About Us

[email protected]

Dutch wrote:
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > Dutch wrote:
> >> > wrote
> >> >
> >> > rick wrote:
> >> >> > wrote
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Dave wrote:
> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> snip...
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> >> Modern methods of crop cultivation require significant
> >> >> >> chemical imputs in the form of synthetic fertilizers
> >> >> >> and *cides, which can harm the environment as a
> >> >> >> result of their production, transportation and usage.
> >> >> >> In order to maintain soil fertility and keep pests under
> >> >> >> control in traditional organic systems crop rotations
> >> >> >> are normally used. I don't know if there are crop
> >> >> >> rotations available that produce human consumable
> >> >> >> crops on all of the land all the time but in practise
> >> >> >> grass-clover leys seem to feature rather prominently.
> >> >> >> It surely makes sense to have cattle grazing on such
> >> >> >> a ley, and producing milk at the same time and veal
> >> >> >> and beef are then natural byproducts of this.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Well, I would question whether we have the right to kill the
> >> >> > cattle for
> >> >> > food, unless it could somehow be shown that we were actually
> >> >> > reducing
> >> >> > the number of animal deaths by doing this.
> >> >> =========================
> >> >> Quite easy to do when compared to your tofu meat substitutes.
> >> >
> >> > Do it, then.
> >>
> >> You're the one claiming we have a moral obligation, give "detailed
> >> evidence"
> >> that tofu causes fewer animal deaths than free-range beef.
> >>
> >
> > I didn't claim you have a moral obligation not to buy free-range beef.
> > I suspect you do, and I have cited some calculations in support of that
> > claim.
>
> Those calculations don't show anything of the sort.
>

Why not?

> > But I don't have conclusive evidence. Based on the inconclusive
> > evidence I have encountered so far I have decided not ot eat free-range
> > beef.
>
> You don't have any knowledge at all of the farming practises that go into
> most of the food you eat. Do you know much about fruit growing, how about
> wheat, rice? I know something about them, I grow wheat, I know apple
> growers, both are deadly businesses. I wouldn't live within a hundred miles
> of an apple orchard, that's how bad the pesticides are. The herbicides in
> grain farming is no better.
>

All right. There are collateral deaths involved in pasture-ruminant
production as well. Show me some plausible numbers and then we'll have
a basis for reaching a conclusion. Until then, I'll stick with my
current best guess.

> >> >> And, if we don't have the 'right' to kill cattle for the food we
> >> >> eat, why do we have the 'right' to kill field animals for the
> >> >> food we eat?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > We don't have the right to kill animals unnecessarily.
> >>
> >> Who defines what is necessary? You?
> >>
> >
> > I don't claim to offer a moral principle that gives absolutely
> > unambiguous moral guidance in evey conceivable situation. The word
> > "unnecessary" is vague and it will sometimes be hard to decide whether
> > a given action is in accordance with the moral principle. In those
> > cases, we'll just have to make a good faith effort to work out what is
> > the right thing to do.
>
> I agree, but I don't see much good faith effort or a coherent moral
> principle in veganism. Veganism is based soley on a rule which
> restricts/prohibits use of animal products, that is all. Other crops, like
> cotton to name one, which cause a lot of environmental damage, go totally
> unmentioned. Yet my consumption of meat is moral violation? Give me a
> ****ing break. Who the hell do you think you are?
>

Well, I've told you my moral principle. Make every reasonable effort
not to provide financial support for practices that cause or support
unnecessary harm. It's up to you to decide whether you think that's a
good principle, and if so, what's involved in following it. I think any
serious attempt to follow it would involve a pretty drastic restriction
of meat consumption, but that's just my opinion. I dare say there'd be
a case for restricting cotton consumption as well, I don't know much
about that particular issue. You'll note that I haven't been giving you
any sermons. I'm the one who gets most of the sermons around here. I
just happen to think that ethical veganism is a defensible position and
I'm throwing in my two cents' worth about the attacks you're making on
it.

> >> > Probably we
> >> > don't have the right to kill as many animals in crop production as we
> >> > do.
> >>
> >> Then you must stop.
> >>
> >
> > I must make every reasonable effort not to provide financial support to
> > institutions that cause or support unnecessary harm. That may involve
> > growing some of my own vegetables. I'm not convinced it involves buying
> > up my own land and growing all of my own food.
>
> You sound like a recorded message.
>
> >> > I would support efforts to reform crop production.
> >>
> >> How?
> >
> > Well, I might put pressure on politicians to make reforms which will
> > reduce the impact on animal welfare, try to make the public more aware
> > of the issue, that sort of thing.
>
> I'll believe it when I see it. So far it would appear that the issue of
> collateral deaths is off-limits to veganism, cuts a little to close to home
> for a movement focused on demonizing others.
>

I don't agree with you that the movement is focussed on demonizing
others. I think the focus is on trying to reduce the harm caused by the
factory-farming industry. I agree the issue of the harm of collateral
deaths should be raised too. Perhaps I will try to make my friends in
the movement more aware of the issue.

> >> In the meantime would you consume meat if it involved little or no
> >> intensive crop rearing?
> >>
> >
> > Only if I was convinced it wouldn't involve additional harm to animals.
> > Not much research has been done on this topic, based on reading Davis
> > and Matheny at the moment I think it's probably best not to.
>
> Use your own imagination. If I shot a bull moose and offered you some meat,
> that would almost certainly be a lower impact at ~1/5000 of a death per
> serving than your current main courses.
>

I really don't see how you can be confident of that when you admit that
there are no reliable estimates of the cost of crop production. Matheny
estimates a vegan diet kills 0.3 wild animals per year. Do you have a
corresponding estimate for a diet which includes some game? Or do you
have an estimate which is better than Matheny's? If not, it looks like
you haven't got a conclusive argument.

> >> >> >> Animals can also benefit organic agriculture in
> >> >> >> various other ways. For example, manure is
> >> >> >> recognized as a good fertilizer, ducks like
> >> >> >> eating slugs and pigs can dig over a patch to
> >> >> >> remove weeds prior to planting.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >From a least harm point of view, using any
> >> >> >> reasonable criteria, I feel sure that
> >> >> >> supermarket/resturant grains, legumes,
> >> >> >> vegetables and nuts compare favourably
> >> >> >> with supermarket/resturant meat, eggs
> >> >> >> and dairy products but I think the best
> >> >> >> option of all is to source both plant and
> >> >> >> animal products from local organic farms
> >> >> >> that you can trust, fish from handline
> >> >> >> fisheries and nuts and wild plants from
> >> >> >> local woodlands.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I'm not altogether convinced about the animal products from
> >> >> > organic
> >> >> > farms. I think in most cases these would probably lead to more
> >> >> > collateral deaths overall because of the extra land use.
> >> >> ==============================
> >> >> Why? You suggesting that regular animals of the fields can't
> >> >> live in pastures with cattle? Replacing mono-culture crop fields
> >> >> with pastures to graze cattle would *reduce* CDs. There is no
> >> >> way that you can say that more animals are going to die from
> >> >> pasture grazing that mono-culture food production.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Davis estimates that 7.5 animals/ha die in ruminant-pasture food
> >> > production.
> >>
> >> With no spraying or cultivation.
> >>
> >
> > Don't recall that qualification. All right, if you say so. There was a
> > fairly generous margin of error in Matheny's calculations. Are you
> > saying some ruminant-pasture-based animal products cause less harm per
> > serving of food than mono-culture crops? Can you provide some evidence
> > of that?
>
> Only to tell as a farmer you that hay is not seeded, weeded or cultivated,
> just mown and baled. It's the next best thing to pasture. It also does not
> strip the soil of nutrients like crops grown for human consumption. I can
> only use my fields every other year, while the hay fields can be mowed
> several times a year. The whole argument comparing animal feed with human
> food is another sham.
>

Well, I guess that would have to be taken into account as well. The day
I see some serious research which makes a decent case that
ruminant-pasture-based animal products cause less harm per serving of
food than mono-culture crops, I'll re-evaluate my position.

> >> >> The fish is an
> >> >> > interesting suggestion. I'm not sure about that one. It would
> >> >> > be nice
> >> >> > to see some research done on this topic to determine what
> >> >> > really causes
> >> >> > the least harm.
> >> >> =====================
> >> >> It isn't the veggies you eat...
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Show me some evidence.
> >>
> >> Be honest with yourself, then believe your own common sense.
> >
> > Appealling to my common sense doesn't convince me of his claim.
>
> You have to be willing to attempt to be objective. As long as you have the
> typical vegan tape running in your head none of this is never going to make
> sense.

Well, I'm doing my best. I just don't see how I can reasonably be sure
that any particular animal product that I can actually buy causes less
harm per serving of food than crop production. I think that more
research should be done along the lines of Davis. Then some kind of
serious debate can start. In the meantime, I'll have to go with my
current best guess based on what I've read so far.

Dutch

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> >
>> > Dutch wrote:
>> >> > wrote
>> >> >
>> >> > rick wrote:
>> >> >> > wrote
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Dave wrote:
>> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> snip...
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Modern methods of crop cultivation require significant
>> >> >> >> chemical imputs in the form of synthetic fertilizers
>> >> >> >> and *cides, which can harm the environment as a
>> >> >> >> result of their production, transportation and usage.
>> >> >> >> In order to maintain soil fertility and keep pests under
>> >> >> >> control in traditional organic systems crop rotations
>> >> >> >> are normally used. I don't know if there are crop
>> >> >> >> rotations available that produce human consumable
>> >> >> >> crops on all of the land all the time but in practise
>> >> >> >> grass-clover leys seem to feature rather prominently.
>> >> >> >> It surely makes sense to have cattle grazing on such
>> >> >> >> a ley, and producing milk at the same time and veal
>> >> >> >> and beef are then natural byproducts of this.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Well, I would question whether we have the right to kill the
>> >> >> > cattle for
>> >> >> > food, unless it could somehow be shown that we were actually
>> >> >> > reducing
>> >> >> > the number of animal deaths by doing this.
>> >> >> =========================
>> >> >> Quite easy to do when compared to your tofu meat substitutes.
>> >> >
>> >> > Do it, then.
>> >>
>> >> You're the one claiming we have a moral obligation, give "detailed
>> >> evidence"
>> >> that tofu causes fewer animal deaths than free-range beef.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I didn't claim you have a moral obligation not to buy free-range beef.
>> > I suspect you do, and I have cited some calculations in support of that
>> > claim.
>>
>> Those calculations don't show anything of the sort.
>>
>
> Why not?

Because the concept of being morally required to kill the fewest number of
animals possible is a ruse. You don't do it with any other consumer
alternative, all you do is ban animal products.

>> > But I don't have conclusive evidence. Based on the inconclusive
>> > evidence I have encountered so far I have decided not ot eat free-range
>> > beef.
>>
>> You don't have any knowledge at all of the farming practises that go into
>> most of the food you eat. Do you know much about fruit growing, how about
>> wheat, rice? I know something about them, I grow wheat, I know apple
>> growers, both are deadly businesses. I wouldn't live within a hundred
>> miles
>> of an apple orchard, that's how bad the pesticides are. The herbicides in
>> grain farming is no better.
>>
>
> All right. There are collateral deaths involved in pasture-ruminant
> production as well. Show me some plausible numbers and then we'll have
> a basis for reaching a conclusion. Until then, I'll stick with my
> current best guess.

Go ahead and base your life around guesses about made-up moral imperatives.
I plan to enjoy my food to the maximum, and my life, and that doesn't
include anal-retentive dogmas, it includes prime rib and chicken parmesan.

>> >> >> And, if we don't have the 'right' to kill cattle for the food we
>> >> >> eat, why do we have the 'right' to kill field animals for the
>> >> >> food we eat?
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > We don't have the right to kill animals unnecessarily.
>> >>
>> >> Who defines what is necessary? You?
>> >>
>> >
>> > I don't claim to offer a moral principle that gives absolutely
>> > unambiguous moral guidance in evey conceivable situation. The word
>> > "unnecessary" is vague and it will sometimes be hard to decide whether
>> > a given action is in accordance with the moral principle. In those
>> > cases, we'll just have to make a good faith effort to work out what is
>> > the right thing to do.
>>
>> I agree, but I don't see much good faith effort or a coherent moral
>> principle in veganism. Veganism is based soley on a rule which
>> restricts/prohibits use of animal products, that is all. Other crops,
>> like
>> cotton to name one, which cause a lot of environmental damage, go totally
>> unmentioned. Yet my consumption of meat is moral violation? Give me a
>> ****ing break. Who the hell do you think you are?
>>
>
> Well, I've told you my moral principle. Make every reasonable effort
> not to provide financial support for practices that cause or support
> unnecessary harm.

You aren't doing that at all, you're prohibiting animal products, that is
all.

> It's up to you to decide whether you think that's a
> good principle, and if so, what's involved in following it.

It's a vague, meaningless principle and you aren't following it.

> I think any
> serious attempt to follow it would involve a pretty drastic restriction
> of meat consumption, but that's just my opinion.

It's not a serious moral principle.

> I dare say there'd be
> a case for restricting cotton consumption as well, I don't know much
> about that particular issue. You'll note that I haven't been giving you
> any sermons. I'm the one who gets most of the sermons around here. I
> just happen to think that ethical veganism is a defensible position and
> I'm throwing in my two cents' worth about the attacks you're making on
> it.

It's defensible morally to restrict the consumption of animal products, but
it's not defensible to set up some bogus vague moral principle and pretend
that you're following it.

>
>> >> > Probably we
>> >> > don't have the right to kill as many animals in crop production as
>> >> > we
>> >> > do.
>> >>
>> >> Then you must stop.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I must make every reasonable effort not to provide financial support to
>> > institutions that cause or support unnecessary harm. That may involve
>> > growing some of my own vegetables. I'm not convinced it involves buying
>> > up my own land and growing all of my own food.
>>
>> You sound like a recorded message.
>>
>> >> > I would support efforts to reform crop production.
>> >>
>> >> How?
>> >
>> > Well, I might put pressure on politicians to make reforms which will
>> > reduce the impact on animal welfare, try to make the public more aware
>> > of the issue, that sort of thing.
>>
>> I'll believe it when I see it. So far it would appear that the issue of
>> collateral deaths is off-limits to veganism, cuts a little to close to
>> home
>> for a movement focused on demonizing others.
>>
>
> I don't agree with you that the movement is focussed on demonizing
> others.

I know you don't, no vegan does.

> I think the focus is on trying to reduce the harm caused by the
> factory-farming industry.

That's the first time I have heard that term in our discussion, meat does
not have to come from "factory farms", mine doesn't.

> I agree the issue of the harm of collateral
> deaths should be raised too. Perhaps I will try to make my friends in
> the movement more aware of the issue.

They will think you're crazy. Collateral deaths has no legs as an issue
within "the movement", it hits too close to home.

>
>> >> In the meantime would you consume meat if it involved little or no
>> >> intensive crop rearing?
>> >>
>> >
>> > Only if I was convinced it wouldn't involve additional harm to animals.
>> > Not much research has been done on this topic, based on reading Davis
>> > and Matheny at the moment I think it's probably best not to.
>>
>> Use your own imagination. If I shot a bull moose and offered you some
>> meat,
>> that would almost certainly be a lower impact at ~1/5000 of a death per
>> serving than your current main courses.
>>
>
> I really don't see how you can be confident of that when you admit that
> there are no reliable estimates of the cost of crop production. Matheny
> estimates a vegan diet kills 0.3 wild animals per year.

Matheny hasn't done any research, he's a college dropout.

> Do you have a
> corresponding estimate for a diet which includes some game? Or do you
> have an estimate which is better than Matheny's? If not, it looks like
> you haven't got a conclusive argument.

You are going to believe whatever "the movement" and it's shills like
Matheny tell you to believe. That's your prerogative, but don't come on aaev
claiming that it's rational.

>> >> >> >> Animals can also benefit organic agriculture in
>> >> >> >> various other ways. For example, manure is
>> >> >> >> recognized as a good fertilizer, ducks like
>> >> >> >> eating slugs and pigs can dig over a patch to
>> >> >> >> remove weeds prior to planting.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >From a least harm point of view, using any
>> >> >> >> reasonable criteria, I feel sure that
>> >> >> >> supermarket/resturant grains, legumes,
>> >> >> >> vegetables and nuts compare favourably
>> >> >> >> with supermarket/resturant meat, eggs
>> >> >> >> and dairy products but I think the best
>> >> >> >> option of all is to source both plant and
>> >> >> >> animal products from local organic farms
>> >> >> >> that you can trust, fish from handline
>> >> >> >> fisheries and nuts and wild plants from
>> >> >> >> local woodlands.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I'm not altogether convinced about the animal products from
>> >> >> > organic
>> >> >> > farms. I think in most cases these would probably lead to more
>> >> >> > collateral deaths overall because of the extra land use.
>> >> >> ==============================
>> >> >> Why? You suggesting that regular animals of the fields can't
>> >> >> live in pastures with cattle? Replacing mono-culture crop fields
>> >> >> with pastures to graze cattle would *reduce* CDs. There is no
>> >> >> way that you can say that more animals are going to die from
>> >> >> pasture grazing that mono-culture food production.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Davis estimates that 7.5 animals/ha die in ruminant-pasture food
>> >> > production.
>> >>
>> >> With no spraying or cultivation.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Don't recall that qualification. All right, if you say so. There was a
>> > fairly generous margin of error in Matheny's calculations. Are you
>> > saying some ruminant-pasture-based animal products cause less harm per
>> > serving of food than mono-culture crops? Can you provide some evidence
>> > of that?
>>
>> Only to tell as a farmer you that hay is not seeded, weeded or
>> cultivated,
>> just mown and baled. It's the next best thing to pasture. It also does
>> not
>> strip the soil of nutrients like crops grown for human consumption. I can
>> only use my fields every other year, while the hay fields can be mowed
>> several times a year. The whole argument comparing animal feed with human
>> food is another sham.
>>
>
> Well, I guess that would have to be taken into account as well. The day
> I see some serious research which makes a decent case that
> ruminant-pasture-based animal products cause less harm per serving of
> food than mono-culture crops, I'll re-evaluate my position.

Thank for illustrating my point. You have drawn a conclusion based on little
or no data, and to alter that position you require "serious research".

>
>> >> >> The fish is an
>> >> >> > interesting suggestion. I'm not sure about that one. It would
>> >> >> > be nice
>> >> >> > to see some research done on this topic to determine what
>> >> >> > really causes
>> >> >> > the least harm.
>> >> >> =====================
>> >> >> It isn't the veggies you eat...
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Show me some evidence.
>> >>
>> >> Be honest with yourself, then believe your own common sense.
>> >
>> > Appealling to my common sense doesn't convince me of his claim.
>>
>> You have to be willing to attempt to be objective. As long as you have
>> the
>> typical vegan tape running in your head none of this is never going to
>> make
>> sense.
>
> Well, I'm doing my best. I just don't see how I can reasonably be sure
> that any particular animal product that I can actually buy causes less
> harm per serving of food than crop production.

You can't, just like you can't be sure that rice or bananas or apples cause
less harm per serving than salmon, or bread.

> I think that more
> research should be done along the lines of Davis. Then some kind of
> serious debate can start. In the meantime, I'll have to go with my
> current best guess based on what I've read so far.

You are never going to know, because there simply are too many animals to
count and nobody cares to do it, including vegans. Farmers are too busy
farming and vegans are never going to do it because it shoots the hell out
their little game.

[email protected]

Dutch wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> >
> > Dutch wrote:
> >> > wrote in message
> >> oups.com...
> >> >
> >> > Dutch wrote:
> >> >> > wrote
> >> >> >
> >> >> > rick wrote:
> >> >> >> > wrote
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Dave wrote:
> >> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> snip...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Modern methods of crop cultivation require significant
> >> >> >> >> chemical imputs in the form of synthetic fertilizers
> >> >> >> >> and *cides, which can harm the environment as a
> >> >> >> >> result of their production, transportation and usage.
> >> >> >> >> In order to maintain soil fertility and keep pests under
> >> >> >> >> control in traditional organic systems crop rotations
> >> >> >> >> are normally used. I don't know if there are crop
> >> >> >> >> rotations available that produce human consumable
> >> >> >> >> crops on all of the land all the time but in practise
> >> >> >> >> grass-clover leys seem to feature rather prominently.
> >> >> >> >> It surely makes sense to have cattle grazing on such
> >> >> >> >> a ley, and producing milk at the same time and veal
> >> >> >> >> and beef are then natural byproducts of this.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Well, I would question whether we have the right to kill the
> >> >> >> > cattle for
> >> >> >> > food, unless it could somehow be shown that we were actually
> >> >> >> > reducing
> >> >> >> > the number of animal deaths by doing this.
> >> >> >> =========================
> >> >> >> Quite easy to do when compared to your tofu meat substitutes.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Do it, then.
> >> >>
> >> >> You're the one claiming we have a moral obligation, give "detailed
> >> >> evidence"
> >> >> that tofu causes fewer animal deaths than free-range beef.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > I didn't claim you have a moral obligation not to buy free-range beef.
> >> > I suspect you do, and I have cited some calculations in support of that
> >> > claim.
> >>
> >> Those calculations don't show anything of the sort.
> >>
> >
> > Why not?
>
> Because the concept of being morally required to kill the fewest number of
> animals possible is a ruse. You don't do it with any other consumer
> alternative, all you do is ban animal products.
>

It's not a ruse. It's something I try to live up to, across the board.

> >> > But I don't have conclusive evidence. Based on the inconclusive
> >> > evidence I have encountered so far I have decided not ot eat free-range
> >> > beef.
> >>
> >> You don't have any knowledge at all of the farming practises that go into
> >> most of the food you eat. Do you know much about fruit growing, how about
> >> wheat, rice? I know something about them, I grow wheat, I know apple
> >> growers, both are deadly businesses. I wouldn't live within a hundred
> >> miles
> >> of an apple orchard, that's how bad the pesticides are. The herbicides in
> >> grain farming is no better.
> >>
> >
> > All right. There are collateral deaths involved in pasture-ruminant
> > production as well. Show me some plausible numbers and then we'll have
> > a basis for reaching a conclusion. Until then, I'll stick with my
> > current best guess.
>
> Go ahead and base your life around guesses about made-up moral imperatives.
> I plan to enjoy my food to the maximum, and my life, and that doesn't
> include anal-retentive dogmas, it includes prime rib and chicken parmesan.
>

Well, I know you don't agree with the moral foundation, but you haven't
provided any arguments against it. The arguments for it are presented
in David DeGrazia's "Taking Animals Seriously". Any time you want to
address what he has to say in there I'll be happy to talk to you about
it.

> >> >> >> And, if we don't have the 'right' to kill cattle for the food we
> >> >> >> eat, why do we have the 'right' to kill field animals for the
> >> >> >> food we eat?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > We don't have the right to kill animals unnecessarily.
> >> >>
> >> >> Who defines what is necessary? You?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > I don't claim to offer a moral principle that gives absolutely
> >> > unambiguous moral guidance in evey conceivable situation. The word
> >> > "unnecessary" is vague and it will sometimes be hard to decide whether
> >> > a given action is in accordance with the moral principle. In those
> >> > cases, we'll just have to make a good faith effort to work out what is
> >> > the right thing to do.
> >>
> >> I agree, but I don't see much good faith effort or a coherent moral
> >> principle in veganism. Veganism is based soley on a rule which
> >> restricts/prohibits use of animal products, that is all. Other crops,
> >> like
> >> cotton to name one, which cause a lot of environmental damage, go totally
> >> unmentioned. Yet my consumption of meat is moral violation? Give me a
> >> ****ing break. Who the hell do you think you are?
> >>
> >
> > Well, I've told you my moral principle. Make every reasonable effort
> > not to provide financial support for practices that cause or support
> > unnecessary harm.
>
> You aren't doing that at all, you're prohibiting animal products, that is
> all.
>

You have no basis for saying I'm not doing that.

> > It's up to you to decide whether you think that's a
> > good principle, and if so, what's involved in following it.
>
> It's a vague, meaningless principle and you aren't following it.
>

There is some vagueness. It's not meaningless. I would like to hear
your reasons for saying I'm not following it.

> > I think any
> > serious attempt to follow it would involve a pretty drastic restriction
> > of meat consumption, but that's just my opinion.
>
> It's not a serious moral principle.
>

Ipse dixit.

> > I dare say there'd be
> > a case for restricting cotton consumption as well, I don't know much
> > about that particular issue. You'll note that I haven't been giving you
> > any sermons. I'm the one who gets most of the sermons around here. I
> > just happen to think that ethical veganism is a defensible position and
> > I'm throwing in my two cents' worth about the attacks you're making on
> > it.
>
> It's defensible morally to restrict the consumption of animal products, but
> it's not defensible to set up some bogus vague moral principle and pretend
> that you're following it.
>

Well, as I say, I accept the moral principle and I've told you where to
find arguments in its favour. If you want to address those that's fine.
And if you have some serious suggestion to make about how I can better
follow it, I'll be happy to listen to that too. It's a moral principle
that I accept and I'm trying to live up to it. Is that all right with
you?

> >
> >> >> > Probably we
> >> >> > don't have the right to kill as many animals in crop production as
> >> >> > we
> >> >> > do.
> >> >>
> >> >> Then you must stop.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > I must make every reasonable effort not to provide financial support to
> >> > institutions that cause or support unnecessary harm. That may involve
> >> > growing some of my own vegetables. I'm not convinced it involves buying
> >> > up my own land and growing all of my own food.
> >>
> >> You sound like a recorded message.
> >>
> >> >> > I would support efforts to reform crop production.
> >> >>
> >> >> How?
> >> >
> >> > Well, I might put pressure on politicians to make reforms which will
> >> > reduce the impact on animal welfare, try to make the public more aware
> >> > of the issue, that sort of thing.
> >>
> >> I'll believe it when I see it. So far it would appear that the issue of
> >> collateral deaths is off-limits to veganism, cuts a little to close to
> >> home
> >> for a movement focused on demonizing others.
> >>
> >
> > I don't agree with you that the movement is focussed on demonizing
> > others.
>
> I know you don't, no vegan does.
>

But you think they're wrong. If you had any reasons to offer for
thinking that they're wrong that would be interesting.

> > I think the focus is on trying to reduce the harm caused by the
> > factory-farming industry.
>
> That's the first time I have heard that term in our discussion, meat does
> not have to come from "factory farms", mine doesn't.
>

Great.

> > I agree the issue of the harm of collateral
> > deaths should be raised too. Perhaps I will try to make my friends in
> > the movement more aware of the issue.
>
> They will think you're crazy. Collateral deaths has no legs as an issue
> within "the movement", it hits too close to home.
>
> >
> >> >> In the meantime would you consume meat if it involved little or no
> >> >> intensive crop rearing?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Only if I was convinced it wouldn't involve additional harm to animals.
> >> > Not much research has been done on this topic, based on reading Davis
> >> > and Matheny at the moment I think it's probably best not to.
> >>
> >> Use your own imagination. If I shot a bull moose and offered you some
> >> meat,
> >> that would almost certainly be a lower impact at ~1/5000 of a death per
> >> serving than your current main courses.
> >>
> >
> > I really don't see how you can be confident of that when you admit that
> > there are no reliable estimates of the cost of crop production. Matheny
> > estimates a vegan diet kills 0.3 wild animals per year.
>
> Matheny hasn't done any research, he's a college dropout.
>

Still, he does argue for his conclusions. You can address the arguments
if you want to.

> > Do you have a
> > corresponding estimate for a diet which includes some game? Or do you
> > have an estimate which is better than Matheny's? If not, it looks like
> > you haven't got a conclusive argument.
>
> You are going to believe whatever "the movement" and it's shills like
> Matheny tell you to believe. That's your prerogative, but don't come on aaev
> claiming that it's rational.
>

I'm afraid your saying this doesn't persuade me that you've got a
conclusive argument.

> >> >> >> >> Animals can also benefit organic agriculture in
> >> >> >> >> various other ways. For example, manure is
> >> >> >> >> recognized as a good fertilizer, ducks like
> >> >> >> >> eating slugs and pigs can dig over a patch to
> >> >> >> >> remove weeds prior to planting.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >From a least harm point of view, using any
> >> >> >> >> reasonable criteria, I feel sure that
> >> >> >> >> supermarket/resturant grains, legumes,
> >> >> >> >> vegetables and nuts compare favourably
> >> >> >> >> with supermarket/resturant meat, eggs
> >> >> >> >> and dairy products but I think the best
> >> >> >> >> option of all is to source both plant and
> >> >> >> >> animal products from local organic farms
> >> >> >> >> that you can trust, fish from handline
> >> >> >> >> fisheries and nuts and wild plants from
> >> >> >> >> local woodlands.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I'm not altogether convinced about the animal products from
> >> >> >> > organic
> >> >> >> > farms. I think in most cases these would probably lead to more
> >> >> >> > collateral deaths overall because of the extra land use.
> >> >> >> ==============================
> >> >> >> Why? You suggesting that regular animals of the fields can't
> >> >> >> live in pastures with cattle? Replacing mono-culture crop fields
> >> >> >> with pastures to graze cattle would *reduce* CDs. There is no
> >> >> >> way that you can say that more animals are going to die from
> >> >> >> pasture grazing that mono-culture food production.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Davis estimates that 7.5 animals/ha die in ruminant-pasture food
> >> >> > production.
> >> >>
> >> >> With no spraying or cultivation.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Don't recall that qualification. All right, if you say so. There was a
> >> > fairly generous margin of error in Matheny's calculations. Are you
> >> > saying some ruminant-pasture-based animal products cause less harm per
> >> > serving of food than mono-culture crops? Can you provide some evidence
> >> > of that?
> >>
> >> Only to tell as a farmer you that hay is not seeded, weeded or
> >> cultivated,
> >> just mown and baled. It's the next best thing to pasture. It also does
> >> not
> >> strip the soil of nutrients like crops grown for human consumption. I can
> >> only use my fields every other year, while the hay fields can be mowed
> >> several times a year. The whole argument comparing animal feed with human
> >> food is another sham.
> >>
> >
> > Well, I guess that would have to be taken into account as well. The day
> > I see some serious research which makes a decent case that
> > ruminant-pasture-based animal products cause less harm per serving of
> > food than mono-culture crops, I'll re-evaluate my position.
>
> Thank for illustrating my point. You have drawn a conclusion based on little
> or no data, and to alter that position you require "serious research".
>

Because little or no data is the best we've got at the moment, and I
have to take some position. Other things short of "serious research"
would also suffice for me to re-evaluate my position. But what I've
seen on here so far doesn't cut the mustard.

> >
> >> >> >> The fish is an
> >> >> >> > interesting suggestion. I'm not sure about that one. It would
> >> >> >> > be nice
> >> >> >> > to see some research done on this topic to determine what
> >> >> >> > really causes
> >> >> >> > the least harm.
> >> >> >> =====================
> >> >> >> It isn't the veggies you eat...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Show me some evidence.
> >> >>
> >> >> Be honest with yourself, then believe your own common sense.
> >> >
> >> > Appealling to my common sense doesn't convince me of his claim.
> >>
> >> You have to be willing to attempt to be objective. As long as you have
> >> the
> >> typical vegan tape running in your head none of this is never going to
> >> make
> >> sense.
> >
> > Well, I'm doing my best. I just don't see how I can reasonably be sure
> > that any particular animal product that I can actually buy causes less
> > harm per serving of food than crop production.
>
> You can't, just like you can't be sure that rice or bananas or apples cause
> less harm per serving than salmon, or bread.
>

So in trying to minimize the extent to which I financially support
unnecessary harm, I have to make a guess based on the best available
research at the moment, and that's what I've tried to do.

> > I think that more
> > research should be done along the lines of Davis. Then some kind of
> > serious debate can start. In the meantime, I'll have to go with my
> > current best guess based on what I've read so far.
>
> You are never going to know, because there simply are too many animals to
> count and nobody cares to do it, including vegans. Farmers are too busy
> farming and vegans are never going to do it because it shoots the hell out
> their little game.

rick

Dutch

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> >
>> > Dutch wrote:
>> >> > wrote in message
>> >> oups.com...
>> >> >
>> >> > Dutch wrote:
>> >> >> > wrote
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > rick wrote:
>> >> >> >> > wrote
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Dave wrote:
>> >> >> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> snip...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> Modern methods of crop cultivation require significant
>> >> >> >> >> chemical imputs in the form of synthetic fertilizers
>> >> >> >> >> and *cides, which can harm the environment as a
>> >> >> >> >> result of their production, transportation and usage.
>> >> >> >> >> In order to maintain soil fertility and keep pests under
>> >> >> >> >> control in traditional organic systems crop rotations
>> >> >> >> >> are normally used. I don't know if there are crop
>> >> >> >> >> rotations available that produce human consumable
>> >> >> >> >> crops on all of the land all the time but in practise
>> >> >> >> >> grass-clover leys seem to feature rather prominently.
>> >> >> >> >> It surely makes sense to have cattle grazing on such
>> >> >> >> >> a ley, and producing milk at the same time and veal
>> >> >> >> >> and beef are then natural byproducts of this.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Well, I would question whether we have the right to kill the
>> >> >> >> > cattle for
>> >> >> >> > food, unless it could somehow be shown that we were actually
>> >> >> >> > reducing
>> >> >> >> > the number of animal deaths by doing this.
>> >> >> >> =========================
>> >> >> >> Quite easy to do when compared to your tofu meat substitutes.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Do it, then.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> You're the one claiming we have a moral obligation, give "detailed
>> >> >> evidence"
>> >> >> that tofu causes fewer animal deaths than free-range beef.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > I didn't claim you have a moral obligation not to buy free-range
>> >> > beef.
>> >> > I suspect you do, and I have cited some calculations in support of
>> >> > that
>> >> > claim.
>> >>
>> >> Those calculations don't show anything of the sort.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Why not?
>>
>> Because the concept of being morally required to kill the fewest number
>> of
>> animals possible is a ruse. You don't do it with any other consumer
>> alternative, all you do is ban animal products.
>>
>
> It's not a ruse. It's something I try to live up to, across the board.

Other than avoiding "animal products" what else do you do?

>> >> > But I don't have conclusive evidence. Based on the inconclusive
>> >> > evidence I have encountered so far I have decided not ot eat
>> >> > free-range
>> >> > beef.
>> >>
>> >> You don't have any knowledge at all of the farming practises that go
>> >> into
>> >> most of the food you eat. Do you know much about fruit growing, how
>> >> about
>> >> wheat, rice? I know something about them, I grow wheat, I know apple
>> >> growers, both are deadly businesses. I wouldn't live within a hundred
>> >> miles
>> >> of an apple orchard, that's how bad the pesticides are. The herbicides
>> >> in
>> >> grain farming is no better.
>> >>
>> >
>> > All right. There are collateral deaths involved in pasture-ruminant
>> > production as well. Show me some plausible numbers and then we'll have
>> > a basis for reaching a conclusion. Until then, I'll stick with my
>> > current best guess.
>>
>> Go ahead and base your life around guesses about made-up moral
>> imperatives.
>> I plan to enjoy my food to the maximum, and my life, and that doesn't
>> include anal-retentive dogmas, it includes prime rib and chicken
>> parmesan.
>>
>
> Well, I know you don't agree with the moral foundation, but you haven't
> provided any arguments against it.

Yes I have, you have demonstrated, unsurprisingly, that you are impervious
to them.

> The arguments for it are presented
> in David DeGrazia's "Taking Animals Seriously". Any time you want to
> address what he has to say in there I'll be happy to talk to you about
> it.

I take animals very seriously.

>> >> >> >> And, if we don't have the 'right' to kill cattle for the food we
>> >> >> >> eat, why do we have the 'right' to kill field animals for the
>> >> >> >> food we eat?
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > We don't have the right to kill animals unnecessarily.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Who defines what is necessary? You?
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > I don't claim to offer a moral principle that gives absolutely
>> >> > unambiguous moral guidance in evey conceivable situation. The word
>> >> > "unnecessary" is vague and it will sometimes be hard to decide
>> >> > whether
>> >> > a given action is in accordance with the moral principle. In those
>> >> > cases, we'll just have to make a good faith effort to work out what
>> >> > is
>> >> > the right thing to do.
>> >>
>> >> I agree, but I don't see much good faith effort or a coherent moral
>> >> principle in veganism. Veganism is based soley on a rule which
>> >> restricts/prohibits use of animal products, that is all. Other crops,
>> >> like
>> >> cotton to name one, which cause a lot of environmental damage, go
>> >> totally
>> >> unmentioned. Yet my consumption of meat is moral violation? Give me a
>> >> ****ing break. Who the hell do you think you are?
>> >>
>> >
>> > Well, I've told you my moral principle. Make every reasonable effort
>> > not to provide financial support for practices that cause or support
>> > unnecessary harm.
>>
>> You aren't doing that at all, you're prohibiting animal products, that is
>> all.
>>
>
> You have no basis for saying I'm not doing that.

You have no basis for saying you are.

>> > It's up to you to decide whether you think that's a
>> > good principle, and if so, what's involved in following it.
>>
>> It's a vague, meaningless principle and you aren't following it.
>>
>
> There is some vagueness. It's not meaningless.

It's vagueness renders it meaningless.

> I would like to hear
> your reasons for saying I'm not following it.

Simply, I am positive that you do not avoid all "unecessary" consumption.

>
>> > I think any
>> > serious attempt to follow it would involve a pretty drastic restriction
>> > of meat consumption, but that's just my opinion.
>>
>> It's not a serious moral principle.
>>
>
> Ipse dixit.

I have provided sufficient context for that conclusion, if you were prepared
to listen.
>
>> > I dare say there'd be
>> > a case for restricting cotton consumption as well, I don't know much
>> > about that particular issue. You'll note that I haven't been giving you
>> > any sermons. I'm the one who gets most of the sermons around here. I
>> > just happen to think that ethical veganism is a defensible position and
>> > I'm throwing in my two cents' worth about the attacks you're making on
>> > it.
>>
>> It's defensible morally to restrict the consumption of animal products,
>> but
>> it's not defensible to set up some bogus vague moral principle and
>> pretend
>> that you're following it.
>>
>
> Well, as I say, I accept the moral principle and I've told you where to
> find arguments in its favour. If you want to address those that's fine.
> And if you have some serious suggestion to make about how I can better
> follow it, I'll be happy to listen to that too. It's a moral principle
> that I accept and I'm trying to live up to it. Is that all right with
> you?

I don't care what you do, frankly, but if you choose to make a public
spectacle of it I will continue to tell you what I think of it.

>
>> >
>> >> >> > Probably we
>> >> >> > don't have the right to kill as many animals in crop production
>> >> >> > as
>> >> >> > we
>> >> >> > do.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Then you must stop.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > I must make every reasonable effort not to provide financial support
>> >> > to
>> >> > institutions that cause or support unnecessary harm. That may
>> >> > involve
>> >> > growing some of my own vegetables. I'm not convinced it involves
>> >> > buying
>> >> > up my own land and growing all of my own food.
>> >>
>> >> You sound like a recorded message.
>> >>
>> >> >> > I would support efforts to reform crop production.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> How?
>> >> >
>> >> > Well, I might put pressure on politicians to make reforms which will
>> >> > reduce the impact on animal welfare, try to make the public more
>> >> > aware
>> >> > of the issue, that sort of thing.
>> >>
>> >> I'll believe it when I see it. So far it would appear that the issue
>> >> of
>> >> collateral deaths is off-limits to veganism, cuts a little to close to
>> >> home
>> >> for a movement focused on demonizing others.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I don't agree with you that the movement is focussed on demonizing
>> > others.
>>
>> I know you don't, no vegan does.
>>
>
> But you think they're wrong. If you had any reasons to offer for
> thinking that they're wrong that would be interesting.

Have you ever heard of cognitive dissonance? I have given enough clues for
any person to understand why I think it's wrong, yet you haven't heard them.
Your mind is not letting anything in that conflicts with the pattern.

>
>> > I think the focus is on trying to reduce the harm caused by the
>> > factory-farming industry.
>>
>> That's the first time I have heard that term in our discussion, meat does
>> not have to come from "factory farms", mine doesn't.
>>
>
> Great.

That's not the point, you moved the goalposts.

>> > I agree the issue of the harm of collateral
>> > deaths should be raised too. Perhaps I will try to make my friends in
>> > the movement more aware of the issue.
>>
>> They will think you're crazy. Collateral deaths has no legs as an issue
>> within "the movement", it hits too close to home.

Did you hear me?

>>
>> >
>> >> >> In the meantime would you consume meat if it involved little or no
>> >> >> intensive crop rearing?
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Only if I was convinced it wouldn't involve additional harm to
>> >> > animals.
>> >> > Not much research has been done on this topic, based on reading
>> >> > Davis
>> >> > and Matheny at the moment I think it's probably best not to.
>> >>
>> >> Use your own imagination. If I shot a bull moose and offered you some
>> >> meat,
>> >> that would almost certainly be a lower impact at ~1/5000 of a death
>> >> per
>> >> serving than your current main courses.
>> >>
>> >
>> > I really don't see how you can be confident of that when you admit that
>> > there are no reliable estimates of the cost of crop production. Matheny
>> > estimates a vegan diet kills 0.3 wild animals per year.
>>
>> Matheny hasn't done any research, he's a college dropout.
>>
>
> Still, he does argue for his conclusions. You can address the arguments
> if you want to.

I have done so.

>
>> > Do you have a
>> > corresponding estimate for a diet which includes some game? Or do you
>> > have an estimate which is better than Matheny's? If not, it looks like
>> > you haven't got a conclusive argument.
>>
>> You are going to believe whatever "the movement" and it's shills like
>> Matheny tell you to believe. That's your prerogative, but don't come on
>> aaev
>> claiming that it's rational.
>>
>
> I'm afraid your saying this doesn't persuade me that you've got a
> conclusive argument.

I predicted correctly that this would be the outcome of our discussion. You
believe Matheny because he's says what you want to hear.

>> >> >> >> >> Animals can also benefit organic agriculture in
>> >> >> >> >> various other ways. For example, manure is
>> >> >> >> >> recognized as a good fertilizer, ducks like
>> >> >> >> >> eating slugs and pigs can dig over a patch to
>> >> >> >> >> remove weeds prior to planting.
>> >> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> >> >From a least harm point of view, using any
>> >> >> >> >> reasonable criteria, I feel sure that
>> >> >> >> >> supermarket/resturant grains, legumes,
>> >> >> >> >> vegetables and nuts compare favourably
>> >> >> >> >> with supermarket/resturant meat, eggs
>> >> >> >> >> and dairy products but I think the best
>> >> >> >> >> option of all is to source both plant and
>> >> >> >> >> animal products from local organic farms
>> >> >> >> >> that you can trust, fish from handline
>> >> >> >> >> fisheries and nuts and wild plants from
>> >> >> >> >> local woodlands.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > I'm not altogether convinced about the animal products from
>> >> >> >> > organic
>> >> >> >> > farms. I think in most cases these would probably lead to more
>> >> >> >> > collateral deaths overall because of the extra land use.
>> >> >> >> ==============================
>> >> >> >> Why? You suggesting that regular animals of the fields can't
>> >> >> >> live in pastures with cattle? Replacing mono-culture crop
>> >> >> >> fields
>> >> >> >> with pastures to graze cattle would *reduce* CDs. There is no
>> >> >> >> way that you can say that more animals are going to die from
>> >> >> >> pasture grazing that mono-culture food production.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Davis estimates that 7.5 animals/ha die in ruminant-pasture food
>> >> >> > production.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> With no spraying or cultivation.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Don't recall that qualification. All right, if you say so. There was
>> >> > a
>> >> > fairly generous margin of error in Matheny's calculations. Are you
>> >> > saying some ruminant-pasture-based animal products cause less harm
>> >> > per
>> >> > serving of food than mono-culture crops? Can you provide some
>> >> > evidence
>> >> > of that?
>> >>
>> >> Only to tell as a farmer you that hay is not seeded, weeded or
>> >> cultivated,
>> >> just mown and baled. It's the next best thing to pasture. It also does
>> >> not
>> >> strip the soil of nutrients like crops grown for human consumption. I
>> >> can
>> >> only use my fields every other year, while the hay fields can be mowed
>> >> several times a year. The whole argument comparing animal feed with
>> >> human
>> >> food is another sham.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Well, I guess that would have to be taken into account as well. The day
>> > I see some serious research which makes a decent case that
>> > ruminant-pasture-based animal products cause less harm per serving of
>> > food than mono-culture crops, I'll re-evaluate my position.
>>
>> Thank for illustrating my point. You have drawn a conclusion based on
>> little
>> or no data, and to alter that position you require "serious research".
>>
>
> Because little or no data is the best we've got at the moment, and I
> have to take some position. Other things short of "serious research"
> would also suffice for me to re-evaluate my position. But what I've
> seen on here so far doesn't cut the mustard.

Why should a position based on little or no data require "serious research"
to amend?

>> >
>> >> >> >> The fish is an
>> >> >> >> > interesting suggestion. I'm not sure about that one. It would
>> >> >> >> > be nice
>> >> >> >> > to see some research done on this topic to determine what
>> >> >> >> > really causes
>> >> >> >> > the least harm.
>> >> >> >> =====================
>> >> >> >> It isn't the veggies you eat...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Show me some evidence.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Be honest with yourself, then believe your own common sense.
>> >> >
>> >> > Appealling to my common sense doesn't convince me of his claim.
>> >>
>> >> You have to be willing to attempt to be objective. As long as you have
>> >> the
>> >> typical vegan tape running in your head none of this is never going to
>> >> make
>> >> sense.
>> >
>> > Well, I'm doing my best. I just don't see how I can reasonably be sure
>> > that any particular animal product that I can actually buy causes less
>> > harm per serving of food than crop production.
>>
>> You can't, just like you can't be sure that rice or bananas or apples
>> cause
>> less harm per serving than salmon, or bread.
>>
>
> So in trying to minimize the extent to which I financially support
> unnecessary harm, I have to make a guess based on the best available
> research at the moment, and that's what I've tried to do.

No it isn't. If you were trying to be as objective as you pretend you would
be referring to Davis' conclusions, not Matheny's laughable pile of
strawmen.

>
>> > I think that more
>> > research should be done along the lines of Davis. Then some kind of
>> > serious debate can start. In the meantime, I'll have to go with my
>> > current best guess based on what I've read so far.
>>
>> You are never going to know, because there simply are too many animals to
>> count and nobody cares to do it, including vegans. Farmers are too busy
>> farming and vegans are never going to do it because it shoots the hell
>> out
>> their little game.
>

[email protected]

[email protected]

Dutch wrote:
> It's a vague, meaningless principle and you aren't following it.
>

Oh, and by the way, if it's meaningless you can't say either that I'm
following it or that I'm not following it. You can't have your cake and
eat it too.

(Hmmm, maybe I should crosspost this to sci.logic...)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Menu

About Us