Still, he does argue for his conclusions. You can address the arguments > > if you want to. > > I have done so. > Where? > > > >> > Do you have a > >> > corresponding estimate for a diet which includes some game? Or do you > >> > have an estimate which is better than Matheny's? If not, it looks like > >> > you haven't got a conclusive argument. > >> > >> You are going to believe whatever "the movement" and it's shills like > >> Matheny tell you to believe. That's your prerogative, but don't come on > >> aaev > >> claiming that it's rational. > >> > > > > I'm afraid your saying this doesn't persuade me that you've got a > > conclusive argument. > > I predicted correctly that this would be the outcome of our discussion. You > believe Matheny because he's says what you want to hear. > Well, what are your strongest reasons for me not believing Matheny? Come on now. You've been saying things like "Just appeal to your common sense" and "Use your imagination". I don't see how you can reasonably come to a conclusion about the comparative costs of the various types of animal food production and crop production without providing some numerical estimates of the cost. You don't appear to have any to offer in place of what Matheny has. So what, really, do you have to offer as a reason that some animal products are preferable to vegan products? > >> >> >> >> >> Animals can also benefit organic agriculture in > >> >> >> >> >> various other ways. For example, manure is > >> >> >> >> >> recognized as a good fertilizer, ducks like > >> >> >> >> >> eating slugs and pigs can dig over a patch to > >> >> >> >> >> remove weeds prior to planting. > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >From a least harm point of view, using any > >> >> >> >> >> reasonable criteria, I feel sure that > >> >> >> >> >> supermarket/resturant grains, legumes, > >> >> >> >> >> vegetables and nuts compare favourably > >> >> >> >> >> with supermarket/resturant meat, eggs > >> >> >> >> >> and dairy products but I think the best > >> >> >> >> >> option of all is to source both plant and > >> >> >> >> >> animal products from local organic farms > >> >> >> >> >> that you can trust, fish from handline > >> >> >> >> >> fisheries and nuts and wild plants from > >> >> >> >> >> local woodlands. > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > I'm not altogether convinced about the animal products from > >> >> >> >> > organic > >> >> >> >> > farms. I think in most cases these would probably lead to more > >> >> >> >> > collateral deaths overall because of the extra land use. > >> >> >> >> ============================== > >> >> >> >> Why? You suggesting that regular animals of the fields can't > >> >> >> >> live in pastures with cattle? Replacing mono-culture crop > >> >> >> >> fields > >> >> >> >> with pastures to graze cattle would *reduce* CDs. There is no > >> >> >> >> way that you can say that more animals are going to die from > >> >> >> >> pasture grazing that mono-culture food production. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Davis estimates that 7.5 animals/ha die in ruminant-pasture food > >> >> >> > production. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> With no spraying or cultivation. > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > Don't recall that qualification. All right, if you say so. There was > >> >> > a > >> >> > fairly generous margin of error in Matheny's calculations. Are you > >> >> > saying some ruminant-pasture-based animal products cause less harm > >> >> > per > >> >> > serving of food than mono-culture crops? Can you provide some > >> >> > evidence > >> >> > of that? > >> >> > >> >> Only to tell as a farmer you that hay is not seeded, weeded or > >> >> cultivated, > >> >> just mown and baled. It's the next best thing to pasture. It also does > >> >> not > >> >> strip the soil of nutrients like crops grown for human consumption. I > >> >> can > >> >> only use my fields every other year, while the hay fields can be mowed > >> >> several times a year. The whole argument comparing animal feed with > >> >> human > >> >> food is another sham. > >> >> > >> > > >> > Well, I guess that would have to be taken into account as well. The day > >> > I see some serious research which makes a decent case that > >> > ruminant-pasture-based animal products cause less harm per serving of > >> > food than mono-culture crops, I'll re-evaluate my position. > >> > >> Thank for illustrating my point. You have drawn a conclusion based on > >> little > >> or no data, and to alter that position you require "serious research". > >> > > > > Because little or no data is the best we've got at the moment, and I > > have to take some position. Other things short of "serious research" > > would also suffice for me to re-evaluate my position. But what I've > > seen on here so far doesn't cut the mustard. > > Why should a position based on little or no data require "serious research" > to amend? It doesn't, I told you. > > > >> > > >> >> >> >> The fish is an > >> >> >> >> > interesting suggestion. I'm not sure about that one. It would > >> >> >> >> > be nice > >> >> >> >> > to see some research done on this topic to determine what > >> >> >> >> > really causes > >> >> >> >> > the least harm. > >> >> >> >> ===================== > >> >> >> >> It isn't the veggies you eat... > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Show me some evidence. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Be honest with yourself, then believe your own common sense. > >> >> > > >> >> > Appealling to my common sense doesn't convince me of his claim. > >> >> > >> >> You have to be willing to attempt to be objective. As long as you have > >> >> the > >> >> typical vegan tape running in your head none of this is never going to > >> >> make > >> >> sense. > >> > > >> > Well, I'm doing my best. I just don't see how I can reasonably be sure > >> > that any particular animal product that I can actually buy causes less > >> > harm per serving of food than crop production. > >> > >> You can't, just like you can't be sure that rice or bananas or apples > >> cause > >> less harm per serving than salmon, or bread. > >> > > > > So in trying to minimize the extent to which I financially support > > unnecessary harm, I have to make a guess based on the best available > > research at the moment, and that's what I've tried to do. > > No it isn't. If you were trying to be as objective as you pretend you would > be referring to Davis' conclusions, not Matheny's laughable pile of > strawmen. > Davis' conclusions are worth looking at, but I think Matheny identifies a serious flaw in his argument. > > > >> > I think that more > >> > research should be done along the lines of Davis. Then some kind of > >> > serious debate can start. In the meantime, I'll have to go with my > >> > current best guess based on what I've read so far. > >> > >> You are never going to know, because there simply are too many animals to > >> count and nobody cares to do it, including vegans. Farmers are too busy > >> farming and vegans are never going to do it because it shoots the hell > >> out > >> their little game. > > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
rick wrote: > > wrote in message > oups.com... > > > > rick wrote: > >> > wrote in message > >> oups.com... > >> > > >> > rick wrote: > >> >> > wrote in message > >> >> oups.com... > >> >> > > >> >> > rick wrote: > >> >> >> > wrote in message > >> >> >> ups.com... > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Dave wrote: > >> >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> snip... > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Modern methods of crop cultivation require > >> >> >> >> significant > >> >> >> >> chemical imputs in the form of synthetic fertilizers > >> >> >> >> and *cides, which can harm the environment as a > >> >> >> >> result of their production, transportation and usage. > >> >> >> >> In order to maintain soil fertility and keep pests > >> >> >> >> under > >> >> >> >> control in traditional organic systems crop rotations > >> >> >> >> are normally used. I don't know if there are crop > >> >> >> >> rotations available that produce human consumable > >> >> >> >> crops on all of the land all the time but in practise > >> >> >> >> grass-clover leys seem to feature rather prominently. > >> >> >> >> It surely makes sense to have cattle grazing on such > >> >> >> >> a ley, and producing milk at the same time and veal > >> >> >> >> and beef are then natural byproducts of this. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Well, I would question whether we have the right to > >> >> >> > kill > >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> > cattle for > >> >> >> > food, unless it could somehow be shown that we were > >> >> >> > actually > >> >> >> > reducing > >> >> >> > the number of animal deaths by doing this. > >> >> >> ========================= > >> >> >> Quite easy to do when compared to your tofu meat > >> >> >> substitutes. > >> >> > > >> >> > Do it, then. > >> >> ======================= > >> >> I see you ignored the sites I posted. Not surprising. > >> > > >> > I haven't got round to looking at them yet. Do they provide > >> > estimates > >> > for the amount of harm per serving of food for mono-culture > >> > crop > >> > production, the amount of harm per serving of food for > >> > grass-fed beef, > >> > and compare them? > >> =========================== > >> ROTFLMAO One grass-fed cow, 100s of 1000s of calories meaning > >> 100s of meals. All for the death of one cow. > > > > And the collateral deaths involved in clearing the land for > > pasture. > ========================== > ROTFLMAO Land isn't cleared for pasture fool. It is pasture. > > The massive habitat destruction comes from crop production, > hypocrite. > All right. Well, Davis estimated 7.5 deaths/ha for pasture-ruminant production. Was he wrong, was he? |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
Dave wrote: > wrote: > > Dave wrote: > > > wrote: > > > > Dave wrote: > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > > > > In this paper Gaverick Matheny attempts to estimate the harm caused by > > > > > > a ruminant-pasture food production system as compared to a vegan food > > > > > > production system. > > > > > > > > > > > > http://homepage.uab.edu/nnobis/papers/least-harm.pdf > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you have any comment about that? > > > > > > > > > > The first point to make is that the figures used (7.5 > > > > > deaths per ha for ruminant-pasture compared > > > > > with 15 for crop production) are little more than > > > > > speculation to being with. I can't locate the original > > > > > Davis article without paying but it (or derivatives thereof) > > > > > have been posted on this forum before and as I > > > > > recall provided no reason to consider either estimate > > > > > reliable. > > > > > > > > > > The use of per ha estimates instea of per capita > > > > > estimates is a serious logical error but correction > > > > > for this achieves little if the per ha estimates are > > > > > unreliable to begin with. > > > > > > > > > > Matheny goes on to make the important point > > > > > that the number of animal lives may be a more > > > > > important consider than the number of animal > > > > > deaths. He reasons: "As we already saw, ruminant > > > > > production uses 10 times as much land as crop > > > > > production to yield the same amount of food. > > > > > Thus, as long as the combined number of wild > > > > > animals on 9 wild acres plus one cultivated acre > > > > > is greater than the number on 10 grazed acres, > > > > > a vegan-vegetarian will allow the greatest number > > > > > of animals to exist." > > > > > > > > > > This sounds like a powerful argument and I bought > > > > > into it for a while but it does not tell the full story. > > > > > Opponents of veg*nism often claim that at least > > > > > some of the land used for grazing is not suitable > > > > > for cultivation. I'm sure we have sufficient > > > > > cultivatable land but it is also important to consider > > > > > the opportunity cost of the land. A vegan diet > > > > > probably entails using some land that could revert > > > > > to woodlands that support far more animal life than > > > > > some of the "uncultivatable lands that an > > > > > omnivore could make use of instead. Pressure > > > > > on wild animal habitats can also be reduced by > > > > > fishing the seas provided we do so within their > > > > > biological limits. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, that's an interesting point, but I don't think maximizing the > > > > number of animals who exist is the only consideration. I'm not a > > > > utilitarian like Gaverick Matheny. We would think it wrong to bring > > > > humans into existence and then kill them for food, even we thereby > > > > increased the number of humans living pleasant lives. And we should at > > > > least consider the possibility that similar considerations might hold > > > > for animals. So I would be somewhat critical of these arguments from a > > > > purely utilitarian perspective. > > > > > > >From an abstract philosophical perspective it is hard to argue > > > against the concept of granting animals similar rights as humans > > > but I think it is even harder to argue against the utilitarian > > > prinicple. > > > > > > > Well, of course there is a lot of philosophical literature on this > > issue. But certainly utilitarianism is somewhat controversial. > > Ethics is a practical subject. Any system of ethics that does > not strive to make the world a more pleasant place is worthless. > > > > > > Modern methods of crop cultivation require significant > > > > > chemical imputs in the form of synthetic fertilizers > > > > > and *cides, which can harm the environment as a > > > > > result of their production, transportation and usage. > > > > > In order to maintain soil fertility and keep pests under > > > > > control in traditional organic systems crop rotations > > > > > are normally used. I don't know if there are crop > > > > > rotations available that produce human consumable > > > > > crops on all of the land all the time but in practise > > > > > grass-clover leys seem to feature rather prominently. > > > > > It surely makes sense to have cattle grazing on such > > > > > a ley, and producing milk at the same time and veal > > > > > and beef are then natural byproducts of this. > > > > > > > > > Well, I would question whether we have the right to kill the cattle for > > > > food, > > > > > > Cultivation of food crops on a commercial scale is also killing animals > > > for food. > > > > True. I don't think we should kill animals unnecessarily. The word > > "unnecessarily" is vague and I am unsure exactly how much killing is > > necessary. But there is probably room for improvement in crop > > agriculture as well as in animal agriculture. > > > > > These deaths may be less directly related to the final > > > product > > > but they are still consequences of our actions that we have prior > > > knowledge of. In some case (for example poisoning) they are even > > > deliberate. > > > > > > > unless it could somehow be shown that we were actually reducing > > > > the number of animal deaths by doing this. > > I feel this is shifiting the burden of proof. Absolute proof is too > much > to ask for but in order to justify the above view you need to give good > reason to believe that switching from conscientious omnivore to > vegan would actually reduce our impact. > Yes, that sounds fair enough. Some reason should be required. The question is whether Matheny's calculations are good enough. > > > I can not prove that killing pasture raised ruminants for food reduces > > > the number of animal deaths compared with eating plant foods > > > instead of the meat but neither have I seen anyone prove that it > > > increases the number. > > > > > It's difficult to prove, but Matheny's calculations carry some weight > > with me. Note that they only require the ratio of the number of animals > > killed in pasture-ruminant production to the number killed in crop > > production to be (very) approximately correct. > > Davis' article does not appear to be available online without charge > but I did find this: > http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/972951/posts > The justification they give for Davis' estimate for crop mortalities > is a study where the "wood mouse population density in cereal > fields dropped from 25/ha preharvest to less than 5/ha postharvest" > > This decrease is attributed to migration and mortality but no > attempt to estimate the relative importance of these terms is > mentioned. If this is the basis for 15 animal deaths per ha > then it doesn't seem to be worth very much. Also note > that this is the mortality rate of one species as a result > of one part of the cultivation process, albeit a major part. > I suspect mortality rates are also subject to large variations > based on region, crops grown and methods used. > The article then goes on to say "if forage production > systems decreased the number of animals of the field > killed per year by 50% (5 per year per ha)" with no other > explaination why this figure is chosen. > Well, they would need to decrease it by 90% in order to affect Matheny's final conclusion. I have no idea how plausible or implausible this is. > > > > > Animals can also benefit organic agriculture in > > > > > various other ways. For example, manure is > > > > > recognized as a good fertilizer, ducks like > > > > > eating slugs and pigs can dig over a patch to > > > > > remove weeds prior to planting. > > > > > > > > > > >From a least harm point of view, using any > > > > > reasonable criteria, I feel sure that > > > > > supermarket/resturant grains, legumes, > > > > > vegetables and nuts compare favourably > > > > > with supermarket/resturant meat, eggs > > > > > and dairy products but I think the best > > > > > option of all is to source both plant and > > > > > animal products from local organic farms > > > > > that you can trust, fish from handline > > > > > fisheries and nuts and wild plants from > > > > > local woodlands. > > > > > > > > I'm not altogether convinced about the animal products from organic > > > > farms. I think in most cases these would probably lead to more > > > > collateral deaths overall because of the extra land use. > > > > > > Organic farming is not necessarily all that inefficient in terms of > > > land use. A recent(ish) study from the US conducted by Pimental > > > et al. claimed yields rivalling conventional methods for producing > > > the same crops. http://whyfiles.org/shorties/182organic_ag/ > > > > > > A swiss study claimed average yields of 80% compared with > > > conventional farming over a 21 year period for a range of crops. > > > However this was balanced by a reduction of energy and > > > fertilizer use between 34 and 53% and a reduction of pesticide > > > use of 97%. > > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2017094.stm > > > > > > Regarding collateral death rates you need to consider the > > > feed. If an animal is kept indoors all the time and fed > > > cultivated food products then the toll is bound to be higher > > > than when the animal is allowed to forage part or all of > > > its diet. > > > > It certainly is a big advantage if the animal is allowed to forage part > > of its diet. But there are the collateral deaths that arise from > > clearing the land for pasture in the first place. > > Yes but in a rotational system clearing the land for pasture means > harvesting the existing crop. In fact pasture is often grown underneath > a cereal crop. > Maybe I'm confused. Davis attributes some collateral deaths to pasture-ruminant production but I'm not sure I remember where those come from. I thought they arose from clearing the land for pasture. In that case, are you saying those collateral deaths can be avoided? That would certainly change the picture. > > More research should be done on this issue. So far all I have read on > > the subject is Davis and Matheny. Based on that, at the moment I would > > want to see a fairly detailed demonstration before I would conclude > > that any particular non-vegan approach was definitely superior to the > > vegan one. One possibly promising non-vegan approach would be catching > > big fish. > > Unforunately only really promising as an occasional feature of one's > diet. > Being near the top of a marine food chain means numbers of big fish are > relatively small in the first place and they take a relatively long > time to > reproduce and mature and thus are more vulnerable to the effects of > overfishing. Also contaminants like mercury are an issue because > they tend to accumulate in fatty tissues and concentrate higher up > the food chain. > > > > > > > > The fish is an > > > > interesting suggestion. I'm not sure about that one. > > > > > > One question arising is how high should we should > > > value the life of a fish relative to the birds and mammals > > > of the field. If you make no difference between classes > > > of animlas then you can only use the LHP to justify > > > big fish and big fish generally mature and breed slowly > > > and therefore can not be harvested in the same quantities > > > as little fish. Personally the life of a mammal or bird means > > > rather more to me than the life of a fish. > > > > > I think I could go along with that to some extent, but I would still > > worry if the death toll for small fish were significantly higher than > > the death toll for crop production. Another important factor would be > > comparing the amount of pain and suffering involved in their deaths. > > Sure. > > > > > It would > > > > be nice to see some research done on this topic to > > > > determine what really causes the least harm. > > > > > > Indeed although what constitues "least harm" may be a matter > > > of some controversy. For example planting hedgerows round field > > > edges will normally cause an increase in the animal population > > > of the area. If the proportion of animals killed remains the same > > > then a simple death count would suggest planting these > > > hedgerows is a bad idea. Is this a conclusion you would > > > feel comfortable with? > > > > Not entirely. I do think bringing animals into existence counts for > > something. > > > > There certainly are a lot of complexities. As an individual, what I > > think I have a responsibility to do is, in the words of David DeGrazia, > > to "make every reasonable effort not to provide financial support for > > institutions or practices that cause or support unnecessary harm." > > There is room for debate both about what is "reasonable" and what is > > "unnecessary." > > Yes. > > > Based on what I know at the moment, I think adopting a > > vegan diet is part of a reasonable strategy for doing that. > > Don't get me wrong. I think your reasons for being vegan are good > reasons but personally I still prefer conscientious omnivourism. > Rick and Dutch have given me pause for thought by drawing my attention to deaths due to starvation and predation, and deaths due to pesticides. What I'm confused about at the moment is Davis' figure of 7.5 deaths/ha for ruminant-pasture production (50% of that for crop production). Rick seems to be disputing that figure. Certainly if it could be shown that that figure could be significantly decreased it would make a big difference. > > Leif > > Erikson has argued to me that I should be doing more, that I should be > > growing some of my own vegetables and doing research about the extent > > of harm caused by production of the different crops. I accept that. I > > have tried to find out a little about the extent of harm caused by > > production of the different crops, and so far have found out mainly > > that not very much research has been done on it. I don't accept that I > > have an obligation to buy up some land and grow all my own food, I > > think this goes beyond making every "reasonable" effort, and in any > > case, it would involve opportunity costs that would prevent me from > > reducing suffering in other ways, such as donating money to UNICEF. > > > > So, as I say, at the moment I'm comfortable with being vegan and > > advocating veganism, but I'm open to exploring alternatives. > > You come across as a very reasonable person motivated by > relevant concerns. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
Dave wrote: > wrote: > > Dutch wrote: > > > > wrote > > > > > > > > Dutch wrote: > > > >> > wrote > > > >> > > > > >> > Dutch wrote: > > > >> >> > wrote > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > Dutch wrote: > > > >> >> >> > wrote > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > Well, I would question whether we have the right to kill the > > > >> >> >> > cattle > > > >> >> >> > for > > > >> >> >> > food, unless it could somehow be shown that we were actually > > > >> >> >> > reducing > > > >> >> >> > the number of animal deaths by doing this. > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> It is very reasonable to conclude that this is at least *sometimes* > > > >> >> >> the > > > >> >> >> case, but why does the number of animals who live or who die have > > > >> >> >> any > > > >> >> >> bearing on our right to use them as a food resource or kill them in > > > >> >> >> producing one? This is a silly notion that vegans swallow hook, > > > >> >> >> line, > > > >> >> >> and > > > >> >> >> sinker. > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > Because we have an obligation not to kill sentient animals > > > >> >> > unnecessarily. > > > >> >> > > > >> >> 1. No we don't, there is no such obligation > > > >> >> 2. All animals are sentient > > > >> > > > > >> > False. > > > >> > > > >> Name one that isn't. > > > >> > > > > > > > > An ant. > > > > > > Ants are sentient. They certainly can sense smells, sights, sounds, objects, > > > why would they not feel pain? > > > > > > > They respond to stimuli in their environment, but I think it's > > debatable whether they actually experience any sensations. There's a > > good discussion of this issue in DeGrazia's "Taking Animals Seriously". > > > > > >> >> 3. Everything you do has an impact and hence carries a collateral > > > >> >> cost. > > > >> >> Therefore by eating that second helping, that fruit cocktail, or > > > >> >> taking > > > >> >> that > > > >> >> vacation, all unecessary, you kill sentient animals unecessarily. > > > >> > > > > >> > It would be more accurate to say "there is a certain probability that > > > >> > as a result of your action, more sentient animals will be killed > > > >> > unnecessarily." > > > >> > > > >> That wouldn't be more accurate at all, it is simply a transparent and > > > >> cynical attempt to redefine your position. > > > > > > > > Yes it would, and no it isn't. > > > > > > What is "more accurate" about using terms like "certain probability" and > > > "unecessarily"? They are both wildly vague and subjective. > > > > > > > Well, it's a lot more accurate than saying I kill something. I > > certainly don't kill anything when I go on a vacation. I gave financial > > support to certain processes which harm animals. As a result of my > > increasing the amount of financial support that process received, there > > is a certain probability that mine will be a "threshold purchase" which > > will cause more of the process to go on, and thereby will increase the > > amount of harm done to animals. That's the only accurate way to > > describe what's going on here. > > > > > >> You have ZERO knowledge of the > > > >> probability of the relative harms caused by different foods you consume. > > > >> > > > > > > > > True. > > > > > > Then where do you get off defining my diet as morally deficient? > > > > > > > I don't know what your diet is. I think I have a pretty good foundation > > for claiming that someone who regularly consumes factory-farmed animal > > products is not making every reasonable effort not to provide financial > > support for institutions or practices that cause or support unnecessary > > harm. So I think that they shouldn't regularly consume factory-farmed > > animal products. You seem to be terribly upset that I hold this > > opinion, I'm not sure why. I'm not in the habit of morally lecturing > > people, I seem to be the one who cops most of that. > > > > It may be that there are some changes that should be made to my diet as > > well. I am making an effort to inform myself about the issue. > > > > > >> > I believe there is an obligation not to kill sentient animals > > > >> > unnecessarily > > > >> > > > >> No you don't, you just like to think that you believe that. You can't > > > >> even > > > >> define "sentient". > > > >> > > > > > > > > Yes, I do. A sentient being is a being that is capable of having > > > > feelings. > > > > > > What do you mean by "feelings", you mean feel pain? > > > > That would be an example, yes. > > > > > There is no definitive > > > answer to that question, but every animal species can be observed to react > > > adversely or defensively to attack or injury. > > > > > > > There is a discussion of these issues in DeGrazia's "Taking Animals > > Seriously". It is often hard to tell when an organism is capable of > > experiencing the sensation of pain. We should go on the best available > > scientific evidence and give the benefit of the doubt where reasonably > > possible. > > "Don't be too proud of never forgetting a face: It turns out even a > humble honey bee can distinguish and recall different human > faces, says an international team of researchers." > http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/e...sh_1532832.htm > > "the 1960s, Nobel Prize winning zoologist, Karl von Frisch, proposed > that honeybees use dance (the"waggle dance") as a coded message > to guide other bees to new food sources." > http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/media/pressre...honeybees.html > > Ants are social insects, similar to bees in terms of size and > structure. > Why do you label them "unsentient"? Is there not a benefit of the doubt > in play here? Based on DeGrazia's discussion of the evidence, I felt it was probably reasonable to assume they were insentient. I haven't got the book with me at the moment. When I get back to Sydney I can have a look and discuss the evidence with you. Perhaps I should give them the benefit of the doubt. But I don't think I'm going to give myself a guilt trip about killing mosquitoes. > > > > > >> > and also an obligation to make every *reasonable* effort > > > >> > not to provide financial support to institutions or practices that > > > >> > cause or support unnecessary harm. > > > >> > > > >> You're blowing smoke. You can't define the terms reasonable or > > > >> unnecessary > > > >> in this context. > > > > > > > > I can't give absolutely precise definitions of them, no. However, I > > > > believe removing these qualifications would make the moral principle > > > > false. So I keep them there. Any time someone proposes a moral > > > > principle with better-defined terms that I think has a reasonable > > > > chance of being true, that's great. I'm not blowing smoke, I'm just > > > > stating the moral principles I believe in. > > > > > > The terms need consistent and fair definitions for the principle to have any > > > meaning. I happen to think that a lot of animals must be killed in order to > > > support the human race. I think that singling out food animals as political > > > clients as ARAs and vegans do, is a spurious attempt by some morally deluded > > > individuals to stake out high moral ground for their personal aggrandizment. > > > > The principle has *some* meaning. You have *some* idea of the meanings > > of the terms involved. I'm sorry if you find its formulation > > unsatisfactory, it's the best I can do so far. > > > > I think a great deal of clearly unnecessary suffering is caused by the > > factory-farming of animal products, much more so than any other human > > practice. I think it is reasonable to make a moral protest about this > > practice. There may be other practices that are worth protesting about > > too. This is no objection to making a moral protest about > > factory-farming. One cannot devote one's time and energy to every > > problem. ARAs try to campaign to end the unnecessary harming of animals > > when they see it. I think this is a worthwhile goal. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
> wrote > > Dutch wrote: >> > Well, I don't think it's very reasonable of you to make assumptions >> > about me based on your past experience with other people. >> >> You claim to be a vegan, I am telling what it means to be a vegan. >> > > You were telling me about your past experiences with vegans. You can't > plausibly claim that these are part of the meaning of the word "vegan". That's not what I said, I correctly predicted how you would react with my experiences with vegans. I told you also correctly that veganism means more than diet. >> > And >> > incidentally I do think peer-reviewed studies would be desirable. >> >> There's a shocker. Where are the peer-reviewed studies that support your >> present set of conclusions? >> > > There aren't any. Then why are you looking for peer reviewed studies before you will alter your perceptions? Peer review is a very imperfect process by the way.. >Why is it a shocker? I was being sarcastic, it's completely predictable. > Do you think they wouldn't be > desirable? They would be irrelevant. Vegans, like ARAs are utterly dogmatic in their beliefs. Davis's findings were striking, but vegans gravitate to Matheny's pitiful rebuttal like it was the Word of God. >> >> > In any event, you haven't provided any so far. >> >> >> >> A typical vegan gets most of their protein from commerically grown >> >> soya >> >> and >> >> rice based products. They also consume grains, imported fruit and >> >> other >> >> off-season foods. Numerous servings a day of such products has a cost >> >> in >> >> collateral death and suffering of animals due to the impact of farming >> >> on >> >> wildlife. No vegan to my knowledge has ever attempted to calculate >> >> this >> >> cost, or even address it genuinely in any way. >> > >> > It's a shame that not many people have tried to calculate the cost. >> > Matheny has provided an estimate, based on Davis' research into >> > collateral deaths caused by alfalfa production. That's a start. >> >> It is notable that you refer to Matheny's conclusions, not Davis's. Davis >> is >> the actual environmental scientist. Matheny is a dropout from Engineering >> school, who has done nothing more than spin Davis's research to suit >> himself. >> > > Well, Matheny was the one who provided the estimate of how many wild > animals per year a vegan diet kills. Davis' paper is worth looking at > too, but I think Matheny found a serious flaw in the argument. Of course you do, he is telling you what you want to hear. >> >> One animal such as a large >> >> freshly caught salmon, a deer or any pastured ruminant could eliminate >> >> dozens or even hundreds of those servings. >> > >> > But ruminant-pasture production also involves collateral deaths. I >> > can't know whether the salmon or the deer would be preferable without >> > an estimate of the cost of crop production. All I have to go on is >> > Matheny's highly provisional estimate, and based on that I have my >> > doubts. I'll keep my eyes open for better data, and the day I see some >> > I'll consider re-evaluating my diet. >> >> Nobody cares what you eat, get over that. I am simply demonstrating that >> your position, like that of all vegans, is dogmatic, not "open to >> exploring >> alternatives" as you spuriously claim. Your current "conclusions" are >> based >> on vague, unsubstantiated ideas, and you demand peer reviewed data before >> you will consider any change. >> > > No, I don't, all I demand is some good and sufficient reason, and you > haven't provided any. I have provided reasonable arguments and plenty of reasonable doubt about your current conclusions, you can't hear any of it. You are so predictable it's laughable. >> >> A mostly self-sufficent farmer >> >> has a much lower overall impact than this typical vegan. >> > >> > That may or may not be. You yourself admit there are no reliable >> > estimates of the cost of this typical vegan diet, so surely you must >> > concede it's very hard for you to tell. >> >> It's a virtual certainty, since I have lived both lives and I am aware >> what >> the inputs and outputs are. The point is, you have formed a hard and fast >> dogmatic, reason-resistant position, which is what I set out to >> illustrate. >> > > Oh, so you *are* aware of the cost of the typical vegan diet, and the > cost of the typical self-sufficient farmer's diet? Well, why don't you > tell us their estimates and what they're based on? An objective, open mind and life experience, both of which you lack. >> >> Even a typical >> >> rural diet derived from locally raised stock and produce is probably >> >> better >> >> than the vegan's shrink-wrapped, imported tofu fare. It's not that a >> >> vegetarian is bad, the preposterous pseudo-ethics that vegans attach >> >> to >> >> the >> >> diet that is what is sick. >> > > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
"Dave" > wrote in message oups.com... > > Dutch wrote: >> > wrote >> > >> > Dutch wrote: >> >> > wrote >> >> > So, as I say, at the moment I'm comfortable with being vegan and >> >> > advocating veganism, but I'm open to exploring alternatives. >> >> >> >> A vegan exploring alternatives is an oxymoron. If you are prepared to >> >> explore alternatives to the simplistic idea of veganism then you >> >> aren't a >> >> vegan. If I tell a vegan that I can improve their diet wrt animal >> >> death >> >> and >> >> suffering by substituting some fish or game, he will always find a way >> >> to >> >> deny, equivocate or refuse to listen to that idea. >> > >> > I'll be a vegan as long as I avoid meat, fish, dairy, and eggs. >> >> That just makes you a strict vegetarian. Veganism is based on a >> particular >> unwavering and completely irrational belief system. > > By the commonly accepted usage of the term, avoiding meat, fish, dairy > and eggs makes Rupert a dietary vegan. Goalpost move noted. >> > If I >> > ever stop doing that, then I won't be a vegan anymore. If you tell me >> > that you can improve my diet with respect to animal suffering by >> > substituting some fish or game, I'll ask you for the detailed evidence. >> >> Of course you will, and no amount of "detailed evidence" I could present >> will ever be enough. > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
Dutch wrote: > > wrote > > > > Dutch wrote: > > >> > Well, I don't think it's very reasonable of you to make assumptions > >> > about me based on your past experience with other people. > >> > >> You claim to be a vegan, I am telling what it means to be a vegan. > >> > > > > You were telling me about your past experiences with vegans. You can't > > plausibly claim that these are part of the meaning of the word "vegan". > > That's not what I said, I correctly predicted how you would react with my > experiences with vegans. I told you also correctly that veganism means more > than diet. > I really don't see how this bears on me pointing out that it's not reasonable of you to make assumptions about me based on your past experiences. It wasn't reasonable, even if those assumptions turned out to be correct. > > >> > And > >> > incidentally I do think peer-reviewed studies would be desirable. > >> > >> There's a shocker. Where are the peer-reviewed studies that support your > >> present set of conclusions? > >> > > > > There aren't any. > > Then why are you looking for peer reviewed studies before you will alter > your perceptions? Peer review is a very imperfect process by the way.. > Why shouldn't I? What is so unreasonable about saying peer-reviewed studies would be desirable? > > >Why is it a shocker? > > I was being sarcastic, it's completely predictable. > > > Do you think they wouldn't be > > desirable? > > They would be irrelevant. Vegans, like ARAs are utterly dogmatic in their > beliefs. Davis's findings were striking, but vegans gravitate to Matheny's > pitiful rebuttal like it was the Word of God. > It's not a pitiful rebuttal. Matheny pointed out a flaw in the argument. > >> >> > In any event, you haven't provided any so far. > >> >> > >> >> A typical vegan gets most of their protein from commerically grown > >> >> soya > >> >> and > >> >> rice based products. They also consume grains, imported fruit and > >> >> other > >> >> off-season foods. Numerous servings a day of such products has a cost > >> >> in > >> >> collateral death and suffering of animals due to the impact of farming > >> >> on > >> >> wildlife. No vegan to my knowledge has ever attempted to calculate > >> >> this > >> >> cost, or even address it genuinely in any way. > >> > > >> > It's a shame that not many people have tried to calculate the cost. > >> > Matheny has provided an estimate, based on Davis' research into > >> > collateral deaths caused by alfalfa production. That's a start. > >> > >> It is notable that you refer to Matheny's conclusions, not Davis's. Davis > >> is > >> the actual environmental scientist. Matheny is a dropout from Engineering > >> school, who has done nothing more than spin Davis's research to suit > >> himself. > >> > > > > Well, Matheny was the one who provided the estimate of how many wild > > animals per year a vegan diet kills. Davis' paper is worth looking at > > too, but I think Matheny found a serious flaw in the argument. > > Of course you do, he is telling you what you want to hear. > So you don't? Would you care to reply to Matheny's points? > >> >> One animal such as a large > >> >> freshly caught salmon, a deer or any pastured ruminant could eliminate > >> >> dozens or even hundreds of those servings. > >> > > >> > But ruminant-pasture production also involves collateral deaths. I > >> > can't know whether the salmon or the deer would be preferable without > >> > an estimate of the cost of crop production. All I have to go on is > >> > Matheny's highly provisional estimate, and based on that I have my > >> > doubts. I'll keep my eyes open for better data, and the day I see some > >> > I'll consider re-evaluating my diet. > >> > >> Nobody cares what you eat, get over that. I am simply demonstrating that > >> your position, like that of all vegans, is dogmatic, not "open to > >> exploring > >> alternatives" as you spuriously claim. Your current "conclusions" are > >> based > >> on vague, unsubstantiated ideas, and you demand peer reviewed data before > >> you will consider any change. > >> > > > > No, I don't, all I demand is some good and sufficient reason, and you > > haven't provided any. > > I have provided reasonable arguments and plenty of reasonable doubt about > your current conclusions, you can't hear any of it. You are so predictable > it's laughable. > Of course there is reasonable doubt, just as there is reasonable doubt about Rick's position that conscientious omnivorism is superior to veganism. Nobody ever suggested there wasn't. I thought you were going to give me conclusive reason to think that I could reduce the amount of harm caused by my diet by eating some animal products. I don't think I've seen such conclusive reasons yet. > >> >> A mostly self-sufficent farmer > >> >> has a much lower overall impact than this typical vegan. > >> > > >> > That may or may not be. You yourself admit there are no reliable > >> > estimates of the cost of this typical vegan diet, so surely you must > >> > concede it's very hard for you to tell. > >> > >> It's a virtual certainty, since I have lived both lives and I am aware > >> what > >> the inputs and outputs are. The point is, you have formed a hard and fast > >> dogmatic, reason-resistant position, which is what I set out to > >> illustrate. > >> > > > > Oh, so you *are* aware of the cost of the typical vegan diet, and the > > cost of the typical self-sufficient farmer's diet? Well, why don't you > > tell us their estimates and what they're based on? > > An objective, open mind and life experience, both of which you lack. > > >> >> Even a typical > >> >> rural diet derived from locally raised stock and produce is probably > >> >> better > >> >> than the vegan's shrink-wrapped, imported tofu fare. It's not that a > >> >> vegetarian is bad, the preposterous pseudo-ethics that vegans attach > >> >> to > >> >> the > >> >> diet that is what is sick. > >> > > > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
Dutch wrote: > > wrote > > > > Dutch wrote: > > >> > Well, I don't think it's very reasonable of you to make assumptions > >> > about me based on your past experience with other people. > >> > >> You claim to be a vegan, I am telling what it means to be a vegan. > >> > > > > You were telling me about your past experiences with vegans. You can't > > plausibly claim that these are part of the meaning of the word "vegan". > > That's not what I said, I correctly predicted how you would react with my > experiences with vegans. I told you also correctly that veganism means more > than diet. > I really don't see how this bears on me pointing out that it's not reasonable of you to make assumptions about me based on your past experiences. It wasn't reasonable, even if those assumptions turned out to be correct. > > >> > And > >> > incidentally I do think peer-reviewed studies would be desirable. > >> > >> There's a shocker. Where are the peer-reviewed studies that support your > >> present set of conclusions? > >> > > > > There aren't any. > > Then why are you looking for peer reviewed studies before you will alter > your perceptions? Peer review is a very imperfect process by the way.. > Why shouldn't I? What is so unreasonable about saying peer-reviewed studies would be desirable? > > >Why is it a shocker? > > I was being sarcastic, it's completely predictable. > > > Do you think they wouldn't be > > desirable? > > They would be irrelevant. Vegans, like ARAs are utterly dogmatic in their > beliefs. Davis's findings were striking, but vegans gravitate to Matheny's > pitiful rebuttal like it was the Word of God. > It's not a pitiful rebuttal. Matheny pointed out a flaw in the argument. > >> >> > In any event, you haven't provided any so far. > >> >> > >> >> A typical vegan gets most of their protein from commerically grown > >> >> soya > >> >> and > >> >> rice based products. They also consume grains, imported fruit and > >> >> other > >> >> off-season foods. Numerous servings a day of such products has a cost > >> >> in > >> >> collateral death and suffering of animals due to the impact of farming > >> >> on > >> >> wildlife. No vegan to my knowledge has ever attempted to calculate > >> >> this > >> >> cost, or even address it genuinely in any way. > >> > > >> > It's a shame that not many people have tried to calculate the cost. > >> > Matheny has provided an estimate, based on Davis' research into > >> > collateral deaths caused by alfalfa production. That's a start. > >> > >> It is notable that you refer to Matheny's conclusions, not Davis's. Davis > >> is > >> the actual environmental scientist. Matheny is a dropout from Engineering > >> school, who has done nothing more than spin Davis's research to suit > >> himself. > >> > > > > Well, Matheny was the one who provided the estimate of how many wild > > animals per year a vegan diet kills. Davis' paper is worth looking at > > too, but I think Matheny found a serious flaw in the argument. > > Of course you do, he is telling you what you want to hear. > So you don't? Would you care to reply to Matheny's points? > >> >> One animal such as a large > >> >> freshly caught salmon, a deer or any pastured ruminant could eliminate > >> >> dozens or even hundreds of those servings. > >> > > >> > But ruminant-pasture production also involves collateral deaths. I > >> > can't know whether the salmon or the deer would be preferable without > >> > an estimate of the cost of crop production. All I have to go on is > >> > Matheny's highly provisional estimate, and based on that I have my > >> > doubts. I'll keep my eyes open for better data, and the day I see some > >> > I'll consider re-evaluating my diet. > >> > >> Nobody cares what you eat, get over that. I am simply demonstrating that > >> your position, like that of all vegans, is dogmatic, not "open to > >> exploring > >> alternatives" as you spuriously claim. Your current "conclusions" are > >> based > >> on vague, unsubstantiated ideas, and you demand peer reviewed data before > >> you will consider any change. > >> > > > > No, I don't, all I demand is some good and sufficient reason, and you > > haven't provided any. > > I have provided reasonable arguments and plenty of reasonable doubt about > your current conclusions, you can't hear any of it. You are so predictable > it's laughable. > Of course there is reasonable doubt, just as there is reasonable doubt about Rick's position that conscientious omnivorism is superior to veganism. Nobody ever suggested there wasn't. I thought you were going to give me conclusive reason to think that I could reduce the amount of harm caused by my diet by eating some animal products. I don't think I've seen such conclusive reasons yet. > >> >> A mostly self-sufficent farmer > >> >> has a much lower overall impact than this typical vegan. > >> > > >> > That may or may not be. You yourself admit there are no reliable > >> > estimates of the cost of this typical vegan diet, so surely you must > >> > concede it's very hard for you to tell. > >> > >> It's a virtual certainty, since I have lived both lives and I am aware > >> what > >> the inputs and outputs are. The point is, you have formed a hard and fast > >> dogmatic, reason-resistant position, which is what I set out to > >> illustrate. > >> > > > > Oh, so you *are* aware of the cost of the typical vegan diet, and the > > cost of the typical self-sufficient farmer's diet? Well, why don't you > > tell us their estimates and what they're based on? > > An objective, open mind and life experience, both of which you lack. > > >> >> Even a typical > >> >> rural diet derived from locally raised stock and produce is probably > >> >> better > >> >> than the vegan's shrink-wrapped, imported tofu fare. It's not that a > >> >> vegetarian is bad, the preposterous pseudo-ethics that vegans attach > >> >> to > >> >> the > >> >> diet that is what is sick. > >> > > > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
> wrote in message ups.com... > > rick wrote: >> > wrote in message >> oups.com... >> > >> > rick wrote: >> >> > wrote in message >> >> oups.com... >> >> > >> >> > rick wrote: >> >> >> > wrote in message >> >> >> oups.com... >> >> >> > >> >> >> > rick wrote: >> >> >> >> > wrote in message >> >> >> >> ups.com... >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Dave wrote: >> >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> snip... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Modern methods of crop cultivation require >> >> >> >> >> significant >> >> >> >> >> chemical imputs in the form of synthetic >> >> >> >> >> fertilizers >> >> >> >> >> and *cides, which can harm the environment as a >> >> >> >> >> result of their production, transportation and >> >> >> >> >> usage. >> >> >> >> >> In order to maintain soil fertility and keep pests >> >> >> >> >> under >> >> >> >> >> control in traditional organic systems crop >> >> >> >> >> rotations >> >> >> >> >> are normally used. I don't know if there are crop >> >> >> >> >> rotations available that produce human consumable >> >> >> >> >> crops on all of the land all the time but in >> >> >> >> >> practise >> >> >> >> >> grass-clover leys seem to feature rather >> >> >> >> >> prominently. >> >> >> >> >> It surely makes sense to have cattle grazing on >> >> >> >> >> such >> >> >> >> >> a ley, and producing milk at the same time and >> >> >> >> >> veal >> >> >> >> >> and beef are then natural byproducts of this. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Well, I would question whether we have the right to >> >> >> >> > kill >> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> > cattle for >> >> >> >> > food, unless it could somehow be shown that we were >> >> >> >> > actually >> >> >> >> > reducing >> >> >> >> > the number of animal deaths by doing this. >> >> >> >> ========================= >> >> >> >> Quite easy to do when compared to your tofu meat >> >> >> >> substitutes. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Do it, then. >> >> >> ======================= >> >> >> I see you ignored the sites I posted. Not surprising. >> >> > >> >> > I haven't got round to looking at them yet. Do they >> >> > provide >> >> > estimates >> >> > for the amount of harm per serving of food for >> >> > mono-culture >> >> > crop >> >> > production, the amount of harm per serving of food for >> >> > grass-fed beef, >> >> > and compare them? >> >> =========================== >> >> ROTFLMAO One grass-fed cow, 100s of 1000s of calories >> >> meaning >> >> 100s of meals. All for the death of one cow. >> > >> > And the collateral deaths involved in clearing the land for >> > pasture. >> ========================== >> ROTFLMAO Land isn't cleared for pasture fool. It is pasture. >> >> The massive habitat destruction comes from crop production, >> hypocrite. >> > > All right. Well, Davis estimated 7.5 deaths/ha for > pasture-ruminant > production. Was he wrong, was he? >======================== I believe so. Now, make an estimate on the deaths your crops cause... http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/p...eFactSheet.pdf http://www.hww.ca/hww2.asp?cid=4&id=230 http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_Wildl...on/pg7f2b6.htm http://ipm.ncsu.edu/wildlife/small_grains_wildlife.html http://www.hornedlizards.org/hornedlizards/help.html http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/bulletins/b-5093.html Since your non-animal clothing isn't cruelty-free either, here's a couple to cover some problems with cotton. http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/ To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a field, here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that there can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field. http://www.ext.colostate.edu/Pubs/natres/06507.html http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html http://www.utextension.utk.edu/publi...les/pb1600.pdf http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/v...a=458&q=150643 http://faculty.njcu.edu/fmoran/vol4fieldmouse.htm To cover your selfish pleasure of using usenet, and maintaining a web page on same, here's are a couple dealing with power and communications. http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html http://www.towerkill.com/index.html |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
"Dave" > wrote in message ups.com... > > wrote: > >> > No, you haven't, obviously. You haven't looked at bananas, >> > even >> > though you eat them. You're a liar, plain and simple, with >> > nothing but a simple rule for your simple mind. >> > >> >> Unfounded accusation. >> > It's Rick's speciality. >======================== LOL So says the willfully ignorant... |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
> wrote in message oups.com... > > rick wrote: >> > wrote in message >> oups.com... >> > >> > rick wrote: >> >> > wrote in message >> >> ups.com... >> >> > >> >> > rick wrote: >> >> >> > wrote in message >> >> >> oups.com... >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Dutch wrote: >> >> >> >> > wrote >> >> >> >> > So, as I say, at the moment I'm comfortable with >> >> >> >> > being >> >> >> >> > vegan >> >> >> >> > and >> >> >> >> > advocating veganism, but I'm open to exploring >> >> >> >> > alternatives. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> A vegan exploring alternatives is an oxymoron. If you >> >> >> >> are >> >> >> >> prepared to >> >> >> >> explore alternatives to the simplistic idea of >> >> >> >> veganism >> >> >> >> then >> >> >> >> you aren't a >> >> >> >> vegan. If I tell a vegan that I can improve their >> >> >> >> diet >> >> >> >> wrt >> >> >> >> animal death and >> >> >> >> suffering by substituting some fish or game, he will >> >> >> >> always >> >> >> >> find a way to >> >> >> >> deny, equivocate or refuse to listen to that idea. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > I'll be a vegan as long as I avoid meat, fish, dairy, >> >> >> > and >> >> >> > eggs. >> >> >> > If I >> >> >> > ever stop doing that, then I won't be a vegan anymore. >> >> >> > If >> >> >> > you >> >> >> > tell me >> >> >> > that you can improve my diet with respect to animal >> >> >> > suffering >> >> >> > by >> >> >> > substituting some fish or game, I'll ask you for the >> >> >> > detailed >> >> >> > evidence. >> >> >> ========================== >> >> >> Then you should be able to provide evidence that your >> >> >> vegan >> >> >> diet >> >> >> automatically means you kill fewer animals. >> >> > >> >> > Why? I never made that claim. >> >> ============== >> >> Then you should reread what you said above. Either that, >> >> or >> >> you >> >> are saying that your veggies kill NO animals since you >> >> claimed >> >> we >> >> have no right to kill animals for our food. >> >> >> >> > >> >> > I have actually produced some evidence. It's not >> >> > conclusive. >> >> > But I'll >> >> > wait until I hear at least some counter-evidence before I >> >> > make >> >> > any >> >> > changes to my diet. >> >> =================== >> >> I've seen no evidence from you at all to support the vegan >> >> claims >> >> of being 'better.' >> > >> > The Gaverick Matheny article. >> > ====================== >> He cites no evidence... >> > > False. > >> >> >> >> But the point I'm making is that you don't >> >> have to change by eating meat. You refuse to even compare >> >> the >> >> foods you do eat, and make changes there as to which ones >> >> cause >> >> more/less animal death and suffering. That alone puts the >> >> ly >> >> to >> >> your relegion of veganism. >> >> >> > >> > As I told you, I have made some attempt to compare the >> > amounts >> > of harm >> > caused by production of the different crops. When I find >> > some >> > decent >> > data on this, I'll change my eating habits accordingly. >> =========================== >> No, you haven't, obviously. You haven't looked at bananas, >> even >> though you eat them. You're a liar, plain and simple, with >> nothing but a simple rule for your simple mind. >> > > Unfounded accusation. =========================== No, truth. If you had looked into bananas, and if animals/environemnt were a concern to you you wouldn't eat them. So, did you ly about caring, or ly about your research. Either way, you lied. > >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> Or, in the very least, you should be able to tell us >> >> >> which >> >> >> foods >> >> >> that you do eat cause more/less death and suffering. Is >> >> >> rice >> >> >> better than potatoes? Brocolli better than corn? >> >> >> Bananas >> >> >> better >> >> >> than apples? The fact is, you don't know, and don't >> >> >> care >> >> >> since >> >> >> you have your simple rule for your simple mind, 'eat no >> >> >> meat.' >> >> > >> >> > No, I don't know. I do care and have made some effort to >> >> > find >> >> > out, but >> >> > not much research has been done on these issues. >> >> ====================== >> >> Then why are you so adament that being vegan is better than >> >> anything else? faith? Yep, veganism is a relegion. >> >> >> > >> > I'm not. >> =================== >> Yes, you have been... >> > > Nonsense. ===================== Yes, you have nothing but nonsense. > >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> Being vegan is also more than a diet. >> >> >> Why is the unnecessary death and suffering of animals >> >> >> for >> >> >> your >> >> >> entertainment just fine, but we can't eat them? >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > Unnecessary suffering is not just fine. I'm not >> >> > altogether >> >> > convinced >> >> > that electricity production is unnecessary. >> >> ========================== >> >> What part of your being here on this newsgroup is >> >> necessary? >> >> You >> >> contribute to an ever growing demand for more power and >> >> communications for no more reason than *your* >> >> entertainment. >> >> >> > >> > Would you care to estimate the expected contribution to the >> > amount of >> > harm caused to animals by my usage of Usenet? I really think >> > it >> > would >> > be pretty miniscule. I agree it's unnecessary, but I'm not >> > convinced >> > that making every reasonable effort not to provide financial >> > support to >> > institutions or practices that cause or support unnecessary >> > harm >> > requires me to stop using Usenet. >> ======================== >> So, now you've switched from it's not ok to kill animals >> unnecessarily, like for entertainment, to some animals killed >> for >> your entertainment is ok? > > Well, not exactly. I'm anticipating that the expected > contribution to > the death toll would be considerably less than 1. ====================== Really? Based on what research, hypocrite? > >> What a hoot! Guess you're really only >> a vegan when it doesn't mean too much sacrifice on your >> lifestyle >> and entertainment, eh hypocrite? You are making no such >> efforts >> to avoid rewarding people that kill animals for your lifestyle >> and entertainment, killer. >> > > Like I keep saying, the principle is "Make every *reasonable* > effort to > avoid providing financial support for institutions or practices > that > cause or support unnecessary harm." If it goes beyond a > reasonable > effort then, yes, then you don't have to bother. ========================== LOL Thanks for now proving that animals have no rights. Like all good vegan loons, the caring stops at the death of animals that you don't eat. Nevermind that your diet can cause massive amounts of more unnecessary death and suffering. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> > But no, any unnecessary suffering and death of animals >> >> > that >> >> > is >> >> > really >> >> > being caused purely for my entertainment is not just >> >> > fine. >> >> ========================== >> >> Then again, you're lying about really caring about killing >> >> animals, aren't you? >> >> >> > >> > No. >> ========================= >> Yes, you are. maybe you can convenice yourself, but the lys >> are >> right here, obvious to any reader without vegan willful >> ignorance >> filters. >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
> wrote in message oups.com... > > rick wrote: >> > wrote in message >> ups.com... >> > >> > rick wrote: >> >> > wrote in message >> >> oups.com... >> >> > >> >> > rick wrote: >> >> >> > wrote in message >> >> >> oups.com... >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Dutch wrote: >> >> >> >> > wrote >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Well, I would question whether we have the right to >> >> >> >> > kill >> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> > cattle for >> >> >> >> > food, unless it could somehow be shown that we were >> >> >> >> > actually >> >> >> >> > reducing >> >> >> >> > the number of animal deaths by doing this. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> It is very reasonable to conclude that this is at >> >> >> >> least >> >> >> >> *sometimes* the >> >> >> >> case, but why does the number of animals who live or >> >> >> >> who >> >> >> >> die >> >> >> >> have any >> >> >> >> bearing on our right to use them as a food resource >> >> >> >> or >> >> >> >> kill >> >> >> >> them in >> >> >> >> producing one? This is a silly notion that vegans >> >> >> >> swallow >> >> >> >> hook, line, and >> >> >> >> sinker. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Because we have an obligation not to kill sentient >> >> >> > animals >> >> >> > unnecessarily. >> >> >> ===================== >> >> >> Then you're lying to yourself. Why are you here on >> >> >> usenet? >> >> >> This >> >> >> isn't necessary, and just for entertainment. It causes >> >> >> massive >> >> >> amounts of death and suffering to animals. >> >> > >> >> > The institution of Usenet causes massive amounts of death >> >> > and >> >> > suffering >> >> > to animals. >> >> ===================== >> >> Instutution? Are you projecting about your next home? >> >> Again, >> >> read some sites... >> >> >> >> > >> >> > I think I'd like to see a more detailed defence of that >> >> > claim. >> >> > >> >> >> All unnecessary! >> >> >> But then, it appears that to you, like most vegans, cows >> >> >> are >> >> >> somehow more sentient than other mammals, birds, >> >> >> reptiles, >> >> >> fish >> >> >> and amphibians. >> >> > >> >> > No. >> >> ================= >> >> Then why is it bad to kill one cow, but ok to kill many >> >> smaller >> >> animals for the same calories? >> >> >> > >> > It's better to kill one cow than many smaller animals. But >> > there are >> > collateral deaths involved in pasture-ruminant food >> > production. >> > You >> > haven't convinced me that production of grass-fed beef >> > causes >> > less harm >> > per serving of food than crop production. >> =========================== >> You haven't provided proof that there are other deaths >> involved >> in grass-fed beef. > > Well, Davis thinks there are. Why don't you have a look at his > article? ========================== You haven't posted that article, you've posted a dropouts propaganda... Now, tell me what other animals die for the beef I eat. > >> The beef I eat lives right down the road. There is no >> planting, >> plowing, spraying, harvesting. >> It goes to slaughter just a few miles away, and then right to >> us. >> Tell us the route of destruction your bananas take, killer. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> How is that possible? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > > http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/p...eFactSheet.pdf http://www.hww.ca/hww2.asp?cid=4&id=230 http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_Wildl...on/pg7f2b6.htm http://ipm.ncsu.edu/wildlife/small_grains_wildlife.html http://www.hornedlizards.org/hornedlizards/help.html http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/bulletins/b-5093.html Since your non-animal clothing isn't cruelty-free either, here's a couple to cover some problems with cotton. http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/ To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a field, here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that there can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field. http://www.ext.colostate.edu/Pubs/natres/06507.html http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html http://www.utextension.utk.edu/publi...les/pb1600.pdf http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/v...a=458&q=150643 http://faculty.njcu.edu/fmoran/vol4fieldmouse.htm To cover your selfish pleasure of using usenet, and maintaining a web page on same, here's are a couple dealing with power and communications. http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html http://www.towerkill.com/index.html |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
> wrote in message ups.com... > > rick wrote: >> > wrote in message >> oups.com... >> > >> > Dutch wrote: >> >> > wrote >> >> > >> >> > Dutch wrote: >> >> >> > wrote >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Dutch wrote: >> >> >> >> > wrote >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Dutch wrote: >> >> >> >> >> > wrote >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Well, I would question whether we have the right >> >> >> >> >> > to >> >> >> >> >> > kill the >> >> >> >> >> > cattle >> >> >> >> >> > for >> >> >> >> >> > food, unless it could somehow be shown that we >> >> >> >> >> > were >> >> >> >> >> > actually >> >> >> >> >> > reducing >> >> >> >> >> > the number of animal deaths by doing this. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> It is very reasonable to conclude that this is at >> >> >> >> >> least *sometimes* >> >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> >> case, but why does the number of animals who live >> >> >> >> >> or >> >> >> >> >> who die have >> >> >> >> >> any >> >> >> >> >> bearing on our right to use them as a food >> >> >> >> >> resource >> >> >> >> >> or kill them in >> >> >> >> >> producing one? This is a silly notion that vegans >> >> >> >> >> swallow hook, >> >> >> >> >> line, >> >> >> >> >> and >> >> >> >> >> sinker. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Because we have an obligation not to kill sentient >> >> >> >> > animals >> >> >> >> > unnecessarily. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 1. No we don't, there is no such obligation >> >> >> >> 2. All animals are sentient >> >> >> > >> >> >> > False. >> >> >> >> >> >> Name one that isn't. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > An ant. >> >> >> >> Ants are sentient. They certainly can sense smells, sights, >> >> sounds, objects, >> >> why would they not feel pain? >> >> >> > >> > They respond to stimuli in their environment, but I think >> > it's >> > debatable whether they actually experience any sensations. >> > There's a >> > good discussion of this issue in DeGrazia's "Taking Animals >> > Seriously". >> > >> >> >> >> 3. Everything you do has an impact and hence carries >> >> >> >> a >> >> >> >> collateral >> >> >> >> cost. >> >> >> >> Therefore by eating that second helping, that fruit >> >> >> >> cocktail, or >> >> >> >> taking >> >> >> >> that >> >> >> >> vacation, all unecessary, you kill sentient animals >> >> >> >> unecessarily. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > It would be more accurate to say "there is a certain >> >> >> > probability that >> >> >> > as a result of your action, more sentient animals will >> >> >> > be >> >> >> > killed >> >> >> > unnecessarily." >> >> >> >> >> >> That wouldn't be more accurate at all, it is simply a >> >> >> transparent and >> >> >> cynical attempt to redefine your position. >> >> > >> >> > Yes it would, and no it isn't. >> >> >> >> What is "more accurate" about using terms like "certain >> >> probability" and >> >> "unecessarily"? They are both wildly vague and subjective. >> >> >> > >> > Well, it's a lot more accurate than saying I kill something. >> > I >> > certainly don't kill anything when I go on a vacation. >> =============================== >> If not killing things directly is the criteria, then I must be >> vegan too! Yippeee!! >> Afterall, I didn't kill any animal for the steak i had last >> night!!! >> > > It's not the criterion. > ============================= LOL It's what you just said. If you don't kill it yourself it doesn't count. >> >> I gave financial >> > support to certain processes which harm animals. As a result >> > of >> > my >> > increasing the amount of financial support that process >> > received, there >> > is a certain probability that mine will be a "threshold >> > purchase" which >> > will cause more of the process to go on, and thereby will >> > increase the >> > amount of harm done to animals. That's the only accurate way >> > to >> > describe what's going on here. >> ============================= >> No, what's going on is a continued exercise in skipping out on >> the blame for massive animal deaths for your lifestyle, >> killer. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> You have ZERO knowledge of the >> >> >> probability of the relative harms caused by different >> >> >> foods >> >> >> you consume. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > True. >> >> >> >> Then where do you get off defining my diet as morally >> >> deficient? >> >> >> > >> > I don't know what your diet is. I think I have a pretty good >> > foundation >> > for claiming that someone who regularly consumes >> > factory-farmed >> > animal >> > products is not making every reasonable effort not to >> > provide >> > financial >> > support for institutions or practices that cause or support >> > unnecessary >> > harm. >> ================================== >> And, the same is true for those that regularly consume >> factory-farmed veggies. >> Afterall, the entire process is based on a world-wide >> petro-chemical industry that >> kills animals and detroys environemnets. Your continued >> support >> for death and suffering and world-wide environemental >> destruction >> is noted. Did you study bananas yet, hypocrite? >> > > > What's your suggested alternative to consuming factory-farmed > vegetables? ======================== ROTFLMAO The point is that *YOU* should have alternatives. Afterall, you claim to have done research into what diet causes less death and suffering to animals. And, like all good brainwashed veagns, you've determined that a simple rule for your simple mind is all you need to know. I care not whether you eat meat or not, just don't ly to yourself and others, that by not eating you've made any substantial changes. Again, which of your veggies cause more/less death and suffering? Rice? Potatoes? Brocolli? Bananas? Apples? The porblem is you don't know, and haven't even given it a thought because of the above rule. > >> >> >> >> >> So I think that they shouldn't regularly consume >> factory-farmed >> > animal products. You seem to be terribly upset that I hold >> > this >> > opinion, I'm not sure why. I'm not in the habit of morally >> > lecturing >> > people, I seem to be the one who cops most of that. >> ======================== >> And I think you shoudn't regularly consume factory-farmed >> veggies, but you do. All the while decrying the >> 'badness' of meats. Quite the hypocrite, aren't you? >> > > Right. What do you think I should do? ============================ Stop lying and do some real research. Why depend on others to make your choices. that's what you have already done listening to propaganda spew... snip.. http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/p...eFactSheet.pdf http://www.hww.ca/hww2.asp?cid=4&id=230 http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_Wildl...on/pg7f2b6.htm http://ipm.ncsu.edu/wildlife/small_grains_wildlife.html http://www.hornedlizards.org/hornedlizards/help.html http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/bulletins/b-5093.html Since your non-animal clothing isn't cruelty-free either, here's a couple to cover some problems with cotton. http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/ To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a field, here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that there can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field. http://www.ext.colostate.edu/Pubs/natres/06507.html http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html http://www.utextension.utk.edu/publi...les/pb1600.pdf http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/v...a=458&q=150643 http://faculty.njcu.edu/fmoran/vol4fieldmouse.htm To cover your selfish pleasure of using usenet, and maintaining a web page on same, here's are a couple dealing with power and communications. http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html http://www.towerkill.com/index.html |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
> wrote in message oups.com... > > Dave wrote: >> wrote: >> > Dutch wrote: >> > > > wrote >> > > > >> > > > Dutch wrote: >> > > >> > wrote >> > > >> > >> > > >> > Dutch wrote: >> > > >> >> > wrote >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > Dutch wrote: >> > > >> >> >> > wrote >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Well, I would question whether we have the >> > > >> >> >> > right to kill the >> > > >> >> >> > cattle >> > > >> >> >> > for >> > > >> >> >> > food, unless it could somehow be shown that we >> > > >> >> >> > were actually >> > > >> >> >> > reducing >> > > >> >> >> > the number of animal deaths by doing this. >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> It is very reasonable to conclude that this is at >> > > >> >> >> least *sometimes* >> > > >> >> >> the >> > > >> >> >> case, but why does the number of animals who live >> > > >> >> >> or who die have >> > > >> >> >> any >> > > >> >> >> bearing on our right to use them as a food >> > > >> >> >> resource or kill them in >> > > >> >> >> producing one? This is a silly notion that vegans >> > > >> >> >> swallow hook, >> > > >> >> >> line, >> > > >> >> >> and >> > > >> >> >> sinker. >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > Because we have an obligation not to kill sentient >> > > >> >> > animals >> > > >> >> > unnecessarily. >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> 1. No we don't, there is no such obligation >> > > >> >> 2. All animals are sentient >> > > >> > >> > > >> > False. >> > > >> >> > > >> Name one that isn't. >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > > An ant. >> > > >> > > Ants are sentient. They certainly can sense smells, >> > > sights, sounds, objects, >> > > why would they not feel pain? >> > > >> > >> > They respond to stimuli in their environment, but I think >> > it's >> > debatable whether they actually experience any sensations. >> > There's a >> > good discussion of this issue in DeGrazia's "Taking Animals >> > Seriously". >> > >> > > >> >> 3. Everything you do has an impact and hence carries >> > > >> >> a collateral >> > > >> >> cost. >> > > >> >> Therefore by eating that second helping, that fruit >> > > >> >> cocktail, or >> > > >> >> taking >> > > >> >> that >> > > >> >> vacation, all unecessary, you kill sentient animals >> > > >> >> unecessarily. >> > > >> > >> > > >> > It would be more accurate to say "there is a certain >> > > >> > probability that >> > > >> > as a result of your action, more sentient animals >> > > >> > will be killed >> > > >> > unnecessarily." >> > > >> >> > > >> That wouldn't be more accurate at all, it is simply a >> > > >> transparent and >> > > >> cynical attempt to redefine your position. >> > > > >> > > > Yes it would, and no it isn't. >> > > >> > > What is "more accurate" about using terms like "certain >> > > probability" and >> > > "unecessarily"? They are both wildly vague and >> > > subjective. >> > > >> > >> > Well, it's a lot more accurate than saying I kill something. >> > I >> > certainly don't kill anything when I go on a vacation. I >> > gave financial >> > support to certain processes which harm animals. As a result >> > of my >> > increasing the amount of financial support that process >> > received, there >> > is a certain probability that mine will be a "threshold >> > purchase" which >> > will cause more of the process to go on, and thereby will >> > increase the >> > amount of harm done to animals. That's the only accurate way >> > to >> > describe what's going on here. >> > >> > > >> You have ZERO knowledge of the >> > > >> probability of the relative harms caused by different >> > > >> foods you consume. >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > > True. >> > > >> > > Then where do you get off defining my diet as morally >> > > deficient? >> > > >> > >> > I don't know what your diet is. I think I have a pretty good >> > foundation >> > for claiming that someone who regularly consumes >> > factory-farmed animal >> > products is not making every reasonable effort not to >> > provide financial >> > support for institutions or practices that cause or support >> > unnecessary >> > harm. So I think that they shouldn't regularly consume >> > factory-farmed >> > animal products. You seem to be terribly upset that I hold >> > this >> > opinion, I'm not sure why. I'm not in the habit of morally >> > lecturing >> > people, I seem to be the one who cops most of that. >> > >> > It may be that there are some changes that should be made to >> > my diet as >> > well. I am making an effort to inform myself about the >> > issue. >> > >> > > >> > I believe there is an obligation not to kill sentient >> > > >> > animals >> > > >> > unnecessarily >> > > >> >> > > >> No you don't, you just like to think that you believe >> > > >> that. You can't >> > > >> even >> > > >> define "sentient". >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > > Yes, I do. A sentient being is a being that is capable >> > > > of having >> > > > feelings. >> > > >> > > What do you mean by "feelings", you mean feel pain? >> > >> > That would be an example, yes. >> > >> > > There is no definitive >> > > answer to that question, but every animal species can be >> > > observed to react >> > > adversely or defensively to attack or injury. >> > > >> > >> > There is a discussion of these issues in DeGrazia's "Taking >> > Animals >> > Seriously". It is often hard to tell when an organism is >> > capable of >> > experiencing the sensation of pain. We should go on the best >> > available >> > scientific evidence and give the benefit of the doubt where >> > reasonably >> > possible. >> >> "Don't be too proud of never forgetting a face: It turns out >> even a >> humble honey bee can distinguish and recall different human >> faces, says an international team of researchers." >> http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/e...sh_1532832.htm >> >> "the 1960s, Nobel Prize winning zoologist, Karl von Frisch, >> proposed >> that honeybees use dance (the"waggle dance") as a coded >> message >> to guide other bees to new food sources." >> http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/media/pressre...honeybees.html >> >> Ants are social insects, similar to bees in terms of size and >> structure. >> Why do you label them "unsentient"? Is there not a benefit of >> the doubt >> in play here? > > Based on DeGrazia's discussion of the evidence, I felt it was > probably > reasonable to assume they were insentient. I haven't got the > book with > me at the moment. When I get back to Sydney I can have a look > and > discuss the evidence with you. Perhaps I should give them the > benefit > of the doubt. But I don't think I'm going to give myself a > guilt trip > about killing mosquitoes. ======================= LOL You aren't even going on that trip with real animals that die for your diet and entertainment. Why would we even think you'd care about bugs? snip... |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
> wrote in message oups.com... > > rick wrote: >> > wrote in message >> oups.com... >> > >> > rick wrote: >> >> > wrote in message >> >> oups.com... >> >> > >> >> > rick wrote: >> >> >> > wrote in message >> >> >> oups.com... >> >> >> > >> >> >> > rick wrote: >> >> >> >> > wrote in message >> >> >> >> oups.com... >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > rick wrote: >> >> >> >> >> > wrote in message >> >> >> >> >> oups.com... >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> snip... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > No. No he's not. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Yes, he is. "vegans" are not having any impact >> >> >> >> >> >> beyond >> >> >> >> >> >> their >> >> >> >> >> >> initial >> >> >> >> >> >> refusal to eat meat, and that wasn't much >> >> >> >> >> >> impact >> >> >> >> >> >> at >> >> >> >> >> >> all. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > Surely it's about the same amount of impact as >> >> >> >> >> > Rick >> >> >> >> >> > makes >> >> >> >> >> > by >> >> >> >> >> > buying >> >> >> >> >> > grass-fed beef. >> >> >> >> >> ========================== >> >> >> >> >> Really? tell us your proof. Step right up and >> >> >> >> >> demonstrate >> >> >> >> >> how >> >> >> >> >> just being vegan automatically causes >> >> >> >> >> no/less/fewer >> >> >> >> >> animals >> >> >> >> >> to >> >> >> >> >> die and less environmental impact that eating >> >> >> >> >> grass-fed >> >> >> >> >> meats. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > I wasn't really thinking about comparing the amount >> >> >> >> > of >> >> >> >> > harm >> >> >> >> > caused by >> >> >> >> > the production of grass-fed beef with the >> >> >> >> > production >> >> >> >> > of >> >> >> >> > vegan >> >> >> >> > food. My >> >> >> >> > main thought was that both consumer choices involve >> >> >> >> > boycotting >> >> >> >> > factory-farmed beef, and the impact of this should >> >> >> >> > be >> >> >> >> > about >> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> > same in >> >> >> >> > each case. >> >> >> >> ========================= >> >> >> >> No, it would not be. The vegan has no impact on the >> >> >> >> industry >> >> >> >> at >> >> >> >> all. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Yes, he or she does, he or she diminishes the demand >> >> >> > for >> >> >> > the >> >> >> > product. >> >> >> ========================== >> >> >> No, they do not. They are non-participants in the >> >> >> product. >> >> >> Not >> >> >> buying a product you don't buy, and never will has no >> >> >> effect >> >> >> on >> >> >> the market. >> >> > >> >> > Yes, it does. It reduces the demand. >> >> ===================== >> >> No, it does not. You can't reduce a demand when you >> >> already >> >> do >> >> not buy the product. >> >> >> > >> > The demand is less if you don't buy the product than it >> > would >> > be if you >> > did. >> ========================= >> No fool. There is no reduction in a demand that isn't there >> already. >> > > I'm afraid my statement was correct. ========================= No, it is not... > >> >> > >> > By your logic, I could say you can't effect any change on >> > the >> > beef >> > industry when you already buy grass-fed beef. >> ======================= >> No, because I already have an impact by continuing the demand >> that I have. Now, if I stopped, I would be making an changed >> in >> the demand for beef. But, the demand was already there for me >> to >> make that reduction. You cannot reduce a demand that wasn't >> there. >> > > But there's more to it than your continuing demand for > grass-fed beef. > There's also your continuing absence of demand for intensively > reared > beef. And vegans have that too. =========================== No, they do not. A growing demand for grass-fed beef doesn't result in less demand for beef. It provides an alternative production method for producers. It's still beef and the demand is still for beef. > >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> I consume no llama wool from the andes, never have >> >> >> and never will. The production of llama wool in the >> >> >> andes >> >> >> is >> >> >> not >> >> >> in the least affected by my non-participation. And, I >> >> >> especially >> >> >> have no impact on how the process is completed. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > The buyers of grass-fed beef also diminish the demand >> >> >> > for >> >> >> > the >> >> >> > product. >> >> >> ===================== >> >> >> No, they do not. The demand for beef is a demand for >> >> >> beef. >> >> >> The >> >> >> difference is the process, not the product. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > They diminish the demand for factory-farmed beef (as >> >> > vegans >> >> > do) >> >> ======================== >> >> Again, vegans do not reduce a demand for beef. You can't >> >> reduce >> >> a demand that you don't have to begin with. >> >> >> > >> > The demand is less than it would be if they bought the >> > factory-farmed >> > beef. >> ====================== >> But they are not, and have not. They have no impact on that >> demand level because they are non-buyers. >> Let's try something different than llama wool. I do not use >> tampons. I have zero impact >> on the demand for the product. I have no foreseen demand for >> the >> product in the future. If I declare, "tomorrow I will never >> buy >> a tampon," what was the effect on demand? Nothing. >> > > To measure an effect you've got to have a status quo from which > you're > measuring the change. Here it's natural to take the status quo > as the > one in which you don't buy tampons. But a lot of vegans used to > buy > animal products, and some of them go back to doing it. For the > ones who > don't, the market is different as a result of their decision to > stick > with veganism. The demand is less than it would otherwise be. ========================= No, the comparison is valid. There is no reduction in demand when there is no demand. > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> and >> >> > increase the demand for grass-fed beef (which vegans >> >> > don't >> >> > do). >> >> > How you >> >> > individuate products is neither here nor there. >> >> ============================= >> >> I'm not making them different, you are. Beef is beef. All >> >> one >> >> product. The only people that have an impact on the demand >> >> for >> >> beef are those that buy it. There is no reduced demand for >> >> a >> >> demand that is not already there. >> >> >> >> >> snip.. >> >> >> >> >> http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm >> http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html >> http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm >> http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html >> http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html >> http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm >> >> http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/p...eFactSheet.pdf >> http://www.hww.ca/hww2.asp?cid=4&id=230 >> http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_Wildl...on/pg7f2b6.htm >> http://ipm.ncsu.edu/wildlife/small_grains_wildlife.html >> http://www.hornedlizards.org/hornedlizards/help.html >> http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/bulletins/b-5093.html Since >> your non-animal clothing isn't cruelty-free either, here's a >> couple to cover some problems with cotton. >> http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html >> http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/ To give you an idea of >> the sheer number of animals in a field, here's some sites >> about *just* mice and voles. Note that there can be 100s to >> 1000s in each acre, not the whole field. >> http://www.ext.colostate.edu/Pubs/natres/06507.html >> http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf >> http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html >> http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html >> http://www.utextension.utk.edu/publi...les/pb1600.pdf >> http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/v...a=458&q=150643 >> http://faculty.njcu.edu/fmoran/vol4fieldmouse.htmTo cover your >> selfish pleasure of using usenet, and maintaining a web page >> on same, here's are a couple dealing with power and >> communications. >> http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html >> http://www.towerkill.com/index.html > > Yes, I've had a look at those sites. Thank you. > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
> wrote in message oups.com... > > Dutch wrote: snip... >> >> "Vegan" means something, you don't get to adopt a personal >> meaning for the >> term. >> > > True. I always thought I had a pretty good idea of what it > means, and > frankly I'm not convinced you know any better. But as I say I'm > not too > fussed what you call me, as long as you address my ideas. Here's the real definition from the guy who made up the word. "...Veganism is a way of living which excludes all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom, and includes a reverence for life. It applies to the practice of living on the products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, honey, animal milk and its derivatives, and encourages the use of alternatives for all commodities derived wholly or in part from animals..." Donald Watson, 1944 Diet is no more, or less important tahn any other part of your lifestyle, to a real vegan that is... There are none here on usenet... snip |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
rick wrote: > > wrote in message > oups.com... > > > > Dutch wrote: > >> > wrote > >> > > >> > Dutch wrote: > >> >> > wrote > >> >> > > >> >> > Dutch wrote: > >> >> >> > wrote > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Well, I would question whether we have the right to > >> >> >> > kill the cattle > >> >> >> > for > >> >> >> > food, unless it could somehow be shown that we were > >> >> >> > actually > >> >> >> > reducing > >> >> >> > the number of animal deaths by doing this. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> It is very reasonable to conclude that this is at least > >> >> >> *sometimes* > >> >> >> the > >> >> >> case, but why does the number of animals who live or > >> >> >> who die have any > >> >> >> bearing on our right to use them as a food resource or > >> >> >> kill them in > >> >> >> producing one? This is a silly notion that vegans > >> >> >> swallow hook, line, > >> >> >> and > >> >> >> sinker. > >> >> > > >> >> > Because we have an obligation not to kill sentient > >> >> > animals > >> >> > unnecessarily. > >> >> > >> >> 1. No we don't, there is no such obligation > >> >> 2. All animals are sentient > >> > > >> > False. > >> > >> Name one that isn't. > >> > > > > An ant. > ======================== > Ah, bugs. vegans usually get around to mentioning them. OK, > so... Bugs don't count when it comes to crop production, huh? > Good thing for you cause your impact would take a hit big time, > right hypocrite? So, if bugs don't count in crop production, > then why do vegans obcess about bugs that are used as coloring in > products? I don't know. I don't. > Afterall, they're just bugs, and bugs don't 'count' > against your death toll, right? > > > > > >> >> 3. Everything you do has an impact and hence carries a > >> >> collateral cost. > >> >> Therefore by eating that second helping, that fruit > >> >> cocktail, or taking > >> >> that > >> >> vacation, all unecessary, you kill sentient animals > >> >> unecessarily. > >> > > >> > It would be more accurate to say "there is a certain > >> > probability that > >> > as a result of your action, more sentient animals will be > >> > killed > >> > unnecessarily." > >> > >> That wouldn't be more accurate at all, it is simply a > >> transparent and > >> cynical attempt to redefine your position. > > > > Yes it would, and no it isn't. > > > >> You have ZERO knowledge of the > >> probability of the relative harms caused by different foods > >> you consume. > >> > > > > True. > ====================== > And haven't even attempted to find out, because you have your > simple rule for your simple mind, 'eat no meat.' > Yes, I have. > > > > >> > I believe there is an obligation not to kill sentient > >> > animals > >> > unnecessarily > >> > >> No you don't, you just like to think that you believe that. > >> You can't even > >> define "sentient". > >> > > > > Yes, I do. A sentient being is a being that is capable of > > having > > feelings. > > > >> > and also an obligation to make every *reasonable* effort > >> > not to provide financial support to institutions or > >> > practices that > >> > cause or support unnecessary harm. > >> > >> You're blowing smoke. You can't define the terms reasonable or > >> unnecessary > >> in this context. > > > > I can't give absolutely precise definitions of them, no. > > However, I > > believe removing these qualifications would make the moral > > principle > > false. So I keep them there. Any time someone proposes a moral > > principle with better-defined terms that I think has a > > reasonable > > chance of being true, that's great. I'm not blowing smoke, I'm > > just > > stating the moral principles I believe in. > > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
rick wrote: > > wrote in message > oups.com... > > > > rick wrote: > >> > wrote in message > >> oups.com... > >> > > >> > rick wrote: > >> >> > wrote in message > >> >> ups.com... > >> >> > > >> >> > rick wrote: > >> >> >> > wrote in message > >> >> >> oups.com... > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Dutch wrote: > >> >> >> >> > wrote > >> >> >> >> > So, as I say, at the moment I'm comfortable with > >> >> >> >> > being > >> >> >> >> > vegan > >> >> >> >> > and > >> >> >> >> > advocating veganism, but I'm open to exploring > >> >> >> >> > alternatives. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> A vegan exploring alternatives is an oxymoron. If you > >> >> >> >> are > >> >> >> >> prepared to > >> >> >> >> explore alternatives to the simplistic idea of > >> >> >> >> veganism > >> >> >> >> then > >> >> >> >> you aren't a > >> >> >> >> vegan. If I tell a vegan that I can improve their > >> >> >> >> diet > >> >> >> >> wrt > >> >> >> >> animal death and > >> >> >> >> suffering by substituting some fish or game, he will > >> >> >> >> always > >> >> >> >> find a way to > >> >> >> >> deny, equivocate or refuse to listen to that idea. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > I'll be a vegan as long as I avoid meat, fish, dairy, > >> >> >> > and > >> >> >> > eggs. > >> >> >> > If I > >> >> >> > ever stop doing that, then I won't be a vegan anymore. > >> >> >> > If > >> >> >> > you > >> >> >> > tell me > >> >> >> > that you can improve my diet with respect to animal > >> >> >> > suffering > >> >> >> > by > >> >> >> > substituting some fish or game, I'll ask you for the > >> >> >> > detailed > >> >> >> > evidence. > >> >> >> ========================== > >> >> >> Then you should be able to provide evidence that your > >> >> >> vegan > >> >> >> diet > >> >> >> automatically means you kill fewer animals. > >> >> > > >> >> > Why? I never made that claim. > >> >> ============== > >> >> Then you should reread what you said above. Either that, > >> >> or > >> >> you > >> >> are saying that your veggies kill NO animals since you > >> >> claimed > >> >> we > >> >> have no right to kill animals for our food. > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > I have actually produced some evidence. It's not > >> >> > conclusive. > >> >> > But I'll > >> >> > wait until I hear at least some counter-evidence before I > >> >> > make > >> >> > any > >> >> > changes to my diet. > >> >> =================== > >> >> I've seen no evidence from you at all to support the vegan > >> >> claims > >> >> of being 'better.' > >> > > >> > The Gaverick Matheny article. > >> > ====================== > >> He cites no evidence... > >> > > > > False. > > > >> > >> > >> >> But the point I'm making is that you don't > >> >> have to change by eating meat. You refuse to even compare > >> >> the > >> >> foods you do eat, and make changes there as to which ones > >> >> cause > >> >> more/less animal death and suffering. That alone puts the > >> >> ly > >> >> to > >> >> your relegion of veganism. > >> >> > >> > > >> > As I told you, I have made some attempt to compare the > >> > amounts > >> > of harm > >> > caused by production of the different crops. When I find > >> > some > >> > decent > >> > data on this, I'll change my eating habits accordingly. > >> =========================== > >> No, you haven't, obviously. You haven't looked at bananas, > >> even > >> though you eat them. You're a liar, plain and simple, with > >> nothing but a simple rule for your simple mind. > >> > > > > Unfounded accusation. > =========================== > No, truth. If you had looked into bananas, and if > animals/environemnt were a concern to you you wouldn't eat them. > So, did you ly about caring, or ly about your research. Either > way, you lied. > No, I didn't. I said I had made some attempt to find out about the extent of harm caused by the different crops. That was true. > > > >> > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >> Or, in the very least, you should be able to tell us > >> >> >> which > >> >> >> foods > >> >> >> that you do eat cause more/less death and suffering. Is > >> >> >> rice > >> >> >> better than potatoes? Brocolli better than corn? > >> >> >> Bananas > >> >> >> better > >> >> >> than apples? The fact is, you don't know, and don't > >> >> >> care > >> >> >> since > >> >> >> you have your simple rule for your simple mind, 'eat no > >> >> >> meat.' > >> >> > > >> >> > No, I don't know. I do care and have made some effort to > >> >> > find > >> >> > out, but > >> >> > not much research has been done on these issues. > >> >> ====================== > >> >> Then why are you so adament that being vegan is better than > >> >> anything else? faith? Yep, veganism is a relegion. > >> >> > >> > > >> > I'm not. > >> =================== > >> Yes, you have been... > >> > > > > Nonsense. > ===================== > Yes, you have nothing but nonsense. > > > > > >> > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >> Being vegan is also more than a diet. > >> >> >> Why is the unnecessary death and suffering of animals > >> >> >> for > >> >> >> your > >> >> >> entertainment just fine, but we can't eat them? > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > Unnecessary suffering is not just fine. I'm not > >> >> > altogether > >> >> > convinced > >> >> > that electricity production is unnecessary. > >> >> ========================== > >> >> What part of your being here on this newsgroup is > >> >> necessary? > >> >> You > >> >> contribute to an ever growing demand for more power and > >> >> communications for no more reason than *your* > >> >> entertainment. > >> >> > >> > > >> > Would you care to estimate the expected contribution to the > >> > amount of > >> > harm caused to animals by my usage of Usenet? I really think > >> > it > >> > would > >> > be pretty miniscule. I agree it's unnecessary, but I'm not > >> > convinced > >> > that making every reasonable effort not to provide financial > >> > support to > >> > institutions or practices that cause or support unnecessary > >> > harm > >> > requires me to stop using Usenet. > >> ======================== > >> So, now you've switched from it's not ok to kill animals > >> unnecessarily, like for entertainment, to some animals killed > >> for > >> your entertainment is ok? > > > > Well, not exactly. I'm anticipating that the expected > > contribution to > > the death toll would be considerably less than 1. > ====================== > Really? Based on what research, hypocrite? > None. The day you make a plausible case that it's 1 or higher I'll listen and take that into account. > > > > >> What a hoot! Guess you're really only > >> a vegan when it doesn't mean too much sacrifice on your > >> lifestyle > >> and entertainment, eh hypocrite? You are making no such > >> efforts > >> to avoid rewarding people that kill animals for your lifestyle > >> and entertainment, killer. > >> > > > > Like I keep saying, the principle is "Make every *reasonable* > > effort to > > avoid providing financial support for institutions or practices > > that > > cause or support unnecessary harm." If it goes beyond a > > reasonable > > effort then, yes, then you don't have to bother. > ========================== > LOL Thanks for now proving that animals have no rights. Like > all good vegan loons, the caring stops at the death of animals > that you don't eat. Nevermind that your diet can cause massive > amounts of more unnecessary death and suffering. > My position is not inconsistent with animals having rights. > > > > >> > >> > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > But no, any unnecessary suffering and death of animals > >> >> > that > >> >> > is > >> >> > really > >> >> > being caused purely for my entertainment is not just > >> >> > fine. > >> >> ========================== > >> >> Then again, you're lying about really caring about killing > >> >> animals, aren't you? > >> >> > >> > > >> > No. > >> ========================= > >> Yes, you are. maybe you can convenice yourself, but the lys > >> are > >> right here, obvious to any reader without vegan willful > >> ignorance > >> filters. > >> > >> > >> > >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > >> > > > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
rick wrote: > > wrote in message > oups.com... > > > > rick wrote: > >> > wrote in message > >> ups.com... > >> > > >> > rick wrote: > >> >> > wrote in message > >> >> oups.com... > >> >> > > >> >> > rick wrote: > >> >> >> > wrote in message > >> >> >> oups.com... > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Dutch wrote: > >> >> >> >> > wrote > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Well, I would question whether we have the right to > >> >> >> >> > kill > >> >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> >> > cattle for > >> >> >> >> > food, unless it could somehow be shown that we were > >> >> >> >> > actually > >> >> >> >> > reducing > >> >> >> >> > the number of animal deaths by doing this. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> It is very reasonable to conclude that this is at > >> >> >> >> least > >> >> >> >> *sometimes* the > >> >> >> >> case, but why does the number of animals who live or > >> >> >> >> who > >> >> >> >> die > >> >> >> >> have any > >> >> >> >> bearing on our right to use them as a food resource > >> >> >> >> or > >> >> >> >> kill > >> >> >> >> them in > >> >> >> >> producing one? This is a silly notion that vegans > >> >> >> >> swallow > >> >> >> >> hook, line, and > >> >> >> >> sinker. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Because we have an obligation not to kill sentient > >> >> >> > animals > >> >> >> > unnecessarily. > >> >> >> ===================== > >> >> >> Then you're lying to yourself. Why are you here on > >> >> >> usenet? > >> >> >> This > >> >> >> isn't necessary, and just for entertainment. It causes > >> >> >> massive > >> >> >> amounts of death and suffering to animals. > >> >> > > >> >> > The institution of Usenet causes massive amounts of death > >> >> > and > >> >> > suffering > >> >> > to animals. > >> >> ===================== > >> >> Instutution? Are you projecting about your next home? > >> >> Again, > >> >> read some sites... > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > I think I'd like to see a more detailed defence of that > >> >> > claim. > >> >> > > >> >> >> All unnecessary! > >> >> >> But then, it appears that to you, like most vegans, cows > >> >> >> are > >> >> >> somehow more sentient than other mammals, birds, > >> >> >> reptiles, > >> >> >> fish > >> >> >> and amphibians. > >> >> > > >> >> > No. > >> >> ================= > >> >> Then why is it bad to kill one cow, but ok to kill many > >> >> smaller > >> >> animals for the same calories? > >> >> > >> > > >> > It's better to kill one cow than many smaller animals. But > >> > there are > >> > collateral deaths involved in pasture-ruminant food > >> > production. > >> > You > >> > haven't convinced me that production of grass-fed beef > >> > causes > >> > less harm > >> > per serving of food than crop production. > >> =========================== > >> You haven't provided proof that there are other deaths > >> involved > >> in grass-fed beef. > > > > Well, Davis thinks there are. Why don't you have a look at his > > article? > ========================== > You haven't posted that article, you've posted a dropouts > propaganda... > Now, tell me what other animals die for the beef I eat. > I don't think the article's available on the Internet for free anymore. I'm sure you could find it if you tried hard enough, though. If you insist, I'll find it for you and provide the relevant quotes. But it may take some time. > > > > >> The beef I eat lives right down the road. There is no > >> planting, > >> plowing, spraying, harvesting. > >> It goes to slaughter just a few miles away, and then right to > >> us. > >> Tell us the route of destruction your bananas take, killer. > >> > >> > >> > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >> How is that possible? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > >> > > > > http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm > http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html > http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm > http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html > http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html > http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm > http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/p...eFactSheet.pdf > http://www.hww.ca/hww2.asp?cid=4&id=230 > http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_Wildl...on/pg7f2b6.htm > http://ipm.ncsu.edu/wildlife/small_grains_wildlife.html > http://www.hornedlizards.org/hornedlizards/help.html > http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/bulletins/b-5093.html > > Since your non-animal clothing isn't cruelty-free either, > here's a couple to cover some problems with cotton. > http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html > http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/ > > > To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a field, > here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that there > can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field. > http://www.ext.colostate.edu/Pubs/natres/06507.html > http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf > http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html > http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html > http://www.utextension.utk.edu/publi...les/pb1600.pdf > http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/v...a=458&q=150643 > http://faculty.njcu.edu/fmoran/vol4fieldmouse.htm > > > To cover your selfish pleasure of using usenet, and > maintaining a web page on same, here's are a couple > dealing with power and communications. > http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html > http://www.towerkill.com/index.html |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
rick wrote: > > wrote in message > ups.com... > > > > rick wrote: > >> > wrote in message > >> oups.com... > >> > > >> > Dutch wrote: > >> >> > wrote > >> >> > > >> >> > Dutch wrote: > >> >> >> > wrote > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Dutch wrote: > >> >> >> >> > wrote > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > Dutch wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> > wrote > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > Well, I would question whether we have the right > >> >> >> >> >> > to > >> >> >> >> >> > kill the > >> >> >> >> >> > cattle > >> >> >> >> >> > for > >> >> >> >> >> > food, unless it could somehow be shown that we > >> >> >> >> >> > were > >> >> >> >> >> > actually > >> >> >> >> >> > reducing > >> >> >> >> >> > the number of animal deaths by doing this. > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> It is very reasonable to conclude that this is at > >> >> >> >> >> least *sometimes* > >> >> >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> >> case, but why does the number of animals who live > >> >> >> >> >> or > >> >> >> >> >> who die have > >> >> >> >> >> any > >> >> >> >> >> bearing on our right to use them as a food > >> >> >> >> >> resource > >> >> >> >> >> or kill them in > >> >> >> >> >> producing one? This is a silly notion that vegans > >> >> >> >> >> swallow hook, > >> >> >> >> >> line, > >> >> >> >> >> and > >> >> >> >> >> sinker. > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > Because we have an obligation not to kill sentient > >> >> >> >> > animals > >> >> >> >> > unnecessarily. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> 1. No we don't, there is no such obligation > >> >> >> >> 2. All animals are sentient > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > False. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Name one that isn't. > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > An ant. > >> >> > >> >> Ants are sentient. They certainly can sense smells, sights, > >> >> sounds, objects, > >> >> why would they not feel pain? > >> >> > >> > > >> > They respond to stimuli in their environment, but I think > >> > it's > >> > debatable whether they actually experience any sensations. > >> > There's a > >> > good discussion of this issue in DeGrazia's "Taking Animals > >> > Seriously". > >> > > >> >> >> >> 3. Everything you do has an impact and hence carries > >> >> >> >> a > >> >> >> >> collateral > >> >> >> >> cost. > >> >> >> >> Therefore by eating that second helping, that fruit > >> >> >> >> cocktail, or > >> >> >> >> taking > >> >> >> >> that > >> >> >> >> vacation, all unecessary, you kill sentient animals > >> >> >> >> unecessarily. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > It would be more accurate to say "there is a certain > >> >> >> > probability that > >> >> >> > as a result of your action, more sentient animals will > >> >> >> > be > >> >> >> > killed > >> >> >> > unnecessarily." > >> >> >> > >> >> >> That wouldn't be more accurate at all, it is simply a > >> >> >> transparent and > >> >> >> cynical attempt to redefine your position. > >> >> > > >> >> > Yes it would, and no it isn't. > >> >> > >> >> What is "more accurate" about using terms like "certain > >> >> probability" and > >> >> "unecessarily"? They are both wildly vague and subjective. > >> >> > >> > > >> > Well, it's a lot more accurate than saying I kill something. > >> > I > >> > certainly don't kill anything when I go on a vacation. > >> =============================== > >> If not killing things directly is the criteria, then I must be > >> vegan too! Yippeee!! > >> Afterall, I didn't kill any animal for the steak i had last > >> night!!! > >> > > > > It's not the criterion. > > ============================= > LOL It's what you just said. If you don't kill it yourself it > doesn't count. > Nonsense. I didn't say that. > > >> > >> I gave financial > >> > support to certain processes which harm animals. As a result > >> > of > >> > my > >> > increasing the amount of financial support that process > >> > received, there > >> > is a certain probability that mine will be a "threshold > >> > purchase" which > >> > will cause more of the process to go on, and thereby will > >> > increase the > >> > amount of harm done to animals. That's the only accurate way > >> > to > >> > describe what's going on here. > >> ============================= > >> No, what's going on is a continued exercise in skipping out on > >> the blame for massive animal deaths for your lifestyle, > >> killer. > >> > >> > >> > >> > > >> >> >> You have ZERO knowledge of the > >> >> >> probability of the relative harms caused by different > >> >> >> foods > >> >> >> you consume. > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > True. > >> >> > >> >> Then where do you get off defining my diet as morally > >> >> deficient? > >> >> > >> > > >> > I don't know what your diet is. I think I have a pretty good > >> > foundation > >> > for claiming that someone who regularly consumes > >> > factory-farmed > >> > animal > >> > products is not making every reasonable effort not to > >> > provide > >> > financial > >> > support for institutions or practices that cause or support > >> > unnecessary > >> > harm. > >> ================================== > >> And, the same is true for those that regularly consume > >> factory-farmed veggies. > >> Afterall, the entire process is based on a world-wide > >> petro-chemical industry that > >> kills animals and detroys environemnets. Your continued > >> support > >> for death and suffering and world-wide environemental > >> destruction > >> is noted. Did you study bananas yet, hypocrite? > >> > > > > > > What's your suggested alternative to consuming factory-farmed > > vegetables? > ======================== > ROTFLMAO The point is that *YOU* should have alternatives. Why? I'm not aware of any feasible alternatives. It's up to you to provide them. > Afterall, you claim to have done research into what diet causes > less death and suffering to animals. Yes. > And, like all good > brainwashed veagns, you've determined that a simple rule for your > simple mind is all you need to know. I care not whether you eat > meat or not, just don't ly to yourself and others, that by not > eating you've made any substantial changes. Again, which of your > veggies cause more/less death and suffering? Rice? Potatoes? > Brocolli? Bananas? Apples? The porblem is you don't know, and > haven't even given it a thought because of the above rule. > I've made some attempt to find out. I think it's pretty clear that by avoiding factory-farmed meat you do make a substantial difference to your impact on animals. > > > > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> So I think that they shouldn't regularly consume > >> factory-farmed > >> > animal products. You seem to be terribly upset that I hold > >> > this > >> > opinion, I'm not sure why. I'm not in the habit of morally > >> > lecturing > >> > people, I seem to be the one who cops most of that. > >> ======================== > >> And I think you shoudn't regularly consume factory-farmed > >> veggies, but you do. All the while decrying the > >> 'badness' of meats. Quite the hypocrite, aren't you? > >> > > > > Right. What do you think I should do? > ============================ > Stop lying and do some real research. Why depend on others to > make your choices. that's what you have already done listening > to propaganda spew... > I'm not lying. It's not very bright to accuse other people of lying when you obviously have no basis for it. I'm in the process of doing research. If you have no constructive suggestions to offer for how I can do any better, then you don't have any basis for berating me for not doing better. > > > snip.. > > http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm > http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html > http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm > http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html > http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html > http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm > http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/p...eFactSheet.pdf > http://www.hww.ca/hww2.asp?cid=4&id=230 > http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_Wildl...on/pg7f2b6.htm > http://ipm.ncsu.edu/wildlife/small_grains_wildlife.html > http://www.hornedlizards.org/hornedlizards/help.html > http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/bulletins/b-5093.html > > Since your non-animal clothing isn't cruelty-free either, > here's a couple to cover some problems with cotton. > http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html > http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/ > > > To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a field, > here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that there > can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field. > http://www.ext.colostate.edu/Pubs/natres/06507.html > http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf > http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html > http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html > http://www.utextension.utk.edu/publi...les/pb1600.pdf > http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/v...a=458&q=150643 > http://faculty.njcu.edu/fmoran/vol4fieldmouse.htm > > > To cover your selfish pleasure of using usenet, and > maintaining a web page on same, here's are a couple > dealing with power and communications. > http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html > http://www.towerkill.com/index.html |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
rick wrote: > > wrote in message > ups.com... > > > > rick wrote: > >> > wrote in message > >> oups.com... > >> > > >> > rick wrote: > >> >> > wrote in message > >> >> oups.com... > >> >> > > >> >> > rick wrote: > >> >> >> > wrote in message > >> >> >> oups.com... > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > rick wrote: > >> >> >> >> > wrote in message > >> >> >> >> ups.com... > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > Dave wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> snip... > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> Modern methods of crop cultivation require > >> >> >> >> >> significant > >> >> >> >> >> chemical imputs in the form of synthetic > >> >> >> >> >> fertilizers > >> >> >> >> >> and *cides, which can harm the environment as a > >> >> >> >> >> result of their production, transportation and > >> >> >> >> >> usage. > >> >> >> >> >> In order to maintain soil fertility and keep pests > >> >> >> >> >> under > >> >> >> >> >> control in traditional organic systems crop > >> >> >> >> >> rotations > >> >> >> >> >> are normally used. I don't know if there are crop > >> >> >> >> >> rotations available that produce human consumable > >> >> >> >> >> crops on all of the land all the time but in > >> >> >> >> >> practise > >> >> >> >> >> grass-clover leys seem to feature rather > >> >> >> >> >> prominently. > >> >> >> >> >> It surely makes sense to have cattle grazing on > >> >> >> >> >> such > >> >> >> >> >> a ley, and producing milk at the same time and > >> >> >> >> >> veal > >> >> >> >> >> and beef are then natural byproducts of this. > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > Well, I would question whether we have the right to > >> >> >> >> > kill > >> >> >> >> > the > >> >> >> >> > cattle for > >> >> >> >> > food, unless it could somehow be shown that we were > >> >> >> >> > actually > >> >> >> >> > reducing > >> >> >> >> > the number of animal deaths by doing this. > >> >> >> >> ========================= > >> >> >> >> Quite easy to do when compared to your tofu meat > >> >> >> >> substitutes. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Do it, then. > >> >> >> ======================= > >> >> >> I see you ignored the sites I posted. Not surprising. > >> >> > > >> >> > I haven't got round to looking at them yet. Do they > >> >> > provide > >> >> > estimates > >> >> > for the amount of harm per serving of food for > >> >> > mono-culture > >> >> > crop > >> >> > production, the amount of harm per serving of food for > >> >> > grass-fed beef, > >> >> > and compare them? > >> >> =========================== > >> >> ROTFLMAO One grass-fed cow, 100s of 1000s of calories > >> >> meaning > >> >> 100s of meals. All for the death of one cow. > >> > > >> > And the collateral deaths involved in clearing the land for > >> > pasture. > >> ========================== > >> ROTFLMAO Land isn't cleared for pasture fool. It is pasture. > >> > >> The massive habitat destruction comes from crop production, > >> hypocrite. > >> > > > > All right. Well, Davis estimated 7.5 deaths/ha for > > pasture-ruminant > > production. Was he wrong, was he? > >======================== > I believe so. You believe so. Well, I'll take that into account. Still, Davis has a Ph.D. in animal science so there is a chance he might not be a million miles off. I guess I'll have to do further research on the matter. Got any pointers for where I might look? > Now, make an estimate on the deaths your crops > cause... > > > > http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm > http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html > http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm > http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html > http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html > http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm > http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/p...eFactSheet.pdf > http://www.hww.ca/hww2.asp?cid=4&id=230 > http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_Wildl...on/pg7f2b6.htm > http://ipm.ncsu.edu/wildlife/small_grains_wildlife.html > http://www.hornedlizards.org/hornedlizards/help.html > http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/bulletins/b-5093.html > > Since your non-animal clothing isn't cruelty-free either, > here's a couple to cover some problems with cotton. > http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html > http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/ > > > To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a field, > here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that there > can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field. > http://www.ext.colostate.edu/Pubs/natres/06507.html > http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf > http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html > http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html > http://www.utextension.utk.edu/publi...les/pb1600.pdf > http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/v...a=458&q=150643 > http://faculty.njcu.edu/fmoran/vol4fieldmouse.htm > > > To cover your selfish pleasure of using usenet, and > maintaining a web page on same, here's are a couple > dealing with power and communications. > http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html > http://www.towerkill.com/index.html |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
> wrote > > Dutch wrote: >> >> >> >> > Well, I would question whether we have the right to kill the >> >> >> >> > cattle >> >> >> >> > for >> >> >> >> > food, unless it could somehow be shown that we were actually >> >> >> >> > reducing >> >> >> >> > the number of animal deaths by doing this. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> It is very reasonable to conclude that this is at least >> >> >> >> *sometimes* >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> case, but why does the number of animals who live or who die >> >> >> >> have >> >> >> >> any >> >> >> >> bearing on our right to use them as a food resource or kill them >> >> >> >> in >> >> >> >> producing one? This is a silly notion that vegans swallow hook, >> >> >> >> line, >> >> >> >> and >> >> >> >> sinker. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Because we have an obligation not to kill sentient animals >> >> >> > unnecessarily. >> >> >> >> >> >> 1. No we don't, there is no such obligation >> >> >> 2. All animals are sentient >> >> > >> >> > False. >> >> >> >> Name one that isn't. >> >> >> > >> > An ant. >> >> Ants are sentient. They certainly can sense smells, sights, sounds, >> objects, >> why would they not feel pain? >> > > They respond to stimuli in their environment, but I think it's > debatable whether they actually experience any sensations. There's a > good discussion of this issue in DeGrazia's "Taking Animals Seriously". I would find it very odd if such a book would take the view that ants are not sentient, unless it is an unscientific pro-AR tome, in which case I would expect it. >> >> >> 3. Everything you do has an impact and hence carries a collateral >> >> >> cost. >> >> >> Therefore by eating that second helping, that fruit cocktail, or >> >> >> taking >> >> >> that >> >> >> vacation, all unecessary, you kill sentient animals unecessarily. >> >> > >> >> > It would be more accurate to say "there is a certain probability >> >> > that >> >> > as a result of your action, more sentient animals will be killed >> >> > unnecessarily." >> >> >> >> That wouldn't be more accurate at all, it is simply a transparent and >> >> cynical attempt to redefine your position. >> > >> > Yes it would, and no it isn't. >> >> What is "more accurate" about using terms like "certain probability" and >> "unecessarily"? They are both wildly vague and subjective. >> > > Well, it's a lot more accurate than saying I kill something. No it's not. > I > certainly don't kill anything when I go on a vacation. I gave financial > support to certain processes which harm animals. As a result of my > increasing the amount of financial support that process received, there > is a certain probability that mine will be a "threshold purchase" which > will cause more of the process to go on, and thereby will increase the > amount of harm done to animals. That's the only accurate way to > describe what's going on here. Every purchase causes the processes to go on. > >> >> You have ZERO knowledge of the >> >> probability of the relative harms caused by different foods you >> >> consume. >> >> >> > >> > True. >> >> Then where do you get off defining my diet as morally deficient? >> > > I don't know what your diet is. I think I have a pretty good foundation > for claiming that someone who regularly consumes factory-farmed animal > products is not making every reasonable effort not to provide financial > support for institutions or practices that cause or support unnecessary > harm. No you don't, because you have neither attempted to measure any of the harm you are talking about, or define any of the terms in your treatise, like "reasonable" and "unecessary". > So I think that they shouldn't regularly consume factory-farmed > animal products. What gives the right to tell me what I should consume, or what I should regard as necessary or reasonable? Where is the evidence that you have this moral authority? > You seem to be terribly upset that I hold this > opinion, I'm not sure why. I find it self-righteous, self-serving, and presumptuous. > I'm not in the habit of morally lecturing > people, I seem to be the one who cops most of that. If only you could listen to yourself you might see that in a different light. > It may be that there are some changes that should be made to my diet as > well. I am making an effort to inform myself about the issue. That's your business. >> >> > I believe there is an obligation not to kill sentient animals >> >> > unnecessarily >> >> >> >> No you don't, you just like to think that you believe that. You can't >> >> even >> >> define "sentient". >> >> >> > >> > Yes, I do. A sentient being is a being that is capable of having >> > feelings. >> >> What do you mean by "feelings", you mean feel pain? > > That would be an example, yes. It's pretty convenient that you have decided they can't. >> There is no definitive >> answer to that question, but every animal species can be observed to >> react >> adversely or defensively to attack or injury. >> > > There is a discussion of these issues in DeGrazia's "Taking Animals > Seriously". It is often hard to tell when an organism is capable of > experiencing the sensation of pain. We should go on the best available > scientific evidence and give the benefit of the doubt where reasonably > possible. Why wouldn't the benefit of the doubt *always* be given? >> >> > and also an obligation to make every *reasonable* effort >> >> > not to provide financial support to institutions or practices that >> >> > cause or support unnecessary harm. >> >> >> >> You're blowing smoke. You can't define the terms reasonable or >> >> unnecessary >> >> in this context. >> > >> > I can't give absolutely precise definitions of them, no. However, I >> > believe removing these qualifications would make the moral principle >> > false. So I keep them there. Any time someone proposes a moral >> > principle with better-defined terms that I think has a reasonable >> > chance of being true, that's great. I'm not blowing smoke, I'm just >> > stating the moral principles I believe in. >> >> The terms need consistent and fair definitions for the principle to have >> any >> meaning. I happen to think that a lot of animals must be killed in order >> to >> support the human race. I think that singling out food animals as >> political >> clients as ARAs and vegans do, is a spurious attempt by some morally >> deluded >> individuals to stake out high moral ground for their personal >> aggrandizment. > > The principle has *some* meaning. You have *some* idea of the meanings > of the terms involved. I'm sorry if you find its formulation > unsatisfactory, it's the best I can do so far. It will always remain inconsistent, unfair and unsatisfactory, that's how it works. If veganism ever attempted to address the suffering of smaller animals like ants or collateral deaths it would immediately lose it's appeal and implode. > I think a great deal of clearly unnecessary suffering is caused by the > factory-farming of animal products Those goal-posts must be getting heavy. I have not once argued on behalf of "factory farmed" (another vague term) meat. My arguments have all been presenting the alternatives of free-range, pastured, fresh caught meats. > much more so than any other human > practice. I think it is reasonable to make a moral protest about this > practice. There may be other practices that are worth protesting about > too. This is no objection to making a moral protest about > factory-farming. One cannot devote one's time and energy to every > problem. ARAs try to campaign to end the unnecessary harming of animals > when they see it. I think this is a worthwhile goal. Opposing certain practices or trends in farming is a far cry from veganism or AR. You are trying to capture the caché of moderation and compassion, veganism is far away from that position. It is an absolutist movement, except when cutting it's adherents "convenience" aka reasonableness breaks. Yes, hypocrisy is another reason to dislike veganism. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
> wrote
>> > No, I don't, all I demand is some good and sufficient reason, and you >> > haven't provided any. >> >> I have provided reasonable arguments and plenty of reasonable doubt about >> your current conclusions, you can't hear any of it. You are so >> predictable >> it's laughable. >> > > Of course there is reasonable doubt, just as there is reasonable doubt > about Rick's position that conscientious omnivorism is superior to > veganism. Nobody ever suggested there wasn't. Vegans all over the world insist that there is no doubt. > I thought you were going > to give me conclusive reason to think that I could reduce the amount of > harm caused by my diet by eating some animal products. I don't think > I've seen such conclusive reasons yet. It's not that easy. I don't know what foods you eat, how much, or where they come from. The best I can do is provide a way of logically looking at ALL foods and comparing them objectively, giving a reasonable estimated value to the probable harm related to delivering that food to you. Assess animal products and non-animal products with the same criteria instead of accepting all non-animal products as positive and condemning all animal products as wrong and bad, which is what vegans do automatically. If you use such an objective process you will NOT conclude that ALL animal foods are inferior, and thereby your question above will be answered. >> >> >> A mostly self-sufficent farmer >> >> >> has a much lower overall impact than this typical vegan. >> >> > >> >> > That may or may not be. You yourself admit there are no reliable >> >> > estimates of the cost of this typical vegan diet, so surely you must >> >> > concede it's very hard for you to tell. >> >> >> >> It's a virtual certainty, since I have lived both lives and I am aware >> >> what >> >> the inputs and outputs are. The point is, you have formed a hard and >> >> fast >> >> dogmatic, reason-resistant position, which is what I set out to >> >> illustrate. >> >> >> > >> > Oh, so you *are* aware of the cost of the typical vegan diet, and the >> > cost of the typical self-sufficient farmer's diet? Well, why don't you >> > tell us their estimates and what they're based on? >> >> An objective, open mind and life experience, both of which you lack. >> >> >> >> Even a typical >> >> >> rural diet derived from locally raised stock and produce is >> >> >> probably >> >> >> better >> >> >> than the vegan's shrink-wrapped, imported tofu fare. It's not that >> >> >> a >> >> >> vegetarian is bad, the preposterous pseudo-ethics that vegans >> >> >> attach >> >> >> to >> >> >> the >> >> >> diet that is what is sick. >> >> > >> > > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
> wrote in message ups.com... > > rick wrote: >> > wrote in message >> ups.com... >> > >> > rick wrote: >> >> > wrote in message >> >> oups.com... >> >> > >> >> > rick wrote: >> >> >> > wrote in message >> >> >> oups.com... >> >> >> > >> >> >> > rick wrote: >> >> >> >> > wrote in message >> >> >> >> oups.com... >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > rick wrote: >> >> >> >> >> > wrote in message >> >> >> >> >> ups.com... >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > Dave wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> snip... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Modern methods of crop cultivation require >> >> >> >> >> >> significant >> >> >> >> >> >> chemical imputs in the form of synthetic >> >> >> >> >> >> fertilizers >> >> >> >> >> >> and *cides, which can harm the environment as a >> >> >> >> >> >> result of their production, transportation and >> >> >> >> >> >> usage. >> >> >> >> >> >> In order to maintain soil fertility and keep >> >> >> >> >> >> pests >> >> >> >> >> >> under >> >> >> >> >> >> control in traditional organic systems crop >> >> >> >> >> >> rotations >> >> >> >> >> >> are normally used. I don't know if there are >> >> >> >> >> >> crop >> >> >> >> >> >> rotations available that produce human >> >> >> >> >> >> consumable >> >> >> >> >> >> crops on all of the land all the time but in >> >> >> >> >> >> practise >> >> >> >> >> >> grass-clover leys seem to feature rather >> >> >> >> >> >> prominently. >> >> >> >> >> >> It surely makes sense to have cattle grazing on >> >> >> >> >> >> such >> >> >> >> >> >> a ley, and producing milk at the same time and >> >> >> >> >> >> veal >> >> >> >> >> >> and beef are then natural byproducts of this. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > Well, I would question whether we have the right >> >> >> >> >> > to >> >> >> >> >> > kill >> >> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> >> > cattle for >> >> >> >> >> > food, unless it could somehow be shown that we >> >> >> >> >> > were >> >> >> >> >> > actually >> >> >> >> >> > reducing >> >> >> >> >> > the number of animal deaths by doing this. >> >> >> >> >> ========================= >> >> >> >> >> Quite easy to do when compared to your tofu meat >> >> >> >> >> substitutes. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Do it, then. >> >> >> >> ======================= >> >> >> >> I see you ignored the sites I posted. Not >> >> >> >> surprising. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > I haven't got round to looking at them yet. Do they >> >> >> > provide >> >> >> > estimates >> >> >> > for the amount of harm per serving of food for >> >> >> > mono-culture >> >> >> > crop >> >> >> > production, the amount of harm per serving of food for >> >> >> > grass-fed beef, >> >> >> > and compare them? >> >> >> =========================== >> >> >> ROTFLMAO One grass-fed cow, 100s of 1000s of calories >> >> >> meaning >> >> >> 100s of meals. All for the death of one cow. >> >> > >> >> > And the collateral deaths involved in clearing the land >> >> > for >> >> > pasture. >> >> ========================== >> >> ROTFLMAO Land isn't cleared for pasture fool. It is >> >> pasture. >> >> >> >> The massive habitat destruction comes from crop production, >> >> hypocrite. >> >> >> > >> > All right. Well, Davis estimated 7.5 deaths/ha for >> > pasture-ruminant >> > production. Was he wrong, was he? >> >======================== >> I believe so. > > You believe so. Well, I'll take that into account. Still, Davis > has a > Ph.D. in animal science so there is a chance he might not be a > million > miles off. I guess I'll have to do further research on the > matter. Got > any pointers for where I might look? ============================ You're still making my point. You continue to fixate on meat production and totally ignore the bloody footprints you track around. > >> Now, make an estimate on the deaths your crops >> cause... >> >> >> >> http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm >> http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html >> http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm >> http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html >> http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html >> http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm >> http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/p...eFactSheet.pdf >> http://www.hww.ca/hww2.asp?cid=4&id=230 >> http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_Wildl...on/pg7f2b6.htm >> http://ipm.ncsu.edu/wildlife/small_grains_wildlife.html >> http://www.hornedlizards.org/hornedlizards/help.html >> http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/bulletins/b-5093.html >> >> Since your non-animal clothing isn't cruelty-free either, >> here's a couple to cover some problems with cotton. >> http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html >> http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/ >> >> >> To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a field, >> here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that >> there >> can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field. >> http://www.ext.colostate.edu/Pubs/natres/06507.html >> http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf >> http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html >> http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html >> http://www.utextension.utk.edu/publi...les/pb1600.pdf >> http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/v...a=458&q=150643 >> http://faculty.njcu.edu/fmoran/vol4fieldmouse.htm >> >> >> To cover your selfish pleasure of using usenet, and >> maintaining a web page on same, here's are a couple >> dealing with power and communications. >> http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html >> http://www.towerkill.com/index.html > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
> wrote in message ups.com... > > rick wrote: >> > wrote in message >> oups.com... >> > >> > rick wrote: >> >> > wrote in message >> >> oups.com... >> >> > >> >> > rick wrote: >> >> >> > wrote in message >> >> >> ups.com... >> >> >> > >> >> >> > rick wrote: >> >> >> >> > wrote in message >> >> >> >> oups.com... >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Dutch wrote: >> >> >> >> >> > wrote >> >> >> >> >> > So, as I say, at the moment I'm comfortable with >> >> >> >> >> > being >> >> >> >> >> > vegan >> >> >> >> >> > and >> >> >> >> >> > advocating veganism, but I'm open to exploring >> >> >> >> >> > alternatives. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> A vegan exploring alternatives is an oxymoron. If >> >> >> >> >> you >> >> >> >> >> are >> >> >> >> >> prepared to >> >> >> >> >> explore alternatives to the simplistic idea of >> >> >> >> >> veganism >> >> >> >> >> then >> >> >> >> >> you aren't a >> >> >> >> >> vegan. If I tell a vegan that I can improve their >> >> >> >> >> diet >> >> >> >> >> wrt >> >> >> >> >> animal death and >> >> >> >> >> suffering by substituting some fish or game, he >> >> >> >> >> will >> >> >> >> >> always >> >> >> >> >> find a way to >> >> >> >> >> deny, equivocate or refuse to listen to that idea. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > I'll be a vegan as long as I avoid meat, fish, >> >> >> >> > dairy, >> >> >> >> > and >> >> >> >> > eggs. >> >> >> >> > If I >> >> >> >> > ever stop doing that, then I won't be a vegan >> >> >> >> > anymore. >> >> >> >> > If >> >> >> >> > you >> >> >> >> > tell me >> >> >> >> > that you can improve my diet with respect to animal >> >> >> >> > suffering >> >> >> >> > by >> >> >> >> > substituting some fish or game, I'll ask you for >> >> >> >> > the >> >> >> >> > detailed >> >> >> >> > evidence. >> >> >> >> ========================== >> >> >> >> Then you should be able to provide evidence that your >> >> >> >> vegan >> >> >> >> diet >> >> >> >> automatically means you kill fewer animals. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Why? I never made that claim. >> >> >> ============== >> >> >> Then you should reread what you said above. Either >> >> >> that, >> >> >> or >> >> >> you >> >> >> are saying that your veggies kill NO animals since you >> >> >> claimed >> >> >> we >> >> >> have no right to kill animals for our food. >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > I have actually produced some evidence. It's not >> >> >> > conclusive. >> >> >> > But I'll >> >> >> > wait until I hear at least some counter-evidence >> >> >> > before I >> >> >> > make >> >> >> > any >> >> >> > changes to my diet. >> >> >> =================== >> >> >> I've seen no evidence from you at all to support the >> >> >> vegan >> >> >> claims >> >> >> of being 'better.' >> >> > >> >> > The Gaverick Matheny article. >> >> > ====================== >> >> He cites no evidence... >> >> >> > >> > False. >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> But the point I'm making is that you don't >> >> >> have to change by eating meat. You refuse to even >> >> >> compare >> >> >> the >> >> >> foods you do eat, and make changes there as to which >> >> >> ones >> >> >> cause >> >> >> more/less animal death and suffering. That alone puts >> >> >> the >> >> >> ly >> >> >> to >> >> >> your relegion of veganism. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > As I told you, I have made some attempt to compare the >> >> > amounts >> >> > of harm >> >> > caused by production of the different crops. When I find >> >> > some >> >> > decent >> >> > data on this, I'll change my eating habits accordingly. >> >> =========================== >> >> No, you haven't, obviously. You haven't looked at bananas, >> >> even >> >> though you eat them. You're a liar, plain and simple, with >> >> nothing but a simple rule for your simple mind. >> >> >> > >> > Unfounded accusation. >> =========================== >> No, truth. If you had looked into bananas, and if >> animals/environemnt were a concern to you you wouldn't eat >> them. >> So, did you ly about caring, or ly about your research. >> Either >> way, you lied. >> > > No, I didn't. I said I had made some attempt to find out about > the > extent of harm caused by the different crops. That was true. ========================= Doesn't look that way from here, since you haven't determined any foods to be 'bad' except for meats. > >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Or, in the very least, you should be able to tell us >> >> >> >> which >> >> >> >> foods >> >> >> >> that you do eat cause more/less death and suffering. >> >> >> >> Is >> >> >> >> rice >> >> >> >> better than potatoes? Brocolli better than corn? >> >> >> >> Bananas >> >> >> >> better >> >> >> >> than apples? The fact is, you don't know, and don't >> >> >> >> care >> >> >> >> since >> >> >> >> you have your simple rule for your simple mind, 'eat >> >> >> >> no >> >> >> >> meat.' >> >> >> > >> >> >> > No, I don't know. I do care and have made some effort >> >> >> > to >> >> >> > find >> >> >> > out, but >> >> >> > not much research has been done on these issues. >> >> >> ====================== >> >> >> Then why are you so adament that being vegan is better >> >> >> than >> >> >> anything else? faith? Yep, veganism is a relegion. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > I'm not. >> >> =================== >> >> Yes, you have been... >> >> >> > >> > Nonsense. >> ===================== >> Yes, you have nothing but nonsense. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Being vegan is also more than a diet. >> >> >> >> Why is the unnecessary death and suffering of animals >> >> >> >> for >> >> >> >> your >> >> >> >> entertainment just fine, but we can't eat them? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Unnecessary suffering is not just fine. I'm not >> >> >> > altogether >> >> >> > convinced >> >> >> > that electricity production is unnecessary. >> >> >> ========================== >> >> >> What part of your being here on this newsgroup is >> >> >> necessary? >> >> >> You >> >> >> contribute to an ever growing demand for more power and >> >> >> communications for no more reason than *your* >> >> >> entertainment. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > Would you care to estimate the expected contribution to >> >> > the >> >> > amount of >> >> > harm caused to animals by my usage of Usenet? I really >> >> > think >> >> > it >> >> > would >> >> > be pretty miniscule. I agree it's unnecessary, but I'm >> >> > not >> >> > convinced >> >> > that making every reasonable effort not to provide >> >> > financial >> >> > support to >> >> > institutions or practices that cause or support >> >> > unnecessary >> >> > harm >> >> > requires me to stop using Usenet. >> >> ======================== >> >> So, now you've switched from it's not ok to kill animals >> >> unnecessarily, like for entertainment, to some animals >> >> killed >> >> for >> >> your entertainment is ok? >> > >> > Well, not exactly. I'm anticipating that the expected >> > contribution to >> > the death toll would be considerably less than 1. >> ====================== >> Really? Based on what research, hypocrite? >> > > None. The day you make a plausible case that it's 1 or higher > I'll > listen and take that into account. ========================= Research it fool. For power and communications there are even some numbers given... > >> >> > >> >> What a hoot! Guess you're really only >> >> a vegan when it doesn't mean too much sacrifice on your >> >> lifestyle >> >> and entertainment, eh hypocrite? You are making no such >> >> efforts >> >> to avoid rewarding people that kill animals for your >> >> lifestyle >> >> and entertainment, killer. >> >> >> > >> > Like I keep saying, the principle is "Make every >> > *reasonable* >> > effort to >> > avoid providing financial support for institutions or >> > practices >> > that >> > cause or support unnecessary harm." If it goes beyond a >> > reasonable >> > effort then, yes, then you don't have to bother. >> ========================== >> LOL Thanks for now proving that animals have no rights. Like >> all good vegan loons, the caring stops at the death of animals >> that you don't eat. Nevermind that your diet can cause >> massive >> amounts of more unnecessary death and suffering. >> > > My position is not inconsistent with animals having rights. ==================== Very. You cannot say animals have rights, and then kill them willy-nilly for your entertainment... > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > But no, any unnecessary suffering and death of animals >> >> >> > that >> >> >> > is >> >> >> > really >> >> >> > being caused purely for my entertainment is not just >> >> >> > fine. >> >> >> ========================== >> >> >> Then again, you're lying about really caring about >> >> >> killing >> >> >> animals, aren't you? >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > No. >> >> ========================= >> >> Yes, you are. maybe you can convenice yourself, but the >> >> lys >> >> are >> >> right here, obvious to any reader without vegan willful >> >> ignorance >> >> filters. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
> wrote in message ups.com... > > rick wrote: >> > wrote in message >> ups.com... >> > >> > rick wrote: >> >> > wrote in message >> >> oups.com... >> >> > >> >> > Dutch wrote: >> >> >> > wrote >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Dutch wrote: >> >> >> >> > wrote >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Dutch wrote: >> >> >> >> >> > wrote >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > Dutch wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > wrote >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Well, I would question whether we have the >> >> >> >> >> >> > right >> >> >> >> >> >> > to >> >> >> >> >> >> > kill the >> >> >> >> >> >> > cattle >> >> >> >> >> >> > for >> >> >> >> >> >> > food, unless it could somehow be shown that >> >> >> >> >> >> > we >> >> >> >> >> >> > were >> >> >> >> >> >> > actually >> >> >> >> >> >> > reducing >> >> >> >> >> >> > the number of animal deaths by doing this. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> It is very reasonable to conclude that this is >> >> >> >> >> >> at >> >> >> >> >> >> least *sometimes* >> >> >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> >> >> case, but why does the number of animals who >> >> >> >> >> >> live >> >> >> >> >> >> or >> >> >> >> >> >> who die have >> >> >> >> >> >> any >> >> >> >> >> >> bearing on our right to use them as a food >> >> >> >> >> >> resource >> >> >> >> >> >> or kill them in >> >> >> >> >> >> producing one? This is a silly notion that >> >> >> >> >> >> vegans >> >> >> >> >> >> swallow hook, >> >> >> >> >> >> line, >> >> >> >> >> >> and >> >> >> >> >> >> sinker. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > Because we have an obligation not to kill >> >> >> >> >> > sentient >> >> >> >> >> > animals >> >> >> >> >> > unnecessarily. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 1. No we don't, there is no such obligation >> >> >> >> >> 2. All animals are sentient >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > False. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Name one that isn't. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > An ant. >> >> >> >> >> >> Ants are sentient. They certainly can sense smells, >> >> >> sights, >> >> >> sounds, objects, >> >> >> why would they not feel pain? >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > They respond to stimuli in their environment, but I think >> >> > it's >> >> > debatable whether they actually experience any >> >> > sensations. >> >> > There's a >> >> > good discussion of this issue in DeGrazia's "Taking >> >> > Animals >> >> > Seriously". >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> 3. Everything you do has an impact and hence >> >> >> >> >> carries >> >> >> >> >> a >> >> >> >> >> collateral >> >> >> >> >> cost. >> >> >> >> >> Therefore by eating that second helping, that >> >> >> >> >> fruit >> >> >> >> >> cocktail, or >> >> >> >> >> taking >> >> >> >> >> that >> >> >> >> >> vacation, all unecessary, you kill sentient >> >> >> >> >> animals >> >> >> >> >> unecessarily. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > It would be more accurate to say "there is a >> >> >> >> > certain >> >> >> >> > probability that >> >> >> >> > as a result of your action, more sentient animals >> >> >> >> > will >> >> >> >> > be >> >> >> >> > killed >> >> >> >> > unnecessarily." >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> That wouldn't be more accurate at all, it is simply a >> >> >> >> transparent and >> >> >> >> cynical attempt to redefine your position. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Yes it would, and no it isn't. >> >> >> >> >> >> What is "more accurate" about using terms like "certain >> >> >> probability" and >> >> >> "unecessarily"? They are both wildly vague and >> >> >> subjective. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > Well, it's a lot more accurate than saying I kill >> >> > something. >> >> > I >> >> > certainly don't kill anything when I go on a vacation. >> >> =============================== >> >> If not killing things directly is the criteria, then I must >> >> be >> >> vegan too! Yippeee!! >> >> Afterall, I didn't kill any animal for the steak i had last >> >> night!!! >> >> >> > >> > It's not the criterion. >> > ============================= >> LOL It's what you just said. If you don't kill it yourself >> it >> doesn't count. >> > > Nonsense. I didn't say that. ======================== what part of: "...I certainly don't kill anything when I go on a vacation..." didn't you mean? > >> >> >> >> >> I gave financial >> >> > support to certain processes which harm animals. As a >> >> > result >> >> > of >> >> > my >> >> > increasing the amount of financial support that process >> >> > received, there >> >> > is a certain probability that mine will be a "threshold >> >> > purchase" which >> >> > will cause more of the process to go on, and thereby will >> >> > increase the >> >> > amount of harm done to animals. That's the only accurate >> >> > way >> >> > to >> >> > describe what's going on here. >> >> ============================= >> >> No, what's going on is a continued exercise in skipping out >> >> on >> >> the blame for massive animal deaths for your lifestyle, >> >> killer. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> You have ZERO knowledge of the >> >> >> >> probability of the relative harms caused by different >> >> >> >> foods >> >> >> >> you consume. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > True. >> >> >> >> >> >> Then where do you get off defining my diet as morally >> >> >> deficient? >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > I don't know what your diet is. I think I have a pretty >> >> > good >> >> > foundation >> >> > for claiming that someone who regularly consumes >> >> > factory-farmed >> >> > animal >> >> > products is not making every reasonable effort not to >> >> > provide >> >> > financial >> >> > support for institutions or practices that cause or >> >> > support >> >> > unnecessary >> >> > harm. >> >> ================================== >> >> And, the same is true for those that regularly consume >> >> factory-farmed veggies. >> >> Afterall, the entire process is based on a world-wide >> >> petro-chemical industry that >> >> kills animals and detroys environemnets. Your continued >> >> support >> >> for death and suffering and world-wide environemental >> >> destruction >> >> is noted. Did you study bananas yet, hypocrite? >> >> >> > >> > >> > What's your suggested alternative to consuming >> > factory-farmed >> > vegetables? >> ======================== >> ROTFLMAO The point is that *YOU* should have alternatives. > > Why? I'm not aware of any feasible alternatives. It's up to you > to > provide them. ======================= ROTFLMAO No fool, veganism tells you that you should find those alternatives. Afterall, it's *your* religion that tells you not to kill animals unecessarily. You don't do that/ All you follow is a simple rule for your simple mind. > >> Afterall, you claim to have done research into what diet >> causes >> less death and suffering to animals. > > Yes. ========================= No, you haven't. I gave you one of the easiest examples and you didn't know a thing. And still don't, do you? > >> And, like all good >> brainwashed veagns, you've determined that a simple rule for >> your >> simple mind is all you need to know. I care not whether you >> eat >> meat or not, just don't ly to yourself and others, that by not >> eating you've made any substantial changes. Again, which of >> your >> veggies cause more/less death and suffering? Rice? Potatoes? >> Brocolli? Bananas? Apples? The porblem is you don't know, >> and >> haven't even given it a thought because of the above rule. >> > > I've made some attempt to find out. I think it's pretty clear > that by > avoiding factory-farmed meat you do make a substantial > difference to > your impact on animals. ====================== No, avoiding factory-farmed veggies makes a big difference. But then, you can't be inconvenienced that badly, eh hypocrite? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> So I think that they shouldn't regularly consume >> >> factory-farmed >> >> > animal products. You seem to be terribly upset that I >> >> > hold >> >> > this >> >> > opinion, I'm not sure why. I'm not in the habit of >> >> > morally >> >> > lecturing >> >> > people, I seem to be the one who cops most of that. >> >> ======================== >> >> And I think you shoudn't regularly consume factory-farmed >> >> veggies, but you do. All the while decrying the >> >> 'badness' of meats. Quite the hypocrite, aren't you? >> >> >> > >> > Right. What do you think I should do? >> ============================ >> Stop lying and do some real research. Why depend on others to >> make your choices. that's what you have already done >> listening >> to propaganda spew... >> > > I'm not lying. It's not very bright to accuse other people of > lying > when you obviously have no basis for it. ====================== You have provided that basis for your having lied, killer. You proved it. I'm in the process of doing > research. If you have no constructive suggestions to offer for > how I > can do any better, then you don't have any basis for berating > me for > not doing better. ============================ I've given you several ways to look. You are too willfully ignornat to want to change. I guess you just like all that blood on your hands, eh hypocrite? > >> >> >> snip.. >> >> http://www.abcbirds.org/pesticides/pesticideindex.htm >> http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html >> http://www.pmac.net/fishkill.htm >> http://www.pmac.net/summer-rivers.html >> http://www.pmac.net/bird_fish_CA.html >> http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Pn36/pn36p3.htm >> http://www.wwfcanada.org/satellite/p...eFactSheet.pdf >> http://www.hww.ca/hww2.asp?cid=4&id=230 >> http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_Wildl...on/pg7f2b6.htm >> http://ipm.ncsu.edu/wildlife/small_grains_wildlife.html >> http://www.hornedlizards.org/hornedlizards/help.html >> http://insects.tamu.edu/extension/bulletins/b-5093.html >> >> Since your non-animal clothing isn't cruelty-free either, >> here's a couple to cover some problems with cotton. >> http://www.panna.org/panna/resources...Cotton.dv.html >> http://www.sustainablecotton.org/TOUR/ >> >> >> To give you an idea of the sheer number of animals in a field, >> here's some sites about *just* mice and voles. Note that >> there >> can be 100s to 1000s in each acre, not the whole field. >> http://www.ext.colostate.edu/Pubs/natres/06507.html >> http://extension.usu.edu/publica/natrpubs/voles.pdf >> http://extension.ag.uidaho.edu/district4/MG/voles.html >> http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...rate/Mice.html >> http://www.utextension.utk.edu/publi...les/pb1600.pdf >> http://www.pgc.state.pa.us/pgc/cwp/v...a=458&q=150643 >> http://faculty.njcu.edu/fmoran/vol4fieldmouse.htm >> >> >> To cover your selfish pleasure of using usenet, and >> maintaining a web page on same, here's are a couple >> dealing with power and communications. >> http://www.clearwater.org/news/powerplants.html >> http://www.towerkill.com/index.html > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
Dutch wrote: > > > I'm not in the habit of morally lecturing > > people, I seem to be the one who cops most of that. > > If only you could listen to yourself you might see that in a different > light. For what it's worth I don't think his posts sound particularly preachy. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
wrote: > Dave wrote: > > wrote: > > > Dutch wrote: > > > > > wrote > > > > > > > > > > Dutch wrote: > > > > >> > wrote > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Dutch wrote: > > > > >> >> > wrote > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > Dutch wrote: > > > > >> >> >> > wrote > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > Well, I would question whether we have the right to kill the > > > > >> >> >> > cattle > > > > >> >> >> > for > > > > >> >> >> > food, unless it could somehow be shown that we were actually > > > > >> >> >> > reducing > > > > >> >> >> > the number of animal deaths by doing this. > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> It is very reasonable to conclude that this is at least *sometimes* > > > > >> >> >> the > > > > >> >> >> case, but why does the number of animals who live or who die have > > > > >> >> >> any > > > > >> >> >> bearing on our right to use them as a food resource or kill them in > > > > >> >> >> producing one? This is a silly notion that vegans swallow hook, > > > > >> >> >> line, > > > > >> >> >> and > > > > >> >> >> sinker. > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > Because we have an obligation not to kill sentient animals > > > > >> >> > unnecessarily. > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> 1. No we don't, there is no such obligation > > > > >> >> 2. All animals are sentient > > > > >> > > > > > >> > False. > > > > >> > > > > >> Name one that isn't. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > An ant. > > > > > > > > Ants are sentient. They certainly can sense smells, sights, sounds, objects, > > > > why would they not feel pain? > > > > > > > > > > They respond to stimuli in their environment, but I think it's > > > debatable whether they actually experience any sensations. There's a > > > good discussion of this issue in DeGrazia's "Taking Animals Seriously". > > > > > > > >> >> 3. Everything you do has an impact and hence carries a collateral > > > > >> >> cost. > > > > >> >> Therefore by eating that second helping, that fruit cocktail, or > > > > >> >> taking > > > > >> >> that > > > > >> >> vacation, all unecessary, you kill sentient animals unecessarily. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > It would be more accurate to say "there is a certain probability that > > > > >> > as a result of your action, more sentient animals will be killed > > > > >> > unnecessarily." > > > > >> > > > > >> That wouldn't be more accurate at all, it is simply a transparent and > > > > >> cynical attempt to redefine your position. > > > > > > > > > > Yes it would, and no it isn't. > > > > > > > > What is "more accurate" about using terms like "certain probability" and > > > > "unecessarily"? They are both wildly vague and subjective. > > > > > > > > > > Well, it's a lot more accurate than saying I kill something. I > > > certainly don't kill anything when I go on a vacation. I gave financial > > > support to certain processes which harm animals. As a result of my > > > increasing the amount of financial support that process received, there > > > is a certain probability that mine will be a "threshold purchase" which > > > will cause more of the process to go on, and thereby will increase the > > > amount of harm done to animals. That's the only accurate way to > > > describe what's going on here. > > > > > > > >> You have ZERO knowledge of the > > > > >> probability of the relative harms caused by different foods you consume. > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > True. > > > > > > > > Then where do you get off defining my diet as morally deficient? > > > > > > > > > > I don't know what your diet is. I think I have a pretty good foundation > > > for claiming that someone who regularly consumes factory-farmed animal > > > products is not making every reasonable effort not to provide financial > > > support for institutions or practices that cause or support unnecessary > > > harm. So I think that they shouldn't regularly consume factory-farmed > > > animal products. You seem to be terribly upset that I hold this > > > opinion, I'm not sure why. I'm not in the habit of morally lecturing > > > people, I seem to be the one who cops most of that. > > > > > > It may be that there are some changes that should be made to my diet as > > > well. I am making an effort to inform myself about the issue. > > > > > > > >> > I believe there is an obligation not to kill sentient animals > > > > >> > unnecessarily > > > > >> > > > > >> No you don't, you just like to think that you believe that. You can't > > > > >> even > > > > >> define "sentient". > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Yes, I do. A sentient being is a being that is capable of having > > > > > feelings. > > > > > > > > What do you mean by "feelings", you mean feel pain? > > > > > > That would be an example, yes. > > > > > > > There is no definitive > > > > answer to that question, but every animal species can be observed to react > > > > adversely or defensively to attack or injury. > > > > > > > > > > There is a discussion of these issues in DeGrazia's "Taking Animals > > > Seriously". It is often hard to tell when an organism is capable of > > > experiencing the sensation of pain. We should go on the best available > > > scientific evidence and give the benefit of the doubt where reasonably > > > possible. > > > > "Don't be too proud of never forgetting a face: It turns out even a > > humble honey bee can distinguish and recall different human > > faces, says an international team of researchers." > > http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/e...sh_1532832.htm > > > > "the 1960s, Nobel Prize winning zoologist, Karl von Frisch, proposed > > that honeybees use dance (the"waggle dance") as a coded message > > to guide other bees to new food sources." > > http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/media/pressre...honeybees.html > > > > Ants are social insects, similar to bees in terms of size and > > structure. > > Why do you label them "unsentient"? Is there not a benefit of the doubt > > in play here? > > Based on DeGrazia's discussion of the evidence, I felt it was probably > reasonable to assume they were insentient. I haven't got the book with > me at the moment. When I get back to Sydney I can have a look and > discuss the evidence with you. OK. I'm afraid I have little to contribute to the subject though. Perhaps I will buy the DeGrazia book myself if research suggests he is a well respected authority because the topic is certainly interesting. I'm just saying that, to a layman like me, the way the bees behave seems to indicate some degree of conscious will. > Perhaps I should give them the benefit > of the doubt. But I don't think I'm going to give myself a guilt trip > about killing mosquitoes. No. I don't think you should give yourself guilt trips about killing any type of parasite. > > > > >> > and also an obligation to make every *reasonable* effort > > > > >> > not to provide financial support to institutions or practices that > > > > >> > cause or support unnecessary harm. > > > > >> > > > > >> You're blowing smoke. You can't define the terms reasonable or > > > > >> unnecessary > > > > >> in this context. > > > > > > > > > > I can't give absolutely precise definitions of them, no. However, I > > > > > believe removing these qualifications would make the moral principle > > > > > false. So I keep them there. Any time someone proposes a moral > > > > > principle with better-defined terms that I think has a reasonable > > > > > chance of being true, that's great. I'm not blowing smoke, I'm just > > > > > stating the moral principles I believe in. > > > > > > > > The terms need consistent and fair definitions for the principle to have any > > > > meaning. I happen to think that a lot of animals must be killed in order to > > > > support the human race. I think that singling out food animals as political > > > > clients as ARAs and vegans do, is a spurious attempt by some morally deluded > > > > individuals to stake out high moral ground for their personal aggrandizment. > > > > > > The principle has *some* meaning. You have *some* idea of the meanings > > > of the terms involved. I'm sorry if you find its formulation > > > unsatisfactory, it's the best I can do so far. > > > > > > I think a great deal of clearly unnecessary suffering is caused by the > > > factory-farming of animal products, much more so than any other human > > > practice. I think it is reasonable to make a moral protest about this > > > practice. There may be other practices that are worth protesting about > > > too. This is no objection to making a moral protest about > > > factory-farming. One cannot devote one's time and energy to every > > > problem. ARAs try to campaign to end the unnecessary harming of animals > > > when they see it. I think this is a worthwhile goal. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
