FoodBanter.com

FoodBanter.com (https://www.foodbanter.com/)
-   Vegan (https://www.foodbanter.com/vegan/)
-   -   Vagan question, getting started. (https://www.foodbanter.com/vegan/98987-vagan-question-getting-started.html)

Rob[_7_] 17-08-2006 07:02 AM

Vagan question, getting started.
 
Hello,

I have a question that I am not sure they can be answered. But I am
going to post it, and hope for the best.

I want to become a vegan, or as close as I can come. However I can not
get away from eating meat. Its like I am addicted or something. It
really bothers me.

I do care about people, the environment, and mostly my health. I have
heart issues, and my blood lipid levels are kind of bad. And I just keep
gaining weight.

But I have having a hard time getting started.

Can any of you all please help me, or give me any positive advise or
suggestions?

Thank you,

Rob

Derek[_2_] 17-08-2006 04:53 PM

Vagan question, getting started.
 
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 02:02:14 -0400, Rob > wrote:

>Hello,
>
>I have a question that I am not sure they can be answered. But I am
>going to post it, and hope for the best.
>
>I want to become a vegan,


You'll never be a vegan while *wanting* to be one. Being
a vegan is just a natural stage of moral development that
comes after realising you are one and can't be anything
but one. It's not a choice.

>or as close as I can come. However I can not
>get away from eating meat. Its like I am addicted or something. It
>really bothers me.
>
>I do care about people, the environment, and mostly my health. I have
>heart issues, and my blood lipid levels are kind of bad. And I just keep
>gaining weight.


You might still gain weight just as rapidly while following
a vegan diet. Abstaining from animal-derived foods won't
automatically make you lose excess weight.

>But I have having a hard time getting started.
>
>Can any of you all please help me, or give me any positive advise or
>suggestions?


Just be yourself, Rob. If, however, you're beginning to
realise you are one and can't be anything else but one,
eat in moderation. Good luck.

>Thank you,
>
>Rob


Derek[_2_] 17-08-2006 05:02 PM

Vagan question, getting started.
 
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 02:02:14 -0400, Rob > wrote:

>Hello,
>
>I have a question that I am not sure they can be answered. But I am
>going to post it, and hope for the best.
>
>I want to become a vegan,


You'll never be a vegan while *wanting* to be one. Being
a vegan is just a natural stage of moral development that
comes after realising you are one and can't be anything
but one. It's not a choice.

>or as close as I can come. However I can not
>get away from eating meat. Its like I am addicted or something. It
>really bothers me.
>
>I do care about people, the environment, and mostly my health. I have
>heart issues, and my blood lipid levels are kind of bad. And I just keep
>gaining weight.


You might still gain weight just as rapidly while following
a vegan diet. Abstaining from animal-derived foods won't
automatically make you lose excess weight.

>But I have having a hard time getting started.
>
>Can any of you all please help me, or give me any positive advise or
>suggestions?


Just be yourself, Rob. If, however, you're beginning to
realise you are one and can't be anything else but one,
eat in moderation. Good luck.

>Thank you,
>
>Rob


dh@. 17-08-2006 07:04 PM

Vagan question, getting started.
 
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:53:18 +0100, Derek > wrote:

>On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 02:02:14 -0400, Rob > wrote:
>
>>Hello,
>>
>>I have a question that I am not sure they can be answered. But I am
>>going to post it, and hope for the best.
>>
>>I want to become a vegan,

>
>You'll never be a vegan while *wanting* to be one. Being
>a vegan is just a natural stage of moral development


· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:

Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides,
Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen,
Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides,
Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings

The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

Dutch 17-08-2006 07:32 PM

Vagan question, getting started.
 

"Derek" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 02:02:14 -0400, Rob >
> wrote:
>
>>Hello,
>>
>>I have a question that I am not sure they can be answered. But I am
>>going to post it, and hope for the best.
>>
>>I want to become a vegan,

>
> You'll never be a vegan while *wanting* to be one.


There's no rational reason to want become a vegan.

> Being
> a vegan is just a natural stage of moral development that
> comes after realising you are one and can't be anything
> but one.


Wanting to be a vegan is a sign of moral confusion.

> It's not a choice.


It's a choice to accept the flawed logic that underlies veganism, that
somehow one is purified simply by removing the most obvious evidence of
animal death from one's consumer choices, while ignoring the underlying
death and suffering. It's a choice to act on that logic.


[..]



Rob[_7_] 17-08-2006 07:37 PM

Vagan question, getting started.
 
dh@. wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:53:18 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 02:02:14 -0400, Rob > wrote:
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I have a question that I am not sure they can be answered. But I am
>>> going to post it, and hope for the best.
>>>
>>> I want to become a vegan,

>> You'll never be a vegan while *wanting* to be one. Being
>> a vegan is just a natural stage of moral development

>
> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
> wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
> buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
> What they try to avoid are products which provide life
> (and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
> to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
> in order to be successful:
>
> Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
> Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides,
> Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen,
> Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides,
> Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
> Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
> Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings
>
> The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
> slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
> as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
> their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
> animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
> ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
> future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
> livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
> consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
> being vegan.
> From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
> steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
> get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
> over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
> get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
> machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
> draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
> likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
> derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
> contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
> better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·



Ummmm, OK.....

Derek[_2_] 17-08-2006 07:50 PM

Vagan question, getting started.
 
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 14:04:34 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:53:18 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>>On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 02:02:14 -0400, Rob > wrote:
>>
>>>Hello,
>>>
>>>I have a question that I am not sure they can be answered. But I am
>>>going to post it, and hope for the best.
>>>
>>>I want to become a vegan,

>>
>>You'll never be a vegan while *wanting* to be one. Being
>>a vegan is just a natural stage of moral development that
>>comes after realising you are one and can't be anything
>>but one. It's not a choice.

>
> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals


And so we should eat meat and contribute to even more?
There's no perfect solution to the problem of collateral
deaths found in agriculture, and the vegan's critic is often
foolishly persuaded to try using this dilemma to his advantage
when he's run out of valid arguments. He argues;

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

This argument commits The Perfect Solution Fallacy by
assuming a perfect solution exists where no animals are killed
for their food in the practical World, and so their solution to
abide by their stated moral requirement to not kill animals for
food by abstaining from meat doesn't meet that requirement,
and so their solution (veganism) should be rejected because
some part of the problem (CDs) would still exist after it was
implemented.

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

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

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

Derek[_2_] 17-08-2006 07:55 PM

Vagan question, getting started.
 
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:32:20 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>"Derek" > wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 02:02:14 -0400, Rob wrote:
>>
>>>Hello,
>>>
>>>I have a question that I am not sure they can be answered. But I am
>>>going to post it, and hope for the best.
>>>
>>>I want to become a vegan,

>>
>> You'll never be a vegan while *wanting* to be one.

>
>There's no rational reason to want become a vegan.


It's a natural stage in one's moral development that
comes after realising you are one and can't be anything
but one.

>> Being
>> a vegan is just a natural stage of moral development that
>> comes after realising you are one and can't be anything
>> but one.

>
>Wanting to be a vegan is a sign of moral confusion.


It was in your case, but that doesn't mean it's the same
for others.

>> It's not a choice.

>
>It's a choice


No, it's not a choice.

dh@. 17-08-2006 10:03 PM

Vagan question, getting started.
 
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 19:55:33 +0100, Derek > wrote:

>On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:32:20 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>"Derek" > wrote:
>>> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 02:02:14 -0400, Rob wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hello,
>>>>
>>>>I have a question that I am not sure they can be answered. But I am
>>>>going to post it, and hope for the best.
>>>>
>>>>I want to become a vegan,
>>>
>>> You'll never be a vegan while *wanting* to be one.

>>
>>There's no rational reason to want become a vegan.

>
>It's a natural stage in one's moral development that
>comes after realising you are one and can't be anything
>but one.
>
>>> Being
>>> a vegan is just a natural stage of moral development that
>>> comes after realising you are one and can't be anything
>>> but one.

>>
>>Wanting to be a vegan is a sign of moral confusion.

>
>It was in your case, but that doesn't mean it's the same
>for others.


Have you seen his most recent claim/denial of his belief
in the rights of animals?

"we must have at least the same right as every animal does, which is
to seek to compete successfully, sustain ourselves and thrive." - Dutch

Message-ID: >

Dutch 18-08-2006 03:01 AM

Vagan question, getting started.
 

<dh@.> wrote
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 19:55:33 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:32:20 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>"Derek" > wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 02:02:14 -0400, Rob wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>>I have a question that I am not sure they can be answered. But I am
>>>>>going to post it, and hope for the best.
>>>>>
>>>>>I want to become a vegan,
>>>>
>>>> You'll never be a vegan while *wanting* to be one.
>>>
>>>There's no rational reason to want become a vegan.

>>
>>It's a natural stage in one's moral development that
>>comes after realising you are one and can't be anything
>>but one.
>>
>>>> Being
>>>> a vegan is just a natural stage of moral development that
>>>> comes after realising you are one and can't be anything
>>>> but one.
>>>
>>>Wanting to be a vegan is a sign of moral confusion.

>>
>>It was in your case, but that doesn't mean it's the same
>>for others.

>
> Have you seen his most recent claim/denial of his belief
> in the rights of animals?
>
> "we must have at least the same right as every animal does, which is
> to seek to compete successfully, sustain ourselves and thrive." - Dutch


Why are you asking him ****wit? Don't you believe that we have the right to
seek to compete successfully, sustain ourselves and thrive? Isn't that the
birthright of every living organism?





dh@. 19-08-2006 08:26 PM

Vagan question, getting started.
 
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 19:50:40 +0100, Derek > wrote:

>On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 14:04:34 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:53:18 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>>>On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 02:02:14 -0400, Rob > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hello,
>>>>
>>>>I have a question that I am not sure they can be answered. But I am
>>>>going to post it, and hope for the best.
>>>>
>>>>I want to become a vegan,
>>>
>>>You'll never be a vegan while *wanting* to be one. Being
>>>a vegan is just a natural stage of moral development that
>>>comes after realising you are one and can't be anything
>>>but one. It's not a choice.

>>
>> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals

>
>And so we should eat meat and contribute to even more?
>There's no perfect solution to the problem of collateral
>deaths found in agriculture, and the vegan's critic is often
>foolishly persuaded to try using this dilemma to his advantage
>when he's run out of valid arguments. He argues;
>
>"Abstaining from meat doesn't meet with the vegan's moral
> requirement to not kill animals intentionally for food; animals
> still die for their food during crop production."
>
>This argument commits The Perfect Solution Fallacy by
>assuming a perfect solution exists where no animals are killed
>for their food in the practical World, and so their solution to
>abide by their stated moral requirement to not kill animals for
>food by abstaining from meat doesn't meet that requirement,
>and so their solution (veganism) should be rejected because
>some part of the problem (CDs) would still exist after it was
>implemented.


· From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

Here we see plowing:
http://tinyurl.com/8fmxe

and here harrowing:
http://tinyurl.com/zqr2v

both of which kill animals by crushing, mutilation, suffocation,
and exposing them to predators. We can see that planting
kills in similar ways:
http://tinyurl.com/k6sku

and death from herbicides and pesticides needs to be
kept in mind:
http://tinyurl.com/ew2j5

Harvesting kills of course by crushing and mutilation, and
it also removes the surviving animals' food, and it exposes
them to predators:
http://tinyurl.com/otp5l

In the case of rice there's additional killing as well caused
by flooding:
http://tinyurl.com/qhqx3

and later by draining and destroying the environment which
developed as the result of the flooding:
http://tinyurl.com/rc9m3

Cattle eating grass rarely if ever cause anywhere near
as much suffering and death. ·
http://tinyurl.com/q7whm

dh@. 19-08-2006 08:27 PM

Vagan question, getting started.
 
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 19:01:50 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote
>> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 19:55:33 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:32:20 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>"Derek" > wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 02:02:14 -0400, Rob wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Hello,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I have a question that I am not sure they can be answered. But I am
>>>>>>going to post it, and hope for the best.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I want to become a vegan,
>>>>>
>>>>> You'll never be a vegan while *wanting* to be one.
>>>>
>>>>There's no rational reason to want become a vegan.
>>>
>>>It's a natural stage in one's moral development that
>>>comes after realising you are one and can't be anything
>>>but one.
>>>
>>>>> Being
>>>>> a vegan is just a natural stage of moral development that
>>>>> comes after realising you are one and can't be anything
>>>>> but one.
>>>>
>>>>Wanting to be a vegan is a sign of moral confusion.
>>>
>>>It was in your case, but that doesn't mean it's the same
>>>for others.

>>
>> Have you seen his most recent claim/denial of his belief
>> in the rights of animals?
>>
>> "we must have at least the same right as every animal does, which is
>> to seek to compete successfully, sustain ourselves and thrive." - Dutch

>
>Why are you asking him


I thought I remembered him having some interest in which
rights you believe animals have...and in fact thought he had
posted some of your beliefs like:

"Rights for animals exist because human rights
exist. If human rights did not exist, rights for
animals would not exist."

"My contention is that 'animal rights' have sprouted
like branches from the tree of "HUMAN RIGHTS".
They are derivative. They reflect from a) what our
own rights are b) to what degree and how we value
the animal or species."

"I am an animal rights believer."

"I can be an animal rights believer and not an Animal Rights
believer, get it?"

>****wit? Don't you believe that we have the right to
>seek to compete successfully, sustain ourselves and thrive? Isn't that the
>birthright of every living organism?


I don't believe there "are" intrinsic rights for anything
Doutche. Any rights we have are provided by law.

Dutch 20-08-2006 10:12 AM

Vagan question, getting started.
 

<dh@.> wrote
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 19:01:50 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:


[..]


>>****wit? Don't you believe that we have the right to
>>seek to compete successfully, sustain ourselves and thrive? Isn't that the
>>birthright of every living organism?

>
> I don't believe there "are" intrinsic rights for anything


You don't believe that moral rights exist?

Any rights we have are provided by law.

I'm not talking about legal rights.



dh@. 20-08-2006 07:40 PM

Vagan question, getting started.
 
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 02:12:46 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

><dh@.> wrote
>
>> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 19:01:50 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>Don't you believe that we have the right to
>>>seek to compete successfully, sustain ourselves and thrive? Isn't that the
>>>birthright of every living organism?

>>
>> I don't believe there "are" intrinsic rights for anything

>
>You don't believe that moral rights exist?


Of course not. They are simply ideas. What it gets down to is:
We can be considerate of other beings, or not. That's what it
always breaks down to.

>>Any rights we have are provided by law.

>
>I'm not talking about legal rights.


Then you're fantasising again. We can be considerate, or not.
That's all there is. That's why I encourage people to be considerate
of everything, and it's also why you "aras" want to pick and choose
what everyone else considers, limiting it only to things which don't
suggest an ethically equivalent or superior alternative to veganism
and the elimination of livestock. Duh.

Steve Calvin 20-08-2006 07:55 PM

Vagan question, getting started.
 
dh@. wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 02:12:46 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>> <dh@.> wrote
>>
>>> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 19:01:50 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Don't you believe that we have the right to
>>>> seek to compete successfully, sustain ourselves and thrive? Isn't that the
>>>> birthright of every living organism?
>>> I don't believe there "are" intrinsic rights for anything

>> You don't believe that moral rights exist?

>
> Of course not. They are simply ideas. What it gets down to is:
> We can be considerate of other beings, or not. That's what it
> always breaks down to.
>
>>> Any rights we have are provided by law.

>> I'm not talking about legal rights.

>
> Then you're fantasising again. We can be considerate, or not.
> That's all there is. That's why I encourage people to be considerate
> of everything, and it's also why you "aras" want to pick and choose
> what everyone else considers, limiting it only to things which don't
> suggest an ethically equivalent or superior alternative to veganism
> and the elimination of livestock. Duh.


Would you please keep this crap off of alt.food and
alt.cooking-chat? No one there really gives a damn and
cross-posting is extremely poor usenet usage. Yes, I realize
that I posted this to two groups but really... keep your
fights "at home".

--
Steve

Dutch 20-08-2006 09:04 PM

Vagan question, getting started.
 

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 02:12:46 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>><dh@.> wrote
>>
>>> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 19:01:50 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>Don't you believe that we have the right to
>>>>seek to compete successfully, sustain ourselves and thrive? Isn't that
>>>>the
>>>>birthright of every living organism?
>>>
>>> I don't believe there "are" intrinsic rights for anything

>>
>>You don't believe that moral rights exist?

>
> Of course not. They are simply ideas.


And ideas don't exist?

> What it gets down to is:
> We can be considerate of other beings, or not.


Does that idea exist?

> That's what it
> always breaks down to.


Yes it does, but it's not completely optional. A person who is totally
inconsiderate of other beings is in violation of moral and legal rights.
Incidentally "being considerate" does not include thinking that the life of
another being is a moral bonus for you.

>>>Any rights we have are provided by law.

>>
>>I'm not talking about legal rights.

>
> Then you're fantasising again.


It's called "thinking".

> We can be considerate, or not.
> That's all there is. That's why I encourage people to be considerate
> of everything, and it's also why you "aras" want to pick and choose
> what everyone else considers, limiting it only to things which don't
> suggest an ethically equivalent or superior alternative to veganism
> and the elimination of livestock. Duh.


Ironically, your pet sophistry actually suggests the opposite of what you
wish. By doggedly insisting that we get to consider the lives of livestock
animals as moral bonus points for humans it raises the notion that perhaps
the raising of livestock really is wrong.




dh@. 21-08-2006 03:52 PM

Vagan question, getting started.
 
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 13:04:33 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>
>> What it gets down to is:
>> We can be considerate of other beings, or not.

>
>Does that idea exist?
>
>> That's what it always breaks down to.

>
>Yes it does, but it's not completely optional. A person who is totally
>inconsiderate of other beings is in violation of moral and legal rights.


So are you for only being considerate of your imaginary moral
browny points, or gold stars, or whatever you keep imagining.
You "aras" are incapable of considering what the animals gain,
but only the imaginary moral browny points you are obviously
terrified of losing to decent AW.

>Incidentally "being considerate" does not include thinking that the life of
>another being is a moral bonus for you.


LOL!!! That's ALL you're capable of considering, but you STILL
can't explain why you think you get more moral points for refusing to
consider the animals than you would for considering them, you idiot.
Why???

>>>>Any rights we have are provided by law.
>>>
>>>I'm not talking about legal rights.

>>
>> Then you're fantasising again.

>
>It's called "thinking".
>
>> We can be considerate, or not.
>> That's all there is. That's why I encourage people to be considerate
>> of everything, and it's also why you "aras" want to pick and choose
>> what everyone else considers, limiting it only to things which don't
>> suggest an ethically equivalent or superior alternative to veganism
>> and the elimination of livestock. Duh.

>
>Ironically, your pet sophistry actually suggests the opposite of what you
>wish.


Maybe to a fool, but ONLY to a fool if so.

>By doggedly insisting that we get to consider the lives of livestock
>animals as moral bonus points


You pathetically can't think of anything but yourself.

>for humans it raises the notion that perhaps the raising of livestock really
>is wrong.


The purity of your selfishness--insanely obsessed with some
imaginary moral reward system--obviously prevents you from thinking
about the animals to such a degree that you're not even able to
understand the concept, much less attempt doing it. It's disgusting.

dh@. 21-08-2006 04:02 PM

Vagan question, getting started.
 
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 14:55:13 -0400, Steve Calvin > cried:

>dh pointed out:
>
>> We can be considerate, or not.
>> That's all there is. That's why I encourage people to be considerate
>> of everything, and it's also why you "aras" want to pick and choose
>> what everyone else considers, limiting it only to things which don't
>> suggest an ethically equivalent or superior alternative to veganism
>> and the elimination of livestock. Duh.

>
>Would you please keep this crap off of alt.food and
>alt.cooking-chat?


The subject is food. Stop crying.

>No one there really gives a damn


Maybe or maybe not. All we know for sure is that you don't
have anything worth contributing to it, and that you're afraid
of something. Of course the most likely thing is that you yourself
are an "animal rights" freak, and you don't want your absurd
beliefs challenged or even exposed in some particular ng(s)
where people are not yet aware of what a freak you are. Maybe
you've even fooled some gullible people into believing that your
vegan ways are ethically superior, and you're afraid of them
questioning the illusion you've so carefully managed to create?

>and cross-posting is extremely poor usenet usage.


No, it's not at all. You have simply expressed an ignorant
pov that could only be appreciated by similar ignorance.

>Yes, I realize that I posted this to two groups but really... keep
>your fights "at home".


Considering the ethics of where food comes from is not
something most people should be ashamed or afraid of.
In contrast, your crying about it *is*, so maybe you should
consider keeping your crying "at home". Maybe you can
work up a little support group of people who cry and sob
together about how horrible it is that other people are
actually considering the ethics of how food is produced,
but hopefully most people won't share your fear and what
appear to be feelings of shame regarding the subject.

Steve Calvin 21-08-2006 07:33 PM

Vagan question, getting started.
 
dh@. wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 14:55:13 -0400, Steve Calvin > cried:
>
>> dh pointed out:
>>
>>> We can be considerate, or not.
>>> That's all there is. That's why I encourage people to be considerate
>>> of everything, and it's also why you "aras" want to pick and choose
>>> what everyone else considers, limiting it only to things which don't
>>> suggest an ethically equivalent or superior alternative to veganism
>>> and the elimination of livestock. Duh.

>> Would you please keep this crap off of alt.food and
>> alt.cooking-chat?

>
> The subject is food. Stop crying.


Thank you, no. That's why they made asshole filters - amf...

--
Steve

[email protected]. 21-08-2006 07:52 PM

Vagan question, getting started.
 
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 14:33:39 -0400, Steve Calvin > wrote:

>dh@. wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 14:55:13 -0400, Steve Calvin > cried:
>>
>>> dh pointed out:
>>>
>>>> We can be considerate, or not.
>>>> That's all there is. That's why I encourage people to be considerate
>>>> of everything, and it's also why you "aras" want to pick and choose
>>>> what everyone else considers, limiting it only to things which don't
>>>> suggest an ethically equivalent or superior alternative to veganism
>>>> and the elimination of livestock. Duh.
>>> Would you please keep this crap off of alt.food and
>>> alt.cooking-chat?

>>
>> The subject is food. Stop crying.

>
>Thank you, no.


Ah, so you ARE a vegan...

· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:

Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides,
Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen,
Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides,
Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings

The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

Dutch 21-08-2006 08:10 PM

Vagan question, getting started.
 

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 13:04:33 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>
>>> What it gets down to is:
>>> We can be considerate of other beings, or not.

>>
>>Does that idea exist?
>>
>>> That's what it always breaks down to.

>>
>>Yes it does, but it's not completely optional. A person who is totally
>>inconsiderate of other beings is in violation of moral and legal rights.

>
> So are you for only being considerate of your imaginary moral
> browny points, or gold stars, or whatever you keep imagining.
> You "aras" are incapable of considering what the animals gain,
> but only the imaginary moral browny points you are obviously
> terrified of losing to decent AW.
>
>>Incidentally "being considerate" does not include thinking that the life
>>of
>>another being is a moral bonus for you.

>
> LOL!!! That's ALL you're capable of considering, but you STILL
> can't explain why you think you get more moral points for refusing to
> consider the animals than you would for considering them, you idiot.
> Why???
>
>>>>>Any rights we have are provided by law.
>>>>
>>>>I'm not talking about legal rights.
>>>
>>> Then you're fantasising again.

>>
>>It's called "thinking".
>>
>>> We can be considerate, or not.
>>> That's all there is. That's why I encourage people to be considerate
>>> of everything, and it's also why you "aras" want to pick and choose
>>> what everyone else considers, limiting it only to things which don't
>>> suggest an ethically equivalent or superior alternative to veganism
>>> and the elimination of livestock. Duh.

>>
>>Ironically, your pet sophistry actually suggests the opposite of what you
>>wish.

>
> Maybe


No, positively.


to a fool, but ONLY to a fool if so.
>
>>By doggedly insisting that we get to consider the lives of livestock
>>animals as moral bonus points

>
> You pathetically can't think of anything but yourself.


False, I can think of the animals also.

>>for humans it raises the notion that perhaps the raising of livestock
>>really
>>is wrong.

>
> The purity of your selfishness--insanely obsessed with some
> imaginary moral reward system--obviously prevents you from thinking
> about the animals to such a degree that you're not even able to
> understand the concept, much less attempt doing it. It's disgusting.


The problem is I "understand the concept" perfectly. You are looking at the
lives of livestock animals and making that into a justification for raising
them. It's a flawed, circular sophistry.






Ronald 'More-More' Moshki[_1_] 22-08-2006 04:29 AM

Vagan question, getting started.
 

Dutch wrote:
> "Derek" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 02:02:14 -0400, Rob >
> > wrote:
> >
> >>Hello,
> >>
> >>I have a question that I am not sure they can be answered. But I am
> >>going to post it, and hope for the best.
> >>
> >>I want to become a vegan,

> >
> > You'll never be a vegan while *wanting* to be one.

>
> There's no rational reason to want become a vegan.
>
> > Being
> > a vegan is just a natural stage of moral development that
> > comes after realising you are one and can't be anything
> > but one.

>
> Wanting to be a vegan is a sign of moral confusion.
>
> > It's not a choice.

>
> It's a choice to accept the flawed logic that underlies veganism, that
> somehow one is purified simply by removing the most obvious evidence of
> animal death from one's consumer choices, while ignoring the underlying
> death and suffering. It's a choice to act on that logic.
>
>


Veganism is less cruel than non-veganism.

So Dutch is, in fact, a bad guy compared to Derek.

dh is simply a psychotic.


Ronald 'More-More' Moshki[_1_] 22-08-2006 04:32 AM

Vagan question, getting started.
 

Derek wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 11:32:20 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> >"Derek" > wrote:
> >> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 02:02:14 -0400, Rob wrote:
> >>
> >>>Hello,
> >>>
> >>>I have a question that I am not sure they can be answered. But I am
> >>>going to post it, and hope for the best.
> >>>
> >>>I want to become a vegan,
> >>
> >> You'll never be a vegan while *wanting* to be one.

> >
> >There's no rational reason to want become a vegan.

>
> It's a natural stage in one's moral development that
> comes after realising you are one and can't be anything
> but one.
>
> >> Being
> >> a vegan is just a natural stage of moral development that
> >> comes after realising you are one and can't be anything
> >> but one.

> >
> >Wanting to be a vegan is a sign of moral confusion.

>
> It was in your case, but that doesn't mean it's the same
> for others.
>
> >> It's not a choice.

> >
> >It's a choice

>
> No, it's not a choice.


------------------Good guy ratings:
1. Derek
2.Leif Erickson
-----------------------
bad guys
Dutch and finally the lunatic, dh.


Dutch 22-08-2006 05:36 AM

Vagan question, getting started.
 

"Ronald 'More-More' Moshki" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Dutch wrote:
>> "Derek" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 02:02:14 -0400, Rob >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>Hello,
>> >>
>> >>I have a question that I am not sure they can be answered. But I am
>> >>going to post it, and hope for the best.
>> >>
>> >>I want to become a vegan,
>> >
>> > You'll never be a vegan while *wanting* to be one.

>>
>> There's no rational reason to want become a vegan.
>>
>> > Being
>> > a vegan is just a natural stage of moral development that
>> > comes after realising you are one and can't be anything
>> > but one.

>>
>> Wanting to be a vegan is a sign of moral confusion.
>>
>> > It's not a choice.

>>
>> It's a choice to accept the flawed logic that underlies veganism, that
>> somehow one is purified simply by removing the most obvious evidence of
>> animal death from one's consumer choices, while ignoring the underlying
>> death and suffering. It's a choice to act on that logic.
>>
>>

>
> Veganism is less cruel than non-veganism.


Too general a statement to be accurate.

> So Dutch is, in fact, a bad guy compared to Derek.


Doesn't follow, in fact.

> dh is simply a psychotic.


Probably some kind mental disorder.



[email protected] 22-08-2006 06:52 PM

Vagan question, getting started.
 
Damn! When I read the subject, I thought that this thread was going to be
about people who like vaginas.


In alt.food dh@. wrote:
: On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 02:12:46 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

: ><dh@.> wrote
: >
: >> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 19:01:50 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
: >>
: >>>Don't you believe that we have the right to
: >>>seek to compete successfully, sustain ourselves and thrive? Isn't that the
: >>>birthright of every living organism?
: >>
: >> I don't believe there "are" intrinsic rights for anything
: >
: >You don't believe that moral rights exist?

: Of course not. They are simply ideas. What it gets down to is:
: We can be considerate of other beings, or not. That's what it
: always breaks down to.

: >>Any rights we have are provided by law.
: >
: >I'm not talking about legal rights.

: Then you're fantasising again. We can be considerate, or not.
: That's all there is. That's why I encourage people to be considerate
: of everything, and it's also why you "aras" want to pick and choose
: what everyone else considers, limiting it only to things which don't
: suggest an ethically equivalent or superior alternative to veganism
: and the elimination of livestock. Duh.

Ronald 'More-More' Moshki[_1_] 22-08-2006 09:18 PM

Vagan question, getting started.
 
We "choose" what the animals would choose: Not to be caged, tortured,
vivisected or eaten.


wrote:
> Damn! When I read the subject, I thought that this thread was going to be
> about people who like vaginas.
>
>
> In alt.food dh@. wrote:
> : On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 02:12:46 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> : ><dh@.> wrote
> : >
> : >> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 19:01:50 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
> : >>
> : >>>Don't you believe that we have the right to
> : >>>seek to compete successfully, sustain ourselves and thrive? Isn't that the
> : >>>birthright of every living organism?
> : >>
> : >> I don't believe there "are" intrinsic rights for anything
> : >
> : >You don't believe that moral rights exist?
>
> : Of course not. They are simply ideas. What it gets down to is:
> : We can be considerate of other beings, or not. That's what it
> : always breaks down to.
>
> : >>Any rights we have are provided by law.
> : >
> : >I'm not talking about legal rights.
>
> : Then you're fantasising again. We can be considerate, or not.
> : That's all there is. That's why I encourage people to be considerate
> : of everything, and it's also why you "aras" want to pick and choose
> : what everyone else considers, limiting it only to things which don't
> : suggest an ethically equivalent or superior alternative to veganism
> : and the elimination of livestock. Duh.



dh@. 23-08-2006 03:08 PM

Vagan question, getting started.
 
On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 12:10:26 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 13:04:33 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>
>>>> What it gets down to is:
>>>> We can be considerate of other beings, or not.
>>>
>>>Does that idea exist?
>>>
>>>> That's what it always breaks down to.
>>>
>>>Yes it does, but it's not completely optional. A person who is totally
>>>inconsiderate of other beings is in violation of moral and legal rights.

>>
>> So are you for only being considerate of your imaginary moral
>> browny points, or gold stars, or whatever you keep imagining.
>> You "aras" are incapable of considering what the animals gain,
>> but only the imaginary moral browny points you are obviously
>> terrified of losing to decent AW.
>>
>>>Incidentally "being considerate" does not include thinking that the life
>>>of
>>>another being is a moral bonus for you.

>>
>> LOL!!! That's ALL you're capable of considering, but you STILL
>> can't explain why you think you get more moral points for refusing to
>> consider the animals than you would for considering them, you idiot.
>> Why???
>>
>>>>>>Any rights we have are provided by law.
>>>>>
>>>>>I'm not talking about legal rights.
>>>>
>>>> Then you're fantasising again.
>>>
>>>It's called "thinking".
>>>
>>>> We can be considerate, or not.
>>>> That's all there is. That's why I encourage people to be considerate
>>>> of everything, and it's also why you "aras" want to pick and choose
>>>> what everyone else considers, limiting it only to things which don't
>>>> suggest an ethically equivalent or superior alternative to veganism
>>>> and the elimination of livestock. Duh.
>>>
>>>Ironically, your pet sophistry actually suggests the opposite of what you
>>>wish.

>>
>> Maybe

>
>No, positively.


ONLY to a fool if so.

>>>By doggedly insisting that we get to consider the lives of livestock
>>>animals as moral bonus points

>>
>> You pathetically can't think of anything but yourself.

>
>False, I can think of the animals also.


There is absolutely no evidence of that, and there probably
never will be.

>>>for humans it raises the notion that perhaps the raising of livestock
>>>really
>>>is wrong.

>>
>> The purity of your selfishness--insanely obsessed with some
>> imaginary moral reward system--obviously prevents you from thinking
>> about the animals to such a degree that you're not even able to
>> understand the concept, much less attempt doing it. It's disgusting.

>
>The problem is I "understand the concept" perfectly.


There is no evidence that you understand it at all. There is only
evidence that you're worried about some imaginary moral reward
system that you feel could somehow benefit you, while remaining
incapable of considering any benefit to the animals.

>You are looking at the lives of livestock animals and making that
>into a justification for raising them. It's a flawed, circular sophistry.


It's an aspect of human influence on animals that you "aras" don't
want taken into consideration, because it suggests that providing
decent lives and humane deaths for livestock--ie decent AW--could
be ethically equivalent or superior to their elimination--ie "ar". You're
OBVIOUSLY afraid of "ar" losing moral browny points, gold stars,
or whatever, to decent AW in your imaginary moral reward system.
Duh!

dh@. 23-08-2006 03:09 PM

Vagan question, getting started.
 
On 21 Aug 2006 20:29:47 -0700, "Ronald 'More-More' Moshki" > wrote:

>Veganism is less cruel than non-veganism.


· From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

Here we see plowing:
http://tinyurl.com/8fmxe

and here harrowing:
http://tinyurl.com/zqr2v

both of which kill animals by crushing, mutilation, suffocation,
and exposing them to predators. We can see that planting
kills in similar ways:
http://tinyurl.com/k6sku

and death from herbicides and pesticides needs to be
kept in mind:
http://tinyurl.com/ew2j5

Harvesting kills of course by crushing and mutilation, and
it also removes the surviving animals' food, and it exposes
them to predators:
http://tinyurl.com/otp5l

In the case of rice there's additional killing as well caused
by flooding:
http://tinyurl.com/qhqx3

and later by draining and destroying the environment which
developed as the result of the flooding:
http://tinyurl.com/rc9m3

Cattle eating grass rarely if ever cause anywhere near
as much suffering and death. ·
http://tinyurl.com/q7whm

Dutch 23-08-2006 07:55 PM

Vagan question, getting started.
 

<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 12:10:26 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>
>>
>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>> On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 13:04:33 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
m...
>>>>
>>>>> What it gets down to is:
>>>>> We can be considerate of other beings, or not.
>>>>
>>>>Does that idea exist?
>>>>
>>>>> That's what it always breaks down to.
>>>>
>>>>Yes it does, but it's not completely optional. A person who is totally
>>>>inconsiderate of other beings is in violation of moral and legal rights.
>>>
>>> So are you for only being considerate of your imaginary moral
>>> browny points, or gold stars, or whatever you keep imagining.
>>> You "aras" are incapable of considering what the animals gain,
>>> but only the imaginary moral browny points you are obviously
>>> terrified of losing to decent AW.
>>>
>>>>Incidentally "being considerate" does not include thinking that the life
>>>>of
>>>>another being is a moral bonus for you.
>>>
>>> LOL!!! That's ALL you're capable of considering, but you STILL
>>> can't explain why you think you get more moral points for refusing to
>>> consider the animals than you would for considering them, you idiot.
>>> Why???
>>>
>>>>>>>Any rights we have are provided by law.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm not talking about legal rights.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then you're fantasising again.
>>>>
>>>>It's called "thinking".
>>>>
>>>>> We can be considerate, or not.
>>>>> That's all there is. That's why I encourage people to be considerate
>>>>> of everything, and it's also why you "aras" want to pick and choose
>>>>> what everyone else considers, limiting it only to things which don't
>>>>> suggest an ethically equivalent or superior alternative to veganism
>>>>> and the elimination of livestock. Duh.
>>>>
>>>>Ironically, your pet sophistry actually suggests the opposite of what
>>>>you
>>>>wish.
>>>
>>> Maybe

>>
>>No, positively.

>
> ONLY to a fool if so.


No, to the normal person your obsession with "what the animals get out of
it" comes across as very creepy and suspiciously self-serving. If we are
providing the best possible conditions that we are capable of for the
animals, what more can possibly benefit them?

>>>>By doggedly insisting that we get to consider the lives of livestock
>>>>animals as moral bonus points
>>>
>>> You pathetically can't think of anything but yourself.

>>
>>False, I can think of the animals also.

>
> There is absolutely no evidence of that, and there probably
> never will be.


There is plenty of evidence of it. From you otoh the evidence is that you
are mainly interested in how their very existence reflects on how YOU are
judged.

>>>>for humans it raises the notion that perhaps the raising of livestock
>>>>really
>>>>is wrong.
>>>
>>> The purity of your selfishness--insanely obsessed with some
>>> imaginary moral reward system--obviously prevents you from thinking
>>> about the animals to such a degree that you're not even able to
>>> understand the concept, much less attempt doing it. It's disgusting.

>>
>>The problem is I "understand the concept" perfectly.

>
> There is no evidence that you understand it at all.


I understand it perfectly.

>There is only
> evidence that you're worried about some imaginary moral reward
> system that you feel could somehow benefit you,


Exactly wrong, I feel the lives of livestock do NOT benefit me, and that no
moral rewards are applicable, contrary to what the LoL says.

> while remaining
> incapable of considering any benefit to the animals.


Considering *what* about benefit to the animals?

>>You are looking at the lives of livestock animals and making that
>>into a justification for raising them. It's a flawed, circular sophistry.

>
> It's an aspect of human influence on animals that you "aras" don't
> want taken into consideration,


It has no business being taking into consideration the way The LoL suggests.

> because it suggests that providing
> decent lives and humane deaths for livestock--ie decent AW--could
> be ethically equivalent or superior to their elimination--ie "ar".


Wrong again, as usual. That is NOT the reason I oppose the LoL, and it does
NOT suggest anything of the sort anyway.

>You're
> OBVIOUSLY afraid of "ar" losing moral browny points, gold stars,


No moral gold stars are available for causing livestock to exist. The LoL is
failed sophistry.

> or whatever, to decent AW in your imaginary moral reward system.
> Duh!


Duh! YOUR imaginary moral reward system. "Considering what the animals get
out of it" when deciding if it's right to raise and kill animals for food
*IS* proposing a moral reward system, i.e. *if* the animals get something
out of it that implies that it's a good thing to do. The fact that animals
get "life" out of our use of them as products is not a factor when deciding
if it's right or wrong.



Derek[_2_] 23-08-2006 08:21 PM

Vagan question, getting started.
 
On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 15:26:48 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 19:50:40 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>>On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 14:04:34 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:53:18 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>>>>On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 02:02:14 -0400, Rob > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>>I have a question that I am not sure they can be answered. But I am
>>>>>going to post it, and hope for the best.
>>>>>
>>>>>I want to become a vegan,
>>>>
>>>>You'll never be a vegan while *wanting* to be one. Being
>>>>a vegan is just a natural stage of moral development that
>>>>comes after realising you are one and can't be anything
>>>>but one. It's not a choice.
>>>
>>> · Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals

>>
>>And so we should eat meat and contribute to even more?
>>There's no perfect solution to the problem of collateral
>>deaths found in agriculture, and the vegan's critic is often
>>foolishly persuaded to try using this dilemma to his advantage
>>when he's run out of valid arguments. He argues;
>>
>>"Abstaining from meat doesn't meet with the vegan's moral
>> requirement to not kill animals intentionally for food; animals
>> still die for their food during crop production."
>>
>>This argument commits The Perfect Solution Fallacy by
>>assuming a perfect solution exists where no animals are killed
>>for their food in the practical World, and so their solution to
>>abide by their stated moral requirement to not kill animals for
>>food by abstaining from meat doesn't meet that requirement,
>>and so their solution (veganism) should be rejected because
>>some part of the problem (CDs) would still exist after it was
>>implemented.
>>
>>The Perfect Solution Fallacy.
>>The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs
>>when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists
>>and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part
>>of the problem would still exist after it was implemented.
>>Presumably, assuming no solution is perfect then no solution
>>would last very long politically once it had been implemented.
>>Still, many people (notably utopians) seem to find the idea of
>>a perfect solution compelling, perhaps because it is easy to
>>imagine.
>>
>>Examples:
>>(critic)
>>This "terrorist safety net" is a bad idea. Terrorists will still be
>>able to get through!
>>(Rejoinder)
>>Yes, some terrorists would still be able to get through, but
>>would it be worth stopping those terrorists that it would stop?
>>(critic)
>>These anti-drunk driving ad campaigns are not going to work.
>>People are still going to drink and drive no matter what.
>>(Rejoinder)
>>It may not eliminate 100% of drunk driving, but is the amount
>>by which it would reduce the total amount of drunk driving
>>enough to make the policy worthwhile?
>>(Critic)
>>Seat belts are a bad idea. People are still going to die in car
>>wrecks.
>>(Rejoinder)
>>It may not save 100% of people involved in car wrecks, but
>>isn't the number of lives that would be saved enough to make
>>seat belts worthwhile?
>>
>>It is common for arguments that commit this fallacy to omit
>>any specifics about how much the solution is claimed to not
>>work, but express it only in vague terms. Alternatively, it may
>>be combined with the fallacy of misleading vividness, when
>>a specific example of a solution's failing is described in eye-
>>catching detail and base rates are ignored (see availability
>>heuristic).
>>The fallacy is a kind of false dilemma.
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy

>
> · From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
>steer


Grass fed steers still accrue collateral deaths.

U.S.D.A. have issued a marketing claims standard
proposal and published it for comment in 2002, and
while this proposal is under review so-called grass
fed beef producers can and have adopted it with
U.S.D.A.'s full seal of approval to offload their
grain-finished beef onto unsuspecting customers as
grass-fed beef.

Here below is that proposed standard.

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

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

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

And below is a statement from the same page urging so-
called grass fed beef producers to use those proposed
marketing claims standards while U.S.D.A. prepares to
make them final by publishing them.

"The proposed marketing claim standards may be used in
conjunction with [non]existing regulations or voluntary
USDA grade standards in USDA Certified and USDA
Verified programs." [my edit]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt

When published ALL "New participants in USDA
Certified or USDA Verified programs will be required
to adhere to the United States Standards for Livestock
and Meat Marketing Claims immediately."

"AMS is seeking public comment on the following
proposed United States Standards for Livestock and
Meat Marketing Claims. New participants in USDA
Certified or USDA Verified programs will be required
to adhere to the United States Standards for Livestock
and Meat Marketing Claims immediately."
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/ls0202.txt

Grass fed beef, then, is grain finished, just like any other
steer in the feedlot, and U.S.D.A. is about to publish a
claims standard that will allow beef farmers to continue
deceiving their customers. A consumer reports magazine
confirms these concerns as follows;

[The claims “100 percent grass fed” and “grass fed only,”
which may appear on other companies’ packaging, would
be useful if true, but they’re not verified, either.

A proposal by the USDA for an optional verification program
for “process claims,” including feeding methods, would only
add to the confusion. Products that passed an inspection could
carry a “USDA Process Verified” shield next to the label “grass
fed” if as little as 80 percent of the feed were grass, with no
limits on the other 20 percent; “grain fed” could be used with a
diet of as little as 50 percent grain. The agency has delayed
implementation of the rule after protests from farmer and
consumer groups, including Consumers Union, publisher of
Consumer Reports magazine.]
http://tinyurl.com/b63f3

The protests from these farmers and consumer groups can
be found on U.S.D.A.'s web site, and I've included two
here as examples;

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

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

and

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

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

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

So, I feel that to call an animal that has received as much
as 20% of its total nutrition in a grain feeding finishing
program ?grass fed? could be misleading and confusing
to the consumer. Grain finishing of ruminants is an artificial
feeding practice born of our unique circumstances here in
the United States. Grass feeding is the basis for ruminant
health consistent with the genetic structure and nutritional
requirements of the animals. The claim ?grass fed? as used
on a USDA-approved label should mean that a grassfed
animal has received no grain other than that which is naturally
occurring on pasture or in hay feeds.]
http://www.ams.usda.gov/lsg/stand/comments/mc102.txt

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

dh@. 24-08-2006 09:11 PM

Vagan question, getting started.
 
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 20:21:58 +0100, Derek > wrote:
.. . .

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

.. . .

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


You're saying that forage shall be 80% or more of the
primary energy source throughout the life cycle of any
steer found in the feedlot. I don't believe you, but if so
I'm glad that it is.

Also, some grass fed cattle are never fed any grain,
and they are the ones I'm referring to when I post this:

· From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

Here we see plowing:
http://tinyurl.com/8fmxe

and here harrowing:
http://tinyurl.com/zqr2v

both of which kill animals by crushing, mutilation, suffocation,
and exposing them to predators. We can see that planting
kills in similar ways:
http://tinyurl.com/k6sku

and death from herbicides and pesticides needs to be
kept in mind:
http://tinyurl.com/ew2j5

Harvesting kills of course by crushing and mutilation, and
it also removes the surviving animals' food, and it exposes
them to predators:
http://tinyurl.com/otp5l

In the case of rice there's additional killing as well caused
by flooding:
http://tinyurl.com/qhqx3

and later by draining and destroying the environment which
developed as the result of the flooding:
http://tinyurl.com/rc9m3

Cattle eating grass rarely if ever cause anywhere near
as much suffering and death. ·
http://tinyurl.com/q7whm

dh@. 24-08-2006 09:16 PM

Vagan question, getting started.
 
On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 11:55:33 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:

>
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Mon, 21 Aug 2006 12:10:26 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>>>> On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 13:04:33 -0700, "Dutch" > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>><dh@.> wrote in message
om...
>>>>>
>>>>>> What it gets down to is:
>>>>>> We can be considerate of other beings, or not.
>>>>>
>>>>>Does that idea exist?
>>>>>
>>>>>> That's what it always breaks down to.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes it does, but it's not completely optional. A person who is totally
>>>>>inconsiderate of other beings is in violation of moral and legal rights.
>>>>
>>>> So are you for only being considerate of your imaginary moral
>>>> browny points, or gold stars, or whatever you keep imagining.
>>>> You "aras" are incapable of considering what the animals gain,
>>>> but only the imaginary moral browny points you are obviously
>>>> terrified of losing to decent AW.
>>>>
>>>>>Incidentally "being considerate" does not include thinking that the life
>>>>>of
>>>>>another being is a moral bonus for you.
>>>>
>>>> LOL!!! That's ALL you're capable of considering, but you STILL
>>>> can't explain why you think you get more moral points for refusing to
>>>> consider the animals than you would for considering them, you idiot.
>>>> Why???
>>>>
>>>>>>>>Any rights we have are provided by law.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'm not talking about legal rights.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then you're fantasising again.
>>>>>
>>>>>It's called "thinking".
>>>>>
>>>>>> We can be considerate, or not.
>>>>>> That's all there is. That's why I encourage people to be considerate
>>>>>> of everything, and it's also why you "aras" want to pick and choose
>>>>>> what everyone else considers, limiting it only to things which don't
>>>>>> suggest an ethically equivalent or superior alternative to veganism
>>>>>> and the elimination of livestock. Duh.
>>>>>
>>>>>Ironically, your pet sophistry actually suggests the opposite of what
>>>>>you
>>>>>wish.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe
>>>
>>>No, positively.

>>
>> ONLY to a fool if so.

>
>No, to the normal person your obsession with "what the animals get out of
>it" comes across as very creepy and suspiciously self-serving. If we are
>providing the best possible conditions that we are capable of for the
>animals, what more can possibly benefit them?


As I continue to point out and you continue to prove, you are
incapable of considering that life can have positive value for THEM.

>>>>>By doggedly insisting that we get to consider the lives of livestock
>>>>>animals as moral bonus points
>>>>
>>>> You pathetically can't think of anything but yourself.
>>>
>>>False, I can think of the animals also.

>>
>> There is absolutely no evidence of that, and there probably
>> never will be.

>
>There is plenty of evidence of it.


There is none, which is why no one can present any. Just as you
don't have the dozens of arguments you claim to have, you have
no evidence that you can think of the animals. None. I don't either,
so there won't be any. I was able to help you out with your last
complete failing and at least got you up to 3 out of your dishonest
claim of dozens, but this time there's just no evidence at all. Now
if you want evidence that you can NOT, that's easier. In fact you
just got through saying doing so "comes across as very creepy" to
you, and now your amusingly trying to boast that there's plenty of
evidence of you doing it. You're such a confused fool I often end
up feeling sorry for you, even though your bewilderment appears
to be entirely caused by the purity of your own selfishness.

Since we're on this, let's test your honesty...unfortunately only
to see you fail of course. Even though you'll fail though, try to
explain why it is that you want to create the impression that there
"is plenty of evidence of" you considering the animals, when you
also claim to feel that doing so "comes across as very creepy".

>From you otoh the evidence is that you
>are mainly interested in how their very existence reflects on how YOU are
>judged.


No, again you're so completely unable get over your selfishness
that you can't even think about it. Here's an example that will be
wasted of course, but here is one anyway:

Even though I haven't bought any lamb in the past 10 years I
can still consider the fact that some sheep have lives of positive
value only because they are raised for food, without any thought
of imaginary moral browny points in regards to myself. You--in
complete contrast--could never do that.

That same type of thinking also applies to the billions of other
animals who live because they're raised for food but I never
contribute to the lives of, because they are part of different
farming and marketing systems than what I make my insignificant
contributions to. You are necessarily completely lost now due to
your selfish obesession with imaginary browny points which don't
apply in these examples, but you can consider nothing else.

> >>>>for humans it raises the notion that perhaps the raising of livestock
>>>>>really
>>>>>is wrong.
>>>>
>>>> The purity of your selfishness--insanely obsessed with some
>>>> imaginary moral reward system--obviously prevents you from thinking
>>>> about the animals to such a degree that you're not even able to
>>>> understand the concept, much less attempt doing it. It's disgusting.
>>>
>>>The problem is I "understand the concept" perfectly.

>>
>> There is no evidence that you understand it at all.

>
>I understand it perfectly.
>
>>There is only
>> evidence that you're worried about some imaginary moral reward
>> system that you feel could somehow benefit you,

>
>Exactly wrong, I feel the lives of livestock do NOT benefit me,


I hope no one is stupid enough to believe you're not lying
about that.

>and that no
>moral rewards are applicable, contrary to what the LoL says.
>
>> while remaining
>> incapable of considering any benefit to the animals.

>
>Considering *what* about benefit to the animals?


Everything. But as we can see you are capable of nothing, and
you admittedly find it "creepy" to consider the animals.

>>>You are looking at the lives of livestock animals and making that
>>>into a justification for raising them. It's a flawed, circular sophistry.

>>
>> It's an aspect of human influence on animals that you "aras" don't
>> want taken into consideration,

>
>It has no business being taking into consideration the way The LoL suggests.
>
>> because it suggests that providing
>> decent lives and humane deaths for livestock--ie decent AW--could
>> be ethically equivalent or superior to their elimination--ie "ar".

>
>Wrong again, as usual. That is NOT the reason I oppose the LoL,


Yes it is. It is the ONLY reason you support the LoTP over the LoL.

>and it does NOT suggest anything of the sort anyway.


LOL. It suggests that and nothing else.

>>You're
>> OBVIOUSLY afraid of "ar" losing moral browny points, gold stars,

>
>No moral gold stars are available for causing livestock to exist. The LoL is
>failed sophistry.
>
>> or whatever, to decent AW in your imaginary moral reward system.
>> Duh!

>
>Duh! YOUR imaginary moral reward system. "Considering what the animals get
>out of it"


Is beyond your ability to appreciate, even though you amusingly,
dishonestly and by now very contemptibly have boasted that "there
is plenty of evidence" of you being able to do it.

>when deciding if it's right to raise and kill animals for food *IS* proposing a
>moral reward system, i.e. *if* the animals get something out of it that implies that
>it's a good thing to do. The fact that animals get "life" out of our use of them as
>products is not a factor when deciding if it's right or wrong.


It is for anyone who's willing to consider the animals, which you
are not. If you were, you would have to factor it in and would not
find it creepy to do so.


Derek[_2_] 25-08-2006 10:19 AM

Vagan question, getting started.
 
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 16:11:05 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 20:21:58 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>. . .
>
>> Claim and Standard:
>> [sbull] Grass Fed.--Grass, green or range pasture, or
>> forage shall be 80% or more of the primary energy
>> source throughout the animal's life cycle.

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

>
> You're saying that forage shall be 80% or more of the
>primary energy source throughout the life cycle of any
>steer found in the feedlot.


The evidence you snipped away confirms it. So-called
grass-fed beef carries a “USDA Process Verified”
shield next to the label “grass fed” if as little as 80 %
of the feed were grass, with no limits on the remaining
20 %, just like any other GRAIN-fed beef fed at the
feedlot.

>I don't believe you


You reject the evidence from USDA and consumer
magazines because your agenda is to try pushing meat
onto vegans. You don't want them to believe that their
solution to the deaths they abhor in general human food
production is a valid one because deaths will still occur
after their solution is implemented, but to reject veganism
on that basis is as specious as rejecting seat belt laws and
anti-terrorism efforts. Your argument to reject veganism
invokes the perfect solution fallacy

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

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

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

dh@. 25-08-2006 08:14 PM

Vagan question, getting started.
 
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:19:46 +0100, Derek > wrote:

>On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 16:11:05 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 20:21:58 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>>. . .
>>
>>> Claim and Standard:
>>> [sbull] Grass Fed.--Grass, green or range pasture, or
>>> forage shall be 80% or more of the primary energy
>>> source throughout the animal's life cycle.

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

>>
>> You're saying that forage shall be 80% or more of the
>>primary energy source throughout the life cycle of any
>>steer found in the feedlot.

>
>The evidence you snipped away confirms it. So-called
>grass-fed beef carries a “USDA Process Verified”
>shield next to the label “grass fed” if as little as 80 %
>of the feed were grass, with no limits on the remaining
>20 %, just like any other GRAIN-fed beef fed at the
>feedlot.


I don't doubt it in regards to the grass fed label, but
if you're right that ALL cattle in the feed lot are 80% grass
fed, that is GREAT! I already felt good about eating beef,
and if you're right we can all feel even better about it :-)

>>I don't believe you

>
>You reject the evidence from USDA and consumer
>magazines because your agenda is to try pushing meat
>onto vegans.


You're certainly making it out to be even better to eat
beef than I had previously thought, since you insist that
ALL grain fed beef is only fed 20% grain. I didn't see
anything in your material that looked like it supported
your claim though, so please just present whatever part
you think does so.

>You don't want them to believe that their
>solution to the deaths they abhor in general human food
>production is a valid one because deaths will still occur
>after their solution is implemented,


I point out that some types of meat involve fewer
animal deaths and are better for the environment than
some vegetable products. Now you're claiming that is
the case more often than I'd previously thought. Some
types of meat causes fewer deaths...some don't...that's
a fact. I accept it but you don't, so you're the one who
is denying truth.

>but to reject veganism
>on that basis is as specious as rejecting seat belt laws and
>anti-terrorism efforts.


LOL! I mean: no it's not.

>Your argument to reject veganism
>invokes the perfect solution fallacy


No, in fact you're the one doing that too. You need to
pay more attention to what you're actually doing, but then
the cognitive dissonance would kick in and you might
get even worse. Anyway, eating some meat and some
veggies is the way to contribute to the fewest deaths
AND contribute to lives of positive value for livestock...
not that you could possibly care about that. An example
is eating a grass fed steak and some potatoes, would
contribute to fewer deaths than eating tofu and potatoes.
I know that just tears you up, but it's a fact none the less.
There is one way that sometimes tofu MIGHT not
contribute to more deaths than grass raised beef, but
I'd like to see if you can figure that out.

>The Perfect Solution Fallacy.
>The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs
>when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists
>and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part
>of the problem would still exist after it was implemented.
>Presumably, assuming no solution is perfect then no solution
>would last very long politically once it had been implemented.


Right, but saying that veganism is always better than
animal products is an even worse though similar absurdity.
By your own complaint you should understand that eating
either nothing but meat, or nothing but veggies, would be
unlikely to be the best approach simply because they are
both extemes dependant on their own perfection in order
to *be* the best approach. You should have figured that
out years ago, if you really care about human influence on
animals. Even though you apparently could not, now that
it's been explained to you, you would accept it and at
least acknowledge it IF! you cared as much about human
influence on animals as you do about promoting veganism.
You should be able to understand that, and to be fair to
yourself as well as to other people you try to influence, you
should be open about it. Another example is rice milk...
even though there are obvious reasons why rice milk
would cause far more cds than grass raised cow milk,
I think we both know you would encourage the rice milk
regardless, and most likely deny the truth. That should tell
you something.

pearl[_1_] 26-08-2006 02:28 AM

Vagan question, getting started.
 
<dh@.> wrote in message ...
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:19:46 +0100, Derek > wrote:


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


> I don't doubt it in regards to the grass fed label, but
> if you're right that ALL cattle in the feed lot are 80% grass
> fed, that is GREAT! I already felt good about eating beef,
> and if you're right we can all feel even better about it :-)


'The 7 billion livestock animals in the United States consume
five times as much grain as is consumed directly by the entire
American population.
...
More than 302 million hectares of land are devoted to
producing feed for the U.S. livestock population -- about
272 million hectares in pasture and about 30 million hectares
for cultivated feed grains.
...
Livestock are directly or indirectly responsible for much of
the soil erosion in the United States, the ecologist determined.
On lands where feed grain is produced, soil loss averages
13 tons per hectare per year. Pasture lands are eroding at a
slower pace, at an average of 6 tons per hectare per year. But
erosion may exceed 100 tons on severely overgrazed pastures,
and 54 percent of U.S. pasture land is being overgrazed.
...'
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...stock.hrs.html

In contrast, - area used for food cultivation, U.S:

U.S acres
Total dried beans and peas 2,140,851
Peanuts 1,436,034
Potatoes 1,309,963
Rice 2,424,864
Total sugar 2,172,550
Vegetables 3,264,343
http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/circ1131/table2.html

= 12,748,605 acres; (* 0.4047) = 5,159,360 hectares.
+
Orchards, vineyards, and nursery 4,462,591 acres
(= 1,806,010 hectares)
http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/circ1131/table6.html
+
6 million hectares grain (based on the above from Cornell).
=
Total: 12,965,370 hectares, - round to 13 million hectares.

'More than 302 million hectares of land are devoted to
producing feed for the U.S. livestock population .'

'Twenty times more land is required to feed a meat-eater
than a vegetarian. (A meat-eater requires 3 and ¼ acres of
land to feed him/herself per year, where as a vegetarian
requires 1/6 of an acre.)'
http://goodnews.lot212.com/printout....=105532&type=0

302m+13m= 315m hectares used /20 = 15.75m hectares
- needed for a vegan population - leaving free to revert
to *natural habitat* 315-15.75= 299.25 million hectares !
- currently losing topsoil unsustainably; many indigenous
species slaughtered, entire ecosystems now monoculture.







Derek[_2_] 26-08-2006 06:24 AM

Vagan question, getting started.
 
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 15:14:05 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:19:46 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>>On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 16:11:05 -0400, dh@. wrote:
>>>On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 20:21:58 +0100, Derek > wrote:
>>>. . .
>>>
>>>> Claim and Standard:
>>>> [sbull] Grass Fed.--Grass, green or range pasture, or
>>>> forage shall be 80% or more of the primary energy
>>>> source throughout the animal's life cycle.
>>>. . .
>>>
>>>>Grass fed beef, then, isn't exactly what its name implies, and
>>>>has just as much an association with the collateral deaths
>>>>found in crop production as from any other steer found in the
>>>>feedlot.
>>>
>>> You're saying that forage shall be 80% or more of the
>>>primary energy source throughout the life cycle of any
>>>steer found in the feedlot.

>>
>>The evidence you snipped away confirms it. So-called
>>grass-fed beef carries a “USDA Process Verified”
>>shield next to the label “grass fed” if as little as 80 %
>>of the feed were grass, with no limits on the remaining
>>20 %, just like any other GRAIN-fed beef fed at the
>>feedlot.

>
> I don't doubt it in regards to the grass fed label,


You cannot doubt it while evidence shows it to be true.

>but
>if you're right that ALL cattle in the feed lot are 80% grass
>fed, that is GREAT!


No, I was referring to the so-called grass-fed beef which
are in fact fed grains and finished at the feedlot like any
other steer. You knew that, of course.

>>>I don't believe you

>>
>>You reject the evidence from USDA and consumer
>>magazines because your agenda is to try pushing meat
>>onto vegans. You don't want them to believe that their
>>solution to the deaths they abhor in general human food
>>production is a valid one because deaths will still occur
>>after their solution is implemented, but to reject veganism
>>on that basis is as specious as rejecting seat belt laws and
>>anti-terrorism efforts. Your argument to reject veganism
>>invokes the perfect solution fallacy

>
> No


Yes, Harrison, and there's no escaping it. Every time
you try to reject veganism as a solution to the deaths
found in general human food production on the basis
that some deaths (collateral deaths) still occur after its
implementation you invoke the perfect solution fallacy.

>>The Perfect Solution Fallacy.
>>The perfect solution fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs
>>when an argument assumes that a perfect solution exists
>>and/or that a solution should be rejected because some part
>>of the problem would still exist after it was implemented.
>>Presumably, assuming no solution is perfect then no solution
>>would last very long politically once it had been implemented.
>>Still, many people (notably utopians) seem to find the idea of
>>a perfect solution compelling, perhaps because it is easy to
>>imagine.
>>
>>Examples:
>>(critic)
>>This "terrorist safety net" is a bad idea. Terrorists will still be
>>able to get through!
>>(Rejoinder)
>>Yes, some terrorists would still be able to get through, but
>>would it be worth stopping those terrorists that it would stop?
>>(critic)
>>These anti-drunk driving ad campaigns are not going to work.
>>People are still going to drink and drive no matter what.
>>(Rejoinder)
>>It may not eliminate 100% of drunk driving, but is the amount
>>by which it would reduce the total amount of drunk driving
>>enough to make the policy worthwhile?
>>(Critic)
>>Seat belts are a bad idea. People are still going to die in car
>>wrecks.
>>(Rejoinder)
>>It may not save 100% of people involved in car wrecks, but
>>isn't the number of lives that would be saved enough to make
>>seat belts worthwhile?
>>
>>It is common for arguments that commit this fallacy to omit
>>any specifics about how much the solution is claimed to not
>>work, but express it only in vague terms. Alternatively, it may
>>be combined with the fallacy of misleading vividness, when
>>a specific example of a solution's failing is described in eye-
>>catching detail and base rates are ignored (see availability
>>heuristic).
>>The fallacy is a kind of false dilemma.
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_solution_fallacy


As we can see, your argument against veganism is nothing
more than a dirty little false dilemma.

Derek[_2_] 26-08-2006 06:52 AM

Vagan question, getting started.
 
On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 02:28:14 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
><dh@.> wrote in message ...
>> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:19:46 +0100, Derek > wrote:

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

>
>> I don't doubt it in regards to the grass fed label, but
>> if you're right that ALL cattle in the feed lot are 80% grass
>> fed, that is GREAT! I already felt good about eating beef,
>> and if you're right we can all feel even better about it :-)

>
>'The 7 billion livestock animals in the United States consume
>five times as much grain as is consumed directly by the entire
>American population.
>..
>More than 302 million hectares of land are devoted to
>producing feed for the U.S. livestock population -- about
>272 million hectares in pasture and about 30 million hectares
>for cultivated feed grains.
>..
>Livestock are directly or indirectly responsible for much of
>the soil erosion in the United States, the ecologist determined.
>On lands where feed grain is produced, soil loss averages
>13 tons per hectare per year. Pasture lands are eroding at a
>slower pace, at an average of 6 tons per hectare per year. But
>erosion may exceed 100 tons on severely overgrazed pastures,
>and 54 percent of U.S. pasture land is being overgrazed.
>..'
>http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...stock.hrs.html
>
>In contrast, - area used for food cultivation, U.S:
>
>U.S acres
>Total dried beans and peas 2,140,851
>Peanuts 1,436,034
>Potatoes 1,309,963
>Rice 2,424,864
>Total sugar 2,172,550
>Vegetables 3,264,343
>http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/circ1131/table2.html
>
>= 12,748,605 acres; (* 0.4047) = 5,159,360 hectares.
>+
>Orchards, vineyards, and nursery 4,462,591 acres
> (= 1,806,010 hectares)
>http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/circ1131/table6.html
>+
>6 million hectares grain (based on the above from Cornell).
>=
>Total: 12,965,370 hectares, - round to 13 million hectares.
>
>'More than 302 million hectares of land are devoted to
>producing feed for the U.S. livestock population .'
>
>'Twenty times more land is required to feed a meat-eater
>than a vegetarian. (A meat-eater requires 3 and ¼ acres of
>land to feed him/herself per year, where as a vegetarian
>requires 1/6 of an acre.)'
>http://goodnews.lot212.com/printout....=105532&type=0
>
>302m+13m= 315m hectares used /20 = 15.75m hectares
>- needed for a vegan population - leaving free to revert
>to *natural habitat* 315-15.75= 299.25 million hectares !
>- currently losing topsoil unsustainably; many indigenous
>species slaughtered, entire ecosystems now monoculture.


And those figures don't include the damage done to our
rivers and streams from slurry and silage, or the massive
damage done to our oceans while meat-eaters have them
trawled for fish. Those figures only deal with dry land.

Derek[_2_] 26-08-2006 07:19 AM

Vagan question, getting started.
 
On 21 Aug 2006 20:32:07 -0700, "Ronald 'More-More' Moshki" > wrote:
[..]
>------------------Good guy ratings:
>1. Derek


Only occasionally, Ron. ;-)

>2.Leif Erickson


True - once you get to know him, and that can take
several frustrating years.

>-----------------------
>bad guys
>Dutch and finally the lunatic, dh.


You'll get no opposition from me on that.

pearl[_1_] 26-08-2006 10:51 AM

Vagan question, getting started.
 
"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> On 21 Aug 2006 20:32:07 -0700, "Ronald 'More-More' Moshki" > wrote:
> [..]
> >------------------Good guy ratings:
> >1. Derek

>
> Only occasionally, Ron. ;-)
>
> >2.Leif Erickson

>
> True - once you get to know him, and that can take
> several frustrating years.


I really don't know how you can say that, Derek.
You've seen his extreme, severe misconduct here
- the foul treatment of those who he disagrees with.
He supports the killing of animals, for heck's sake!

I'm thinking that you've admired the brutal display
of 'force' (- no - 'might' does *not* make right ), feel
privileged that he has thrown -you- a few dry crumbs,
being deceived by the faux 'charm'. It is textbook...

'The serial bully:
- is a convincing, practised liar and when called to account,
will make up anything spontaneously to fit their needs at
that moment
- has a Jekyll and Hyde nature - is vile, vicious and vindictive
in private, but innocent and charming in front of witnesses;
no-one can (or wants to) believe this individual has a vindictive
nature - only the current target of the serial bully's aggression
sees both sides; whilst the Jekyll side is described as
"charming" and convincing enough to deceive personnel,
management and a tribunal, the Hyde side is frequently
described as "evil"; Hyde is the real person, Jekyll is an act
- excels at deception and should never be underestimated in
their capacity to deceive
- uses excessive charm and is always plausible and convincing
when peers, superiors or others are present (charm can be used
to deceive as well as to cover for lack of empathy)
- is glib, shallow and superficial with plenty of fine words
and lots of form - but there's no substance
- is possessed of an exceptional verbal facility and will
outmanoeuvre most people in verbal interaction, especially
at times of conflict
- is often described as smooth, slippery, slimy, ingratiating,
fawning, toadying, obsequious, sycophantic
- relies on mimicry, repetition and regurgitation to convince
others that he or she is both a "normal" human being and a
tough dynamic manager, as in extolling the virtues of the latest
management fads and pouring forth the accompanying jargon
- is unusually skilled in being able to anticipate what people
want to hear and then saying it plausibly
-cannot be trusted or relied upon
......'
http://www.bullyonline.org/workbully/serial.htm

The bully in you (it's good to acknowledge our 'dark' side -
well done!) wants to be one of his 'gang', and the result is
you having one of your insane tantrums, which you know
causes immense damage, and you often later regret, innit.


> >-----------------------
> >bad guys
> >Dutch and finally the lunatic, dh.

>
> You'll get no opposition from me on that.




pearl[_1_] 26-08-2006 11:31 AM

Vagan question, getting started.
 
"Derek" > wrote in message ...
> On Sat, 26 Aug 2006 02:28:14 +0100, "pearl" > wrote:
> ><dh@.> wrote in message ...
> >> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 10:19:46 +0100, Derek > wrote:

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

> >
> >> I don't doubt it in regards to the grass fed label, but
> >> if you're right that ALL cattle in the feed lot are 80% grass
> >> fed, that is GREAT! I already felt good about eating beef,
> >> and if you're right we can all feel even better about it :-)

> >
> >'The 7 billion livestock animals in the United States consume
> >five times as much grain as is consumed directly by the entire
> >American population.
> >..
> >More than 302 million hectares of land are devoted to
> >producing feed for the U.S. livestock population -- about
> >272 million hectares in pasture and about 30 million hectares
> >for cultivated feed grains.
> >..
> >Livestock are directly or indirectly responsible for much of
> >the soil erosion in the United States, the ecologist determined.
> >On lands where feed grain is produced, soil loss averages
> >13 tons per hectare per year. Pasture lands are eroding at a
> >slower pace, at an average of 6 tons per hectare per year. But
> >erosion may exceed 100 tons on severely overgrazed pastures,
> >and 54 percent of U.S. pasture land is being overgrazed.
> >..'
> >http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases...stock.hrs.html
> >
> >In contrast, - area used for food cultivation, U.S:
> >
> >U.S acres
> >Total dried beans and peas 2,140,851
> >Peanuts 1,436,034
> >Potatoes 1,309,963
> >Rice 2,424,864
> >Total sugar 2,172,550
> >Vegetables 3,264,343
> >http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/circ1131/table2.html
> >
> >= 12,748,605 acres; (* 0.4047) = 5,159,360 hectares.
> >+
> >Orchards, vineyards, and nursery 4,462,591 acres
> > (= 1,806,010 hectares)
> >http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/circ1131/table6.html
> >+
> >6 million hectares grain (based on the above from Cornell).
> >=
> >Total: 12,965,370 hectares, - round to 13 million hectares.
> >
> >'More than 302 million hectares of land are devoted to
> >producing feed for the U.S. livestock population .'
> >
> >'Twenty times more land is required to feed a meat-eater
> >than a vegetarian. (A meat-eater requires 3 and ¼ acres of
> >land to feed him/herself per year, where as a vegetarian
> >requires 1/6 of an acre.)'
> >http://goodnews.lot212.com/printout....=105532&type=0
> >
> >302m+13m= 315m hectares used /20 = 15.75m hectares
> >- needed for a vegan population - leaving free to revert
> >to *natural habitat* 315-15.75= 299.25 million hectares !
> >- currently losing topsoil unsustainably; many indigenous
> >species slaughtered, entire ecosystems now monoculture.

>
> And those figures don't include the damage done to our
> rivers and streams from slurry and silage, or the massive
> damage done to our oceans while meat-eaters have them
> trawled for fish. Those figures only deal with dry land.


Indeed. And damage directly wrought by grazing cattle:

'Livestock grazing has damaged approximately 80% of
stream and riparian ecosystems in the western United States.
Although these areas compose only 0.5-1.0% of the overall
landscape, a disproportionately large percentage (70-80%)
of all desert, shrub, and grassland plants and animals depend
on them. The introduction of livestock into these areas
100-200 years ago caused a disturbance with many ripple
effects. Livestock seek out water, succulent forage, and
shade in riparian areas, leading to trampling and overgrazing
of streambanks, soil erosion, loss of streambank stability,
declining water quality, and drier, hotter conditions. These
changes have reduced habitat for riparian plant species,
cold-water fish, and wildlife, thereby causing many native
species to decline in number or go locally extinct. Such
modifications can lead to large-scale changes in adjacent
and downstream ecosystems.

... recent studies clearly document that livestock continue
to degrade western streams and rivers, and that riparian
recovery is contingent upon total rest from grazing.
...'
http://www.onda.org/library/papers/BelskyGrazing.pdf

*drier, hotter conditions.*

Remember these taunts, as I live in Ireland/the UK ..

"those muddy little islands in the north Atlantic).
talk.politics.animals - Nov 18 2003, 2:45 pm by usual suspect

on tiny, muddy islands in the North Sea
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian - Dec 8 2004, 11:46 am by usual suspect

a couple of muddy islands.
talk.politics.animals - Jul 3 2003, 2:45 pm by usual suspect

your little muddy island
talk.politics.animals - Aug 11 2003, 11:36 pm by usual suspect

your muddy little island,
talk.politics.animals - Jun 29 2003, 8:27 pm by usual suspect

on a muddy little island ...
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian - Sep 10 2003, 7:38 pm by usual suspect

that muddy little island "
alt.animals.ethics.vegetarian - Jun 18, 7:00 am by chico chupacabra

Well..

'Houston & Texas
Spectators look on at the Lockhart cattle auction Thursday.
Bill Hyman, executive director of the Independent Cattlemen's
Association of Texas, calls it "sort of a depressing scene for
a lot of these folks."
Chris Carson: For The Chronicle

Aug. 18, 2006, 11:56PM
'IT'S GETTING WORSE AND WORSE'
An extreme drought is taking a heavy toll on Texas ranchers,
who are often forced to sell at a loss when they go to auction
LEAN TIMES IN CATTLE COUNTRY
By LISA FALKENBERG

LOCKHART - The drought was everywhere at this week's
cattle auction.

It was in the rows of trailers that swamped the parking lot like a
super Wal-Mart. It was in the protruding ribs of skinny cows
being sold after months of too little to eat. It was on the tongue
of every rancher who'd lost his bet with Mother Nature and was
forced to sell long before his cows were ready - at a hefty loss.

And despite his joking demeanor, it was in the worried blue eyes
of Bodey Langford, 55, who was at his third auction this week,
selling off the last of his calves so he can afford to keep feeding
their mothers.

"Every week, they keep talking about a chance of rain and you
hold on and it doesn't rain. Sooner or later you just got to throw
in the towel," said Langford, of the nearby Central Texas town
of Fentress. "It's emotionally pretty tough. My wife says I'm
pretty hard to get along with these days."

The scene in Lockhart on Thursday is a common one these days
as an extreme drought threatens the No. 1 cattle-producing state
in the nation, baking pastureland, draining stock tanks and forcing
ranchers to either sell off their herds or keep pouring profits into
keeping them alive.

As hay becomes increasingly rare, the price for a bale has
doubled in Central Texas, from about $40 last year to $70-$80
now, ranchers say. The government hasn't offered the ranchers
any livestock assistance this year.

Cow slaughter was up 32 percent from January to June in Texas
and surrounding states, compared with last year, according to the
Texas Agricultural Statistics Service. The number of cows and
calves being auctioned was up 13 percent from last year, the
service reported.

Lockhart's auction ran about 2,300 head this week, twice as
many as usual, said the auction's co-owner Tim Von Dohlen.

Ascending rows of ranchers and buyers in straw hats and plaid
shirts settled into their seats, some preparing to stay till midnight,
as one cow after another barreled through a semi-circular cage
to the rhythm of the auctioneer, his microphoned voice belting out
a steady waltz of breed names, bids and occasional commentary.

"There's still a little something to eat where she come from," the
auctioneer bellowed, enticing offers for a beefy brown cow.

Buyers shook their bidding cards, touched their noses or raised
a hand to signal their bid.
Many cows were strong, young ones being sold only because
the rancher had already culled his oldest, least valuable.

Despite the relatively strong cow and calf markets, many cows,
thinned by the drought, went for hundreds less than they would
otherwise. One of the main buyers was a San Antonio packing
plant.

"This is sort of a depressing scene for a lot of these folks because
they're watching some pretty good cows sell and there's nobody
buying them (for breeding). They're all going to slaughter,"
Bill Hyman, executive director of the Independent Cattlemen's
Association of Texas, said as he watched the auction.

'It's not the first time'

"For every one of those cows that were sold today, that's
a calf that will not be sold next year," he said.

After a half century of ranching, the scene wasn't anything
new to Charles Krause.

The Elgin rancher got his start during one of the worst
droughts Texas has ever known and doesn't agonize too
much over selling nearly half his herd.

"When it gets bad, you just got to dump them. It's painful
but it's just part of what you got to do," said Krause, working
on a lip of Levi Garrett tobacco. "It's not the first time it's
happened. It won't be the last if we live long enough."

But it's the worst 51-year-old Regina Durrett has seen.
Having already sold half her herd, she's hoping an unexpected
rain will save the rest, which are growing thinner, but not so
thin they can't walk off a trailer.

Water is also a concern for the cows Durrett keeps in Gonzales,
where the Guadalupe River is so low, thirsty cows are walking
across it.

She's watering her cows with a hose that runs from an outside
faucet to troughs in the pasture.

"It's getting worse and worse, to where we may have to sell
them all," she said.

Ranchers like Langford wouldn't do anything else. A fourth-
generation rancher, he's got cow manure on his jeans and
cattle in his blood.

"The world needs us," said Langford, who owns three ranches,
including one in West Texas. "We keep a lot of people alive
and there's some satisfaction in that."

Prospects grim

Still, he knows that the calves he sold mean his cash flow for
next year is virtually depleted: "It means a lot more time in the
banker's office," he says.

He sold his "product" to keep the "factory" - the cows - going.
He's feeding them with corn, maize, anything farmers will sell them
from their failed crops. It's a low-quality hay, but it keeps their
stomachs full, he says.

After 27 years of ranching, Langford is also realistic. Without
rain or government assistance, his prospects are grim.

"If this goes on like this for six or seven more months, I'll be out
of business," he says, then smiles slightly. "I don't know what I'll
do. I'll go to work at McDonald's or something."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...n/4127562.html






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:47 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FoodBanter