 |
|
| 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?
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 > >> >> >> 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... > That's not what I'm doing. My principles are "Don't cause unnecessary harm to sentient animals", and "Make every reasonable effort not to provide financial support to institutions or practices that cause or support unnecessary harm." Those principles are consistent with animals having rights. I am not convinced that these principles require me to boycott Usenet. > > > > >> > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > 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?
Dutch wrote: > > 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 meant nobody on this thread. > > 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. All right, I'll do that. > 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. > Well, we'll see. > >> >> >> 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: snip... >> > >> > 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... >> > > That's not what I'm doing. My principles are "Don't cause > unnecessary > harm to sentient animals", and "Make every reasonable effort > not to > provide financial support to institutions or practices that > cause or > support unnecessary harm." Those principles are consistent with > animals > having rights. ============================== No, it is not. You cannot pick and chose which animals have rights and which ones don't. Either animals have rights or they don't. Killing those convenient for you isn't consistent with rights. I am not convinced that these principles require me to > boycott Usenet. ================== Of course not. Anything that would require you to make any changes is why vegans follow only a simple rule for their simple minds. It's part of why you still eat bananas and other exotic imported foods. As long as you can demonize others about their choices you think that your choices don't matter. snip... |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
> wrote in message oups.com... > snip... >> > >> > 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. >> > > What I'm trying to do is compare the two. ======================= My point is that you should not be comparing anything to meat, since you have decided against eating it. What you need to focus on is the choices you do make. A comparison that you have not even attempted. >> >> 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?
rick wrote: > > wrote in message > oups.com... > > > > snip... > > >> > > >> > 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. > >> > > > > What I'm trying to do is compare the two. > ======================= > My point is that you should not be comparing anything to meat, > since you have decided against eating it. > What you need to focus on is the choices you do make. A > comparison that you have not even attempted. What about if his decision to not eat meat is still under review? > >> >> 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?
|
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
Dutch wrote: > > 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. > It gives a good review of the scientific literature on the subject. You can have a look if you like. > >> >> >> 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. > Yes it is. > > 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. > That's not strictly correct, actually. The vast majority of purchases make no difference to how much of the process goes on. But never mind. > > > >> >> 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". > Yes I do. Factory-farming causes considerable suffering and more collateral deaths than any other form of farming. On any reasonable interpretation of "unnecessary", the harm is unnecessary, and on any reasonable interpretation of "reasonable", someone who supports factory-farming is not making every reasonable effort. > > 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? > Reasonable people, when presented with the facts, will conclude that my principle requires them to boycott factory-farm produce. > > 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. > Well, that's stupid. It's a considered moral judgement I've reached on the basis of reasoned argument. I think you should learn to respect the fact that other people may hold different views to yours. > > 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? > What, even to plants? I don't think that's reasonable. > >> >> > 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. > Well, these are two separate issues. I don't agree with your criticisms of the principle. I think the AR movement should take into account collateral deaths. I don't think we need to worry about insects, but some people do. I think if the AR movement took these issues into account it would have about the same amount of appeal as it does now. > > 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. > Which are harder to argue against and reasonable minds may differ. But there is some suffering caused by the practices of branding, castrating, and ear tagging, and also I think there is some reason to believe it causes somewhat more collateral deaths per serving of food than crop production. > > 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. Most of the campaigns the AR movement does are against factory-farming. Most animal products sold in the supermarkets come from factory farms, boycotting factory-farming was my main motivation for going vegan. It's true that AR supporters and vegans do criticize some farming practices other than factory-farming, and here the issues are not quite so clear-cut. I see no evidence of hypocrisy. |
|
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 > >> 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 meant all of it. It's true. On the other hand, I didn't say I don't do anything morally problematic when I go on a vacation. Obviously you're not very good at making distinctions. > > > > > > > >> > >> >> > >> >> 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. If they exist. > 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. > I've told you what my principle is. I try to follow it. If you want to berate me for not doing enough to follow it, it's your job to come up with a proposal for doing better. > > > > >> 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? > Yes, I have. I just haven't found out anything about that particular example yet. > > > > >> 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? > Avoiding factory-farmed meat does make a big difference. Perhaps avoiding factory-farmed vegetables would as well. What I would like to see is some sort of practical proposal for how I could do this. > > > >> > >> > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> 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. > No, I didn't. I haven't lied. It's an unfounded accusation on your part. > 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. What are you referring to here? All those websites? Yes, thank you for pointing out them. > You are too willfully > ignornat to want to change. > I guess you just like all that blood on your hands, eh hypocrite? > As I say, if you have no constructive suggestions then you have no basis for criticizing me. > > > > >> > >> > >> 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 ups.com... > > rick wrote: >> > 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 meant all of it. It's true. On the other hand, I didn't say I > don't > do anything morally problematic when I go on a vacation. > Obviously > you're not very good at making distinctions. ======================== Yes, I am. Just like you kill no animals for your vacation, I kill no animals that I eat. Is that morally problematic enough for you? > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 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. > > If they exist. ========================== Of course they do. But then, you wouldn't know because you won't 'research' anything except propaganda about meats, eh hypocrite? > >> 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. >> > > I've told you what my principle is. I try to follow it. If you > want to > berate me for not doing enough to follow it, it's your job to > come up > with a proposal for doing better. ========================= It's your vegan claims of caring that says you should find better options. But, like all vegans here on usenet, you prefer to focus all your so-called efforts at demonizing those that eat meat instead of looking at your own bloody hands. > >> >> > >> >> 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? >> > > Yes, I have. I just haven't found out anything about that > particular > example yet. ====================== Then you aren't looking, and you aren't even trying to read the sites I've provided... > >> >> > >> >> 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? >> > > Avoiding factory-farmed meat does make a big difference. > Perhaps > avoiding factory-farmed vegetables would as well. What I would > like to > see is some sort of practical proposal for how I could do this. ===================== In other words, you want it easy. Just like all good vegans here, it's your convenience and selfishness that matters most. If animals really meant anything to you, you would have already researched options, and continue to do so. > >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 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. >> > > No, I didn't. I haven't lied. It's an unfounded accusation on > your > part. ================= No, it's not. You made the claim that you care about animals. You cliamed that you eat morally 'better' than others, but admit you haven't looked into the foods you eat. Again, which causes more/less death and suffering? Rice? Potatoes? Bananas? Apples? You don't know because you don't care, despite your claims. All you "need" is your simple rule for simple minds, 'eat no meat.' > >> 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. > > What are you referring to here? All those websites? Yes, thank > you for > pointing out them. > >> You are too willfully >> ignornat to want to change. >> I guess you just like all that blood on your hands, eh >> hypocrite? >> > > As I say, if you have no constructive suggestions then you have > no > basis for criticizing me. ====================== LOL Yes, I do, becasue you have made the claims of caring, and have proven that all you've done is follow a simple rule for your simple mind. > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> 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?
"Dave" > wrote in message ups.com... > > rick wrote: >> > wrote in message >> oups.com... >> > >> >> snip... >> >> >> > >> >> > 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. >> >> >> > >> > What I'm trying to do is compare the two. >> ======================= >> My point is that you should not be comparing anything to meat, >> since you have decided against eating it. >> What you need to focus on is the choices you do make. A >> comparison that you have not even attempted. > > What about if his decision to not eat meat is still under > review? ===================== He claims to be a vegan. All he's done so far is spew about meats. He admits he eats bananas, and has no idea which of his foods kill more/less animals. Again, since he has given up meats, his focus should be on the foods he does eat, not what he thinks others are eating. How does his continued focus on those that eat meat help him to make any difference in his own choices? > >> >> >> 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
|
|||
|
|||
|
The numbers game
The figures I'm using here are basically the first ones I came across.
If anyone wants to offer more reliable figures feel free but the nature of these types of calculations means that I shall be making major approximations in any case so no point in splitting hairs over the data. "A beef steer gives us 459 pounds of beef to eat" http://www.agr.state.nc.us/agscool/c...es/beefkid.htm Note that the steers being discussed are fattened on grain for the last three to four months of his life. I don't know whether cattle fattened on grass alone can be expected to reach similar weights. One acre of corn can produce about 211 pounds of usable protein http://www.ciwf.org.uk/publications/...ts_summary.pdf Nutrition data for beef http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?t...ofile&dbid=141 Data is for tenderloin. Obviously the whole carcass is not homogonous. Nutrition data for corn http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?t...rofile&dbid=65 Conversion from lbs to grams http://www.metric-conversions.org/we...-kilograms.htm 459 lbs beef = 208 kg provides 208,000 * 240.41/113.4 = 440964 calories one acre of corn provides 211 lbs = 95.7 kg protein. For every g of protein corn provides 177.12/5.44 = 32.56 calories *95,700 = 3 115 879 calories calories per acre of corn / calories per steer = ~7. No. of cattle killed in above equation = 1. Decline in woodmouse population per hectare of cereal production according to study by Mcdonald and Tew = 20 Decline per acre = ~8. % decline due to mortality unknown. Analysis only looks at one species and one part of the process. Slaughter in the case of beef, harvesting in the case of corn. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
Pearl wrote: > 'Two years ago, he and Mr. Worm used the same > data to show that commercial fishing had depleted > the world's oceans of 90 per cent of the overall > abundance of big fish that flourished 50 years ago. Commercial methods of fishing are disruptive of the marine environment generally and result in significant quantities of bycatch which is thrown back to sea dead. Big fish at the top of the marine food chain are especially vulnerable to overfishing because they don't mature as fast or reproduce as rapidly as smaller fish. > ....' > http://www.seaotters.org/CurrentIssu....cfm?DocID=279 > > At 1 fish a week for 6 billion people.., that's 6 billion fish > handlined per week. In perspective: "The area of the World Ocean is 361 million km², its volume is 1370 million km³, and its average depth is 3790 m." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean World population = 6.5 bn At 1 fish per person that's 18 fish for every sqaure km of ocean albeit distributed somewhat unevenly. > 24 billion every month. Where are > these massive numbers of fish Dave proposes handlining? I wasn't aware that I was proposing any specific quota size. I suggested that we fish the seas within their biological limits, whatever they might be. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
rick wrote: > > wrote in message > ups.com... > > > > rick wrote: > > > snip... > > > >> > > >> > 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... > >> > > > > That's not what I'm doing. My principles are "Don't cause > > unnecessary > > harm to sentient animals", and "Make every reasonable effort > > not to > > provide financial support to institutions or practices that > > cause or > > support unnecessary harm." Those principles are consistent with > > animals > > having rights. > ============================== > No, it is not. You cannot pick and chose which animals have > rights and which ones don't. > Either animals have rights or they don't. Killing those > convenient for you isn't consistent with rights. > My principles imply that we should not kill animals unnecessarily. However they permit you to financially support unnecessary harm, provided you make every reasonable effort not to do so. As I say, this is consistent with animals having rights. > > > > > I am not convinced that these principles require me to > > boycott Usenet. > ================== > Of course not. Anything that would require you to make any > changes is why vegans follow only a simple rule for their simple > minds. It's part of why you still eat bananas and other exotic > imported foods. As long as you can demonize others about their > choices you think that your choices don't matter. > I already have made some changes: namely, going vegan. I will make further changes if I become convinced my principles require me to do so. I'm not interested in demonizing others, and of course my choices matter. > > > snip... |
|
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 > >> 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 meant all of it. It's true. On the other hand, I didn't say I > > don't > > do anything morally problematic when I go on a vacation. > > Obviously > > you're not very good at making distinctions. > ======================== > Yes, I am. Just like you kill no animals for your vacation, I > kill no animals that I eat. > Is that morally problematic enough for you? > Yes, I know. I was simply pointing out the fact that I kill no animals when I go on vacation. I never in any way implied that this meant there were no moral problems with doing so. The fact that you are unable to realize this is why I say you are not very good at drawing distinctions. > > > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> 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. > > > > If they exist. > ========================== > Of course they do. But then, you wouldn't know because you won't > 'research' anything except propaganda about meats, eh hypocrite? > Well, if you know some, tell me about them. And stop telling me I have never made any effort to do research on this issue when obviously you don't know. > > > > >> 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. > >> > > > > I've told you what my principle is. I try to follow it. If you > > want to > > berate me for not doing enough to follow it, it's your job to > > come up > > with a proposal for doing better. > ========================= > It's your vegan claims of caring that says you should find better > options. But, like all vegans here on usenet, you prefer to > focus all your so-called efforts at demonizing those that eat > meat instead of looking at your own bloody hands. > I should see if better options exist, and adopt them if they do. I am in the process of looking for better options. I am not demonizing anyone else. > > > > >> > >> > > >> >> 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? > >> > > > > Yes, I have. I just haven't found out anything about that > > particular > > example yet. > ====================== > Then you aren't looking, and you aren't even trying to read the > sites I've provided... > Yes, I am looking, and I have read your sites. > > > > >> > >> > > >> >> 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? > >> > > > > Avoiding factory-farmed meat does make a big difference. > > Perhaps > > avoiding factory-farmed vegetables would as well. What I would > > like to > > see is some sort of practical proposal for how I could do this. > ===================== > In other words, you want it easy. Just like all good vegans > here, it's your convenience and selfishness that matters most. > If animals really meant anything to you, you would have already > researched options, and continue to do so. > And I have, and am continuing to do so. > > > > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> 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. > >> > > > > No, I didn't. I haven't lied. It's an unfounded accusation on > > your > > part. > ================= > No, it's not. Yes, it is. > You made the claim that you care about animals. > You cliamed that you eat morally 'better' than others, but admit > you haven't looked into the foods you eat. Yes, I did make those two claims. I have made some effort to do research about the foods I eat, but not very much research exists about the matter. I am continuing to look. > Again, which causes > more/less death and suffering? Rice? Potatoes? Bananas? > Apples? You don't know because you don't care, despite your > claims. No, I don't know because not much reliable research exists on the matter. > All you "need" is your simple rule for simple minds, > 'eat no meat.' > > > > >> 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. > > > > What are you referring to here? All those websites? Yes, thank > > you for > > pointing out them. > > > >> You are too willfully > >> ignornat to want to change. > >> I guess you just like all that blood on your hands, eh > >> hypocrite? > >> > > > > As I say, if you have no constructive suggestions then you have > > no > > basis for criticizing me. > ====================== > LOL Yes, I do, becasue you have made the claims of caring, and > have proven that all you've done is follow a simple rule for your > simple mind. > No, you don't. If you want to claim that I could do better, then it is up to you to show me how. If you have no concrete suggestions for how I can do this then I suggest you just let me get on with trying to do the best I can. You talk about how I am trying to demonize others, in fact it is you who are constantly demonizing me but without providing any actual basis for doing so. If you have some helpful suggestions to make then make them. If you have some information you think might be useful beyond what you've already provided then provide it. If you have nothing further to add then shut up. > > > > >> > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> 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 > oups.com... > > > > snip... > > >> > > >> > 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. > >> > > > > What I'm trying to do is compare the two. > ======================= > My point is that you should not be comparing anything to meat, > since you have decided against eating it. > What you need to focus on is the choices you do make. A > comparison that you have not even attempted. > Yes, I have. > > > >> >> 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?
rick wrote: > "Dave" > wrote in message > ups.com... > > > > rick wrote: > >> > wrote in message > >> oups.com... > >> > > >> > >> snip... > >> > >> >> > > >> >> > 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. > >> >> > >> > > >> > What I'm trying to do is compare the two. > >> ======================= > >> My point is that you should not be comparing anything to meat, > >> since you have decided against eating it. > >> What you need to focus on is the choices you do make. A > >> comparison that you have not even attempted. > > > > What about if his decision to not eat meat is still under > > review? > ===================== > He claims to be a vegan. All he's done so far is spew about > meats. You brought the subject up. You claimed that conscientious omnivorism is superior to veganism. I wanted to examine your defence of that claim. > He admits he eats bananas, and has no idea which of his > foods kill more/less animals. Again, since he has given up > meats, his focus should be on the foods he does eat, not what he > thinks others are eating. How does his continued focus on those > that eat meat help him to make any difference in his own choices? > You are of course correct that I should do research into the foods I currently eat. > > > > > >> >> >> 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: > wrote: > > > > 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. > > If the cattle are being grazed on permanent pasture. But that was what Davis envisaged, wasn't it? So why did he feel it necessary to still assume there would be some collateral deaths? |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
"Dave" > wrote > > wrote: >> Dave wrote: >> > wrote: >> > > Dutch wrote: >> > 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. I find that a stretch. There's a huge gap between having pain receptors or some equivalent defense mechanism, and having conscious will. I am even dubious that most people have it. >> 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. He just moved the goalposts again. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
> wrote in message oups.com... > > Dutch wrote: >> > 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 meant nobody on this thread. The problem with sweeping claims like "conscientious omnivorism is superior to veganism" is that they are too broad to have any meaning. It's like saying that rice is superior to beef... Which rice, produced how? Which beef, produced how? If you include the collateral impact of food production it becomes a much more difficult task to evaluate foods. This makes it an unattractive prospect for vegans who have latched onto a much more simple, easy to follow, feelgood formula, avoid animal products. >> > 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. > > All right, I'll do that. Great! <picking self off floor> >> 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. >> > > Well, we'll see. It'll be answered one way or another. You will either continue to believe that vegan options are superior, or you may begin to believe that in some instances meat options are probably superior to some vegan options, or you may realize that it's very often very difficult to determine. If you stop being so sold on this idea that non-animal products are pure as the driven snow and animal products are pure evil, I think you will have advanced eons in your personal evolution. [..] |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
> wrote in message oups.com... > > rick wrote: >> "Dave" > wrote in message >> ups.com... >> > >> > rick wrote: >> >> > wrote in message >> >> oups.com... >> >> > >> >> >> >> snip... >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > 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. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > What I'm trying to do is compare the two. >> >> ======================= >> >> My point is that you should not be comparing anything to >> >> meat, >> >> since you have decided against eating it. >> >> What you need to focus on is the choices you do make. A >> >> comparison that you have not even attempted. >> > >> > What about if his decision to not eat meat is still under >> > review? >> ===================== >> He claims to be a vegan. All he's done so far is spew about >> meats. > > You brought the subject up. You claimed that conscientious > omnivorism > is superior to veganism. I wanted to examine your defence of > that > claim. ========================= Yes, I did because I believe it to be true. You, however are vegan and will remain so, so the focus on meats is just a deversion from your own bloody footprints. > >> He admits he eats bananas, and has no idea which of his >> foods kill more/less animals. Again, since he has given up >> meats, his focus should be on the foods he does eat, not what >> he >> thinks others are eating. How does his continued focus on >> those >> that eat meat help him to make any difference in his own >> choices? >> > > You are of course correct that I should do research into the > foods I > currently eat. ================== Should and will are quite different. Besides, didn't you already say you had looked into the comparisons and found veganism to be better all the time? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> 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 ps.com... > > rick wrote: >> > wrote in message >> oups.com... >> > >> >> snip... >> >> >> > >> >> > 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. >> >> >> > >> > What I'm trying to do is compare the two. >> ======================= >> My point is that you should not be comparing anything to meat, >> since you have decided against eating it. >> What you need to focus on is the choices you do make. A >> comparison that you have not even attempted. >> > > Yes, I have. ==================== LOL Just the last post you claimed that you should research your foods. Which is the ly? > >> >> >> >> >> 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 oups.com... > > rick wrote: >> > wrote in message >> ups.com... >> > >> > rick wrote: >> >> >> snip... >> >> >> >> > >> >> > 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... >> >> >> > >> > That's not what I'm doing. My principles are "Don't cause >> > unnecessary >> > harm to sentient animals", and "Make every reasonable effort >> > not to >> > provide financial support to institutions or practices that >> > cause or >> > support unnecessary harm." Those principles are consistent >> > with >> > animals >> > having rights. >> ============================== >> No, it is not. You cannot pick and chose which animals have >> rights and which ones don't. >> Either animals have rights or they don't. Killing those >> convenient for you isn't consistent with rights. >> > > My principles imply that we should not kill animals > unnecessarily. > However they permit you to financially support unnecessary > harm, > provided you make every reasonable effort not to do so. As I > say, this > is consistent with animals having rights. ==================== Then the animals have NO rights if you can kill them without penalty. This too difficult for your simple mind with the simple rule? > >> >> >> >> >> I am not convinced that these principles require me to >> > boycott Usenet. >> ================== >> Of course not. Anything that would require you to make any >> changes is why vegans follow only a simple rule for their >> simple >> minds. It's part of why you still eat bananas and other >> exotic >> imported foods. As long as you can demonize others about >> their >> choices you think that your choices don't matter. >> > > I already have made some changes: namely, going vegan. I will > make > further changes if I become convinced my principles require me > to do > so. I'm not interested in demonizing others, and of course my > choices > matter. ===================== G=oing vegan does not automatically mean a change for the better. Your choices are to demonize others for deaths that you yourself are unwilling to avoid yourself. > >> >> >> snip... > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
rick wrote: > > wrote in message > oups.com... > > > > rick wrote: > >> "Dave" > wrote in message > >> ups.com... > >> > > >> > rick wrote: > >> >> > wrote in message > >> >> oups.com... > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> snip... > >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > 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. > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > What I'm trying to do is compare the two. > >> >> ======================= > >> >> My point is that you should not be comparing anything to > >> >> meat, > >> >> since you have decided against eating it. > >> >> What you need to focus on is the choices you do make. A > >> >> comparison that you have not even attempted. > >> > > >> > What about if his decision to not eat meat is still under > >> > review? > >> ===================== > >> He claims to be a vegan. All he's done so far is spew about > >> meats. > > > > You brought the subject up. You claimed that conscientious > > omnivorism > > is superior to veganism. I wanted to examine your defence of > > that > > claim. > ========================= > Yes, I did because I believe it to be true. You, however are > vegan and will remain so, so the focus on meats is just a > deversion from your own bloody footprints. > I may or may not remain so. As I say, you brought the subject up. I'm just taking an interest in your claim and trying to examine the basis for it. > > > > > >> He admits he eats bananas, and has no idea which of his > >> foods kill more/less animals. Again, since he has given up > >> meats, his focus should be on the foods he does eat, not what > >> he > >> thinks others are eating. How does his continued focus on > >> those > >> that eat meat help him to make any difference in his own > >> choices? > >> > > > > You are of course correct that I should do research into the > > foods I > > currently eat. > ================== > Should and will are quite different. Besides, didn't you already > say you had looked into the comparisons and found veganism to be > better all the time? > No, I said I had made some effort to find out, but found there is not very much research available on the matter. I will keep looking. > > > > >> > >> > >> > > >> >> >> >> 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?
rick wrote: > > wrote in message > ps.com... > > > > rick wrote: > >> > wrote in message > >> oups.com... > >> > > >> > >> snip... > >> > >> >> > > >> >> > 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. > >> >> > >> > > >> > What I'm trying to do is compare the two. > >> ======================= > >> My point is that you should not be comparing anything to meat, > >> since you have decided against eating it. > >> What you need to focus on is the choices you do make. A > >> comparison that you have not even attempted. > >> > > > > Yes, I have. > ==================== > LOL Just the last post you claimed that you should research > your foods. Which is the ly? > Neither is a lie. It is true that I have attempted to look into the matter, and it is true that I should and will continue to make efforts to look into the matter. > > > >> > >> > >> >> >> 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?
rick wrote: > > wrote in message > oups.com... > > > > rick wrote: > >> > wrote in message > >> ups.com... > >> > > >> > rick wrote: > >> > >> > >> snip... > >> > >> > >> >> > > >> >> > 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... > >> >> > >> > > >> > That's not what I'm doing. My principles are "Don't cause > >> > unnecessary > >> > harm to sentient animals", and "Make every reasonable effort > >> > not to > >> > provide financial support to institutions or practices that > >> > cause or > >> > support unnecessary harm." Those principles are consistent > >> > with > >> > animals > >> > having rights. > >> ============================== > >> No, it is not. You cannot pick and chose which animals have > >> rights and which ones don't. > >> Either animals have rights or they don't. Killing those > >> convenient for you isn't consistent with rights. > >> > > > > My principles imply that we should not kill animals > > unnecessarily. > > However they permit you to financially support unnecessary > > harm, > > provided you make every reasonable effort not to do so. As I > > say, this > > is consistent with animals having rights. > ==================== > Then the animals have NO rights if you can kill them without > penalty. This too difficult for your simple mind with the simple > rule? > If it is permissible for me to kill animals, then animals do not have the right not to be killed. However this isn't what I said. As I say you are not very good at making distinctions. > > > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> I am not convinced that these principles require me to > >> > boycott Usenet. > >> ================== > >> Of course not. Anything that would require you to make any > >> changes is why vegans follow only a simple rule for their > >> simple > >> minds. It's part of why you still eat bananas and other > >> exotic > >> imported foods. As long as you can demonize others about > >> their > >> choices you think that your choices don't matter. > >> > > > > I already have made some changes: namely, going vegan. I will > > make > > further changes if I become convinced my principles require me > > to do > > so. I'm not interested in demonizing others, and of course my > > choices > > matter. > ===================== > G=oing vegan does not automatically mean a change for the better. I'm pretty confident that a vegan diet is an improvement over a typical Western diet. > Your choices are to demonize others for deaths that you yourself > are unwilling to avoid yourself. > To repeat, I am not demonizing anyone. You are the one demonizing me. Stop being such a hypocrite. > > > > >> > >> > >> snip... > > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
"Dave" > wrote in message oups.com...
Pearl wrote: > 'Two years ago, he and Mr. Worm used the same > data to show that commercial fishing had depleted > the world's oceans of 90 per cent of the overall > abundance of big fish that flourished 50 years ago. Commercial methods of fishing are disruptive of the marine environment generally and result in significant quantities of bycatch which is thrown back to sea dead. Big fish at the top of the marine food chain are especially vulnerable to overfishing because they don't mature as fast or reproduce as rapidly as smaller fish. > ....' > http://www.seaotters.org/CurrentIssu....cfm?DocID=279 > > At 1 fish a week for 6 billion people.., that's 6 billion fish > handlined per week. In perspective: "The area of the World Ocean is 361 million km², its volume is 1370 million km³, and its average depth is 3790 m." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean World population = 6.5 bn At 1 fish per person that's 18 fish for every sqaure km of ocean albeit distributed somewhat unevenly. > 24 billion every month. Where are > these massive numbers of fish Dave proposes handlining? I wasn't aware that I was proposing any specific quota size. I suggested that we fish the seas within their biological limits, whatever they might be. -- 'Two years ago, he and Mr. Worm used the same data to show that commercial fishing had depleted the world's oceans of 90 per cent of the overall abundance of big fish that flourished 50 years ago. 100% fish abundance is the naturally-occuring level. To continue to fish is like saying, "well we've taken eight fingers and a thumb, you won't mind if we continue nibbling away at your remaining digit." We don't need to eat fish. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
"rick" > wrote in message ink.net...
> vegan and will remain so, so the focus on meats is just a > deversion from your own bloody footprints. Your focus on plant foods is just a diversion from your own blood-drenched boot prints, slaughterer. Go sort your own lifestyle out, and get back to us. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
"pearl" > wrote in message ... > "rick" > wrote in message > ink.net... > >> vegan and will remain so, so the focus on meats is just a >> deversion from your own bloody footprints. > > Your focus on plant foods is just a diversion from > your own blood-drenched boot prints, slaughterer. > > Go sort your own lifestyle out, and get back to us. ====================== ROTFLMAO What a hoot fool!! Unlike you I realize that animals are going to die for every aspect of my life and I don't claim that I live in such a way as to make that delusion a smug religion. Now, when you recognize your hypocrisy, get back with us killer... > > |
|
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 >> >> ups.com... >> >> > >> >> > rick wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> snip... >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> > 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... >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > That's not what I'm doing. My principles are "Don't cause >> >> > unnecessary >> >> > harm to sentient animals", and "Make every reasonable >> >> > effort >> >> > not to >> >> > provide financial support to institutions or practices >> >> > that >> >> > cause or >> >> > support unnecessary harm." Those principles are >> >> > consistent >> >> > with >> >> > animals >> >> > having rights. >> >> ============================== >> >> No, it is not. You cannot pick and chose which animals >> >> have >> >> rights and which ones don't. >> >> Either animals have rights or they don't. Killing those >> >> convenient for you isn't consistent with rights. >> >> >> > >> > My principles imply that we should not kill animals >> > unnecessarily. >> > However they permit you to financially support unnecessary >> > harm, >> > provided you make every reasonable effort not to do so. As I >> > say, this >> > is consistent with animals having rights. >> ==================== >> Then the animals have NO rights if you can kill them without >> penalty. This too difficult for your simple mind with the >> simple >> rule? >> > > If it is permissible for me to kill animals, then animals do > not have > the right not to be killed. However this isn't what I said. As > I say > you are not very good at making distinctions. ===================== I can make the discintion quite well. You have a problem it seems. Contributing to the death and suffering of animals willingly is not consistent with their having any rights. Your continued contributions to this death tolll proves that you ultimately don't believe animals have rights. > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I am not convinced that these principles require me to >> >> > boycott Usenet. >> >> ================== >> >> Of course not. Anything that would require you to make any >> >> changes is why vegans follow only a simple rule for their >> >> simple >> >> minds. It's part of why you still eat bananas and other >> >> exotic >> >> imported foods. As long as you can demonize others about >> >> their >> >> choices you think that your choices don't matter. >> >> >> > >> > I already have made some changes: namely, going vegan. I >> > will >> > make >> > further changes if I become convinced my principles require >> > me >> > to do >> > so. I'm not interested in demonizing others, and of course >> > my >> > choices >> > matter. >> ===================== >> G=oing vegan does not automatically mean a change for the >> better. > > I'm pretty confident that a vegan diet is an improvement over a > typical > Western diet. =================== Then prove it. Vegans make the claim, but never have... > >> Your choices are to demonize others for deaths that you >> yourself >> are unwilling to avoid yourself. >> > > To repeat, I am not demonizing anyone. You are the one > demonizing me. > Stop being such a hypocrite. ======================= Hardly, killer... > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> snip... >> > > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
> wrote in message ups.com... > snip... >> >> >> > 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 meant all of it. It's true. On the other hand, I didn't >> > say I >> > don't >> > do anything morally problematic when I go on a vacation. >> > Obviously >> > you're not very good at making distinctions. >> ======================== >> Yes, I am. Just like you kill no animals for your vacation, I >> kill no animals that I eat. >> Is that morally problematic enough for you? >> > > Yes, I know. I was simply pointing out the fact that I kill no > animals > when I go on vacation. I never in any way implied that this > meant there > were no moral problems with doing so. The fact that you are > unable to > realize this is why I say you are not very good at drawing > distinctions. > ============================== I read what you write. If you mean something else, I'm not a mindreader... snip... >> >> > 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. >> > >> > If they exist. >> ========================== >> Of course they do. But then, you wouldn't know because you >> won't >> 'research' anything except propaganda about meats, eh >> hypocrite? >> > > Well, if you know some, tell me about them. And stop telling me > I have > never made any effort to do research on this issue when > obviously you > don't know. =========================== Stop eating bananas. Stop eating rice. Now, like I said, if you really cared about animals you would have looked at your own foods, and not focused on what others eat for demonization... > >> >> > >> >> 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. >> >> >> > >> > I've told you what my principle is. I try to follow it. If >> > you >> > want to >> > berate me for not doing enough to follow it, it's your job >> > to >> > come up >> > with a proposal for doing better. >> ========================= >> It's your vegan claims of caring that says you should find >> better >> options. But, like all vegans here on usenet, you prefer to >> focus all your so-called efforts at demonizing those that eat >> meat instead of looking at your own bloody hands. >> > > I should see if better options exist, and adopt them if they > do. I am > in the process of looking for better options. I am not > demonizing > anyone else. > >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> 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? >> >> >> > >> > Yes, I have. I just haven't found out anything about that >> > particular >> > example yet. >> ====================== >> Then you aren't looking, and you aren't even trying to read >> the >> sites I've provided... >> > > Yes, I am looking, and I have read your sites. > >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> 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? >> >> >> > >> > Avoiding factory-farmed meat does make a big difference. >> > Perhaps >> > avoiding factory-farmed vegetables would as well. What I >> > would >> > like to >> > see is some sort of practical proposal for how I could do >> > this. >> ===================== >> In other words, you want it easy. Just like all good vegans >> here, it's your convenience and selfishness that matters most. >> If animals really meant anything to you, you would have >> already >> researched options, and continue to do so. >> > > And I have, and am continuing to do so. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> >> > >> > No, I didn't. I haven't lied. It's an unfounded accusation >> > on >> > your >> > part. >> ================= >> No, it's not. > > Yes, it is. > >> You made the claim that you care about animals. >> You cliamed that you eat morally 'better' than others, but >> admit >> you haven't looked into the foods you eat. > > Yes, I did make those two claims. I have made some effort to do > research about the foods I eat, but not very much research > exists about > the matter. I am continuing to look. ========================== It was a ly then, huh? > >> Again, which causes >> more/less death and suffering? Rice? Potatoes? Bananas? >> Apples? You don't know because you don't care, despite your >> claims. > > No, I don't know because not much reliable research exists on > the > matter. ======================== Then you haven't done enough research. > >> All you "need" is your simple rule for simple minds, >> 'eat no meat.' >> >> > >> >> 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. >> > >> > What are you referring to here? All those websites? Yes, >> > thank >> > you for >> > pointing out them. >> > >> >> You are too willfully >> >> ignornat to want to change. >> >> I guess you just like all that blood on your hands, eh >> >> hypocrite? >> >> >> > >> > As I say, if you have no constructive suggestions then you >> > have >> > no >> > basis for criticizing me. >> ====================== >> LOL Yes, I do, becasue you have made the claims of caring, >> and >> have proven that all you've done is follow a simple rule for >> your >> simple mind. >> > > No, you don't. If you want to claim that I could do better, > then it is > up to you to show me how. If you have no concrete suggestions > for how I > can do this then I suggest you just let me get on with trying > to do the > best I can. ===================== I've given you ideas, you continue to ignore tham... You talk about how I am trying to demonize others, in fact > it is you who are constantly demonizing me but without > providing any > actual basis for doing so. If you have some helpful suggestions > to make > then make them. If you have some information you think might be > useful > beyond what you've already provided then provide it. If you > have > nothing further to add then shut up. ======================= LOL Why? Because you don't like being caught in your lys? > >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 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
|
|||
|
|||
|
The numbers game
"Dave" > wrote in message oups.com... > The figures I'm using here are basically the first ones I came > across. > If > anyone wants to offer more reliable figures feel free but the > nature of > these > types of calculations means that I shall be making major > approximations > in any case so no point in splitting hairs over the data. > > "A beef steer gives us 459 pounds of beef to eat" > http://www.agr.state.nc.us/agscool/c...es/beefkid.htm > Note that the steers being discussed are fattened on > grain for the last three to four months of his life. I don't > know > whether cattle fattened on grass alone can be expected to > reach similar weights. =============================== Why not? I've bought halves almost that size. Here's a note from that icon of radical right-wing agenda, Mother Earth News. ;-) "...Your extra year of pasturing can be expected to produce-on the average -at least 200 pounds more beef than would be found on an equivalent feed-lot raised steer . . . and maybe as much as 600 pounds more!..." http://www.motherearthnews.com/menar...063-110-01.htm > > One acre of corn can produce about 211 pounds of usable protein > http://www.ciwf.org.uk/publications/...ts_summary.pdf > > Nutrition data for beef > http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?t...ofile&dbid=141 > Data is for tenderloin. Obviously the whole carcass is not > homogonous. > > Nutrition data for corn > http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?t...rofile&dbid=65 > > Conversion from lbs to grams > http://www.metric-conversions.org/we...-kilograms.htm > > 459 lbs beef = 208 kg provides 208,000 * 240.41/113.4 = 440964 > calories > > one acre of corn provides 211 lbs = 95.7 kg protein. > For every g of protein corn provides 177.12/5.44 = 32.56 > calories > *95,700 = 3 115 879 calories > > calories per acre of corn / calories per steer = ~7. > > No. of cattle killed in above equation = 1. > Decline in woodmouse population per hectare of cereal > production > according to study by Mcdonald and Tew = 20 > Decline per acre = ~8. > % decline due to mortality unknown. > Analysis only looks at one species and one part of the process. > Slaughter in the case of beef, harvesting in the case of corn. > |
|
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 > >> >> ups.com... > >> >> > > >> >> > rick wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> snip... > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > 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... > >> >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > That's not what I'm doing. My principles are "Don't cause > >> >> > unnecessary > >> >> > harm to sentient animals", and "Make every reasonable > >> >> > effort > >> >> > not to > >> >> > provide financial support to institutions or practices > >> >> > that > >> >> > cause or > >> >> > support unnecessary harm." Those principles are > >> >> > consistent > >> >> > with > >> >> > animals > >> >> > having rights. > >> >> ============================== > >> >> No, it is not. You cannot pick and chose which animals > >> >> have > >> >> rights and which ones don't. > >> >> Either animals have rights or they don't. Killing those > >> >> convenient for you isn't consistent with rights. > >> >> > >> > > >> > My principles imply that we should not kill animals > >> > unnecessarily. > >> > However they permit you to financially support unnecessary > >> > harm, > >> > provided you make every reasonable effort not to do so. As I > >> > say, this > >> > is consistent with animals having rights. > >> ==================== > >> Then the animals have NO rights if you can kill them without > >> penalty. This too difficult for your simple mind with the > >> simple > >> rule? > >> > > > > If it is permissible for me to kill animals, then animals do > > not have > > the right not to be killed. However this isn't what I said. As > > I say > > you are not very good at making distinctions. > ===================== > I can make the discintion quite well. You have a problem it > seems. Contributing to the death and suffering of animals > willingly is not consistent with their having any rights. Your > continued contributions to this death tolll proves that you > ultimately don't believe animals have rights. > No, it does not. Animals have the right not to be killed unnecessarily. When it comes to financial supporting processes which involve such killing, you are obliged to make every reasonable effort to avoid doing so, but not every possible effort. > > > > > >> > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> I am not convinced that these principles require me to > >> >> > boycott Usenet. > >> >> ================== > >> >> Of course not. Anything that would require you to make any > >> >> changes is why vegans follow only a simple rule for their > >> >> simple > >> >> minds. It's part of why you still eat bananas and other > >> >> exotic > >> >> imported foods. As long as you can demonize others about > >> >> their > >> >> choices you think that your choices don't matter. > >> >> > >> > > >> > I already have made some changes: namely, going vegan. I > >> > will > >> > make > >> > further changes if I become convinced my principles require > >> > me > >> > to do > >> > so. I'm not interested in demonizing others, and of course > >> > my > >> > choices > >> > matter. > >> ===================== > >> G=oing vegan does not automatically mean a change for the > >> better. > > > > I'm pretty confident that a vegan diet is an improvement over a > > typical > > Western diet. > =================== > Then prove it. Vegans make the claim, but never have... > Factory-farming involves considerable suffering, and more land use, hence more collateral deaths. > > > > >> Your choices are to demonize others for deaths that you > >> yourself > >> are unwilling to avoid yourself. > >> > > > > To repeat, I am not demonizing anyone. You are the one > > demonizing me. > > Stop being such a hypocrite. > ======================= > Hardly, killer... > Thank you for illustrating my point. I am not a killer. If it is bad to demonize other people, then stop doing it. > > > >> > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> snip... > >> > > > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
wrote:
> rick wrote: > > > wrote in message > > ups.com... > > > > > > rick wrote: > > > > > >> > wrote in message > > >> oups.com... > > >> > > > >> > rick wrote: > > >> >> > wrote in message > > >> >> ups.com... > > >> >> > > > >> >> > rick wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> snip... > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > 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... > > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > > >> >> > That's not what I'm doing. My principles are "Don't cause > > >> >> > unnecessary > > >> >> > harm to sentient animals", and "Make every reasonable > > >> >> > effort > > >> >> > not to > > >> >> > provide financial support to institutions or practices > > >> >> > that > > >> >> > cause or > > >> >> > support unnecessary harm." Those principles are > > >> >> > consistent > > >> >> > with > > >> >> > animals > > >> >> > having rights. > > >> >> ============================== > > >> >> No, it is not. You cannot pick and chose which animals > > >> >> have > > >> >> rights and which ones don't. > > >> >> Either animals have rights or they don't. Killing those > > >> >> convenient for you isn't consistent with rights. > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > My principles imply that we should not kill animals > > >> > unnecessarily. > > >> > However they permit you to financially support unnecessary > > >> > harm, > > >> > provided you make every reasonable effort not to do so. As I > > >> > say, this > > >> > is consistent with animals having rights. > > >> ==================== > > >> Then the animals have NO rights if you can kill them without > > >> penalty. This too difficult for your simple mind with the > > >> simple > > >> rule? > > >> > > > > > > If it is permissible for me to kill animals, then animals do > > > not have > > > the right not to be killed. However this isn't what I said. As > > > I say > > > you are not very good at making distinctions. > > ===================== > > I can make the discintion quite well. You have a problem it > > seems. Contributing to the death and suffering of animals > > willingly is not consistent with their having any rights. Your > > continued contributions to this death tolll proves that you > > ultimately don't believe animals have rights. > > > > No, it does not. Animals have the right not to be killed unnecessarily. Animals don't have *any* rights. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
rick wrote: > > wrote in message > ups.com... > > > > snip... > > >> >> >> > 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 meant all of it. It's true. On the other hand, I didn't > >> > say I > >> > don't > >> > do anything morally problematic when I go on a vacation. > >> > Obviously > >> > you're not very good at making distinctions. > >> ======================== > >> Yes, I am. Just like you kill no animals for your vacation, I > >> kill no animals that I eat. > >> Is that morally problematic enough for you? > >> > > > > Yes, I know. I was simply pointing out the fact that I kill no > > animals > > when I go on vacation. I never in any way implied that this > > meant there > > were no moral problems with doing so. The fact that you are > > unable to > > realize this is why I say you are not very good at drawing > > distinctions. > > ============================== > I read what you write. If you mean something else, I'm not a > mindreader... > Yes, you read what I write but you don't understand it, despite my repeatedly explaining it to you in plain English. I suggest you just give up. > > > > snip... > > > > >> >> > 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. > >> > > >> > If they exist. > >> ========================== > >> Of course they do. But then, you wouldn't know because you > >> won't > >> 'research' anything except propaganda about meats, eh > >> hypocrite? > >> > > > > Well, if you know some, tell me about them. And stop telling me > > I have > > never made any effort to do research on this issue when > > obviously you > > don't know. > =========================== > Stop eating bananas. Stop eating rice. Now, like I said, if > you really cared about animals you would have looked at your own > foods, and not focused on what others eat for demonization... > I did try to find out about the foods I eat. If demonization is bad, stop doing it. You are the one doing it, not me. > > > > >> > >> > > >> >> 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. > >> >> > >> > > >> > I've told you what my principle is. I try to follow it. If > >> > you > >> > want to > >> > berate me for not doing enough to follow it, it's your job > >> > to > >> > come up > >> > with a proposal for doing better. > >> ========================= > >> It's your vegan claims of caring that says you should find > >> better > >> options. But, like all vegans here on usenet, you prefer to > >> focus all your so-called efforts at demonizing those that eat > >> meat instead of looking at your own bloody hands. > >> > > > > I should see if better options exist, and adopt them if they > > do. I am > > in the process of looking for better options. I am not > > demonizing > > anyone else. > > > >> > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >> 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? > >> >> > >> > > >> > Yes, I have. I just haven't found out anything about that > >> > particular > >> > example yet. > >> ====================== > >> Then you aren't looking, and you aren't even trying to read > >> the > >> sites I've provided... > >> > > > > Yes, I am looking, and I have read your sites. > > > >> > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >> 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? > >> >> > >> > > >> > Avoiding factory-farmed meat does make a big difference. > >> > Perhaps > >> > avoiding factory-farmed vegetables would as well. What I > >> > would > >> > like to > >> > see is some sort of practical proposal for how I could do > >> > this. > >> ===================== > >> In other words, you want it easy. Just like all good vegans > >> here, it's your convenience and selfishness that matters most. > >> If animals really meant anything to you, you would have > >> already > >> researched options, and continue to do so. > >> > > > > And I have, and am continuing to do so. > > > >> > >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> 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. > >> >> > >> > > >> > No, I didn't. I haven't lied. It's an unfounded accusation > >> > on > >> > your > >> > part. > >> ================= > >> No, it's not. > > > > Yes, it is. > > > >> You made the claim that you care about animals. > >> You cliamed that you eat morally 'better' than others, but > >> admit > >> you haven't looked into the foods you eat. > > > > Yes, I did make those two claims. I have made some effort to do > > research about the foods I eat, but not very much research > > exists about > > the matter. I am continuing to look. > ========================== > It was a ly then, huh? > No, I think I have good reason to believe a vegan diet is better than a typical Western diet. > > > > >> Again, which causes > >> more/less death and suffering? Rice? Potatoes? Bananas? > >> Apples? You don't know because you don't care, despite your > >> claims. > > > > No, I don't know because not much reliable research exists on > > the > > matter. > ======================== > Then you haven't done enough research. > So I'll do some more. You will be of absolutely no use to me in this project, because all you can do is make the unfounded claim that I don't care. > > > > >> All you "need" is your simple rule for simple minds, > >> 'eat no meat.' > >> > >> > > >> >> 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. > >> > > >> > What are you referring to here? All those websites? Yes, > >> > thank > >> > you for > >> > pointing out them. > >> > > >> >> You are too willfully > >> >> ignornat to want to change. > >> >> I guess you just like all that blood on your hands, eh > >> >> hypocrite? > >> >> > >> > > >> > As I say, if you have no constructive suggestions then you > >> > have > >> > no > >> > basis for criticizing me. > >> ====================== > >> LOL Yes, I do, becasue you have made the claims of caring, > >> and > >> have proven that all you've done is follow a simple rule for > >> your > >> simple mind. > >> > > > > No, you don't. If you want to claim that I could do better, > > then it is > > up to you to show me how. If you have no concrete suggestions > > for how I > > can do this then I suggest you just let me get on with trying > > to do the > > best I can. > ===================== > I've given you ideas, you continue to ignore tham... > Really? I must have missed them. Run them by me again. > You talk about how I am trying to demonize others, in fact > > it is you who are constantly demonizing me but without > > providing any > > actual basis for doing so. If you have some helpful suggestions > > to make > > then make them. If you have some information you think might be > > useful > > beyond what you've already provided then provide it. If you > > have > > nothing further to add then shut up. > ======================= > LOL Why? Because you don't like being caught in your lys? > You have not caught me in any lies. You don't have to shut up if you don't want to, but I can't for the life of me imagine what you think the purpose of this conversation is. You're not prepared to substantiate any of your claims. You're not prepared to point me to any useful research. You're not prepared to make any constructive suggestions for how I can do better. All you're doing is engaging in abuse and unfounded accusations. Don't you ever get bored? > > > > >> > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> 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: > >> Again, which causes > >> more/less death and suffering? Rice? Who grows the rice? Where is it grown? How is it grown? Potatoes? Bananas? Who grows the bananas? where are they grown? How are they grown. You are being too simplistic. Just as not all beef is the same, the same is true of rice, bananas, apples and potatoes. > >> Apples? You don't know because you don't care, despite your > >> claims. > > > > No, I don't know because not much reliable research exists on > > the > > matter. > ======================== > Then you haven't done enough research. For you to be so confident about that you would have to know about some research that has been done on the matter. Please share it with us. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
Leif Erikson wrote: > wrote: > > rick wrote: > > > > wrote in message > > > ups.com... > > > > > > > > rick wrote: > > > > > > > >> > wrote in message > > > >> oups.com... > > > >> > > > > >> > rick wrote: > > > >> >> > wrote in message > > > >> >> ups.com... > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > rick wrote: > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> snip... > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > 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... > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > That's not what I'm doing. My principles are "Don't cause > > > >> >> > unnecessary > > > >> >> > harm to sentient animals", and "Make every reasonable > > > >> >> > effort > > > >> >> > not to > > > >> >> > provide financial support to institutions or practices > > > >> >> > that > > > >> >> > cause or > > > >> >> > support unnecessary harm." Those principles are > > > >> >> > consistent > > > >> >> > with > > > >> >> > animals > > > >> >> > having rights. > > > >> >> ============================== > > > >> >> No, it is not. You cannot pick and chose which animals > > > >> >> have > > > >> >> rights and which ones don't. > > > >> >> Either animals have rights or they don't. Killing those > > > >> >> convenient for you isn't consistent with rights. > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > > >> > My principles imply that we should not kill animals > > > >> > unnecessarily. > > > >> > However they permit you to financially support unnecessary > > > >> > harm, > > > >> > provided you make every reasonable effort not to do so. As I > > > >> > say, this > > > >> > is consistent with animals having rights. > > > >> ==================== > > > >> Then the animals have NO rights if you can kill them without > > > >> penalty. This too difficult for your simple mind with the > > > >> simple > > > >> rule? > > > >> > > > > > > > > If it is permissible for me to kill animals, then animals do > > > > not have > > > > the right not to be killed. However this isn't what I said. As > > > > I say > > > > you are not very good at making distinctions. > > > ===================== > > > I can make the discintion quite well. You have a problem it > > > seems. Contributing to the death and suffering of animals > > > willingly is not consistent with their having any rights. Your > > > continued contributions to this death tolll proves that you > > > ultimately don't believe animals have rights. > > > > > > > No, it does not. Animals have the right not to be killed unnecessarily. > > Animals don't have *any* rights. Well, I don't agree. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
"Dave" > wrote in message ups.com... > > rick wrote: >> >> Again, which causes >> >> more/less death and suffering? Rice? > > Who grows the rice? Where is it grown? How is it grown? > > Potatoes? Bananas? > > Who grows the bananas? where are they grown? How are they > grown. You are being too simplistic. Just as not all beef is > the > same, the same is true of rice, bananas, apples and potatoes. ===================== Except for bananas you're right. that's the point. Vegans look only at one typr of meat production and declare all meat bad, yet NEVER compare their own foods. Thanks for pointing out my statement. > >> >> Apples? You don't know because you don't care, despite >> >> your >> >> claims. >> > >> > No, I don't know because not much reliable research exists >> > on >> > the >> > matter. >> ======================== >> Then you haven't done enough research. > > For you to be so confident about that you would have to know > about > some research that has been done on the matter. Please share it > with us. =============================== I have. Vegans always ignore it, like you and rumperroom.... > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
> wrote in message oups.com... > > Leif Erikson wrote: >> wrote: >> > rick wrote: >> > > > wrote in message >> > > ups.com... >> > > > >> > > > rick wrote: >> > > > >> > > >> > wrote in message >> > > >> oups.com... >> > > >> > >> > > >> > rick wrote: >> > > >> >> > wrote in message >> > > >> >> ups.com... >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > rick wrote: >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> snip... >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > 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... >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > That's not what I'm doing. My principles are >> > > >> >> > "Don't cause >> > > >> >> > unnecessary >> > > >> >> > harm to sentient animals", and "Make every >> > > >> >> > reasonable >> > > >> >> > effort >> > > >> >> > not to >> > > >> >> > provide financial support to institutions or >> > > >> >> > practices >> > > >> >> > that >> > > >> >> > cause or >> > > >> >> > support unnecessary harm." Those principles are >> > > >> >> > consistent >> > > >> >> > with >> > > >> >> > animals >> > > >> >> > having rights. >> > > >> >> ============================== >> > > >> >> No, it is not. You cannot pick and chose which >> > > >> >> animals >> > > >> >> have >> > > >> >> rights and which ones don't. >> > > >> >> Either animals have rights or they don't. Killing >> > > >> >> those >> > > >> >> convenient for you isn't consistent with rights. >> > > >> >> >> > > >> > >> > > >> > My principles imply that we should not kill animals >> > > >> > unnecessarily. >> > > >> > However they permit you to financially support >> > > >> > unnecessary >> > > >> > harm, >> > > >> > provided you make every reasonable effort not to do >> > > >> > so. As I >> > > >> > say, this >> > > >> > is consistent with animals having rights. >> > > >> ==================== >> > > >> Then the animals have NO rights if you can kill them >> > > >> without >> > > >> penalty. This too difficult for your simple mind with >> > > >> the >> > > >> simple >> > > >> rule? >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > > If it is permissible for me to kill animals, then >> > > > animals do >> > > > not have >> > > > the right not to be killed. However this isn't what I >> > > > said. As >> > > > I say >> > > > you are not very good at making distinctions. >> > > ===================== >> > > I can make the discintion quite well. You have a problem >> > > it >> > > seems. Contributing to the death and suffering of animals >> > > willingly is not consistent with their having any rights. >> > > Your >> > > continued contributions to this death tolll proves that >> > > you >> > > ultimately don't believe animals have rights. >> > > >> > >> > No, it does not. Animals have the right not to be killed >> > unnecessarily. >> >> Animals don't have *any* rights. > > Well, I don't agree. ========================= Yes, you do. You prove it with each inane post. You're entire life is based on animal death and suffering. > |
|
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... >> > >> >> snip... >> >> >> >> >> > 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 meant all of it. It's true. On the other hand, I didn't >> >> > say I >> >> > don't >> >> > do anything morally problematic when I go on a vacation. >> >> > Obviously >> >> > you're not very good at making distinctions. >> >> ======================== >> >> Yes, I am. Just like you kill no animals for your >> >> vacation, I >> >> kill no animals that I eat. >> >> Is that morally problematic enough for you? >> >> >> > >> > Yes, I know. I was simply pointing out the fact that I kill >> > no >> > animals >> > when I go on vacation. I never in any way implied that this >> > meant there >> > were no moral problems with doing so. The fact that you are >> > unable to >> > realize this is why I say you are not very good at drawing >> > distinctions. >> > ============================== >> I read what you write. If you mean something else, I'm not a >> mindreader... >> > > Yes, you read what I write but you don't understand it, despite > my > repeatedly explaining it to you in plain English. I suggest you > just > give up. > =================================== I suggest you learn some logic. Analogies are really really hard for you, aren't they? Must be part of that simple mind thing, huh? >> >> >> >> snip... >> >> >> >> >> >> > 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. >> >> > >> >> > If they exist. >> >> ========================== >> >> Of course they do. But then, you wouldn't know because you >> >> won't >> >> 'research' anything except propaganda about meats, eh >> >> hypocrite? >> >> >> > >> > Well, if you know some, tell me about them. And stop telling >> > me >> > I have >> > never made any effort to do research on this issue when >> > obviously you >> > don't know. >> =========================== >> Stop eating bananas. Stop eating rice. Now, like I said, if >> you really cared about animals you would have looked at your >> own >> foods, and not focused on what others eat for demonization... >> > > I did try to find out about the foods I eat. If demonization is > bad, > stop doing it. You are the one doing it, not me. ========================== No, you did not do any serious research. You prove that by continuing to eat bananas. snip... >> > >> > Yes, it is. >> > >> >> You made the claim that you care about animals. >> >> You cliamed that you eat morally 'better' than others, but >> >> admit >> >> you haven't looked into the foods you eat. >> > >> > Yes, I did make those two claims. I have made some effort to >> > do >> > research about the foods I eat, but not very much research >> > exists about >> > the matter. I am continuing to look. >> ========================== >> It was a ly then, huh? >> > > No, I think I have good reason to believe a vegan diet is > better than a > typical Western diet. ======================= Then show your proof. You cannot. I think there are vegan diets that would even be worse than this so-called typical diet you spew about. You do realize don't you, that in the 'typical' american diet meat is NOT the major food group? We eat almost as many pounds of potatoes as meat. Fruits and veggies far out number meat. > >> >> > >> >> Again, which causes >> >> more/less death and suffering? Rice? Potatoes? Bananas? >> >> Apples? You don't know because you don't care, despite >> >> your >> >> claims. >> > >> > No, I don't know because not much reliable research exists >> > on >> > the >> > matter. >> ======================== >> Then you haven't done enough research. >> > > So I'll do some more. You will be of absolutely no use to me in > this > project, because all you can do is make the unfounded claim > that I > don't care. > ====================================== They are not unfounded. You prove them with each inane post. >> >> > >> >> All you "need" is your simple rule for simple minds, >> >> 'eat no meat.' >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> 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. >> >> > >> >> > What are you referring to here? All those websites? Yes, >> >> > thank >> >> > you for >> >> > pointing out them. >> >> > >> >> >> You are too willfully >> >> >> ignornat to want to change. >> >> >> I guess you just like all that blood on your hands, eh >> >> >> hypocrite? >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > As I say, if you have no constructive suggestions then >> >> > you >> >> > have >> >> > no >> >> > basis for criticizing me. >> >> ====================== >> >> LOL Yes, I do, becasue you have made the claims of caring, >> >> and >> >> have proven that all you've done is follow a simple rule >> >> for >> >> your >> >> simple mind. >> >> >> > >> > No, you don't. If you want to claim that I could do better, >> > then it is >> > up to you to show me how. If you have no concrete >> > suggestions >> > for how I >> > can do this then I suggest you just let me get on with >> > trying >> > to do the >> > best I can. >> ===================== >> I've given you ideas, you continue to ignore tham... >> > > Really? I must have missed them. Run them by me again. ======================== Vegans always do... > >> You talk about how I am trying to demonize others, in fact >> > it is you who are constantly demonizing me but without >> > providing any >> > actual basis for doing so. If you have some helpful >> > suggestions >> > to make >> > then make them. If you have some information you think might >> > be >> > useful >> > beyond what you've already provided then provide it. If you >> > have >> > nothing further to add then shut up. >> ======================= >> LOL Why? Because you don't like being caught in your lys? >> > > You have not caught me in any lies. You don't have to shut up > if you > don't want to, but I can't for the life of me imagine what you > think > the purpose of this conversation is. You're not prepared to > substantiate any of your claims. You're not prepared to point > me to any > useful research. You're not prepared to make any constructive > suggestions for how I can do better. All you're doing is > engaging in > abuse and unfounded accusations. Don't you ever get bored? > =================================== I have made suggestions. You have refused to accept anything that means your simple rule is not paramount, killer. >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 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 >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > > |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
