 |
|
| 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 in message link.net...
> > "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. You don't *care*, and you get off on attacking others that do. Pitiful. > Now, when you recognize your hypocrisy, get back with us > killer... The hypocrisy is all yours. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
"pearl" > wrote in message ... > "rick" > wrote in message > link.net... >> >> "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. > > You don't *care*, and you get off on attacking others that do. > > Pitiful. ========================= Tes, your religious delusions and lys are pitiful, hypocrite... > >> Now, when you recognize your hypocrisy, get back with us >> killer... > > The hypocrisy is all yours. ====================== English is hard for you, huh? I suggest you look up the meaning, killer. Your picture displays prominently > > |
|
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?
rick wrote: > "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. Why "except bananas"? > 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. You're welcome. I've consistently argued that we should not tar all meat with the same brush. > > > >> >> 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. So you say. > Vegans always ignore it, like you and rumperroom.... When you shared research that compared apples, bananas, rice and potatoes, I must have missed it. Please share it again. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
rick wrote: > "Dave" > wrote in message > oups.com... > > > snip... > > eat meat, and that wasn't much impact at all. > >> > >> Surely it's about the same amount of impact as Rick makes by > >> buying > >> grass-fed beef. > > > > Exactly. Not eating intensively produced beef has about the > > same > > impact on the beef factories irrespective of whether you choose > > to > > eat extensively reared beef or plant foods instead. Thank you > > for supplying the voice of reason and common sense. > ======================= > And, he is as wrong as you are. Buying grass-fed beef is not an > additional amount of beef on the market. That's what it would > have to be to have no impact on normal beef processing. > Grass-fed beef is a *replacement* of the normal beef industry > product. It is a large and growing portion of the beef supply. > It IS an impact on the type of production that vegans decry, but > do not have any say in since they have dropped out! Go play with someone else. I gave up on you long ago. > > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
rick wrote: > "Dave" > wrote in message > ups.com... > > > > rick wrote: > >> "Dave" > wrote in message > > > snip... > > > >> >> > It is really hard to establish how much animal death and > >> >> > suffering > >> >> > each individual item in one's diet causes. It is much > >> >> > easier > >> >> > to > >> >> > follow simple rules and as simple rules go, avoiding all > >> >> > animal > >> >> > source products is relatively effective. > >> >> ========================= > >> >> Prove it. That's the point. You cannot prove that being > >> >> vegan > >> >> automatically means fewer animals die. > >> >> Vegans could DO some research on the subject, but instead > >> >> they > >> >> prefer to just spew their hatred. > >> > > >> > Because most animals reared in the devoloped world are kept > >> > indoors > >> ================== > >> Show me these intensive indoor reared beef farms, dave. > > > > I said most animals, not most cattle. Most pigs and poultry > > spend their lives indoors. Most cattle spend part of their > > lives grazing and part being fed in feedlots. > =================== > I guess I'd better go out back and let the chickens know that > they aren't really running around, huh? I said *most* chickens, not *all* chickens. You need comprehension 101. > > > > > >> and fed cultivated products with feed/flesh conversion > >> > ratios >1 it follows that a typical Western vegan diet will > >> > cause fewer deaths than a typical Western diet. I don't > >> > believe > >> > veganism is the ideal solution because there are exceptions > >> > to this rule and total of animal deaths cause is not a good > >> > measure of a diet's impact in any case. > >> > > >> >> >> Instead, they have no idea waht impact they > >> >> >> have. All they have is the simple rule for their simple > >> >> >> mind, > >> >> >> 'eat no meat.' > >> >> >> > >> >> >> If everyone did that the world would > >> >> >> > be a much better place. > >> >> >> ================================ > >> >> >> Tell us how dave. > >> >> > > >> >> > If everyone took some responsibility for their consumer > >> >> > habits then the cost to humans, animals and the > >> >> > environment in producing conusmer goods would be > >> >> > reduced. > >> >> ========================== > >> >> That doesn't explain how vegans do that dave, and you know > >> >> it. > >> >> vegans have made no such choices or responsibilities. > >> > > >> > Yes they do. They avoid products that they don't approve of. > >> ========================= > >> LOL Just because they disapprove of a product does not then > >> mean > >> their choices are being responsible dave. How stupid can you > >> be? > > > > I didn't say I admired them for making correct choices. I said > > I > > admired them for considering factors other than their bank > > balances > > and taste preferences. OK? > ========================= > Which still means that there is not automatically something to > admire. What part of making choices without doing any research > makes you think that they are makling any kind of difference. > Good intentions don't mean squat. I beg to differ. > > > >> > > >> >> Tell me how bananas are better than my grass-fed beef, > >> >> dave. > >> >> How > >> >> about rice? Tofu fake meats? > >> > > >> > I'm not claiming that you can buy bananas, rice or tofu fake > >> > meats > >> > that are better for humans, animals and the environment than > >> > your > >> > grass fed beef. > >> ====================== > >> Vegans do that all the time. It's their mantra. Do try to > >> keep > >> up... > > > > I didn't. I'm not required to defend claims I didn't make. > > =================== > Talk the talk, walk the walk... You can't reasonably expect me to defend claims I didn't make. > >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >> I've explained that the veagn here do nothing > >> >> >> but focus on meats. Not a one has ever told us which of > >> >> >> the > >> >> >> foods they can eat cause more/less death and suffering. > >> >> >> Why? > >> >> > > >> >> > See above. > >> >> ================== > >> >> Yes, see above. that's a cop out dave. Plain and simple, > >> >> for > >> >> very simple minds. > >> > > >> > It must be so easy when you simply don't care to sit there > >> > mocking > >> > people who do for not doing enough to prove it. > >> ======================= > >> They aren't doing anything to prove it dave. > > > > False. They are avoiding certain products to avoid > > complicity in associated animal abuses. > ========================== > That does not prove anything dave. The meat they were eating may > have caused very little death and suffering to animals compared > to the foods thay replaced it with. That's not the point. The point is they are avoiding the foods they believe to be unethical. > Is it really so hard for you > to admit that vegan isn't an automatic pass into heaven? Not at all. > > > >> In fact, being here > >> proves they don't care about killing animal unnecessarily. > >> That's the point. > > > > It proves they don't care enough to go and live in a commune > > like dancing rabbit but it doesn't prove they don't care at > > all. > ====================== > It proves that all their talk of rights is pure bulls**t. > > > > As I said when you don't care at all it is easy to sit there > > mocking people who do for not doing enough to prove it. > ============================== > LOL Unlike most vegans here, I do more than they to contribute > to less animals death and suffering. Somehow I doubt that. > The problem is, I don't run > around crowing that I'm some animal savior like vegans do. > > > > > >> >> > > >> >> >> Because ultimately they don't care about animals. It's > >> >> >> all > >> >> >> about > >> >> >> the typical vegan hate for people. > >> >> > > >> >> > Ipse dixit. > >> >> ======================== > >> >> but true. Tell us where they have provided proof that > >> >> their > >> >> diet > >> >> automatically is better than any diet that includes meat, > >> >> dave... > >> > > >> > How about you tell us where they have provided proof that > >> > they > >> > hate people and don't care about animals. > >> ====================== > >> Read what they right dave. Right now read the hate of your > >> pal > >> bgprwhatever... > > > > I have read what they write. I have not come across one comment > > by any regular poster here that demonstrates hatred for people > > per se. > ================== > Comprehension problems huh? I read what the actual vegans write, not your straw ones. > > > >> As for proof they don't care about the unnecessary death and > >> suffering of animals, just posting here proves that. > > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
The numbers game
rick wrote: > "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 Well I must admit I'm suprised by what I have just learnt. Presumably this is because grass fed steers are older? |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
Dutch wrote: > "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 got a bit carried away but the possibility that honey bees and ants have a conscious will does not seem to me like something we can dismiss out of hand. It's a subject I find interesting and I will look at it more closely. Right now I am not qualified to argue the case. > >> 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?
pearl wrote: > "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. Whatever you think about the morality of using fish as a source of food you can not reasonably deny that we can establish a stable predator-prey relationship within the marine enviornment provided we don't overfish or fish using inappropriate technologies. 90 per cent reduction in 50 years is a damning inditement of the way we are treating the marine ecosystem at present but you must also bear in mind that he is specifically referring to "big" fish and I have already explained that the big fish are the ones most vulnerable to overfishing. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
"Dave" > wrote in message oups.com... > > rick wrote: >> "Dave" > wrote in message >> oups.com... >> >> >> snip... >> >> eat meat, and that wasn't much impact at all. >> >> >> >> Surely it's about the same amount of impact as Rick makes by >> >> buying >> >> grass-fed beef. >> > >> > Exactly. Not eating intensively produced beef has about the >> > same >> > impact on the beef factories irrespective of whether you choose >> > to >> > eat extensively reared beef or plant foods instead. Thank you >> > for supplying the voice of reason and common sense. >> ======================= >> And, he is as wrong as you are. Buying grass-fed beef is not an >> additional amount of beef on the market. That's what it would >> have to be to have no impact on normal beef processing. You have it exactly backwards rick. If it represented a *new* market, *then* it would have no impact on the existing meat market, but since it is taking customers *away from* traditional suppliers, it is in that respect *exactly* like when people go vegetarian, it causes the demand for that product to shrink and the demand for others to grow. >> Grass-fed beef is a *replacement* of the normal beef industry >> product. It is a large and growing portion of the beef supply. >> It IS an impact on the type of production that vegans decry, but >> do not have any say in since they have dropped out! > > Go play with someone else. I gave up on you long ago. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
"Dave" > wrote in message oups.com... > > Dutch wrote: >> "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 got a bit carried away but the possibility that honey bees > and > ants have a conscious will does not seem to me like something we > can dismiss out of hand. It's a subject I find interesting and I will > look > at it more closely. Right now I am not qualified to argue the case. The salient point here is that "sentience" is a misapplied term by ARAs, and they use this misapplication to exclude themselves from guilt for complicity in a whole myriad of potential animal suffering associated with their consumer lifestyles. This enables them to keep applying the focus where they believe it properly belongs, on those evil and misguided meat-eaters. > >> >> 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. Meaning he was challenged on ants so he tried using mosquitos as his example, a typical pro-ARA argument tactic. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
Dutch wrote: > "Dave" > wrote in message > oups.com... > > > > Dutch wrote: > >> "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 got a bit carried away but the possibility that honey bees > > and > > ants have a conscious will does not seem to me like something we > > can dismiss out of hand. It's a subject I find interesting and I will > > look > > at it more closely. Right now I am not qualified to argue the case. > > The salient point here is that "sentience" is a misapplied term by ARAs, and > they use this misapplication to exclude themselves from guilt for complicity > in a whole myriad of potential animal suffering associated with their > consumer lifestyles. This enables them to keep applying the focus where they > believe it properly belongs, on those evil and misguided meat-eaters. One of the things I'm not yet up to speed on is the distinctions between terms like "sentience", "consciousness" and all the other similar terms that have very specific meanings in discussions like this. > > > >> >> 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. > > Meaning he was challenged on ants so he tried using mosquitos as his > example, a typical pro-ARA argument tactic. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
Dutch wrote: > "Dave" > wrote in message > oups.com... > > > > Dutch wrote: > >> "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 got a bit carried away but the possibility that honey bees > > and > > ants have a conscious will does not seem to me like something we > > can dismiss out of hand. It's a subject I find interesting and I will > > look > > at it more closely. Right now I am not qualified to argue the case. > > The salient point here is that "sentience" is a misapplied term by ARAs, and > they use this misapplication to exclude themselves from guilt for complicity > in a whole myriad of potential animal suffering associated with their > consumer lifestyles. This enables them to keep applying the focus where they > believe it properly belongs, on those evil and misguided meat-eaters. > > > > >> >> 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. > > Meaning he was challenged on ants so he tried using mosquitos as his > example, You're right. It was illegitimate. >a typical pro-ARA argument tactic |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
"Dave" > wrote in message oups.com... > > Dutch wrote: >> "Dave" > wrote in message >> oups.com... >> > >> > Dutch wrote: >> >> "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 got a bit carried away but the possibility that honey bees >> > and >> > ants have a conscious will does not seem to me like something we >> > can dismiss out of hand. It's a subject I find interesting and I will >> > look >> > at it more closely. Right now I am not qualified to argue the case. >> >> The salient point here is that "sentience" is a misapplied term by ARAs, >> and >> they use this misapplication to exclude themselves from guilt for >> complicity >> in a whole myriad of potential animal suffering associated with their >> consumer lifestyles. This enables them to keep applying the focus where >> they >> believe it properly belongs, on those evil and misguided meat-eaters. > > One of the things I'm not yet up to speed on is the distinctions > between > terms like "sentience", "consciousness" and all the other similar terms > that have very specific meanings in discussions like this. Sentience correctly means "feeling", ' 1: state of elementary or undifferentiated consciousness;" which means it applies to slugs, newts and insects. Sloppily used to apply to higher functions like emotions, reasoning powers or even self-consciouness. Higher animals like dogs and mice have consciousness, differentiated awareness, and emotional states. Humans see themselves as individual beings distinct from their environment. >> >> >> 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. >> >> Meaning he was challenged on ants so he tried using mosquitos as his >> example, a typical pro-ARA argument tactic. > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
"Dave" > wrote in message ups.com...
> > wrote: > > 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? > > Production of hay and silage? 'Pasture-forage production, with herbivores harvesting the forage, would be the ultimate in 'no-till' agriculture. Because of the low numbers of times that equipment would be needed to grow and harvest pasture forages it would be reasonable to estimate that the pasture-forage model may reduce animal deaths by 50% or more. In other words, only 7.5 animals of the field per ha would die to produce pasture forages as compared to the intensive cropping system (15/ha) used to produce a vegan diet. http://www.veganfitness.net/forum/vi...e961 62df2ec9 |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
"Dave" > wrote in message ups.com... > > rick wrote: >> "Dave" > wrote in message >> ups.com... >> > >> > rick wrote: >> >> "Dave" > wrote in message >> >> >> snip... >> >> >> >> >> > It is really hard to establish how much animal death >> >> >> > and >> >> >> > suffering >> >> >> > each individual item in one's diet causes. It is much >> >> >> > easier >> >> >> > to >> >> >> > follow simple rules and as simple rules go, avoiding >> >> >> > all >> >> >> > animal >> >> >> > source products is relatively effective. >> >> >> ========================= >> >> >> Prove it. That's the point. You cannot prove that >> >> >> being >> >> >> vegan >> >> >> automatically means fewer animals die. >> >> >> Vegans could DO some research on the subject, but >> >> >> instead >> >> >> they >> >> >> prefer to just spew their hatred. >> >> > >> >> > Because most animals reared in the devoloped world are >> >> > kept >> >> > indoors >> >> ================== >> >> Show me these intensive indoor reared beef farms, dave. >> > >> > I said most animals, not most cattle. Most pigs and poultry >> > spend their lives indoors. Most cattle spend part of their >> > lives grazing and part being fed in feedlots. >> =================== >> I guess I'd better go out back and let the chickens know that >> they aren't really running around, huh? > > I said *most* chickens, not *all* chickens. You need > comprehension > 101. =================== No, you need logic 101. Like cevagns, you want to lump meat as meat, period. It's all bad... >> >> >> > >> >> and fed cultivated products with feed/flesh conversion >> >> > ratios >1 it follows that a typical Western vegan diet >> >> > will >> >> > cause fewer deaths than a typical Western diet. I don't >> >> > believe >> >> > veganism is the ideal solution because there are >> >> > exceptions >> >> > to this rule and total of animal deaths cause is not a >> >> > good >> >> > measure of a diet's impact in any case. >> >> > >> >> >> >> Instead, they have no idea waht impact they >> >> >> >> have. All they have is the simple rule for their >> >> >> >> simple >> >> >> >> mind, >> >> >> >> 'eat no meat.' >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> If everyone did that the world would >> >> >> >> > be a much better place. >> >> >> >> ================================ >> >> >> >> Tell us how dave. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > If everyone took some responsibility for their >> >> >> > consumer >> >> >> > habits then the cost to humans, animals and the >> >> >> > environment in producing conusmer goods would be >> >> >> > reduced. >> >> >> ========================== >> >> >> That doesn't explain how vegans do that dave, and you >> >> >> know >> >> >> it. >> >> >> vegans have made no such choices or responsibilities. >> >> > >> >> > Yes they do. They avoid products that they don't approve >> >> > of. >> >> ========================= >> >> LOL Just because they disapprove of a product does not >> >> then >> >> mean >> >> their choices are being responsible dave. How stupid can >> >> you >> >> be? >> > >> > I didn't say I admired them for making correct choices. I >> > said >> > I >> > admired them for considering factors other than their bank >> > balances >> > and taste preferences. OK? >> ========================= >> Which still means that there is not automatically something to >> admire. What part of making choices without doing any >> research >> makes you think that they are makling any kind of difference. >> Good intentions don't mean squat. > > I beg to differ. ================== Why? Intentions not to kill a cow, but killing 100s of mice instead don't mean squat, dave. > >> > >> >> > >> >> >> Tell me how bananas are better than my grass-fed beef, >> >> >> dave. >> >> >> How >> >> >> about rice? Tofu fake meats? >> >> > >> >> > I'm not claiming that you can buy bananas, rice or tofu >> >> > fake >> >> > meats >> >> > that are better for humans, animals and the environment >> >> > than >> >> > your >> >> > grass fed beef. >> >> ====================== >> >> Vegans do that all the time. It's their mantra. Do try to >> >> keep >> >> up... >> > >> > I didn't. I'm not required to defend claims I didn't make. >> > =================== >> Talk the talk, walk the walk... > > You can't reasonably expect me to defend claims I didn't make. > >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> I've explained that the veagn here do nothing >> >> >> >> but focus on meats. Not a one has ever told us which >> >> >> >> of >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> foods they can eat cause more/less death and >> >> >> >> suffering. >> >> >> >> Why? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > See above. >> >> >> ================== >> >> >> Yes, see above. that's a cop out dave. Plain and >> >> >> simple, >> >> >> for >> >> >> very simple minds. >> >> > >> >> > It must be so easy when you simply don't care to sit >> >> > there >> >> > mocking >> >> > people who do for not doing enough to prove it. >> >> ======================= >> >> They aren't doing anything to prove it dave. >> > >> > False. They are avoiding certain products to avoid >> > complicity in associated animal abuses. >> ========================== >> That does not prove anything dave. The meat they were eating >> may >> have caused very little death and suffering to animals >> compared >> to the foods thay replaced it with. > > That's not the point. The point is they are avoiding the foods > they > believe to be unethical. =============================== No, dave, they are not. That's the point. They claim to avoid meats because the the supposed unethical deaths involved, yet have no qualms about the deaths their food causes. Since their food causes death and suffering, they aren't avoiding 'unethical' foods at all, now are they? > > >> Is it really so hard for you >> to admit that vegan isn't an automatic pass into heaven? > > Not at all. > >> > >> >> In fact, being here >> >> proves they don't care about killing animal unnecessarily. >> >> That's the point. >> > >> > It proves they don't care enough to go and live in a commune >> > like dancing rabbit but it doesn't prove they don't care at >> > all. >> ====================== >> It proves that all their talk of rights is pure bulls**t. >> >> >> > As I said when you don't care at all it is easy to sit there >> > mocking people who do for not doing enough to prove it. >> ============================== >> LOL Unlike most vegans here, I do more than they to >> contribute >> to less animals death and suffering. > > Somehow I doubt that. =============== Why? Because I'm really informed, and all they have is a simple rule for their simple minds? Like rumperroom, they all continue to eat exotic, imported fruits, spices, and veggies. Not a thought is given as to the impact those foods cause on animals and the environemnt. The entirity of their foods is based on the petro-chemical industry. Look up bananas. They are so modified now that there is talk of them disappearing as we know them. They require massive amounts of pesticides to grow. > >> The problem is, I don't run >> around crowing that I'm some animal savior like vegans do. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Because ultimately they don't care about animals. >> >> >> >> It's >> >> >> >> all >> >> >> >> about >> >> >> >> the typical vegan hate for people. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Ipse dixit. >> >> >> ======================== >> >> >> but true. Tell us where they have provided proof that >> >> >> their >> >> >> diet >> >> >> automatically is better than any diet that includes >> >> >> meat, >> >> >> dave... >> >> > >> >> > How about you tell us where they have provided proof that >> >> > they >> >> > hate people and don't care about animals. >> >> ====================== >> >> Read what they right dave. Right now read the hate of your >> >> pal >> >> bgprwhatever... >> > >> > I have read what they write. I have not come across one >> > comment >> > by any regular poster here that demonstrates hatred for >> > people >> > per se. >> ================== >> Comprehension problems huh? > > I read what the actual vegans write, not your straw ones. > =========================== Then you don't read for comprehension, like I said. >> > >> >> As for proof they don't care about the unnecessary death >> >> and >> >> suffering of animals, just posting here proves that. >> > > |
|
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?
"Dave" > wrote in message oups.com...
pearl wrote: > "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. Whatever you think about the morality of using fish as a source of food you can not reasonably deny that we can establish a stable predator-prey relationship -- Another example of humans adopting the wrong dietary niche causing major and severe imbalance.-- within the marine enviornment provided we don't overfish or fish using inappropriate technologies. 90 per cent reduction in 50 years is a damning inditement of the way we are treating the marine ecosystem at present but you must also bear in mind that he is specifically referring to "big" fish and I have already explained that the big fish are the ones most vulnerable to overfishing. -- See http://www.fisherycrisis.com/DFO/commons.htm . -- |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
The numbers game
Dave wrote: > 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. This assumes that pasture-ruminant production involves no collateral deaths. Davis didn't find this assumption realistic. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
"Dave" > wrote in message ups.com... > > rick wrote: >> "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. > > Why "except bananas"? ======================= Because all bananas on the market are exactly the same. Exactly. They are not a seed crop. They are all produced from an original plant. They are all clones, genetically the same. > >> 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. > > You're welcome. I've consistently argued that we should not tar > all meat with the same brush. ==================== Then why assume all veggies are better? > >> > >> >> >> 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. > > So you say. > >> Vegans always ignore it, like you and rumperroom.... > > When you shared research that compared apples, bananas, rice > and potatoes, I must have missed it. Please share it again. > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
The numbers game
"Dave" > wrote in message ups.com... > > rick wrote: >> "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 > > Well I must admit I'm suprised by what I have just learnt. > Presumably > this > is because grass fed steers are older? ====================== Most are given an extra years growth. Some, like the one I mentioned somehow 'hid' during the picking process one year and went into the next, and was 2 years older than normal. Quite fat, quite tasty. > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
"Dutch" > wrote in message ... > > "Dave" > wrote in message > oups.com... >> >> rick wrote: >>> "Dave" > wrote in message >>> oups.com... >>> >>> >>> snip... >>> >>> eat meat, and that wasn't much impact at all. >>> >> >>> >> Surely it's about the same amount of impact as Rick makes >>> >> by >>> >> buying >>> >> grass-fed beef. >>> > >>> > Exactly. Not eating intensively produced beef has about the >>> > same >>> > impact on the beef factories irrespective of whether you >>> > choose >>> > to >>> > eat extensively reared beef or plant foods instead. Thank >>> > you >>> > for supplying the voice of reason and common sense. >>> ======================= >>> And, he is as wrong as you are. Buying grass-fed beef is not >>> an >>> additional amount of beef on the market. That's what it >>> would >>> have to be to have no impact on normal beef processing. > > You have it exactly backwards rick. ================ No, I don't. Because the product is the same. There is no new product, just a new technique. If it represented a *new* market, *then* > it would have no impact on the existing meat market, but since > it is taking customers *away from* traditional suppliers, it is > in that respect *exactly* like when people go vegetarian, it > causes the demand for that product to shrink and the demand for > others to grow. > > >>> Grass-fed beef is a *replacement* of the normal beef industry >>> product. It is a large and growing portion of the beef >>> supply. >>> It IS an impact on the type of production that vegans decry, >>> but >>> do not have any say in since they have dropped out! >> >> Go play with someone else. I gave up on you long ago. > > > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
Dave wrote: > wrote: > > 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? > > Production of hay and silage? Maybe. Anyway, it looks like there are some collateral deaths from pasture-ruminant production that have to be taken into account. |
|
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... > >> > > >> > >> 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. > As I say, I made a good faith attempt to find out about the harm caused by the foods I eat. Obviously I would know whether this is the case and you wouldn't. > > > 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 argued this point elsewhere. > 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. > They are unfounded. But, assuming for the sake of argument that they're not, why is it of any interest to you whether I care about animals or not? If I don't care about animals, then what's the point of this conversation? > > > > >> > >> > > >> >> 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. > What were the suggestions? Stop eating bananas and rice? I'll consider doing that. I'll try to investigate whether it would really be an improvement. > > >> > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> 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?
|
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
rick wrote: > > wrote in message > oups.com... > > > > Leif Erikson wrote: > >> wrote: > >> > 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. > >> > >> Yeah, all you have is your emotional inclination. > > > > No, it's a conclusion I've come to based on argument. You > > didn't > > provide any argument so I didn't either. If you like, have a > > look at > > Chapters 2 and 9 of DeGrazia's "Taking Animals Seriously" and > > tell me > > what you think of the arguments. > ====================== > The arguments prove that animals don't have rights... > Have you read them, have you? Why do you think that? > > > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
The numbers game
> wrote > > Dave wrote: >> 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. Cattle consume a much greater proportion of corn than humans do, i.e., the entire plant, not only the kernels, and convert it all into bodyweight gain (consumable food). That is not figured into that equation. >> 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. > > This assumes that pasture-ruminant production involves no collateral > deaths. Davis didn't find this assumption realistic. Grass is a very low-impact crop. Also, there is so much waste and byproduct feed used for livestock that the industry could conceivably survive with *no* dedicated crops, particularly cattle.. The essential point being made is that there *are* reasonably close comparisons to be made between vegan and non-vegan foods wrt animal impact, which is a far cry from the typical unreal impression vegans present, which is animal products are immoral death-foods and vegan foods are manna from heaven. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
"rick" > wrote in message news  > > "Dutch" > wrote in message > ... >> >> "Dave" > wrote in message >> oups.com... >>> >>> rick wrote: >>>> "Dave" > wrote in message >>>> oups.com... >>>> >>>> >>>> snip... >>>> >>>> eat meat, and that wasn't much impact at all. >>>> >> >>>> >> Surely it's about the same amount of impact as Rick makes by >>>> >> buying >>>> >> grass-fed beef. >>>> > >>>> > Exactly. Not eating intensively produced beef has about the >>>> > same >>>> > impact on the beef factories irrespective of whether you choose >>>> > to >>>> > eat extensively reared beef or plant foods instead. Thank you >>>> > for supplying the voice of reason and common sense. >>>> ======================= >>>> And, he is as wrong as you are. Buying grass-fed beef is not an >>>> additional amount of beef on the market. That's what it would >>>> have to be to have no impact on normal beef processing. >> >> You have it exactly backwards rick. > ================ > No, I don't. Because the product is the same. There is no new product, > just a new technique. That "new technique" *is* a new product. The beef is produced differently, usually by different producers, it tastes different, uses different inputs, and costs more. Economically it has the exact same effect on producers of the old product as if those consumers had become vegans, it takes market share away from the old-style producers. The only difference is that vegans do not "support" the new product, which makes no difference to the old producers. > If it represented a *new* market, *then* >> it would have no impact on the existing meat market, but since it is >> taking customers *away from* traditional suppliers, it is in that respect >> *exactly* like when people go vegetarian, it causes the demand for that >> product to shrink and the demand for others to grow. >> >> >>>> Grass-fed beef is a *replacement* of the normal beef industry >>>> product. It is a large and growing portion of the beef supply. >>>> It IS an impact on the type of production that vegans decry, but >>>> do not have any say in since they have dropped out! >>> >>> Go play with someone else. I gave up on you long ago. >> >> >> > > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
> wrote > > rick wrote: >> ====================== >> The arguments prove that animals don't have rights... >> > > Have you read them, have you? Why do you think that? It all hinges on your definition of "rights". |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
The numbers game
Dutch wrote:
> > wrote > >>Dave wrote: >> >>>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. > > > Cattle consume a much greater proportion of corn than humans do, i.e., the > entire plant, not only the kernels, and convert it all into bodyweight gain > (consumable food). That is not figured into that equation. Well, they don't convert it *all* into body weight gain. Quite a lot of it is burned off. Quite a lot as well exits from the other end of the steers and cows. ****wit David Harrison goes out into the fields and collects his breakfast from the second part. > > >>>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. >> >>This assumes that pasture-ruminant production involves no collateral >>deaths. Davis didn't find this assumption realistic. > > > Grass is a very low-impact crop. Also, there is so much waste and byproduct > feed used for livestock that the industry could conceivably survive with > *no* dedicated crops, particularly cattle.. > > The essential point being made is that there *are* reasonably close > comparisons to be made between vegan and non-vegan foods wrt animal impact, > which is a far cry from the typical unreal impression vegans present, which > is animal products are immoral death-foods and vegan foods are manna from > heaven. > > |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
The numbers game
As always, everyone completely ****s up the "numbers
game". Meat eaters try to show that it's possible, if one stands on a chair and loops his left leg behind his neck and over his right shoulder, to have a meat-including diet that "beats" a strictly-vegetarian diet in terms of total deaths. So-called "ethical" vegetarians make far too much - out of nothing - of the fact that a typical "vegan" diet "beats" the typical meat-including diet. Both views miss the point. THE point - the ONLY point - is that so-called "ethical" vegetarianism *demands* that its adherents engage in a relentless, active, aggressive, comprehensive effort to avoid killing *ANY* animals, whether directly or collaterally, and NO "vegan" does that. Once again, the "numbers game", this ****witted, comparative-virtue (and thus invalid) exercise, yields completely perverse results. If one can claim virtue merely by doing less of some bad thing than someone else, then, if the "someone else's" total goes up, one's own total can also go up, but as long as it remains lower than the "someone else's", the ****wit playing the numbers game can claim to be more virtuous. That clearly is a perverse result. If meat-eater Rick's total deaths rise from 200 per year to 400, and sanctimonious self-marginalizing lying lowbrow "vegan" Karen's total deaths rise from 100 to 300 per year, she still is doing "better" in absolute numbers than Rick, even though her total has *TRIPLED* while his has only doubled; but it is plainly absurd for her to claim to be "more virtuous" than Rick merely because she causes fewer total deaths. The "numbers game" is meaningless in terms of "proving" the virtue of "veganism". As long as a) "vegans'" death toll is non-zero, and b) "vegans" aren't actively, relentlessly, aggressively trying to get their toll to zero - and *NONE* of them are then the collateral deaths issue simply vitiates the "vegan" claim to virtue. It is that simple. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
pearl wrote:
> http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...stock.hrs.html Hmm, these seem like meat costs five times less to transport than grains, by heft. Remember that the sun pays for feed, for free. > 272,000,000 x 7.5 = 2,040,000,000 animals dying in pasture. > over twice as much land is harvested for livestock, ergo > over twice as many collateral deaths than for food crops. dying how?? |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
"Autymn D. C." > wrote in message oups.com...
> pearl wrote: > > http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...stock.hrs.html > > Hmm, these seem like meat costs five times less to transport than > grains, by heft. Remember that the sun pays for feed, for free. ??? > > 272,000,000 x 7.5 = 2,040,000,000 animals dying in pasture. > > > over twice as much land is harvested for livestock, ergo > > over twice as many collateral deaths than for food crops. > > dying how?? Sowing, spraying, harvesting- every pass of the machinery. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
The numbers game
Dutch wrote: > > wrote > > > > Dave wrote: > >> 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. > > Cattle consume a much greater proportion of corn than humans do, i.e., the > entire plant, not only the kernels, and convert it all into bodyweight gain > (consumable food). "For example a vested interests organisation such as the US National Cattleman's Beef Association has claimed that it takes only 4.5 kg of grain to produce 1 kg of beef raised intensively in a US feedlot. On the other hand, the US Department of Agricultural Economic Research Service puts the figure at 16kg to produce 1kg of beef." http://www.ciwf.org.uk/publications/..._Less_Meat.pdf page 22 References given for both these figures. >That is not figured into that equation. It isn't relevant to the comparison between an acre of corn and one grass fed steer. > >> 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. > > > > This assumes that pasture-ruminant production involves no collateral > > deaths. Davis didn't find this assumption realistic. > > Grass is a very low-impact crop. Also, there is so much waste and byproduct > feed used for livestock that the industry could conceivably survive with > *no* dedicated crops, particularly cattle.. "Could concievably" is not the same as "actually does". > The essential point being made is that there *are* reasonably close > comparisons to be made between vegan and non-vegan foods wrt animal impact, > which is a far cry from the typical unreal impression vegans present, which > is animal products are immoral death-foods and vegan foods are manna from > heaven. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
The numbers game
Leif Erikson wrote: > As always, everyone completely ****s up the "numbers > game". Meat eaters try to show that it's possible, if > one stands on a chair and loops his left leg behind his > neck and over his right shoulder, to have a > meat-including diet that "beats" a strictly-vegetarian > diet in terms of total deaths. So-called "ethical" > vegetarians make far too much - out of nothing - of the > fact that a typical "vegan" diet "beats" the typical > meat-including diet. > > Both views miss the point. THE point - the ONLY point > - is that so-called "ethical" vegetarianism *demands* > that its adherents engage in a relentless, active, > aggressive, comprehensive effort to avoid killing *ANY* > animals, whether directly or collaterally, and NO > "vegan" does that. > > Once again, the "numbers game", this ****witted, > comparative-virtue (and thus invalid) exercise, yields > completely perverse results. If one can claim virtue > merely by doing less of some bad thing than someone > else, then, if the "someone else's" total goes up, > one's own total can also go up, but as long as it > remains lower than the "someone else's", the ****wit > playing the numbers game can claim to be more virtuous. > That clearly is a perverse result. If meat-eater > Rick's total deaths rise from 200 per year to 400, and > sanctimonious self-marginalizing lying lowbrow "vegan" > Karen's total deaths rise from 100 to 300 per year, she > still is doing "better" in absolute numbers than Rick, > even though her total has *TRIPLED* while his has only > doubled; but it is plainly absurd for her to claim to > be "more virtuous" than Rick merely because she causes > fewer total deaths. I would not be absurd because she would be using virtue as a relative term. It would be absurd for her to claim to set herself up as a paragon of virtue by her own standards unless she is actively, relentlessly, aggressively trying to get her toll as close to zero as possible. It would also be absurd for you to attack her for doing something to reduce her toll just because she could be doing even more. > The "numbers game" is meaningless in terms of "proving" > the virtue of "veganism". As long as > > a) "vegans'" death toll is non-zero, and > b) "vegans" aren't actively, relentlessly, > aggressively > trying to get their toll to zero - and *NONE* > of them are > > then the collateral deaths issue simply vitiates the > "vegan" claim to virtue. > > It is that simple. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
The numbers game
wrote: > Dave wrote: > > 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. > > This assumes that pasture-ruminant production involves no collateral > deaths. Davis didn't find this assumption realistic. I must confess I misread the original thinking that the 7.5 animals per hectare was total deaths. If the number of deaths per hectare of pasture raised cattle is half that of crop production then the death count is no contest - beef kills more. The only question that remains is whether this ratio is realistic. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
The numbers game
Dave wrote:
> Leif Erikson wrote: > > As always, everyone completely ****s up the "numbers > > game". Meat eaters try to show that it's possible, if > > one stands on a chair and loops his left leg behind his > > neck and over his right shoulder, to have a > > meat-including diet that "beats" a strictly-vegetarian > > diet in terms of total deaths. So-called "ethical" > > vegetarians make far too much - out of nothing - of the > > fact that a typical "vegan" diet "beats" the typical > > meat-including diet. > > > > Both views miss the point. THE point - the ONLY point > > - is that so-called "ethical" vegetarianism *demands* > > that its adherents engage in a relentless, active, > > aggressive, comprehensive effort to avoid killing *ANY* > > animals, whether directly or collaterally, and NO > > "vegan" does that. > > > > Once again, the "numbers game", this ****witted, > > comparative-virtue (and thus invalid) exercise, yields > > completely perverse results. If one can claim virtue > > merely by doing less of some bad thing than someone > > else, then, if the "someone else's" total goes up, > > one's own total can also go up, but as long as it > > remains lower than the "someone else's", the ****wit > > playing the numbers game can claim to be more virtuous. > > That clearly is a perverse result. If meat-eater > > Rick's total deaths rise from 200 per year to 400, and > > sanctimonious self-marginalizing lying lowbrow "vegan" > > Karen's total deaths rise from 100 to 300 per year, she > > still is doing "better" in absolute numbers than Rick, > > even though her total has *TRIPLED* while his has only > > doubled; but it is plainly absurd for her to claim to > > be "more virtuous" than Rick merely because she causes > > fewer total deaths. > > I would not be absurd because she would be using virtue > as a relative term. When it is, by definition, NOT one. Virtue is *never* measured by comparison to someone else, but rather by your adherence to an objective standard. You, davie, **** the eight-year-old boy living next door to you up the ass six times a week. Your filthy brother ****s another small boy up the ass a dozen times a week. Are you more virtuous than your filthy brother? Neither of you is virtuous AT ALL. Virtue *never* is determined by a comparison with others. That's just how it is, davie. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
pearl wrote: > "Dave" > wrote in message oups.com... > > pearl wrote: > > "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. > > Whatever you think about the morality of using fish as > a source of food you can not reasonably deny that we > can establish a stable predator-prey relationship > > -- Another example of humans adopting the wrong > dietary niche causing major and severe imbalance.-- Not at all. There is no ecological problem with fish eating per se, just killing fish faster than they can reproduce. There are responsible fisheries that moniter their impact on the marine environment. For more details see http://www.fishonline.org/ > within > the marine enviornment provided we don't overfish or > fish using inappropriate technologies. 90 per cent > reduction in 50 years is a damning inditement of > the way we are treating the marine ecosystem at > present but you must also bear in mind that he is > specifically referring to "big" fish and I have already > explained that the big fish are the ones most vulnerable > to overfishing. > > -- > See http://www.fisherycrisis.com/DFO/commons.htm . > -- What point does that article make on your behalf. It is not small handline fisheries that are responsible for any of the major problems in the marine ecosystem. |
|
Posted to alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian,alt.food.vegan
|
|||
|
|||
|
Can we do better?
"Dave" > wrote in message oups.com...
pearl wrote: > "Dave" > wrote in message oups.com... > > pearl wrote: > > "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. > > Whatever you think about the morality of using fish as > a source of food you can not reasonably deny that we > can establish a stable predator-prey relationship > > -- Another example of humans adopting the wrong > dietary niche causing major and severe imbalance.-- Not at all. -- Absolutely the case. Not just a recent problem either. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...ecollapse.html -- There is no ecological problem with fish eating per se, just killing fish faster than they can reproduce. There are responsible fisheries that moniter their impact on the marine environment. For more details see http://www.fishonline.org/ -- The usual list of the few species "which MCS believes are fished within sustainable levels". (Doesn't the 'believes' here worry you a bit, Dave?). And what exactly does 'sustainable' mean? Hopefully not reducing the populations any further? But recovery to the former healthy abundance? Never mind, eh. To an addict nothing else really matters. You'll find one false justification after another to continue. -- > within > the marine enviornment provided we don't overfish or > fish using inappropriate technologies. 90 per cent > reduction in 50 years is a damning inditement of > the way we are treating the marine ecosystem at > present but you must also bear in mind that he is > specifically referring to "big" fish and I have already > explained that the big fish are the ones most vulnerable > to overfishing. > > -- > See http://www.fisherycrisis.com/DFO/commons.htm . > -- What point does that article make on your behalf. It is not small handline fisheries that are responsible for any of the major problems in the marine ecosystem. -- It all adds up. And if everyone started eating such fish those populations would also be depleted in no time. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
![pearl[_1_] is offline](https://www.foodbanter.com/images/SultanThemeVB3R/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
Linear Mode
